Resurrection Evidence

[Starcomet]

(Double post deleted)

 

[Starcomet]

Thank you for your honesty. And I think you touched on an important point here. Its likely, in the first century, that people might have been more apt to believe superstitious claims. Is it possible that such claims of a resurrection were of mere oral tradition, and after decades of unfettered stories, legend grew, which resulted later in the Gospel accounts?

Yes, I believe this to be the case. Legend and myth fed the distant accounts and led to it becoming something more extraordinary.

I'm not quite sure if you are up for further exploration. If you are, let us proceed.

As I've stated to others, we can read from the most credible document, filled with 'facts'. In the case for the Bible, we may even be able to conclude people, places, and events in corroborated historical recordings. HOWEVER, claims of the supernatural, must be elevated to another standard? Agree?

In general, yes supernatural claims must be put under a stricter standard.

Maybe the Bible writers, whom were not direct witnesses to the claimed resurrection, truly did believe it, and thus, were not lying; but believed it to be true?

What you say is very fine, yes the gospels writers were not likely direct witnesses to the events they were writing about, but believed everything they were reporting.

So, what might that standard be?

Is 'faith' reliable? Regardless of whatever definition you personally apply to faith, does it yield a reliable result? Or, are you instead admitting faith to be synonymous with hope, trust, and wishes --- despite your own personal/necessary/needed evidence to support the claim?

I define faith as being purely having trust or hope in something, but it can be either reasoned or blind. You can have blind faith or trust and you can have a more reasoned faith or trust. Thus, when we analyze these text, we must remember that they trusted what they heard as being true and believed they were inspired by God to write these accounts down. Thus, we have to analyze them under a higher critical lens.

 

[cvanwey]

Yes, I believe this to be the case. Legend and myth fed the distant accounts and led to it becoming something more extraordinary.

By extraordinary, are you insinuating that He still did (or) did not at least rise from the dead?

In general, yes supernatural claims must be put under a stricter standard.

Do you feel you have adequately upheld to this standard yourself? Or, do you instead harbor special bias for this set of beliefs?

What you say is very fine, yes the gospels writers were not likely direct witnesses to the events they were writing about, but believed everything they were reporting.

I would assume you also hold to the conclusion that the people, whom write of other supernatural events, also believed what they were writing about to be true. Thus...

How do we distinguish the 'true ones' from the questionable ones?

Again, all claims of the supernatural can have actual events placed and embedded within them, (i.e.) Spiderman, Troy, Alexander the Great, etc etc etc............

I define faith as being purely having trust or hope into something, but it can be either reasoned or blind. You can have blind faith or trust and you can have a more reasoned faith or trust. Thus, when we analyze these text, we must remember that they trusted what they heard as being true and believed they were inspired by God to write these accounts down. Thus, we have to analyze them under a higher critical lens.

If you admit that the Gospel writers of the first century were more apt to believe superstitious stories, then it would stand to reason they would believe the stories they wrote about. However, how does this make the claim more credible? We do not have first hand eyewitness attestation of the claimed events. The stories were written from oral tradition.

And yes, I agree with your application of 'faith.' Faith can be used as a blanket term for other words. In THIS case, which application of faith is most fitting - blind or reasoned, or maybe somewhere in the middle?????

What is this 'higher critical lens' we are using here, for the claim of a resurrection?

 

[Starcomet]

By extraordinary, are you insinuating that He still did (or) did not at least rise from the dead?

Did not rise from the dead.

Do you feel you have adequately upheld to this standard yourself? Or, do you instead harbor special bias for this set of beliefs?

I believe I have. I used to believe he rose physically from the dead when I was younger, but now believe he did not physically rise. It was merely a spiritual event the disciples experienced.

I would assume you also hold to the conclusion that the people, whom write of other supernatural events, also believed what they were writing about to be true. Thus...

How do we distinguish the 'true ones' from the questionable ones?

Again, all claims of the supernatural can have actual events placed and embedded within them, (i.e.) Spiderman, Troy, Alexander the Great, etc etc etc............

This is a part of the historian's craft and using various scholarly methods to try and ascertain what can be said to be likely true. Usually comparing the accounts to other outside sources, checking for harmonies, etc.

If you admit that the Gospel writers of the first century were more apt to believe superstitious stories, then it would stand to reason they would believe the stories they wrote about. However, how does this make the claim more credible? We do not have first hand eyewitness attestation of the claimed events. The stories were written from oral tradition.

And yes, I agree with your application of 'faith.' Faith can be used as a blanket term for other words. In THIS case, which application of faith is most fitting - blind or reasoned, or maybe somewhere in the middle?????

What is this 'higher critical lens' we are using here, for the claim of a resurrection?

Higher Criticism as is used by many biblical scholars.

 

[cvanwey]

Did not rise from the dead.



