Resurrection Evidence

[cvanwey]

Hey hey my dear

Post 408
"Hey @cvanwey. @BigV is very shy and won't treat me with a discussion."

That was no side step cherub. That was a statement to you suggesting @BigV would not converse with me - until he did.

While you are off the grid, I will be waiting patiently for your return.

Our discussion is not over yet and if you will not continue here. I will come looking for you

I was hoping that when I returned, you would have picked up where we had left off months ago, at post #403?

It's apparent that you do not feel confident sufficient evidence exists to support the claims of a resurrection. Hence, the reason we are now where we are...

 

[Tom 1]

Can you please provide the post, for which you posited this brief quote?

Furthermore, do you actually have evidence to support the belief in a resurrection claim?

Is there evidence that someone rose from the dead 2,000 years ago? Like what? If you want an actual discussion of the topic you need to a) ask better questions and b) respond to people who ask you questions. I find it hard to understand what you hope to get from these closed loops you keep posting.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Is there evidence that someone rose from the dead 2,000 years ago? Like what? If you want an actual discussion of the topic you need to a) ask better questions and b) respond to people who ask you questions. I find it hard to understand what you hope to get from these closed loops you keep posting.

Like what? Like whatever evidence convinced you. Do you believe because you were raised to believe or were you convinced by evidence? If evidence, what is it? If you believe the resurrection based on evidence, then what evidence?

It's a pretty straightforward question.

 

[Tom 1]

Like what? Like whatever evidence convinced you. Do you believe because you were raised to believe or were you convinced by evidence? If evidence, what is it? If you believe the resurrection based on evidence, then what evidence?

It's a pretty straightforward question.

Not really, questions that assume the way the person asking thinks about the world is universal (and objective in some sense) are not simple questions. They require first wading through a swamp of the other’s assumptions to get at what that person actually means.

 

[Tom 1]

It's a pretty straightforward question.

Perhaps you can illustrate that idea - prove to me that the way you imagine the universe to be, whatever that might be, is reasonable. Explain why you think this is the case, and why anything that your ideas don’t encompass could not be seen as valid.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Not really, questions that assume the way the person asking thinks about the world is universal (and objective in some sense) are not simple questions. They require first wading through a swamp of the other’s assumptions to get at what that person actually means.

So tell me what your assumptions are and then tell me your evidence.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Perhaps you can illustrate that idea - prove to me that the way you imagine the universe to be, whatever that might be, is reasonable. Explain why you think this is the case, and why anything that your ideas don’t encompass could not be seen as valid.

Red Herring. Do you have evidence for the resurrection or not?

 

[Tom 1]

So tell me what your assumptions are and then tell me your evidence.

Sure, the question assumes that there 'should' be some sort of producible evidence that supports the questioner's way of thinking, like Jesus coming over for tea, or a jiffy bag of stuff from the evidence locker. This in turn assumes that the bible was written by someone who thinks the same way the person asking the question thinks. Further, there is an (utterly bizarre, as I see it) assumption that this person's thinking is some how just right, just because, that they way of thinking that person has absorbed at this particular point in history is in some sense universally valid. The shocking thing is, a basic fact that becomes rather tiresome to repeat, is that you can actually read the bible and find out what is in it - yes, really! The bible lays out it's own explanations for itself, you can read it, understand it, try it out (for want of a way of saying it that would take too long) and see what you think of the results. Trying, seeing what happens, pondering on that etc. Those are the ways in which I came to see it has value. You can try it yourself and see where it takes you. Or you can wait around expecting God to realise he has it all wrong, and he should be doing things your way.

 

[Tom 1]

Red Herring. Do you have evidence for the resurrection or not?

In fact it's the exact opposite of a red herring, whatever you might call that, a route to questions that have some bearing on the topic.

Is there proof of the resurrection in your terms? Again, like what? Jesus coming over to your house? Of course there isn't. It's a silly question.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Sure, the question assumes that there 'should' be some sort of producible evidence that supports the questioner's way of thinking, like Jesus coming over for tea, or a jiffy bag of stuff from the evidence locker.

No it doesn't. It straightforwardly asks the interlocutor what they think is evidence.

This in turn assumes that the bible was written by someone who thinks the same way the person asking the question thinks. Further, there is an (utterly bizarre, as I see it) assumption that this person's thinking is some how just right, just because, that they way of thinking that person has absorbed at this particular point in history is in some sense universally valid.

