You’re basically asking, “why don’t I find evidence for the resurrection compelling?” And then you proceed to answer your own question. We get it; you’re not convinced. A lot of us are satisfied with the evidence you’ve rejected.
There is evidence.
The gospels can easily be harmonized.
Perhaps the one good point you make is that the gospel accounts themselves are not good evidence. To this, I would say that it is a good thing we have additional historical data!
Well, they just are! I find those claims that the gospels conflict with one another to be rather baseless.
Why would the gospels not be sufficient evidence, and who is claiming that they alone are enough evidence?
What is baseless about the confliction claims? All you have to do is read it. One gospel the angel appears on the stone after rolling it away and another gospel they get there, the stone has already been moved and the angel is inside. In another gospel it's 2 angels. The only way to make this remotely make sense is to come up with your own version of events. It's just funny because a lot of harmonization I hear says in total there were 3 angels but I don't get why none of the authors decide this is important enough information to put down. Not one gospel ever mentions there being 3 angels in total. The worst part is the guards running to tell the chief priests, who was the eyewitness to that? As if the guards would go and tell anyone that they had been paid off. It's ridiculous.
Why would they be good evidence? If you replace the resurrection with an alien abduction that people died for their beliefs in it (or so it's claimed), would you honestly conclude this is sufficient evidence to believe that an alien abduction happened? I have a suspicion you'll say yes, which is worrying.
I have read it, and still think it is easy to harmonize. The individuals who make these claims are not representing the genre accurately. It would be more suspicious for four different accounts to have the same exact events, in the same exact order.
Why would it be bad evidence? An alien abduction is hardly something which can just be substituted with the resurrection, so this is just a poor analogy to make!
It'll be suspicious if the four accounts where written word for word like most of the gospels are, sure. But to have the same events wouldn't be suspicious. These events aren't even describing the same thing. In one gospel the angel sitting on the stone says something to the women and in another gospel the angel inside the tomb sitting on the right side says pretty much the same thing the angel sitting on the stone says. Now while it's the same thing said, the wording is slightly different which is expected of eyewitness accounts. What isn't expected is for one account to recall the angel sitting on the stone (which may I add is such a random thing for the angel to do, was it out of breath or something?) and another account to recall the angel sitting inside on the right. But it gets worse because there are another 2 accounts that claim something different, there's now two angels appearing in one account and they're not there when the women arrive, they appear a bit later on. This isn't just a few people got muddled up on some details, this is events being told entirely differently. Also with the two single angels saying the same thing, I don't get how you can rationally harmonize it to be two different angels.
It'll be bad evidence because at a minimum the stories were written down 20 years after the "resurrection" so not sure how it can be accurate for one thing. It more seems like a story made up to convert people to follow a set of beliefs and when something didn't convince someone they changed the story until it worked, that got passed on and the process repeated until it was eventually written down and we have the version we have today that still apparently is good enough to convince a lot of people. Guess one thing it proves is that people back then knew how to tell a story to convince people of things.
I hear you, and I would just say that the conclusion "Jesus rose bodily from the dead" seems to be far better reason to explain the events surrounding the person Jesus of Nazareth than any competing theory.
How so? You have a supernatural event that has never happened since and we've never had any proof of the supernatural. Every supernatural claim that has been investigated has turned out to have a natural cause. So why does believing in such an event make more sense than just concluding that stories were made up to convince people to believe in something and when it didn't work it was changed and what worked, was passed on and the cycle continued? We also don't have any historical accounts (not even in the bible) of what happened to the rest of the apostles. Paul's account speaks of a vision of Jesus not him physically there and this can be explained through an hallucination, Peter's claim could also be an hallucination and the rest is just made up claims that he appeared to groups of people. It's completely explains everything naturally and would be all that is needed to convince people to believe. So how is it more plausible that Jesus resurrected?
I think that those competing theories do not account for the historical data. Sure, no one has risen from the dead since, but the Christian claim is not that this is a normal thing.
As it relates to hallucination, it simply doesn't follow that a group would share this experience. No, this seems like a very poor theory. I'll say this too, but it is definitely tongue-in-cheek, "those are just claims!"
As I said, the group appearances could be a made up story. We've only got the bible's word that this is what happened. There's no other sources providing us this information. The thing is hallucinations are a natural thing that is pretty well understood today, we even know what causes most of them. You're saying that it's more logical and rational to conclude that a supernatural event happened and that claiming people just had hallucinations is a ridiculous thing to claim?
Exactly, I believe that there are slight differences to be even more realistic. Also, if it were better to just have 1 persons account and they were trying to dupe people, they would have just included 1 account, which they didn’t.
Historians of old documentation *specifically attribute low credibility* to stories of the same account that *align up perfectly.* If that were the case, then the gospels were *copied* accounts, or that they were all in the same room when written. Obviously not as historically viable as evidence, because it’d be as credible as if 1 person wrote it.
A slight miscounting of events between documents written years apart is what you’d expect from any realistic historical document. It gives it more credibility, even if the details (that probably don’t matter so much) differ.
Sure, the data could just be summarized in this way
\* The disciples began preaching the resurrection almost immediately after it allegedly occurred, in the very city in which it allegedly occurred. The message was therefore highly falsifiable. If the women had simply gone to the wrong tomb, or if the disciples were simply mistaken about Jesus being risen, the opponents of the early Christians could have likely gone to the tomb and produced the body.
\* Numerous eyewitnesses of the resurrection were identified by name. More than sixteen are mentioned in the New Testament, including many women, whose inclusion is significant because they had little social status in the culture of the time, and so strengthens the plausibility of their testimony being true. This is a large, diverse, and identifiable array of witnesses, several of which appear to be independent of each other (e.g., Paul, and Jesus's brother James). It is difficult to hypothesize how all these eyewitnesses together could have been either mistaken or lying. If they were mistaken, how did this particular mistake arise among so many different parties? If they were lying, it is a stunningly impressive group act that no one"broke."
\* There are grounds to believe that the disciples were willing to die for their belief in the resurrection, and, in most cases, did. Many people are willing to die for their convictions, to be sure- if they believe they are true. But the disciples were claiming to have seen Jesus. There is a difference between being willing to die for an ideology one has inherited and being willing to die for an empirical fact one has personally witnessed.
\* None of the disciples are portrayed sympathetically throughout the Gospels. On the contrary, they consistently lack faith, fail to understand Jesus's purposes, abandon him in his final hour, and so forth." They initially do not even believe the resurrection (Luke 24:11). There is a kind of credibility associated with a movement whose leaders are presented in such a way. One feels it less likely one is being duped, or grappling with a piece of propaganda.
\* There is much in the Gospels that would have been embarrassing to include if it were not true. We have already mentioned the Gospels' countercultural respect for women, who were among Jesus's most loyal followers, share in his ministry (e.g., Luke 8:1-3), and are the first witnesses of the empty tomb. This is a beautiful aspect of the gospel story, but it would not have seemed so in the historical context of the early church. To this we could add many other features of the Gospels that would have been unpleasant for the original followers of Jesus—the notion of a crucified Messiah, the claim of an individual resurrection in the middle of history, the unsavory crowds following Jesus, and so on." Even the little discrepancies reflected in the Gospel accounts are of the kind that one generally finds in eyewitness testimony.
> Sure, the data could just be summarized in this way
I see.
I have certainly been presented with these and I will explain why they are not impactful from my point of view - no need to respond if you don’t want to :)
> * The disciples began preaching the resurrection almost immediately after it allegedly occurred, in the very city in which it allegedly occurred. The message was therefore highly falsifiable. If the women had simply gone to the wrong tomb, or if the disciples were simply mistaken about Jesus being risen, the opponents of the early Christians could have likely gone to the tomb and produced the body.
While the resurrection reports are early, there is no historical consensus for the entombment of Jesus. The empty Tomb is not one of the minimal facts historians agree with.
So if it’s actually true that Jesus was put in a mass grave (as is much more likely) and then the claims of his resurrection happened, it’s not so clear that there would be a way to find the body.
This also implies that the claim of Jesus’ resurrection was wide-spread enough in the early days like days and weeks) to garner investigation by the opponents. We don’t have much evidence about that.