I believe I have. I used to believe he rose physically from the dead when I was younger, but now believe he did not physically rise. It was merely a spiritual event the disciples experienced.



This is a part of the historian's craft and using various scholarly methods to try and ascertain what can be said to be likely true. Usually comparing the accounts to other outside sources, checking for harmonies, etc.



Higher Criticism as is used by many biblical scholars.

I'm afraid I'm going to need to roll back to your response in post #359. You stated:

"I believe, or have faith, in this as it makes the most logical sense to me as I do not believe the writers purely made it up given how ridiculous it sounds (though to first century people it might have been believable). And I am by no means saying this view holds a special position or that you must accept it. But most scholars agree that Jesus was crucified by the Romans, but what happened after that is speculation and faith."

But then in this last post you state:

"Did not rise from the dead"?

Furthermore, your avatar states you are a "Unitarian". Can you please clarify a bit for me?

As I've told others, the Bible states:

"14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith"

I also understand that many Christians may interpret Bible verses differently, hence, the countless denominations. However, seems fairly universal that to be a Christian, the fundamental belief, is that Christ rose from His tomb?

 

[Starcomet]

I'm afraid I'm going to need to roll back to your response in post #359. You stated:

"I believe, or have faith, in this as it makes the most logical sense to me as I do not believe the writers purely made it up given how ridiculous it sounds (though to first century people it might have been believable). And I am by no means saying this view holds a special position or that you must accept it. But most scholars agree that Jesus was crucified by the Romans, but what happened after that is speculation and faith."

But then in this last post you state:

"Did not rise from the dead"?

Furthermore, your avatar states you are a "Unitarian". Can you please clarify a bit for me?

No, what I said was correct. I believe there was a spiritual resurrection. I do not believe he physically rose from the dead. Unitarian Christianity refers to those Christians who believe Jesus was not God and fully 100% human. You act like we never spoke before .

As I've told others, the Bible states:

"14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith"

I also understand that many Christians may interpret Bible verses differently, hence, the countless denominations. However, seems fairly universal that to be a Christian, the fundamental belief, is that Christ rose from His tomb?

That is only if you believe in the Paul's atonement theology. The disciples experienced a spiritual resurrection they believed occured and nothing more.

 

[cvanwey]

No, what I said was correct. I believe there was a spiritual resurrection. I do not believe he physically rose from the dead. Unitarian Christianity refers to those Christians who believe Jesus was not God and fully 100% human. You act like we never spoke before .

I'm not acting like anything. I was seeking clarification on your specific beliefs. I now understand that you do not think Jesus IS God. You deny the Trinity, right?

Since the purposes of this thread is to get believers to demonstrate evidence/truth in a resurrection claim, it looks as though your responses, though appreciated, need not apply here

That is only if you believe in the Paul's atonement theology. The disciples experienced a spiritual resurrection they believed occurred and nothing more.

Okay, again, I'm curious why you responded to begin with? My question focuses on the many here whom believe Jesus IS God, as 'He ascended to Heaven, died for human sin, conquered death, after rising from His tomb 3 days later.'

I'm afraid your belief structure falls under a differing umbrella. -- Probably removed from this specific thread. If not, please correct me accordingly.

Otherwise, thank you any ways.

 

[Starcomet]

I'm not acting like anything. I was seeking clarification on your specific beliefs. I now understand that you do not think Jesus IS God. You deny the Trinity, right?

Yes, we talked before and you know this about me. Have you forgotten?

 

[cvanwey]

Yes, we talked before and you know this about me. Have you forgotten?

I honestly don't recall. However, it appears that further conversation may be irrelevant to this topic, right? If not, please enlighten me.

 

[Starcomet]

I honestly don't recall. However, it appears that further conversation may be irrelevant to this topic, right? If not, please enlighten me.

Yes, if you are specifically looking for the traditional resurrection view then I cannot offer much to the discussion.

 

[cvanwey]

Yes, if you are specifically looking for the traditional resurrection view then I cannot offer much to the discussion.

Okay. Thank you though.

 

[the iconoclast]

It's like I've told others here... Broken record time -- I accept the claims to Alexander being born, living, fighting in battle, and dying of fever. But I do not accept that he was the son of Zeus, as he may have claimed.

Hey hey you

Why do accept one thing but reject the other? - Please provide your reason with a detailed explanation

Cheers

 

[muichimotsu]

Do you not realize the difference between multiple distinct accounts attesting to Alexander the Great's life from various people and the accounts that we have that are limited to believers in terms of being contemporary that attest to Jesus' existence?

