Are there credible witnesses to the resurrection?

[Grafted In]

Doubtingmerle, we (Cristians) have 2 witnesses....The Holy Ghost who teaches us and the Word of God. Between the 2 of them we are assured that Jesus Christ rose from the dead on the 3rd day and is now seated at the right hand of God.
There's really no way to get that across to unbelieversb because of the lack of The Holy Ghost.
As I've mentioned before, nor even Christians have all understanding. He gives different understandings to each of us. And by that, I do not mean differing understandings of the same subject.
So, with that in mind can you understand that we will never be able to provide you with answers to your questions that will satisfy you, particularly considering you do not want answers, you simply want to mock and belittle all Born again Christians.
God could, if He wished, provide us with answers that would satisfy you, but not with your beligerant attitude. More than likely He will wait until you come to the end of yourself. He will not force the Truth on you.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Doubtingmerle, we (Cristians) have 2 witnesses....The Holy Ghost who teaches us and the Word of God.

Except nobody can seem to agree on what the Holy Ghost is saying. How can that be a reliable way of knowing what God wants, if those who claim to be hearing the Holy Ghost say they are hearing different things?

And the Word of God? You mean the Bible, yes? If it is the word of God, why are there so many contradictions in it?

particularly considering you do not want answers,

This is not true. I do want answers.

Are you aware that it is against forum rules to attack the character of other people? Why do you attack my character, rather than deal with the argument?

you simply want to mock and belittle all Born again Christians.

This is not true. I am here for respectful discourse, not to mock people.

Are you aware that it is against forum rules to attack the character of other people? Why do you attack my character, rather than deal with the argument?

Is it to much to ask you to please stay within forum rules, and address the argument rather than attacking the character of others?

Please.

 

[miknik5]

What do you make of Aaron's sons offering "strange fire" before GOD?

What do you make of the "right priestly garments" before GOD

And the TRUTH that those who believe are as the "sweet aroma of Christ" before GOD

 

[miknik5]

What do you think all these signs were pointing to ?

 

[doubtingmerle]

What do you think all these signs were pointing to ?

Strange customs of a primitive people?

 

[miknik5]

Strange customs of a primitive people?

Doubtingmerle?

You moved around to many different denominations but the denominations you practiced held to the Bible as the Word of GOD

Didn't you ever read The Word

And if you did don't you remember hearing these things

 

[doubtingmerle]

Doubtingmerle?

You moved around to many different denominations but the denominations you practiced held to the Bible as the Word of GOD

Didn't you ever read The Word

And if you did don't you remember hearing these things

Yes, I have read the Bible. Every chapter, every verse, every word. Six times.

The last time plowing through Leviticus it was painfully obvious that there are a lot of primitive practices here that have nothing to do with God or the modern faith.

Have you read the entire book of Leviticus?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Just out of curiosity, if eye witness testimonies are not adequate to prove the resurrection of Jesus, what would evidence for the resurrection look like? Aka...what would convince you that the resurrection took place?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

That is true.

And utterly irrelevant - quantum physics do not rely on eyewitness testimony, and so are not analogous to my point.



You're confused. Nowhere have I said anything like that.

The closest thing I said was that your counterexamples are not analogous to the point I was making - that no one, including Christians, relies on eyewitness testimony when assessing extraordinary claims.



Oh. Ok. Have a nice life.

Anyone else want to take a crack this?

My point, to reiterate, is that whether or not there are credible witnesses to the resurrection is irrelevant, because no one, including Christians, relies on eyewitness testimony when assessing extraordinary claims.

So what would evidence for the resurrection look like? In other words, if there was a discovery today that convinced you that the resurrection did in fact take place, what would it be?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

So what would evidence for the resurrection look like? In other words, if there was a discovery today that convinced you that the resurrection did in fact take place, what would it be?

You're asking how to glean the truth value of a magical event in the ancient past. I don't know how. I don't think it can be reliably done. It seems you've set yourself an impossible burden of proof.

I'm sure glad these aren't my problems.

 

[miknik5]

There is no burden of proof

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

There is no burden of proof

I am forty-seven feet tall and can shoot lasers out of my eyes.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

You're asking how to glean the truth value of a magical event in the ancient past. I don't know how. I don't think it can be reliably done. It seems you've set yourself an impossible burden of proof.

I'm sure glad these aren't my problems.

So there is really no sense for you to argue any further...is there. Since eye witnesses doesn't mean anything to you.

 

[miknik5]

I am forty-seven feet tall and can shoot lasers out of my eyes.

But you're not the savior, that I know
And it doesn't really matter who you are (no offense eight foot man child) because you can't promise anyone salvation in your name

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I am forty-seven feet tall and can shoot lasers out of my eyes.

Wait! I thought you were eight feet tall?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

So there is really no sense for you to argue any further...is there. Since eye witnesses doesn't mean anything to you.

They don't mean anything to you, either, with regard to extraordinary claims. You, like me, do not accept eyewitness testimony as evidence for any assertion of the miraculous/supernatural/magical/etc. If you did, you would be believing thousands of mutually exclusive extraordinary claims simultaneously.

The only difference between you and I on this matter is that I apply the standard consistently. You make one exception, on behalf of your religion, whereas I make no exceptions.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
If 75% is not a consensus then I don't know what is

dm: OK, so be it. You apparently don't know what a consensus is. If 75% agree on something that is not a consensus.