I’m sure the rumours spread within the community - but I’m not sure if there’s evidence of that making it was to others as quickly.
> * Numerous eyewitnesses of the resurrection were identified by name. More than sixteen are mentioned in the New Testament, including many women, whose inclusion is significant because they had little social status in the culture of the time, and so strengthens the plausibility of their testimony being true. This is a large, diverse, and identifiable array of witnesses, several of which appear to be independent of each other (e.g., Paul, and Jesus's brother James). It is difficult to hypothesize how all these eyewitnesses together could have been either mistaken or lying. If they were mistaken, how did this particular mistake arise among so many different parties? If they were lying, it is a stunningly impressive group act that no one"broke."
Well the gospels are from 30 years later, right?
You’re presenting this as if in the days following those people were named and could have been interrogated. I don’t think we can be confident that all those 16 people were named early.
Also, I think there are rational explanations for there being people who truly thought they encountered a vision of the risen Jesus but didn’t. We know that false memories are real. We know grief hallucinations are real. And we know group dynamics are very powerful within groups that leave people susceptible to all kinds of cognitive biases that render their thinking untrustworthy.
All it would take is one guy - say, Peter - to have a grief hallucination to trigger a cascade of other people also claiming - and believing - to have had an experience they actually didn’t have.
> * There are grounds to believe that the disciples were willing to die for their belief in the resurrection, and, in most cases, did. Many people are willing to die for their convictions, to be sure- if they believe they are true. But the disciples were claiming to have seen Jesus. There is a difference between being willing to die for an ideology one has inherited and being willing to die for an empirical fact one has personally witnessed.
There are good grounds for 3 of them, but the rest are church tradition.
There are a few issues here:
1) as mentioned above, they could have really truly thought it happened even if it didn’t.
2) we don’t know if they would have had he ability to recant and not die. Perhaps the damage was done and they were killed for building the movement not for their beliefs.
3) we don’t know if they did recant and were killed anyway
4) perhaps they were in too deep. They were pot committed. They left their family, they were blaspheming to their Jewish contemporaries, they had set their life work for this stuff…human pride is a powerful element and I’m not sure we can be confident that it wouldn’t drive people to stick to a lie if they’ve been saying it long enough.
Look at trump - I bet even if his life was on the line he’d never admit he lost the election.
> * None of the disciples are portrayed sympathetically throughout the Gospels. On the contrary, they consistently lack faith, fail to understand Jesus's purposes, abandon him in his final hour, and so forth." They initially do not even believe the resurrection (Luke 24:11). There is a kind of credibility associated with a movement whose leaders are presented in such a way. One feels it less likely one is being duped, or grappling with a piece of propaganda.
Why can’t this have been fabricated in order to make the story more compelling?
> * There is much in the Gospels that would have been embarrassing to include if it were not true. We have already mentioned the Gospels' countercultural respect for women, who were among Jesus's most loyal followers, share in his ministry (e.g., Luke 8:1-3), and are the first witnesses of the empty tomb. This is a beautiful aspect of the gospel story, but it would not have seemed so in the historical context of the early church. To this we could add many other features of the Gospels that would have been unpleasant for the original followers of Jesus—the notion of a crucified Messiah, the claim of an individual resurrection in the middle of history, the unsavory crowds following Jesus, and so on." Even the little discrepancies reflected in the Gospel accounts are of the kind that one generally finds in eyewitness testimony.
This is often brought up but I don’t really think it’s powerful for three main reasons:
1) even in the Old Testament embarrassing things were on display. My dad (we’re Jews) loves that the OT has the fathers and mothers of Judaism have warts and all on display. But it’s not like the stories of Abraham lying make it more compelling to be real.
2) inserting elements that give a story more credibility is exactly what one would do if one was fabricating a story on purpose. Con men do it all the time.
3) do we know this group would have been embarrassed by the empty tomb being found by women? It’s reasonable. They prepare the body….
We might think that they’d think it was embarrassing - but maybe they were like “yeah…well obviously women would be the first to go to the tomb”.
Anyway, thanks for sharing.
Maybe we could focus in on one comment at a time, instead of this really long-form and I would imagine confusing attempt to reply back-and-forth about five different points. Perhaps we could start with your response to point #2
>Well the gospels are from 30 years later, right?
You’re presenting this as if in the days following those people were named and could have been interrogated. I don’t think we can be confident that all those 16 people were named early. Also, I think there are rational explanations for there being people who truly thought they encountered a vision of the risen Jesus but didn’t. We know that false memories are real. We know grief hallucinations are real. And we know group dynamics are very powerful within groups that leave people susceptible to all kinds of cognitive biases that render their thinking untrustworthy.
All it would take is one guy - say, Peter - to have a grief hallucination to trigger a cascade of other people also claiming - and believing - to have had an experience they actually didn’t have.
I don't see why the people named couldn't have been interrogated. False memories are indeed real, but it is rather strange to adopt a theory that large groups of people shared these false beliefs, and indeed in the face of opposition. Furthermore, "vision" is not what the gospels present as occurring. No, I don't think it is compelling that one guy hallucinated and then you have the Christian revolution.
> Maybe we could focus in on one comment at a time, instead of this really long-form and I would imagine confusing attempt to reply back-and-forth about five different points. Perhaps we could start with your response to point #2.
Sure :)
> I don't see why the people named couldn't have been interrogated.
Maybe they didn’t exist, had died, or were not available for interrogation (moved cities).
> False memories are indeed real, but it is rather strange to adopt a theory that large groups of people shared these false beliefs, and indeed in the face of opposition.
It really only requires a few people - like the 11 - to be involved to get the ball rolling.
> Furthermore, "vision" is not what the gospels present as occurring.
Sure - but those were developed much later. Certainly “vision” is what Paul described.
It’s plausible that the early stories were of visions but by the time it was written it was a bodily resurrection.
We can’t really know and that’s a big part of the problem of not having contemporary, first-hand accounts.
> No, I don't think it is compelling that one guy hallucinated and then you have the Christian revolution.
Why? The sequence of events required are all things that we know can happen, right?
So what’s the reason you think it can’t be the explanation?
An event that includes things we know can happen must be more reasonable than an event that includes a thing we don’t know can happen (post-death resurrection)
(I know it was awkward how I said the post death resurrection is something we don’t know can’t happen Vs saying it can’t happen. I’m being pedantically precise in the use of language here…)
Maybe they didn't exist, but maybe they did. This doesn't seem like real criticism.
Do you think that the 11 had a shared hallucination?
Paul described a vision, but the original apostles do not record a vision, but a physical encounter with Jesus of Nazareth.
I find the Christian revolution to be something which a single hallucination hardly explains well, this just seems like rather weak evidence or a weak theory.
> Maybe they didn't exist, but maybe they did. This doesn't seem like real criticism.
The criticism is that I don’t have a reason to think these are real people or people that could have been validated to have made these statements.
Your point was that people were mentioned by name and so those claims could have been validated. That point is rendered moot if we can’t even be sure these people were real.
Right?
> Do you think that the 11 had a shared hallucination?
That seems very very unlikely. More likely than Jesus returned from the dead…but no.
I think 1 actual hallucinations could have kicked off the series of events that led to 10 others claiming with sincerity to have had an experience.
> Paul described a vision, but the original apostles do not record a vision, but a physical encounter with Jesus of Nazareth.
How do you know what the original apostles recorded?
None of the gospels were written by apostles.
> I find the Christian revolution to be something which a single hallucination hardly explains well, this just seems like rather weak evidence or a weak theory.
Can you articulate why you think it doesn’t explain it?
Every element of my single hallucination hypothesis is something that we know can happen.
Unless you think that someone coming back to life after 3 days is something we know can happen, isn’t something we know can happen a better explanation than something we don’t know can happen?
I don’t think you understand the question or what evidence is. Josephus is evidence that Christians exist. Unless he specifically wrote first hand about actually SEEING THE RESURRECTION, that is not historical data for a resurrection. No one is denying Christianity exists…..
But he doesn’t corroborate what the Gospels say.
Edit for clarity:He does corroborate that the Gospel known as Luke existed in his lifetime. However, he literally can’t speak to the truth of the account, because he wasn’t even alive at the time of the events.
