Atheists, What's the point?

[RainbowDashIsBestPony]

A man who has been buried in a sealed, Roman guarded tomb for three days after being SCOURGED, and BEATEN, CRUCIFIED, DYING, THEN PIERCED IN HIS SIDE WITH A SPEAR WHICH RUPTURED THE BUILT UP FLUID AROUND HIS HEART is seen bodily after three days, alive and well.

And you want to ask me why must this event must have had a supernatural cause? What natural explanation would you posit for such an occurance?

Are you that blind? What is wrong with you?

Stuff happens. That being said, it's unlikely the tiny details were preserved with the accounts of historical events from Jesus's life. I won't dispute Jesus' divinity right now, but please don't tell me you think the Bible is 100% historically accurate regarding the circumstances of Jesus' execution. At least admit it's possible that details are different, if it's not given.

 

[Elioenai26]

Simply asserting it was god would be the argument from ignorance, as you have not demonstrated god. You would be asserting it had to be because you can't think of another alternative. That is the definition of the fallacy.

This boggles my mind!

Asserting that God raised Jesus from the dead is not an argument from ignorance.

An argument from ignorance is one that relies merely on the fact that the veracity of the proposition is not disproven to arrive at a definite conclusion.

Nowhere has any Christian apologist argued that Jesus's Resurrection was a divine act because it has not been disproven that He was divinely resurrected. Your view of the argument from ignorance is not even entirely correct at that!

So your accusation or insinuation of committing this fallacy is itself a fallacy. It is a strawman fallacy you have constructed to represent a position no Christian apologist maintains.

 

[Elioenai26]

Stuff happens. That being said, it's unlikely the tiny details were preserved with the accounts of historical events from Jesus's life. I won't dispute Jesus' divinity right now, but please don't tell me you think the Bible is 100% historically accurate regarding the circumstances of Jesus' execution. At least admit it's possible that details are different, if it's not given.

Tiny details?

Tiny details he says!!!

As if the resurrection of Christ bodily from the grave is not THE CENTRAL TENET OF CHRISTIANITY!!!!

Without the resurrection there is no Christianity! And yet you maintain the accounts of this event as mere tiny details!

 

[RainbowDashIsBestPony]

Tiny details?

Tiny details he says!!!

As if the resurrection of Christ bodily from the grave is not THE CENTRAL TENET OF CHRISTIANITY!!!!

Without the resurrection there is no Christianity! And yet you maintain the accounts of this event as mere tiny details!

I'm talking about small details regarding the events of the resurrection. I said that. Please read the entire post instead of only skimming for key words to become enraged over.

 

[Davian]

Accounts of dying and rising gods may have been in every religious text of every religion that has ever existed. It may have been so common that these stories of dying and rising gods were a dime a dozen. It does not follow that because the concept of dying and rising gods may have been a common theme among religions (it was not by the way), that therefore the resurrection account of Christ is not true. This is a classic example of a non-sequitur logical fallacy.

Christ's rising from the dead either happened or it did not. It was either an actual event that took place in history or it did not. This statement is based on one of the fundamental laws of logic called the Law of Excluded Middle. Just because the idea may have been in other ancient religions has no bearing whatsover on the objective fact of Christ's resurrection.

(my bold)

That is not an objective fact.

 

[madaz]

The resurrection of Christ is the account of a man being raised bodily from the dead after having been dead for three days due to having been scourged and then crucified.

Assuming this happened, if this was not a divine act, then tell me, what was it?

Every bit of evidence points to the fact that the resurrection story is a myth, nothing more.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The resurrection of Christ is the account of a man being raised bodily from the dead after having been dead for three days due to having been scourged and then crucified.

Assuming this happened, if this was not a divine act, then tell me, what was it?

Jesus was not even dead for two days according to the writers of the Gospels, they were just terrible at math.

Let's see, he got crucified on a Friday. Now, this is not a quick event so let's say he died Friday afternoon. So Saturday afternoon would be one day and Sunday afternoo.. what? You say that he is risen already?

The writers of the Bible counted time like the local jail does. Yes, I have know a few people who have gotten in trouble with the law, though I was never that foolish. Sometimes when the jail was crowded and the sentence called for a certain number of days they would count the day of arrest as a day, no matter how late someone got put into jail and many of them do get put in before midnight, and they will count the last day as a full day no matter how early they kick them out. When you hear a friend got 5 days in jail for a minor crime it can be a bit shocking to get a call at 2:00 AM when they had served just a few hours over 48 (she got one day of "good time").

So first lesson, they could not keep time back then.

Second, if you read the Gospels you will find different accounts from all of the writers of the Gospels about what happened at the grave site. This is the one single most important part of Christianity and the writers of the Gospels could not agree on what time it was, who, what, or how many of angels or men were there to tell the visitors. Who the visitors were and other inconsistencies.

That just looks bad. How can the bible be the perfect word of God with all of these differences?

At any rate it looks like it is a myth written many years after the fact by people who were not there.

 

[Tiberius]

Note: Zeus was a Greek God, not a Norse one

Oops!