Close enough for non-government work.

ed: You are missing the point on this one, I am referring to their witness of the empty tomb. This is very strong evidence that the tomb was empty and that fact is obviously very important to the early Christians. This makes no sense if His resurrection was spiritual, then obviously there would be no empty tomb and its importance would be downplayed by the early Christians. Which is plainly NOT the case.

dm: And you are missing the point that Mark says they told nobody.

They obviously told Peter and Peter told Mark. He was obviously just saying that they did not tell anyone immediately but later they did.

dm: And you are missing the point that Paul says nothing of the women or an empty grave.

He didn't need to, there is evidence that Mark may have been written before Paul's letters. And even if not, Jesus had already appeared to over 500 people alive as we know from the ancient hymn, so the empty tomb was an obvious conclusion by that time.

dm: And you are missing the point that, if people report a grave is empty, that is in no way convincing evidence of a resurrection
Suppose somebody dies, you expect the body to be somewhere, and 3 days later you find it is not where you expected it. Do you proclaim then that a miracle happened? I think not. For you realize that bodily resurrections are rare (if they happen at all). So you would be far more inclined to think that you were mistaken on where the body was, or that somebody had moved it, or even that the person was never really dead but was only unconscious for a while. You would want far more evidence than "I can't find the body" to convince you of a bodily resurrection.

True, but it would have a strong effect that a resurrection did occur since in Jerusalem people would have known that His body was still in the tomb while the disciples were going around claiming He had been resurrected. Christianity would have died in Jerusalem and never spread anywhere else. Also even the enemies of Christ admitted that the tomb was empty, that is why they claimed that the body was stolen. And the women witnesses to the empty tomb were mentioned in all four gospels, that is strong evidence that it actually was empty.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

They don't mean anything to you, either, with regard to extraordinary claims. You, like me, do not accept eyewitness testimony as evidence for any assertion of the miraculous/supernatural/magical/etc. If you did, you would be believing thousands of mutually exclusive extraordinary claims simultaneously.

The only difference between you and I on this matter is that I apply the standard consistently. You make one exception, on behalf of your religion, whereas I make no exceptions.

My point is this. Unless somebody can find the physical remains of Jesus and somehow prove the remains are His, you cannot disprove the resurrection. Also, you claim that there is absolutely nothing that can prove (to you at least) that the resurrection did occur. With that being said, what sense does it make to argue with you. Rather let me remind you that the case for the resurrection is not just simply about eye witnesses, it is about eye witnesses who suffered and died horrible deaths for something they claimed to witness or the "Why die for a lie" argument.

Another question, let's say there were no witnesses at all. Let's say someone made a miraculous claim with absolutely no proof and no witnesses. Would you find that claim to be more credible? Would you be more likely to believe it as opposed to the claims of eye witnesses?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

My point is this. Unless somebody can find the physical remains of Jesus and somehow prove the remains are His, you cannot disprove the resurrection.

Uh, no. You don't get to make an extraordinary claim and assert that it must be true unless someone can produce a counterexample. That is a blatant false dichotomy, and a shirking of your own burden of proof.

If you really think that's how reality works, I have a dragon-repelling magical rock to sell you. You don't see any dragons around here, do you?

Also, you claim that there is absolutely nothing that can prove (to you at least) that the resurrection did occur. With that being said, what sense does it make to argue with you.

What I said was, I don't know. I don't know how you could possibly prove that a magical event took place in the ancient world.

I'm glad it's not my problem to figure that out.

Rather let me remind you that the case for the resurrection is not just simply about eye witnesses, it is about eye witnesses who suffered and died horrible deaths for something they claimed to witness or the "Why die for a lie" argument.

Yeah, I'm familiar with the argument. I find it thoroughly unconvincing.

It is hopelessly naive regarding psychology, and its role in religious belief. But suppose I ignore that.

It also has no meaningful historical evidence. Even in 'church tradition' - the source of nearly all the post-Biblical legends of the disciples, including their martyrdom - the details are hopelessly muddled not only on how the disciples died, and under what circumstances, but even on who the disciples were. To the point, even among those stories, it is hard to find examples that fulfill the criteria laid out in the argument - a disciple, having witnessed the resurrection first hand, dying explicitly for expressing that belief.

But suppose I ignore that, too.

Suppose I grant that some disciple did, unquestionably, die a torturous death while explicitly professing their belief that the resurrection took place.

Am I convinced?

No.

Sometimes people come to believe things very strongly. Even strongly enough to die for those things. Does that in any way demonstrate the truth of their claim?

No. It demonstrates their own belief in the truth of the claim. Nothing else.

Another question, let's say there were no witnesses at all. Let's say someone made a miraculous claim with absolutely no proof and no witnesses. Would you find that claim to be more credible? Would you be more likely to believe it as opposed to the claims of eye witnesses?

I would believe neither case.

 

[Hawkins]

In another thread it was claimed that there are multiple credible witnesses to the resurrection. I disagree. Basically we have the author of Mark, and he wrote many years after the supposed event. We don't even know who he was, and don't know what his intention was. Matthew, Luke and John come even later. They closely follow Mark's story, indeed they often just copy it, but diverge sharply on the resurrection. Paul writes earlier, but he appears to be talking about a spiritual resurrection. So no, I don't see any credible witnesses to the resurrection. If you think otherwise, who do you think was a credible witness to it?

Do you have 1 credible witness about an event (any one) took place 2000 years ago?