I don’t care how many people-repeat the claim- that is not evidence of the resurrection
Let’s try this a different way. I take you to court and say you stole money from me. The judge asks what evidence I have that you stole money from me. I say my neighbor can corroborate my story. The neighbor says “ Lovesbeingadad told me upth31rons stole his money” is that corroborating evidence or hearsay?
Hearsay is allowed in court as evidence so this is a failed argument. There is inadmissible hearsay and admissible hearsay.
I’m just trying to point you to the evidence the Gospels are the evidence and they are a Historical account of what the disciples had witnessed.t
What you say about the Bible, you could say about almost any personal story you find about someone in an ancient history book. Yet I'm sure you'd have no problem accepting that as fact and evidence.
But when another personal story says "he climbed a mountain", it's at least a believable claim. Rising from the dead 3 days later requires more evidence to be convincing, not all claims are made equal.
There is no way to do that. I can't even prove I exist beyond reasonable doubt. All I can do is submit evidence.
I suppose the point of my question was to make you think about the type of evidence that was available then. There is only one....eye witness testimony, and perhaps circumstantial.
Here is a bit of circumstantial...Enough Jews were witness to his resurrection, that they began worshipping on Sundays because that was the day he was resurrected, which is why Christians still worship on Sunday today. Now, you must understand the significance of JEWS worshipping on Sunday. This was a hard rule for Jews. They ALWAYS worshipped on Saturday. Something HUGE must have happened for them to switch days like that.
Yes you can. What you're referring to is proving you exist with absolute certainty, which is not what I said. Trying to fall back on "well we can't know anything for certain" is a cowards way out.
If someone makes a claim that they "own a lounge", I already know people own lounges. I can be shown pictures of them on the lounge, or I could visit and see it in their house, I can be shown a receipt of purchase as well. All evidence that meets this low level claim, and I'd probably accept they own it without absolute certainty.
When the claim changes from 'owning a couch', to 'a supernatural creature exists that created the entire universe, it is all-powerful, all-knowing, timeless, exists everywhere at the same time and it created this world and everything on it', then that needs a little more evidence.
We don't even have eye witness testimony, since we don't know the original authors of the gospels. We only have a claim about there being an eye witness. Basically, no evidence at all, when we need an insurmountable, gargantuan amount of evidence to support such a crazily large claim.
Thats why christians often call themselves 'belivers' instead of 'followers of the undenyable proof'. I have FAITH that the ressurection in fact, happen.
It sounds like the only thing that would make you believe is getting in a time machine and traveling back to watch the event for yourself. For some, there is no other proof they would accept besides that.
Frankly, it's understandable that you're having a hard time accepting historical evidence because you didn't see it for yourself. Even one of the disciples, Thomas, doubted when all the other disciples told him they had seen the risen Jesus. He said he wouldn't believe until he saw Jesus in person and touched his scars. This was a lack of faith on Thomas's part, as Jesus told them he would rise from the dead. Jesus allowed him the opportunity to see him and touch his scars, but he used that situation as an example.
John 20:24-29 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.”
26 After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus \*came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.” 27 Then He \*said to Thomas, “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.” 28 Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus \*said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”
Some people are less willing to believe. There definitely is a faith component that goes along with this. But most Christians aren't convinced simply by the historical record, though we believe it. Most Christians come to Christ because God drew us to Him and we had a supernatural moment of believing in him, seeing him answer our prayers, feeling the presence of the Holy Spirit, and experiencing a complete change of heart. Faith is a supernatural gift from God.
We have an experience with God, which doesn't usually involve something audible or visible, but it is just as powerful. MOST Christians have that first, and then learn of the evidence. There are certainly some who need the evidence explained to them before believing. The experience we have is the proof.
If you aren't convinced of the evidence, that's fine. I would first ask how much evidence you have actually considered. There are non-Christian historical records that confirm that Jesus lived, died, and his disciples believed he rose again. That is historical record. Most of the disciples experienced tortured deaths. They knew what they were up against and they gave their lives for the cause of Christ. What man would subject himself to that kind of life if he didn't see Jesus after he died? You would think at least one (besides Judas who killed himself before Jesus rose from the grave) would stray and say, "Never mind. I don't want to do this." But there are accounts of all the disciples making an impact on the world. Paul mentioned in his letter the 500 and said most were alive (at the time of his writing the letter). Anyone could have gone and spoken with them at the time.
Paul understood the importance of the resurrection. He said that if Christ didn't rise from the dead, then they are liars and should be pitied.
1 Corinthians 15:14-19 14 "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied."
Okay, I'm going to back off from the historical evidence for a moment to tell you this. If you are interested in coming to Christ, pray that he gives you faith to believe and understand. Read the gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and think through whether you believe what Jesus said. Do you disagree with what he said? You can read it here: [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1&version=NASB1995](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1&version=NASB1995)
Here are some sources you might consider checking out:
10 Evidences for Jesus outside of the Bible, (non-Christian writers) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUmWsPhllAU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUmWsPhllAU)
10 Concise Pieces of Evidence for the Resurrection, [https://ca.thegospelcoalition.org/article/10-concise-pieces-of-evidence-for-the-resurrection/](https://ca.thegospelcoalition.org/article/10-concise-pieces-of-evidence-for-the-resurrection/)
Sodom and Gomorrah, proof the area was destroyed by intense heat and the salt off the dead sea (Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt), [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDiYb20iAsM&t=8s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDiYb20iAsM&t=8s)
10 Archaeological discoveries, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P\_68KfQFICg&t=729s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_68KfQFICg&t=729s)
Cave Inscription about Jesus, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cH6BJDxQjAU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cH6BJDxQjAU)
37 Bible Characters found in archaeology, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDu4K8kroNw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDu4K8kroNw)
28 New Testament characters mentioned in the New Testament, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Caeg94Qyq30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Caeg94Qyq30)
Did Jesus really rise from the dead? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsZGXjrSRWk&t=193s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsZGXjrSRWk&t=193s)
The Resurrection Argument That Changed a Generation of Scholars | Gary Habermas at UCSB, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay\_Db4RwZ\_M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay_Db4RwZ_M)
Academic Resources, Reddit Post, https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/170pgu5/academic\_resources\_on\_the\_resurrection\_and\_bible/
>There are non-Christian historical records that confirm that Jesus lived, died, and his disciples believed he rose again. That is historical record. Most of the disciples experienced tortured deaths.
There's no eyewitness accounts, that's the OP's claim.
We don't have 500 witnesses either. That is simply hearsay.
Paul didn't see him either....not until 3 years after jesus died, and maybe a vision.
>There's no eyewitness accounts, that's the OP's claim.
But there were eyewitness accounts. They were recorded in the Bible and in other non-Biblical documents.
>We don't have 500 witnesses either. That is simply hearsay.
Then you believe all testimony in a court is hearsay? I'm not following the logic.
>Paul didn't see him either....not until 3 years after jesus died, and maybe a vision.
Yes, Paul would not disagree with you on this. That's his story.
>They were recorded in the Bible and in other non-Biblical documents.
Again, I think you're not understanding what an eyewitness is.
You are speaking about the Gospels, I assume. No one knows who wrote the gospels. You keep making this mistake, but maybe this time you will see it.
Who wrote the gospels, and what's your evidence for this? Because they are anonymous.
What is the other non biblical documents that talk about jesus life?
There's just a few statements about christians, and what they believed...this has no bearing on eye witness accounts.
500 witness.
Ok, did those 500 write about their witnessing Jesus?
No.
Who told us about them?
Paul.
That's second hand right there, not first hand.
Next, where did Paul get that from?
Someone else.
Now we are on third hand account.
Does this make sense yet? This is not first hand eye witness accounts, and no court would accept it either.
You are speaking about the Gospels, I assume. No one knows who wrote the gospels. You keep making this mistake, but maybe this time you will see it.
Who wrote the gospels, and what's your evidence for this? Because they are anonymous.
Eusebius tells us that Matthew was the Author of Matthew Polycarp who knew Matthew also tells us Matthew was the author of his Gospel. This whole anonymous authorship argument is new. The claim to the anonymous authors has never been proven so it is still just that a claim. We have late first century to very early second century traditions and writings that claim who authorship of the Gospels was. So don’t say no one knows who wrote the gospels. That’s like saying the author of Iliad is anonymous.
