• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Reasonable belief in the resurrection?

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by Nihilist Virus, Oct 24, 2015.

  1. Soyeong

    Soyeong Well-Known Member

    +3,019
    Messianic
    Single
    I'm not sure if you read my first post. In any case, all three of these don't tend to be true: they believed it was a lie, they had the opportunity to see the negative consequences if they continued with the lie, and they had the opportunity to change course, but didn't. I think the apostles were give the opportunity to change course once they started being killed, but I don't think Joseph Smith had that opportunity. Once he had the newspaper burned down and incited a riot, there wasn't much he could do to change course. Furthermore, he wasn't imprisoned for being a Mormon, but for charges in regard to burning down the newspaper.
     
  2. juvenissun

    juvenissun ... and God saw that it was good.

    +771
    Baptist
    Married
    I have no reason to give you a scientific proof that Jesus resurrected.
    If you do not require a scientific proof, then I do have many other proofs to talk about.
     
  3. bhsmte

    bhsmte Newbie

    +11,562
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    To show us you are not using the term; "proofs", loosely, can you demonstrate these "proofs"
     
  4. SkyWriting

    SkyWriting The Librarian Supporter

    +5,385
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    #1) The quote "be willing to die for it" is much larger than your narrow requirement for recanting, so your disingenuous restriction is denied.

    #2) The topic of denying Jesus for ones own benefit is covered in the Gospel of John 18:13-27 as it describes the account of the three denials.
    Denying God and the alternate direction men take is a solid theme in scripture.

    #3)
    - We believe Christ's resurrection can be proved with at least as much certainty as any universally believed and well-documented event in ancient history.

    - After more than 700 hours of studying this subject, I have come to the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is either one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted on the minds of human beings--or it is the most remarkable fact of history. - Josh McDowell

    - The Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ Part I (.PDF)
    - THE HISTORICITY OF THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST (.PDF)


    #4) This "deduction" has no connection to the rest of your post. And I can't relate to this new sermon point anyway.
    My parents do not attend nor have been members nor are believers. I became a believer in my 30's
    mostly because I was already familiar with every science fiction book in our school library.
    Science fiction is science fiction no matter what class it's taught in.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2015
  5. juvenissun

    juvenissun ... and God saw that it was good.

    +771
    Baptist
    Married
    If you do not require a scientific level of proof, I can certainly show you many proofs, include some logic ones. In fact, other people in this thread have done some good jobs.
     
  6. bhsmte

    bhsmte Newbie

    +11,562
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    Go for it.

    By the way, science doesn't do proofs, that was your word.
     
  7. Sketcher

    Sketcher Born Imperishable

    +5,164
    Non-Denom
    Single
    US-Republican
    Everyone during Trajan's reign. Many in the third century.
    Possibly, but the burden of proof is on you to show that Nero's policy didn't allow for the possibility of recanting. Roman-led persecutions against Christians followed what he did, what evidence do you have that they became more merciful as a matter of course, even though history is clear that they hated Christians enough to torture them?
    Break him, and you break the churches he writes to. Besides, if you let him write, you have a better idea of who and where they are.
    As an example of the Sanhedrin's policy. Even in their corrupt state, they likely would have let him go if he hadn't confessed Christianity.
    Not preaching was tantamount to recanting, everyone in that chamber knew it. Yet they kept preaching, after Peter's imprisonment, and John's brother James died. John knew what was going to catch up to him if he kept preaching, if Jesus didn't return first.
    Do you have evidence for this beyond your conjecture?
     
  8. Ana the Ist

    Ana the Ist Aggressively serene!

    +5,630
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Is there any specific information? It's not like it was illegal to be christian or jewish under Roman law. They had some direct persecutions under Nero...but that's because he needed a scapegoat and christians fit the bill...not because of their religious beliefs.

    So that throws a pretty big shadow of doubt across this alleged martyrdom of Peter.
     
  9. Ana the Ist

    Ana the Ist Aggressively serene!

    +5,630
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    I already asked this of someone else...but what exactly were they being executed for? Were they being executed by the Jews or Romans?
     
  10. SkyWriting

    SkyWriting The Librarian Supporter

    +5,385
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    Only if you can document that he recanted his faith.
    That would be the only reason to remove a person
    from consideration of death-due-to-religious-beliefs.
     
  11. asherahSamaria

    asherahSamaria Well-Known Member

    501
    +133
    Humanist
    Private
    UK-Conservative
    Now now, that's not quite true is it.
     