Also, Alexander the Great's life and most claims associated with it can be corroborated with history in terms of the basic nature of the claims, not miraculous, while Jesus' life, if we're going with some basic historical claims, would only indicate he preached and was crucified, not that he did miracles, which we have no more reason to believe than Alexander the Great was a demigod or such

 

[Tinker Grey]

Also, Alexander the Great's life and the claims associated with it can be corroborated with history in terms of the basic nature of the claims

It should be noted that while we accept that Alexander existed and did the things claimed and we might accept the report that he believed himself the son of Zeus, we do not accept that he was in fact the son of Zeus.

Mundane reports of the mundane are sufficient; mundane reports of the exceptional are not.

Indeed, many an atheist accepts the mundane claim that a Jesus existed; we don't accept the mundane accounts of a resurrection..

 

[cvanwey]

Hey hey you

Why do accept one thing but reject the other? - Please provide your reason with a detailed explanation

Cheers

I'm not taking an introductory philosophy class. I'm not here to justify how I know anything is real If I should have to explain to you why I will just accept/reconcile the claims that Jesus was born, preached stuff, and was killed; but then require extra evidence for the claims that "He rose from the dead 3 days later," then we might as well argue for the 'Matrix' while we are at it

Can you provide evidence/reason, as to how you know Jesus really did rise from the dead, after being dead in a tomb for ~ 3 days?

 

[muichimotsu]

It should be noted that while we accept that Alexander existed and did the things claimed and we might accept the report that he believed himself the son of Zeus, we do not accept that he was in fact the son of Zeus.

Mundane reports of the mundane are sufficient; mundane reports of the exceptional are not.

Indeed, many an atheist accepts the mundane claim that a Jesus existed; we don't accept the mundane accounts of a resurrection..

One word can be changed in the statement on Alexander the Great and it'd be accurate: most claims about his life are mundane enough, not all.

I'm a bit skeptical that just one Jesus existed, the gospels seem to be a hodgepodge of varying Jewish rabbis with apocalyptic ideas about things, like Luke, iirc, is especially Jewish focused, while Mark is more general (and the shortest). And then there's John

 

[Tinker Grey]

One word can be changed in the statement on Alexander the Great and it'd be accurate: most claims about his life are mundane enough, not all.

I'm a bit skeptical that just one Jesus existed, the gospels seem to be a hodgepodge of varying Jewish rabbis with apocalyptic ideas about things, like Luke, iirc, is especially Jewish focused, while Mark is more general (and the shortest). And then there's John

I'm tending to the mythicist thing myself these days. A person existing is mundane; a person walking on water is not.

As has been noted before, Paul's works were written first. Not a single letter references anything Jesus ever did in life; there are no references to any event (barring resurrection); there is not a single quote from Paul of anything Jesus ever said. 10 to 30 years after Paul's death, the gospel writers, who witnessed nada, had stories to fill in the gaps. Our favorite stories, e.g., the woman taken in adultery, were added centuries later. It's all too convenient.

 

[the iconoclast]

One word can be changed in the statement on Alexander the Great and it'd be accurate: most claims about his life are mundane enough, not all.

I'm a bit skeptical that just one Jesus existed, the gospels seem to be a hodgepodge of varying Jewish rabbis with apocalyptic ideas about things, like Luke, iirc, is especially Jewish focused, while Mark is more general (and the shortest). And then there's John

Hey hey my dear

Was this question directed at me?

 

[the iconoclast]

'm not taking an introductory philosophy class. I'm not here to justify how I know anything is real

Please excuse me.

1. I would like you to please explain to me, why do accept one thing but reject the other? - Please provide your reason with a detailed explanation.

Please dont be shy and do not ignore answering. Thank you in advance.

If I should have to explain to you why I will just accept/reconcile the claims that Jesus was born, preached stuff, and was killed; but then require extra evidence for the claims that "He rose from the dead 3 days later," then we might as well argue for the 'Matrix' while we are at it

Do what you feel is necessary. How about this.

Explain to me why you wont just accept/reconcile the claims that Jesus was born, preached stuff, and was killed;

2. Explain to me why there is required extra evidence for the claims that He rose from the dead 3 days later?

Dont worry abou the matrix. That is just pure distraction for this conversation.

Can you provide evidence/reason, as to how you know Jesus really did rise from the dead, after being dead in a tomb for ~ 3 days?

Reason - a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.

To reason - the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgements logically.

The Holy Spirit confirms this truth of Jesus.

3. What you think about my reply?

Evidence - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

4. Eye witness account and the Bible. What do you think about this reply?

I wont ignore questions if you do not, please answer the original substance ie -

I would like you to please explain to me, why do accept one thing but reject the other? - Please provide your reason with a detailed explanation. I have numbered the questions. It started off as one and now it has grown to 4.

Failure to answer may seem suspect.

 

[muichimotsu]

Hey hey my dear

Was this question directed at me?

I clearly directed the post to the person I quoted, though I'm not beyond you commenting if you think there's something worth discussing in what I said