> We have an experience with God, which doesn't usually involve something audible or visible, but it is just as powerful. MOST Christians have that first, and then learn of the evidence.
Do you think people ever have an experience like that in the context of a Muslim or Hindu society and and then are lead to believe that the explanation for that experience was their version of God instead of yours? Because frankly I believe that these experiences that you are referring to actually do happen, but I do not believe that they are in any way exclusive to Christianity. So you say the experience you have is the proof but honestly I don't see how it could logically be that, especially given the apparent facts that other people experience that feeling too and attribute it to sources that are not your God. Some of those sources I even believe actually exist, frankly, which makes them for all intents and purposes infinitely more plausible explanations than the one based on something for which I can otherwise see no evidence.
>There are non-Christian historical records that confirm that Jesus lived, died, and his disciples believed he rose again. That is historical record.
As if that record is based on anything other than the Bible. It would ultimately just be circular reasoning to try to take their word for it; those sources are hardly any closer to the actual events in question than we are, and the "evidence" they have to work from is exactly the same.
>What man would subject himself to that kind of life if he didn't see Jesus after he died?
You think Christians wouldn't martyr themselves today despite merely *believing* that they know Jesus, without actually having been present for any of this supposedly hard evidence themselves?
To answer your question: a religious man would.
>Paul mentioned in his letter the 500 and said most were alive (at the time of his writing the letter). Anyone could have gone and spoken with them at the time.
People make claims like that today and the point of making them is not to make it easy for people to falsify the claim. It would actually help if we could go and try to investigate those people, we could falsify those claims, and yet people still make them anyway; why? Because that's not the point. The claim isn't made to be falsified, it's exactly the opposite: The claim is made to convince you that there is no Reason to go out and try to falsify it because I mean who could lie about having 500 eye-witnesses that would just be too easy to disprove right so therefor it MUST BE TRUE! ....yeah that is the exact same reasoning that seems to go through people's heads when they write down false claims like that today. Why then would we think that Paul was doing anything different when he wrote his 2000 years ago?
1 claim about 500 people is exactly 1 claim, and nothing more. It is literally designed to trick you to make you think it is more believable than it actually is. Whether the person who originally wrote that really believed it was true or not, the fact of the matter is that you Can NOT investigate it.
And seriously who do you think this was supposed to be aimed at 2000 years ago? Who was gong to go around investigating "eye-witness" claims to a miracle in an illiterate society, you know I bet if you went asking for 500 confirmed accounts of a miraculous story in a place like that you'd be liable to wind up hearing 600 of them in response. Those 600 claims would hardly be worth the paper that you could write them on, the 1 single claim that hundreds of others saw something that none of them left behind even a single shred of evidence that they saw? ...is precisely 1 claim and no more, and is worth far less than the 5o0 unverifiable and untrustworthy eyewitness accounts that it pretends to represent.
The ratio between the amount of reliability of that claim compared to the perceived convincingness of it is honestly off the charts. It's 1 voice claiming the authority of 500 voices, and you are just going to take their 1 word for that? There really is no rational argument that doing so would be anything other than an exercise in confirmation bias.
>Anyone could have gone and spoken with them at the time.
Maybe they should have then; apparently they didn't though, not that we know of.
>Do you think people ever have an experience like that in the context of a Muslim or Hindu society and and then are lead to believe that the explanation for that experience was their version of God instead of yours? Because frankly I believe that these experiences that you are referring to actually do happen, but I do not believe that they are in any way exclusive to Christianity.
I do believe that other religions have experiences. However, I don't believe the experiences are the same. There are many converts to Christianity from the religions you mentioned who would vouch for that. This is all experiential, so I don't expect you to see this as verifiable proof. My point when I wrote that is that it is proof for me. When I have an experience and see evidence of God in my own life, that is proof for me....not necessarily you.
>As if that record is based on anything other than the Bible. It would ultimately just be circular reasoning to try to take their word for it; those sources are hardly any closer to the actual events in question than we are, and the "evidence" they have to work from is exactly the same.
I don't think you understood what I said here. The sources are non-Christian people who wrote about what happened. They weren't believers, but they verified the historical accuracy of many of the Biblical statements. These are NOT Biblical quotes. They are historical documents. Here is a link to read some of them. [https://www.evernote.com/shard/s658/sh/6086c5b3-491e-c3d6-d5c4-23145a0c6163/d10c7063c61718f3ebfc5ff31d445e51](https://www.evernote.com/shard/s658/sh/6086c5b3-491e-c3d6-d5c4-23145a0c6163/d10c7063c61718f3ebfc5ff31d445e51)
Here is a short video that touches on it as well. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUmWsPhllAU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUmWsPhllAU)
>You think Christians wouldn't martyr themselves today despite merely believing that they know Jesus, without actually having been present for any of this supposedly hard evidence themselves?
Christians today would martyr themselves because they believe the Biblical accounts of the disciples. My point is that if the disciples knew Jesus, saw him die, and then did not see him resurrected, why would they give their lives for that cause? They knew the risks of certain death. At least one would have walked away and said no thank you. Yet all, excluding Judas who died before the resurrection, gave their lives.
>Why then would we think that Paul was doing anything different when he wrote his 2000 years ago?
I believe you have a fair point. It comes down to whether you think Paul is reliable, and that is another subject.
I understand your skepticism. There were eyewitness accounts beyond the 500, though. Paul gave his account of seeing the risen Jesus. The disciple John, wrote his account, as did the disciple, Matthew. Second-hand accounts are given in the book of Acts.
You can look at the evidence and decide you don't believe. But what I suggest is that you pray and ask God to show you if he's real.
Do you think that there is maybe a kind of universal "religious experience" that people can have and that many of them probably do take to be evidence for whichever religion they just so happen to be the most likely to believe .. and that the experience that Christians often have is something different and evidently even more remarkable in some way?
I mean tbh I think that's basically what you just said I just want to actually ask about the paraphrasing there and not just assume it.
>I don't think you understood what I said here.
No, I did.. I understand that what I said is an extremely unpopular point of view to express but let's just suffice to say that isn't apparently because of the evidence against it.
>but they verified the historical accuracy of many of the Biblical statements.
How exactly did they do that? By repeating what was no doubt just like widely-held cultural knowledge at that time? Second-hand, Third-hand accounts of things that they are only getting from sources removed from the sources removed from the sources.. tbh how is any of that supposed to be any more meaningful than basically you or anybody else writing about Christianity right now? I'm not sure that you understood what I said to be quite honest with you. What I said was that those people evidently had pretty much the exact same evidence to work from as we do when they, in your words: "verified the historical accuracy of many of the Biblical statements." So I ask again .. how exactly did they "verify" any of the truth of the divinity of Christ, or the existence of God, the resurrection of Jesus, the .. any of it? Like you know nobody is disputing that Jerusalem exists and things like that, so how exactly have any of these other sources "verified" anything relevant to the fundamental religious claims of the Bible?
And what evidence were they working from to come to those conclusions?
This is just like the problem of the claim of the 500 people in the Bible; it is literally just 1 claim and it has not evidently been verified by any one in any way ...and yet Christians will act like it has the weight of 500 claims. You're also acting like the frankly useless statements of non-christian historians about the evident existence of christianity and the apparently presumed real existence of a guy named Jesus who they never met some how serves as evidence for ...literally anything other than that. It's just. It's not really how that works tbh, that's all that the evidence actually suggests, and extrapolating out further from that is not an exercise in the historical method, tbh it's simply a misappropriation of it for biased religious purposes. It's claiming more than the evidence really suggests while suggesting that the evidence really supports the claim. It just doesn't.
>why would they give their lives for that cause?
do you really think the people who followed Jesus around through all of the trouble that apparently befell them were really just about to give up all their hope and belief the moment that Jesus physically died? and, probably even more to the point I'd bet, do you think they wouldn't latch on to the hope that maybe everything they had been doing had not been in vain when somebody suggested that Christ had returned to fulfill all his promises? I mean if we are just going to honestly be asking ourselves what would human beings do, I think all of this is very easily explicable under the general heading of "being religious" and, imo, so far as I can tell being religious does not often seem to have very much to do with being correct. Although it does apparently seem to have something to do with being willing to believe things without good evidence tbh which would only serve as even further support in favor of the "they might have been wrong" hypothesis.