No it doesn't. It straightforwardly asks the interlocutor what they think is evidence.

The shocking thing is, a basic fact that becomes rather tiresome to repeat, is that you can actually read the bible and find out what is in it - yes, really! The bible lays out it's own explanations for itself, you can read it, understand it, try it out (for want of a way of saying it that would take too long) and see what you think of the results. Trying, seeing what happens, pondering on that etc. Those are the ways in which I came to see it has value. You can try it yourself and see where it takes you. Or you can wait around expecting God to realise he has it all wrong, and he should be doing things your way.

I've read the Bible cover-to-cover 4 times. I accepted Jesus into my heart when I was a kid. I was a Christian for 44 years. The Bible isn't what you say it is. It certainly is neither evidence nor convincing.

 

[Tinker Grey]

In fact it's the exact opposite of a red herring, whatever you might call that, a route to questions that have some bearing on the topic.

Is there proof of the resurrection in your terms? Again, like what? Jesus coming over to your house? Of course there isn't. It's a silly question.

So what evidence convinced you?

 

[Tom 1]

No it doesn't. It straightforwardly asks the interlocutor what they think is evidence.

No it doesn't. It straightforwardly asks the interlocutor what they think is evidence.


I've read the Bible cover-to-cover 4 times. I accepted Jesus into my heart when I was a kid. I was a Christian for 44 years. The Bible isn't what you say it is. It certainly is neither evidence nor convincing.

I didn't say it was. Same basic issue - you think some stuff, you think it must be true, you are unable or unwilling to question it. I genuinely don't understand why anyone would bother just continually running circles like that.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I didn't say it was. Same basic issue - you think some stuff, you think it must be true, you are unable or unwilling to question it. I genuinely don't understand why anyone would bother just continually running circles like that.

So what evidence convinced you?

 

[Tom 1]

So what evidence convinced you?

Got to know it, tried it out, compared how things play out when you do that to how they do when you don't. I find it all convincing enough, on its own terms. Taken on someone else's terms - well, what exactly is the point of trying to do that? So many of these threads are just an endless, pointless loop of 'why doesn't the bible do what I want it to do?'. It borders on being disturbing.

 

[Tom 1]

The Bible isn't what you say it is

What did I say it is?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Got to know it, tried it out, compared how things play out when you do that to how they do when you don't. I find it all convincing enough, on its own terms. Taken on someone else's terms - well, what exactly is the point of trying to do that? So many of these threads are just an endless, pointless loop of 'why doesn't the bible do what I want it to do?'. It borders on being disturbing.

Did you try out Buddhism in the same way? You found a way of life that works for you. How does that make it true?

What did I say it is?

A thing that if you study and understand, it will be convincing.

 

[Tom 1]

A thing that if you study and understand, it will be convincing.

No, I didn't.

 

[Tom 1]

Did you try out Buddhism in the same way? You found a way of life that works for you. How does that make it true?

It doesn't 'make it true'. You must be able to see how basic and pointless such questions are. Sure I've tried out some other ways of thinking.

 

[Tinker Grey]

No, I didn't.

Then you still haven't told me "what evidence convinced you".
So what evidence convinced you?

It doesn't 'make it true'. You must be able to see how basic and pointless such questions are. Sure I've tried out some other ways of thinking.

It's not pointless at all. I want to know what is true. If you know something true, particularly if it is going to affect me eternally, I want to know what it is and I want to know how you know it.

What evidence convinced you of the resurrection?

 

[Tom 1]

Then you still haven't told me "what evidence convinced you".
So what evidence convinced you?


It's not pointless at all. I want to know what is true. If you know something true, particularly if it is going to affect me eternally, I want to know what it is and I want to know how you know it.

What evidence convinced you of the resurrection?

Why repeat myself? The bible, and everything it makes allusions to, comes as one interconnected package. For me, as I’ve worked through parts of it in reference to the context in which they were written, over time it has made more sense. Like anything else written in another era, you need to find ways of putting yourself in the writer’s shoes to understand what their meaning is. The bible on its own terms is valid, this childish business of demanding it fit in with some other set of temporary notions about the world is not worth bothering with. The bible claims the proof of it is in the pudding, in various ways, and for me that has generally turned out to be true.