 

[Tiberius]

Considering all the evidence of Jesus' post death appearances (which include those that had no interest in the matter and were hostile witnesses) I am comfortable taking the stance that Jesus was resurrected. Obviously, others feel different about the evidence but for my heart to be at ease about the resurrection I have heard all I need to hear.

I'm interested to know...

What sources have you got that were written at the time of the event by author's of verifiable identity and describe the resurrection of Jesus?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Try this one :Proof of the Resurrection | Reasonable Faith

There is nothing here that establishes a logical connection between resurrection and divinity.

 

[RainbowDashIsBestPony]

There is nothing here that establishes a logical connection between resurrection and divinity.

Maybe...maybe Jesus was a time traveller from 2-3 thousand years in the future who was a master of modern medicine. I can see some epic cures a couple centuries in the future.

 

[Elioenai26]

(my bold)

That is not an objective fact.

Christ's resurrection either happened or it did not (Law of Exclused Middle).The proposition: "Christ rose from the dead" is an objective truth claim and is therefore verifiable or falsifiable. Therefore when we speak of Christ's resurrection we are speaking of an event that either actually happened or it did not and this event happening is not subject to the opinions of believers and unbelievers. It was in this sense that I referred to Christ's resurrection as an objective fact.

Sorry for the ambiguity.

 

[Elioenai26]

Every bit of evidence points to the fact that the resurrection story is a myth, nothing more.

Madaz, you jumped into the middle of a discussion where the parties involved were assuming for the time being, that God exists and that the resurrection actually happened. This is evidenced by looking at my recent posts.

Therefore your talk of the resurrection story being a myth EVEN IF THAT WERE TRUE, is a red herring.

 

[madaz]

Madaz, you jumped into the middle of a discussion where the parties involved were assuming for the time being, that God exists and that the resurrection actually happened. This is evidenced by looking at my recent posts.

Therefore your talk of the resurrection story being a myth EVEN IF THAT WERE TRUE, is a red herring.

Sorry Elio, I mistook this formal debate as a free discussion.

 

[Elioenai26]

Jesus was not even dead for two days according to the writers of the Gospels, they were just terrible at math.

I will try to unpack its one point at a time and demonstrate to you why you are wrong.

1. According to the Gospel writers, Christ died around 3pm Friday afternoon.

2. The Jews measured their 24 hour days from 6am onward instead of 12am the way we do. Their days are no less 24 hours for this differentiation.

3. On Saturday afternoon at 3pm, Jesus would have been dead for 24 hours.

4. On THE THIRD DAY ( Friday day 1, Saturday, day 2, Sunday day 3) Jesus appeared to Mary early that morning so we know it was sometime after 6am Sunday. Now count the hours from 3pm Friday to 6am Sunday and tell me what you get.

5. When I said Jesus was dead for three days I meant that Christ rose on the third day. I assumed the reader would get my point. Whether it was one day or two days or 10 days, the point remains. JESUS WAS DEAD.

6. You're assertion that they were terrible at math is based on a strawman. The gospel writers wrote that Christ rose on the third day because it was on Sunday that He rose. Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.....Sunday is day three.

I will have to respond to the rest of your post after I get off work I apologize.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I will try to unpack its one point at a time and demonstrate to you why you are wrong.

1. According to the Gospel writers, Christ died around 3pm Friday afternoon.

2. The Jews measured their 24 hour days from 6am onward instead of 12am the way we do. Their days are no less 24 hours for this differentiation.

3. On Saturday afternoon at 3pm, Jesus would have been dead for 24 hours.

4. On THE THIRD DAY ( Friday day 1, Saturday, day 2, Sunday day 3) Jesus appeared to Mary early that morning so we know it was sometime after 6am Sunday. Now count the hours from 3pm Friday to 6am Sunday and tell me what you get.

5. When I said Jesus was dead for three days I meant that Christ rose on the third day. I assumed the reader would get my point. Whether it was one day or two days or 10 days, the point remains. JESUS WAS DEAD.

6. You're assertion that they were terrible at math is based on a strawman. The gospel writers wrote that Christ rose on the third day because it was on Sunday that He rose. Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.....Sunday is day three.

I will have to respond to the rest of your post after I get off work I apologize.

I don't know about you, but I get 39 hours. That is three more hours than a day and a half.

The claim that I rejected was that Jesus was dead for three days. That is bad math no matter who you are.

Now I did not know you were having a discussion with what seem to be rather artificial boundaries either so excuse me!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zANvYB93u2g

 

[madaz]

Did I mention every bit of evidence points to the fact that the resurrection story is a myth, nothing more, even billions of Jesus believers deny it.

 

[Dave Ellis]

This boggles my mind!

Asserting that God raised Jesus from the dead is not an argument from ignorance.

An argument from ignorance is one that relies merely on the fact that the veracity of the proposition is not disproven to arrive at a definite conclusion.

Nowhere has any Christian apologist argued that Jesus's Resurrection was a divine act because it has not been disproven that He was divinely resurrected. Your view of the argument from ignorance is not even entirely correct at that!