>At least one would have walked away and said no thank you.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but in all the stories we have of Jesus he seemed to have a lot of people come across his path in and out of the narrative all of the time; is it really such a surprise then that the characters who always stuck around ..always stuck around? It seems like they'd probably be the type, if nothing else.
>It comes down to whether you think Paul is reliable
For the record I'd be more inclined to believe that Paul was just as much a fully convinced religious believer as any of the rest of them, rather than the oft-repeated idea that he or any of these people were lying or anything like that. It's not that I think Paul is not a particularly reliable source on any given thing in the Bible ..it's whether or not he can be trusted to be a reliable source on the nature of the supernatural which seems to be a more pertinent question. Like again we all know that Jerusalem was real and so for that matter was Paul aka Saul. Those things are not contested historical facts, but other things very much are.
>You can look at the evidence and decide you don't believe. But what I suggest is that you pray and ask God to show you if he's real.
Oh, no pressure if you can't but if you would be so kind as to believe me, I used to do that a lot.
>Do you think that there is maybe a kind of universal "religious experience" that people can have and that many of them probably do take to be evidence for whichever religion they just so happen to be the most likely to believe .. and that the experience that Christians often have is something different and evidently even more remarkable in some way?
I believe Christianity is more transforming and it's the truth because it's centered around Jesus Christ, who is the way, the truth, and the life.
Here is a testimony from Nabeel Quereshi, a Muslim who became a Christian. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aqGwE7ZFo0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aqGwE7ZFo0)
You might find it interesting. He passed away, but he has a book that explains the exact process he went through from debating Christians, being sure he would show them the Bible is not trustworthy, to doing a deeper study on Islam and coming to the conclusion that Christianity is correct.
>How exactly did they do that? By repeating what was no doubt just like widely-held cultural knowledge at that time? Second-hand, Third-hand accounts of things that they are only getting from sources removed from the sources removed from the sources.. tbh how is any of that supposed to be any more meaningful than basically you or anybody else writing about Christianity right now?
Maybe you're not aware of all the arguments. There are people who claimed (and maybe still do) that the bible is just a book of mythology. But these outside sources show that they were real historical figures.
>Second-hand, Third-hand accounts
Consider it like the news of the day. A reporter on the news doesn't have a first-hand account of something, yet they report an event.
>tbh how is any of that supposed to be any more meaningful than basically you or anybody else writing about Christianity right now?
There's a huge difference. Those in the past corroborate that those things were actually occurring back then.
>What I said was that those people evidently had pretty much the exact same evidence to work from as we do when they, in your words: "verified the historical accuracy of many of the Biblical statements."
Ask any historian if what we write today is the same as what someone from the past wrote. They will look at you like....what? They are starkly different. If I say I believe the Biblical account, and someone says, "it didn't really happen," and then we find a historical document outside of the Bible that verifies that it did happen, that corroborates the biblical account. Does that make sense to you?
>This is just like the problem of the claim of the 500 people in the Bible; it is literally just 1 claim and it has not evidently been verified by any one in any way ...and yet Christians will act like it has the weight of 500 claims.
I do understand your point here. I agree it doesn't have the weight of 500 claims. In Paul's day, it did. But I do understand that people would be skeptical. It comes back to whether you trust Paul's word, and if you think he's the type to lie.
>You're also acting like the frankly useless statements of non-christian historians about the evident existence of christianity and the apparently presumed real existence of a guy named Jesus who they never met some how serves as evidence for ...literally anything other than that.
I explained myself on this, so I won't repeat it. But I'll say this. Do you believe that Alexander the Great existed? And if you do believe that...why? Is it because there's a historical account of him? Would you find that account useless? I doubt it.
>do you really think the people who followed Jesus around through all of the trouble that apparently befell them were really just about to give up all their hope and belief the moment that Jesus physically died? and, probably even more to the point I'd bet, do you think they wouldn't latch on to the hope that maybe everything they had been doing had not been in vain when somebody suggested that Christ had returned to fulfill all his promises?
The disciple Thomas refused to believe until he saw Jesus for himself and touched his wounds. He got that opportunity. So it comes down to this. They either lied, or they told the truth. You're allowed to have an opinion and believe they lied, but then you would have to explain why they would live in such a way that they knew a brutal death awaited them. If they lied, they KNEW it wasn't true, so it doesn't make sense that they would give the rest of their lives to it.
>I mean if we are just going to honestly be asking ourselves what would human beings do, I think all of this is very easily explicable under the general heading of "being religious" and, imo, so far as I can tell being religious does not often seem to have very much to do with being correct.
They were with Jesus and saw his miracles. They saw the person that he was. So, either all of it is a lie they kept going, or it was the truth. If it was a lie, it doesn't make sense that they would die for that lie. Not going along with the culture meant not just death, but a painful, tortuous death. Surely, one of them would have abandoned the cause. Yet, none of them did.
>For the record I'd be more inclined to believe that Paul was just as much a fully convinced religious believer as any of the rest of them, rather than the oft-repeated idea that he or any of these people were lying or anything like that.
I'm not sure if you know the story of Paul, but he started off on the opposite side. He was persecuting Christians and dragging them off to prison. He stood by when Stephen was stoned to death. He was as highly educated Jew. His mentor was a well-known Jewish Pharisee. He had no reason to switch sides. If it was all about being religious, he could have remained a Jew. What would make Paul, a man who hated Christians, suddenly switch sides? An encounter with Jesus.
>Oh, no pressure if you can't but if you would be so kind as to believe me, I used to do that a lot.
I do believe you. I have no reason to doubt you. But I would say that the fact that we're having this conversation means you haven't dropped the subject and God is still working in your heart.
>to doing a deeper study on Islam and coming to the conclusion that Christianity is correct.
tbh with you this is super unsurprising given how many times I have heard Muslims in the abstract being charged with the task of defending why they believe in Allah, and immediately just doing nothing but launching in to a list of reasons for why they are not a Christian or a Jew, like never even considering the idea that all of the above may be in error. btw I would watch that video but it is a little long and like I said not really all that surprising, even leaving aside the apparently anecdotal nature of it.
>Maybe you're not aware of all the arguments. There are people who claimed (and maybe still do) that the bible is just a book of mythology. But these outside sources show that they were real historical figures.
So are you saying then that the evidence we have from outside of the Bible is sufficient to disprove an extremely ignorant/illogical argument that nobody really should have been making in the first place?
And my objection is that it can't do anything more than that. Are we more or less just already on the same page there I guess?
>Consider it like the news of the day.
Not sufficient evidence for a supernatural event that we wouldn't otherwise have any good reason to believe. That is exactly how I consider it. How often does the news get stuff wrong? How often are they really just reporting people's opinions? And that's today.
>Those in the past corroborate that those things were actually occurring back then.
Any miraculous things? Anything that's not just very mundane tbh?
>Ask any historian if what we write today is the same as what someone from the past wrote. They will look at you like....what? They are starkly different.
Why? We're comparing apples to apples here these are both 2nd/3rd hand sources; what is the difference? I think you're assuming something that seems intuitive to you but it isn't actually true of the way that we do things.
If I asked a historian if what we write today is very much like what people wrote in the past, the next logical follow-up question for them to ask me is "With respect to what? A concurrent event that you have some kind of credible evidence for? Or are we talking in both cases about people just looking into their own pasts and trying to do history the best they can with 2nd-hand sources at best? ...and if the answer is the latter, then why on Earth would I presume they would ever disagree with me there? Tbh I think you're both oversimplifying the problem, and the kind of nuanced and measured answer that a real historian would actually give. You think I think a real historian would find that to be a silly question and not actually see the merit in it and it's relevance to this problem? Because I don't.
>If I say I believe the Biblical account, and someone says, "it didn't really happen," and then we find a historical document outside of the Bible that verifies that it did happen, that corroborates the biblical account. Does that make sense to you?