  12. juvenissun

    juvenissun ... and God saw that it was good.

    +771
    Baptist
    Married
    It does sometimes.
    If science rarely make proof, the the OP would be even more meaningless.
     
  13. Ana the Ist

    Ana the Ist Aggressively serene!

    +5,630
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    I can document that Rome had an almost unparalleled level of religious acceptance for that age in the world and didn't execute people for their religious beliefs. The religious beliefs of Romans ranged from the very popular to the very obscure...all were permitted to believe/worship as they wanted.
    The fact that you haven't even come up with the grounds on which Peter was being executed casts some rather serious doubt on whether or not it happened.
     
  14. Nihilist Virus

    Nihilist Virus Infectious idea

    +947
    Atheist
    Private
    I read everything that everyone says to me. I think it's you who didn't read what I had to say. Again, imagine the following line of questioning:

    To someone who is biased towards a certain idea, things which seem relevant but aren't can still serve as confirmation of the idea's validity. Someone biased towards the resurrection would see little difference between the above scenario and a different line of questioning wherein the inquirer says, "Recant your faith and go free or you will be brutally tortured and executed." Both scenarios would be described as the disciple "dying for this faith." But in the scenario I present, did he really die for his faith? Isn't it possible that this hypothetical disciple could've been preaching the gospel while it was safe to do so, and then ceased when he saw other disciples being executed, yet was still arrested for his reputation? I don't know if the ancient world knew or cared about the fact that laws should not be applied retroactively. This is a very conceivable scenario in which the resurrection is fully known to be a lie, and all of the disciples' behavior is easily explainable without any miracles.

    Any reasonable person must admit that the resurrection is not a fact, but rather a conclusion (just like how evolution is not a fact, but rather a conclusion). In the scenario laid out above, I don't contradict any of the facts, yet I do present a case where the conclusion is that Jesus did not rise from the dead. When two scenarios are pitted against each other, and one of them argues for the occurrence of a miracle the likes of which have never been seen before or since, then by default the other scenario is better.

    With regards to Joseph Smith, I appreciate that you investigated the circumstances of his death. That was my entire point. Like you, I don't think his martyr is enough to convince any reasonable person that his testimony was genuine. If you apply the same level of scrutiny to your own beliefs, you will see there are simply so few facts on this issue that belief can only stem from faith, not from reason. Faith will lead you to Christianity, and reason will lead you to atheism. It is only a matter of which of the two you value higher.



    We are getting into a game of semantics here, but bhsmte is correct: science cannot offer proof of anything. Proofs are restricted to logic and mathematics. In science we can only demonstrate something beyond reasonable doubt, such as the fact that the earth is a sphere, but there is never absolute certainty. In mathematics, if the axioms are assumed to be true then I can prove with absolute certainty that Pythagorean's theorem is true.

    I'm not sure why you think science has anything to do with this. This is a historical claim and requires historical evidence. To you, apparently, the second-hand, decades-old eyewitness testimony of a dozen biased individuals is sufficient to demonstrate that a man rose from the dead and then ascended into heaven. I then ask why you don't believe in aliens or Big Foot, and you don't take me seriously - despite the fact that these propositions are supported with far greater eyewitness testimony.


    You almost had me, then you said that other people here have done a good job of defending the resurrection. Perhaps I missed a really good argument; can you quote one? Also, I am intrigued that you believe you can logically show that Jesus rose from the dead. I would love to hear what you have to say.
     
  15. Nihilist Virus

    Nihilist Virus Infectious idea

    +947
    Atheist
    Private
    But what if they did recant, yet still were executed? Would you still say they died for their beliefs? What if they were never given the option? What about the disciples who were not publicly executed but rather were assassinated with little or no warning? If you accuse me of being disingenuous and then suddenly say nothing else, you are offering nothing to back up that accusation. Please support your claim and explain how I am being disingenuous.

    Reminding me about the time Peter recanted to save his own life is your evidence that the inquirers were torturing disciples in the hopes of making them recant? Since we have essentially no details about Peter's martyr, couldn't we conclude that it's possible that the Romans did in fact coax Peter into recanting, only to laugh at him and execute him anyway? Would that contradict any themes present in the Bible? Would that destroy the Christian faith, or would the people of that savage era already know that you could get someone to say whatever you want if you torture them enough?