So your accusation or insinuation of committing this fallacy is itself a fallacy. It is a strawman fallacy you have constructed to represent a position no Christian apologist maintains.

Except you are making a strawman yourself right now.

Your original statement was along the lines of "If it wasn't a divine explanation, then what could it possibly be".

At which point I was saying you were coming close to an argument from ignorance, however you had not yet committed one as you didn't assert in that line that it was indeed God.

I then went on in that same post to point out if you start from that basis, and then assert it is God, that would qualify as an argument from ignorance. You need to be able to show beyond a reasonable doubt that it was God, before you can assert he was the cause.

Your bringing up apologists and whatever claims they have made was not the argument that I posited. Therefore attacking it is the strawman.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I will try to unpack its one point at a time and demonstrate to you why you are wrong.

1. According to the Gospel writers, Christ died around 3pm Friday afternoon.

2. The Jews measured their 24 hour days from 6am onward instead of 12am the way we do. Their days are no less 24 hours for this differentiation.

3. On Saturday afternoon at 3pm, Jesus would have been dead for 24 hours.

4. On THE THIRD DAY ( Friday day 1, Saturday, day 2, Sunday day 3) Jesus appeared to Mary early that morning so we know it was sometime after 6am Sunday. Now count the hours from 3pm Friday to 6am Sunday and tell me what you get.

5. When I said Jesus was dead for three days I meant that Christ rose on the third day. I assumed the reader would get my point. Whether it was one day or two days or 10 days, the point remains. JESUS WAS DEAD.

6. You're assertion that they were terrible at math is based on a strawman. The gospel writers wrote that Christ rose on the third day because it was on Sunday that He rose. Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.....Sunday is day three.

I will have to respond to the rest of your post after I get off work I apologize.

However, you made the claim that he was dead for three days. It's not really relevant how the ancient Jews counted time. This is not a correct statement based on the way we count time in the modern sense.

Modern Day, he was "dead" roughly a day and a half, give or take.

Now, that being said, I should add in that I added quotations over dead for a reason.

Making the assumption they nailed Jesus up on the cross at 9am as you did, and took him down at 3pm is a problem. Roman style crucifixions were known to take days for the victim to die. It's not out of the realm of possibility that he could still be alive on the Sunday even if he was still up on the cross (no doubt he'd be in very poor health by that point).

However, if you pull him down 6 hours after you put him up, I'd say odds are actually pretty good that he wasn't dead yet. His other injuries sustained was a flogging, and being stabbed with a spear... two injuries that are serious, but certainly survivable, especially for a healthy man in his early 30s.

I have no doubt he would have sustained serious injuries during this story, but we have many examples of people surviving similar injuries, or significantly worse injuries that are said to have been inflicted on Jesus.

So, in short it's plausible they pulled him down when he was either playing dead, or they mistook him for dead... he spent a day in the cave semi-conscious but alive, then came staggering out on the Sunday once he'd had a chance to recover some strength.


Personally, I think the most implausible aspect of this story is that the Romans would have taken him down off the cross on the Friday 6 hours after they put him up. Roman practice was to leave the body up on the cross until it rotted away. The fact they would have taken him down and put him in a tomb is very doubtful.

 

[RainbowDashIsBestPony]

However, you made the claim that he was dead for three days. It's not really relevant how the ancient Jews counted time. This is not a correct statement based on the way we count time in the modern sense.

Modern Day, he was "dead" roughly a day and a half, give or take.

Now, that being said, I should add in that I added quotations over dead for a reason.

Making the assumption they nailed Jesus up on the cross at 9am as you did, and took him down at 3pm is a problem. Roman style crucifixions were known to take days for the victim to die. It's not out of the realm of possibility that he could still be alive on the Sunday even if he was still up on the cross (no doubt he'd be in very poor health by that point).

However, if you pull him down 6 hours after you put him up, I'd say odds are actually pretty good that he wasn't dead yet. His other injuries sustained was a flogging, and being stabbed with a spear... two injuries that are serious, but certainly survivable, especially for a healthy man in his early 30s.

I have no doubt he would have sustained serious injuries during this story, but we have many examples of people surviving similar injuries, or significantly worse injuries that are said to have been inflicted on Jesus.

So, in short it's plausible they pulled him down when he was either playing dead, or they mistook him for dead... he spent a day in the cave semi-conscious but alive, then came staggering out on the Sunday once he'd had a chance to recover some strength.

Personally, I think the most implausible aspect of this story is that the Romans would have taken him down off the cross on the Friday 6 hours after they put him up. Roman practice was to leave the body up on the cross until it rotted away. The fact they would have taken him down and put him in a tomb is very doubtful.

Most Christians I encounter say he died more quickly as a result of the beatings he received, in addition to having to carry his cross for a long distance and wearing a painful crown of thorns. They always become evasive when asked about the likelihood of these details being accurate, though.

Not to mention, they never specify why the Roman government executed him in this particular manner. He was seen as a blasphemer and nothing more under the law, so Rome had no incentive behind all the theatrics, other than riling up Jesus' followers.