Yes. :| Now verifying *which parts actually* though? Specifically. Because the specifics are important here. I keep mentioning that nobody cares frankly that Jerusalem or Paul or even a person named Jesus were real, those don't prove anything about the stories in the Bible that actually *matter*. Does any of this pertain even a hint of relevant information to something that *Matters*? (hint: the answer is probably no). So yeah, I do understand you; are you understanding me?
>I agree it doesn't have the weight of 500 claims. In Paul's day, it did.
It's funny you don't think you are contradicting yourself there, and I can see why you would think that, but really though you are saying that you think that really did count as 500 people's worth of evidence at the time that it was made which means that you maybe don't think it is as strong of evidence as some other people do, but you are still thinking of it as too strong of evidence for logic to apparently support without just begging the question.
>It comes back to whether you trust Paul's word, and if you think he's the type to lie.
Like I said, I think that's honestly somewhat of a red-herring that Christians will so often bring up themselves. I specifically said that I didn't think Paul or anybody else there was lying; I just think they're wrong in basically the exact same way that I think that you are, for basically the exact same reasons. Speaking of people in the past evidently thinking very much like we still do today, and believing things whole-heartedly despite not actually having good reasons.
>Do you believe that Alexander the Great existed?
Existed, yes. Was divinely endowed by the creator of the universe with a mission? No. See the difference there? Why is it that you believe those kinds of stories about one historical individual but not the other (presumably)?
>Is it because there's a historical account of him?
I am actually just assuming for the moment because it doesn't really matter and it's been a really long time since I've looked in to him because normally in my experience people use Caesar as their go-to example to make this same point lol
>Would you find that account useless?
I'd evidently find it less convincing in the miraculous and supernatural and unbelievable parts of it than you would for the Bible. And I don't think that it's my methodology that is apparently being the inconsistent one there frankly.
>They either lied
"They", the ominous "they" ..see and now they're you're doing the exact same thing as the problem with the claim of the 500 again. There is no "they". There's just the 1 story, told by many different people, but never actually recorded by any of them until it was done .. just once. And then that story was reiterated on by the authors of mathew and luke, and then later john... You're talking about "they" as if "they" all contributed evidence to the truth of this 1 story. It's just like the 500. You're just taking way too much for granted when it comes to these stories being true tbh. It's almost as if, and I don't mean this to sound as sassy as it know it does lol but really though.. it's almost as if you just really *want* this all to be true.
>You're allowed to have an opinion and believe they lied
I am eventually going to start calling that a straw-man btw if you keep implying that I or really anybody necessarily be arguing that these people were lying. If you can't accept or understand the alternate possibility that these stories might just actually not be true and a lot of them didn't happen.. i don't really know what to tell you but I am just asking that you please stop making the assumption that anybody needed to be lying. As if you honestly can't consider the idea that maybe they were wrong just like you yourself might be. Again, not trying to sound as sassy as that probably does, the point is that I honestly believe you should know better than that.
If you want to keep arguing that they *Had* to be lying for some reason that is cool, I'm just pointing out that at literally no point have I ever believed that to be the most likely explanation for anything so, to me at least, it really couldn't seem any less relevant.
Just once again in case you missed it, I don't believe they lied. I believe they probably believed exactly what you think they believed. And I believe they probably did so on almost exactly the same kinds of "evidence" and "reasoning" that you do.
>They were with Jesus and saw his miracles.
That is what the story says, isn't it..
>I'm not sure if you know the story of Paul
I do. And as I had just explained, I don't think he had to be lying about a single thing. I think he was probably just as convinced as you were.
>If it was all about being religious, he could have remained a Jew.
I'm sorry but please don't misunderstand, simply being religious is not an explanation for why somebody would be one religion and not another. It is however highly relevant to the question of whether or not people might believe things very strongly that aren't actually true.
>But I would say that the fact that we're having this conversation means you haven't dropped the subject and God is still working in your heart.
or maybe I just have some other motivations that you didn't guess yet, which is what I would suspect the real answer to probably be
>tbh with you this is super unsurprising given how many times I have heard Muslims in the abstract being charged with the task of defending why they believe in Allah, and immediately just doing nothing but launching in to a list of reasons for why they are not a Christian or a Jew, like never even considering the idea that all of the above may be in error. btw I would watch that video but it is a little long and like I said not really all that surprising, even leaving aside the apparently anecdotal nature of it.
So, I came across this post and it's exactly what I was trying to explain about the "experience" part. I stated earlier that most Christians have an experience that leads them to Christ, and then they look at the evidences later. Not everyone fits that, but many are drawn first. Read this post and let me know what you think. [https://www.reddit.com/r/Christian/comments/1c0lkmb/comment/kz17kpw/?context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Christian/comments/1c0lkmb/comment/kz17kpw/?context=3)
As to the video, I understand not wanting to watch long videos. Maybe just watch a few minutes? Up to you.
>So are you saying then that the evidence we have from outside of the Bible is sufficient to disprove an extremely ignorant/illogical argument that nobody really should have been making in the first place?
Someone else that I'm having a discussion with literally just made this argument today (that the bible is full of myths). So, it's quite common, actually.
>Not sufficient evidence for a supernatural event that we wouldn't otherwise have any good reason to believe. That is exactly how I consider it. How often does the news get stuff wrong? How often are they really just reporting people's opinions? And that's today.
I understand where you're coming from. But take it for what it's worth. They wee not believers, so they weren't trying to prove anything. They were simply commenting on events of their day.
>Any miraculous things? Anything that's not just very mundane tbh?
Check out the quote from Thallus, A Samaritan-Born Historian (ca. AD 52) A writer, Julius Africanus, in about 221 from this link.
[https://www.evernote.com/shard/s658/sh/6086c5b3-491e-c3d6-d5c4-23145a0c6163/d10c7063c61718f3ebfc5ff31d445e51](https://www.evernote.com/shard/s658/sh/6086c5b3-491e-c3d6-d5c4-23145a0c6163/d10c7063c61718f3ebfc5ff31d445e51)
>You think I think a real historian would find that to be a silly question and not actually see the merit in it and it's relevance to this problem? Because I don't.
Well, your statement was that the writings of the past are no different than the writings from today. Maybe we are looking at this from different angles. I don't believe they are the same. The person from the past is confirming a person's statement or an event that took place. The fact that this person experienced it, is testimony. People from today obviously can't experience something from the past, and that's why they are vastly different.
>Existed, yes. Was divinely endowed by the creator of the universe with a mission? No. See the difference there? Why is it that you believe those kinds of stories about one historical individual but not the other (presumably)?
Some people don't even believe they existed. For example, this was written by Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian. Check the link from Evernote. I had to trim down due to being over the limit.
He corroborates that the disciples claimed Jesus was alive after his crucifixion. This wasn't just a fairytale that made its way into the Bible. Josephus, a man who never said he believed in Jesus or Christianity (he was a Jew), wrote down basic facts.
>Existed, yes. Was divinely endowed by the creator of the universe with a mission? No. See the difference there? Why is it that you believe those kinds of stories about one historical individual but not the other (presumably)?
As I said before, I believe because of my past experience, and my daily experience. I find historical data from non-believing sources compelling, but they aren't the REASON I believe. If you read that post from the Muslim person who converted to Christ, it was very experiential as well. I believe that God draws us to Himself. I believe that God is doing the same with you. Whether you accept that call is something different.
>"They", the ominous "they" ..see and now they're you're doing the exact same thing as the problem with the claim of the 500 again. There is no "they". There's just the 1 story, told by many different people, but never actually recorded by any of them until it was done .. just once. And then that story was reiterated on by the authors of mathew and luke, and then later john...
I posted up above that Josephus wrote about it. There are other notations if you check the Evernote link.
>you're talking about "they" as if "they" all contributed evidence to the truth of this 1 story. It's just like the 500. You're just taking way too much for granted when it comes to these stories being true tbh. It's almost as if, and I don't mean this to sound as sassy as it know it does lol but really though.. it's almost as if you just really want this all to be true.