    I will list some facts that I presumed to be common ground. Please let me know if you dispute anything:

    1. No one is known to have visited the tomb after Easter Sunday, or in other words it was not verified by another party
    2. Claiming that someone rose physically from the dead necessitates that their tomb is empty, and in fact an empty tomb is a necessary element to even the most basic resurrection claim
    3. The "empty tomb" is therefore not additional evidence on top of the eyewitness testimony
    4. There is no documented claim anywhere - not in the Bible, or in noncanonized texts, or in Christian tradition, or even in secular history - which makes the actual claim that the disciples were given the chance to go free if only they recanted
    5. The 500 witnesses mentioned by Paul are not given by name, nor is their existence proposed by anyone else
    6. The eyewitness testimonies of the disciples are given to us second-hand, since neither Matthew nor John actually wrote their gospels, and furthermore these second-hand testimonies are first documented at least a decade later
    7. Of the disciples that were arrested and tried publicly, nothing at all is actually known about the circumstances of their arrest or trial; combined with point 4., there is no actual reason to claim that they willfully died for their faith
    8. In conclusion, the "Why die for a lie?" argument and the "Transformation of the disciples" argument do not withstand scrutiny; due to the lack of known facts, we are unable to either verify or falsify the claims
    9. The only fact, therefore, that supports the resurrection claim is given in 6.

    I have read More than a Carpenter. It was generally convincing to me because I was Christian at the time. I don't care to read it again, but if you provide me with some of the stronger arguments from it then I'll indulge you.

    I skimmed those PDFs and saw no actual attempt at proving anything. It was first a bunch of scholars who were former skeptics, then some claims about Jesus' post-mortem appearances (these were particularly worthless because I would have to be an idiot if I rejected the resurrection despite having these appearances as evidence; the matter of fact is that these appearances are the very point in question, and yet they are listed almost in the beginning as if they are evidence - is this an attempt at deception?), followed by some of the weakest skeptical responses available. If I missed something of substance, let me know.


    It sounds as if you are saying that you accept Christianity because you reject evolution and the Big Bang. I'd be happy to explain to you on another thread or in private why these things are overwhelmingly true. Regardless, your skepticism on these matters is not appropriate grounds for accepting Christianity.

    You are missing the point. I'm asking for eyewitnesses who were given the chance to recant. No eyewitness of Jesus lived until the beginning of Trajan's reign, let alone the third century.

    The very first thing I said was:

    Moving on...

    To say that the burden of proof is on me is to say that if I fail to meet this burden, then your claim stands as true. But your claim has no evidence to back it up (and neither does mine, by the way), so essentially you're saying that you can make up a claim with no evidence whatsoever and it's true unless proven otherwise.

    Or you let him write and simply read the letters without delivering them.

    Again, I don't care about what happened to Stephen. He is not an eyewitness because what he saw was not visible to other people at the same event. Read my first paragraph in the OP.

    Fact: we don't know the circumstances of their deaths. We don't have details on why they were arrested or executed.

    It's your own conjecture. Your response here is to my quote:

    But the above is simply my response to your original quote:

    There is no mention of the disciples being asked to recant in the first encounter, so why do you think they would be tortured into recanting during the second encounter?


    So essentially you're saying you will believe in something until it is proven wrong. The flat earthers had a good run with that form of logic.

    The fact is that there are so few details that I'm unable to verify my case and you're unable to verify yours. I even led with the fact that there are virtually no details of Peter's execution. Christians love to say, "From nothing, nothing comes." Well, you have nothing in regards to details, so you cannot extrapolate an actual case for anything.
     
  16. juvenissun

    juvenissun ... and God saw that it was good.

    +771
    Baptist
    Married
    So, what kind of proof you are asking in the OP? Math proof or logic proof?
     
  17. bhsmte

    bhsmte Newbie

    +11,562
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    If you have a Phd in geology as you claim, you certainly should know science doesn't deal in proof.
     
  18. juvenissun

    juvenissun ... and God saw that it was good.

    +771
    Baptist
    Married
    Wrong attitude. Science is trying hard to prove. For example, we can try to prove there is a force called gravity force. And we are trying very hard to prove that soul does exist.
     
  19. Nihilist Virus

    Nihilist Virus Infectious idea

    +947
    Atheist
    Private
    It doesn't make sense to me that either would be applicable in this case at all, but you said you have a logical proof for the resurrection so I'd like to see that.

    What I was asking for was a strong historical argument demonstrating that Jesus very likely rose from the dead.
     
  20. bhsmte

    bhsmte Newbie

    +11,562
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    My point stands.

    In fact, you just reinforced it.
     
Loading...