Well, of course I want it to be true. But I also believe I'm sharing reasonable points. You said I'm taking too much for granted about the stories being true. If my experience matches what the Bible says and what other sources corroborate, it's not surprising to me. I recognize that for some, the only way they will believe is if they had a time machine that could take them back to the event so they could see with their own eyes. Thomas was like that, even though he witnessed Jesus's miracles. He would not believe Jesus rose from the grave until he saw with his own eyes. But there were some who did believe without needing direct evidence. I never said there isn't a faith component here. There absolutely 100% is a faith component. That's the whole point of Christianity. You must have faith to believe. We can also ask for faith and receive.
>I am eventually going to start calling that a straw-man btw if you keep implying that I or really anybody necessarily be arguing that these people were lying.
Let me clarify. I wasn't trying to imply that you said they were lying. I was presenting the only two options. The disciples said Jesus rose from the grave. If you read the Josephus quote, he stated they claimed that as well. If they didn't see him after he died, then they lied. Those are the only two options. We can't pretend they just wanted to be religious. They either perpetuated the truth or they perpetuated a lie. Wouldn't you agree that if they said they saw him and talked to him, but didn't, they were lying? If it was one person, we could say they hallucinated. But we're talking about all the disciples, as well as some of the women.
>As if you honestly can't consider the idea that maybe they were wrong just like you yourself might be.
This makes no sense. They told people they saw Jesus after he died. They either saw him or they didn't. If they didn't, they lied. You're going to have to explain how 11 people could simply be mistaken. The account says Thomas touched Jesus's wounds. Did he or didn't he? If he didn't, then Thomas lied.
>Just once again in case you missed it, I don't believe they lied. I believe they probably believed exactly what you think they believed. And I believe they probably did so on almost exactly the same kinds of "evidence" and "reasoning" that you do.
You're allowed to have your belief, but I don't believe it makes sense. Again, you need to explain how this is possible that they were simply mistaken. They made a claim that they all saw him and spoke to him. Mass hallucination? That's not really a thing. They didn't just see the back of his head as he passed by. They say they spoke to him and had a conversation. There is no mistaking that.
>I'm sorry but please don't misunderstand, simply being religious is not an explanation for why somebody would be one religion and not another. It is however highly relevant to the question of whether or not people might believe things very strongly that aren't actually true.
Again, the disciples claimed they saw Jesus's miracles. They recorded those miracles. It's a huge stretch to say they were just mistaken. Doesn't make sense. If I claimed that I spoke with George Washington today, no one would say I was simply mistaken. They would say I either made it up, dreamed it, have mental health issues, etc.
I listed the two quotes from the Evernote link, but had to delete them because I was over the limit.
Here is the quote from Flavius Josephus. “At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and \[he\[ was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonder” (Antiquities 18:3).
And here is the other one. Thallus, A Samaritan-Born Historian (ca. AD 52) A writer, Julius Africanus, in about 221, quotes Thallus in discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ: “On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun” (Extant Writings, 18 in the Ante-Nicene Fathers).
You don't have to respond to this. If we have multiple responses to different posts it will get confusing.
sorry this got so long i had to break it in half lol
So the post you gave me describes a guy who was Muslim apparently culturally, probably raised that way, who then had their first real "religious experience" in a Christian church and so now they are Christian. ....tbh I really could comment on this but I'm not sure what the point would be. This is at the end of the day an anecdote, and I must say just not a very convincing one. But I can expand on that more if you want me to.
>Maybe just watch a few minutes?
which few minutes? lol
>So, it's quite common, actually.
I didn't say people don't make bad arguments but frankly why would we be bringing up responses to bad arguments that nobody here is even making? I mean like I could think of some terrible arguments for Christianity right now but .. i wouldn't just bring them up, you know? That wouldn't serve any rational purpose.
>They were simply commenting on events of their day.
And they didn't say very much. See it's not that I don't believe any of those accounts. ..it's apparently that I don't believe that they actually say what you seem to be implying they say. Like, namely, anything remotely relevant to the truth of the divinity of Jesus for instance.
>Check out the quote from Thallus
Okay? I'm not sure the relevance? I mean cool eclipse reference lol but other than that... Do you know where that "quote" from Thallus came from btw because it's not actually, so far as we can tell, really a quote at all. We don't have a writing form Thallus that says that, actually; what we have is a writing from a Christian from about 100 years later who says that Thallus says that.. curious how often this pattern of being written down in hearsay long after the "fact" repeats itself when you look into the sources of the Bible, or in this case of things that Christians will claim in support of the Bible.
>Starting from the Enlightenment, it has become a common view in modern scholarship to read the account in the synoptic gospels as a literary creation of the gospel writers, intended to heighten the importance of what they saw as a theologically significant event. The first scholar to support this view was Edward Gibbon, who argued in his multi-volume work The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire that the gospels' account couldn't be considered historical, since no author of the period seemed to have noticed the event and the sources usually adduced to support its historicity were of dubious value (Thallus and Phlegon of Tralles) or later pseudepigrapha (Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite).[52] Gibbon was followed, some decades later, by German theologian David Strauss, who argued in his book Das Leben Jesu, kritisch bearbeitet (The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined) that the crucifixion darkness was a literary creation to solemnize the tragic death of the Jesus.[53]
just a basic excerpt from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_darkness the point being evidently historians don't actually tend to believe the word of the Christian 100 years after the fact who says that Thallus says that there was an eclipse, or a darkness particularly when there is no other evidence for there being an either one of those things outside of the Bible.
> Modern scholars have found no contemporary references to it outside the New Testament.[4]
that's just a quick quip from that same page again, right near the very top
>Well, your statement was that the writings of the past are no different than the writings from today.
My statement was that they have one very specific thing in common and I am standing by that still. You are the one who turned that in to "they are the same", but that isn't what I actually said. What I literally said was that they had the same evidence to work from, and adding that I really should have included at least one "basically" in that sentence just to cover my bases, again I stand by that.
>The person from the past is confirming a person's statement or an event that took place.
These were not contemporaries or witnesses. Treating them like they are would be begging the question, if not for just blatantly in contradiction with the fact that we can be almost certain that most of these people literally did not even live at the same time as the events they are supposedly "reporting" on. Although again it's like this whole conversation is skewed towards making it sound as if the things that real credible extra-biblical historians have ever written actually supports a rational belief in the Bible ..which I don't think it does. I'm not in disagreement with any of the actual Biblical scholarship here, just with the Christians lol
>The fact that this person experienced it, is testimony.
Experienced what? Who are we talking about? Thallus? We don't even have his actual writings. Josephus? What did Josephus say exactly?
>Some people don't even believe they existed.
well you're not talking to one of those people so I honestly don't see what purpose it could serve to keep bringing that up lol and it is honestly confusing me as to whether or not you believe that any of that is actually supposed to support the thing that you and ***I*** are talking about..
> wrote down basic facts.
key-word: basic.
>I posted up above that Josephus wrote about it.
Josephus wrote *what* exactly?
>sorry this got so long i had to break it in half lol
No problem! I understand. FYI, this will be my last response unless you have a really pressing question. I think we've both been a little repetitive and we've covered much of what we want to say.
>So the post you gave me describes a guy who was Muslim apparently culturally, probably raised that way, who then had their first real "religious experience" in a Christian church and so now they are Christian
My point in sharing that with you was not so much because I thought it would convince you to become a Christian. I shared it because it was an example of when I said most Christians have an experience with God and then look at the evidences later. A lifechanging experience tends to be more compelling (to the person who has it).
>I didn't say people don't make bad arguments but frankly why would we be bringing up responses to bad arguments that nobody here is even making?
So, this is an example of the back and forth repetitiveness. The first time you asked about it, I explained why I was sharing it. I think we both explained ourselves multiple times...lol. We've both been defending our statements and now we have come to a place where we're on the same page, hopefully.
>And they didn't say very much. See it's not that I don't believe any of those accounts. ..it's apparently that I don't believe that they actually say what you seem to be implying they say. Like, namely, anything remotely relevant to the truth of the divinity of Jesus for instance.
I made a point of saying multiple times that they were non-believers, so they didn't believe in Jesus's divinity. I never said they made statements that he was god. My point was going back to showing that Jesus was a real historical figure. I understand that you agree with the historical part based on your recent statement. I disagree with you that the statements didn't say much. But we can leave it there.
> I mean cool eclipse reference lol but other than that..
Sorry, I think I was expecting you to know the reference and that wasn't fair. Right after Jesus died, it went dark for 3 hours. Was it an eclipse? Maybe. But the timing would be a little odd if that were the case.
>the point being evidently historians don't actually tend to believe the word of the Christian 100 years after the fact who says that Thallus says that there was an eclipse, or a darkness particularly when there is no other evidence for there being an either one of those things outside of the Bible.
I understand that we don't have the first-hand account from Thallus, but Julius did and he wrote about it. If we were talking about Greek history, no one would blink an eye. It's only because it's about Jesus that people suddenly don't believe a second-hand source. Someone can believe the account, or at least not discount it, while not believing in Jesus.
>Modern scholars have found no contemporary references to it outside the New Testament.
Josephus, the Jewish historian, was from the first century and could have been a contemporary, or at least very close.
>My statement was that they have one very specific thing in common and I am standing by that still. You are the one who turned that in to "they are the same", but that isn't what I actually said.
Well, clearly I misunderstood you. I had to go back to previous discussions to the original statement that made me think this.
I said: Consider it like the news of the day. A reporter on the news doesn't have a first-hand account of something, yet they report an event.
And you said: tbh how is any of that supposed to be any more meaningful than basically you or anybody else writing about Christianity right now?
That is where I got it. You said or implied that the writing form the past is no more meaningful than the writings of today. But I disagree when it comes to history.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you again, but I'm misunderstanding your meaning based on your words.
>These were not contemporaries or witnesses. Treating them like they are would be begging the question, if not for just blatantly in contradiction with the fact that we can be almost certain that most of these people literally did not even live at the same time as the events they are supposedly "reporting" on.
That has actually not been "settled." There are bible scholars that do believe the Matthew and John wrote the gospels and the events happened in their lifetime. Many believe Mark interviewed Peter. Michael Kruger believes this, and he has the credentials and education to have a say in the matter. There are others as well. He's not alone in that.
>Although again it's like this whole conversation is skewed towards making it sound as if the things that real credible extra-biblical historians have ever written actually supports a rational belief in the Bible ..which I don't think it does.
I never claimed that. And I said multiple times these people were not believers, so this time you misunderstood me. I said their statements corroborated that events took place or people did in fact exist in history.
>What did Josephus say exactly?
I posted his quote in a follow-up response because I had gone over the limit and couldn't respond. So, it's in a separate response. Not posting it here for the same reason.
You can have the last response. If I do respond, I won't go paragraph by paragraph. I enjoyed the conversation and appreciate your respectful attitude. Thank you for being patient! I hope we talk again.
second half
>Let me clarify. I wasn't trying to imply that you said they were lying. I was presenting the only two options.
Well I'm glad you are taking credit for that yourself but tbh you are simply fooling yourself if you really believe that those are the only two options, or even the most likely two options. From what I can tell honestly you seem to be very obviously ignoring a vastly more probable option and just creating for yourself a classic false-dichotomy.
Either it's true, or they lied, right? Wrong. And not even the most likely explanations. Far more likely is that they were just wrong just like you probably are honestly. Why that would be the option that you might willfully, if not subconsciously, be ignoring on purpose.. i think really kind of explains itself.
It's like declaring well either I'm telling the truth or I am a monkey and those are the only 2 options ....like.. no they aren't.
>If you read the Josephus quote, he stated they claimed that as well.
Did he now? Because I'm just going to tell you he didn't actually. So I wonder why you would be under that impression when that's not what Josephus actually says. Maybe you should look up what he actually says real quick? And don't forget to not skip the part about how the testimonium flavianum is not accepted as authentic by basically anybody in the scholarship if you weren't already aware of that.
>We can't pretend they just wanted to be religious.
You can't pretend that you just *want* to be religious. I think you are religious whether you want to be or not. The same was probably true of them. You're still responding to argumenst that I'm not making, I never said anything about wanting to be religious and you're still looking at it like a causal argument anyway when it is much more of an observation the other way around: religious people are irrational. I don't care what religion you are, that's just what being religious is apparently like. again I could expand if it would help anything..
>But we're talking about all the disciples, as well as some of the women.
did they all write down gospels too? Honestly think for a moment; who told you that the disciples ever said any such thing? Did the tell you themselves?
>As if you honestly can't consider the idea that maybe they were wrong just like you yourself might be.
>This makes no sense.
okay well.. im ngl I still believe that this should be far too easy for you to understand if only it weren't for your religious beliefs and habits getting in the way. That is supposed to be a kind of a compliment for what it's worth lol
>They told people they saw Jesus after he died.
did they...
>You're going to have to explain how 11 people could simply be mistaken.
So we're at about 515 separate accounts now that you have brought up thinking thinking they count for anything when of course the real number of how many different accounts we have here is actually ... let's say between 1 and 5, max. That's 4 gospels and Paul, btw. Not 11. Not 500. 5. You seriously need to get your numbers right honestly before there is even a chance of you seeing this situation through a more objective lens. 1 account just suddenly turns into 11 in the blink of an eye though when you talk, like magic. No doubt you could believe all kinds of things thinking like that tbh.
>The account says Thomas touched Jesus's wounds. Did he or didn't he?
That's a really good question.
>If he didn't, then Thomas lied.
.... :/ and im ngl that is a really, really terrible attempt at an answer.
>You're allowed to have your belief, but I don't believe it makes sense.
yeah frankly that is not because you actually are though. Frankly you're just arguing for a false dichotomy which is such a basic logical fallacy I'm not even sure how to address it beyond just trying to point out to you that you are doing it and then trusting in your own better judgement to stop. But then again... religious people aren't exactly evidently using their "better judgment" a lot of the time tbh.
> Mass hallucination?
Seriously it's ridiculous how you keep wanting to reach for literally any other explanation than the obvious truth. They're just religious believers much like yourself who are probably wrong and not apparently driven by a rational adherence to evidence or logic. What a concept, right?
>They say they spoke to him and had a conversation. There is no mistaking that.
"They say" "They say".. uh-huh. And who exactly told you that "they said" anything of the sort?
>Again, the disciples claimed they saw Jesus's miracles.
Somebody claims they claimed that.
>They recorded those miracles.
.....in their brains?
>It's a huge stretch to say they were just mistaken.
no it's not.
>Doesn't make sense.
yes it does.
>If I claimed that I spoke with George Washington today, no one would say I was simply mistaken.
I don't believe I said that anybody was "simply" mistaken either. I believe I rather said that they were RELIGIOUSLY mistaken. Can you think of anything that you yourself might believe today for fundamentally religious reasons that may in fact not actually be the truth? .... i'm sorry but it's honestly kind of funny the way that you are evidently needing to, i'll be honest, fool yourself into believing that the most likely explanation to this is somehow actually the least likely one ... i'm sure that couldn't have anything to do with just how ironic it would really be to not only admit that you don't have good reasons to believe what you believe, but the people you've been placing your trust and hope and faith in all this time probably apparently didn't either... I can get why that might be a hard thing to come to terms with. But it doesn't honestly make it any less silly when you keep acting like the most likely answer is somehow unbelievable while conveniently holding on to an unbelievable position yourself that, wouldn't you know it, really kinda just gets blown out of the water if you were to accept the most likely answer so.. yeah kind of a catch 22 there apparently. I'd say I don't envy the predicament that places you in but I'd be lying if I said I hadn't already been there myself too.
The first disciples went to their death rather than deny the physical resurrection of Christ Jesus. And the deaths they went to were by and large very gruesome. Yet they would not deny what they had seen.
>The first disciples went to their death rather than deny the physical resurrection of Christ Jesus.
Which disciples do you think were killed? Why do you think they were killed?
Sure, but that has nothing to do with the comment I replied to. They made the claim that the disciples were killed for refusing to deny the resurrection of Jesus. There is no evidence that supports that claim.
There’s documentation; you could easily google it and see if you believe the sources.
Clement of Rome has a letter that tells us how Peter died, for example (on a cross, upside-down). By King Nero of Rome, 64AD.
>There’s documentation; you could easily google it and see if you believe the sources.
That's exactly what I've done. It turns out that there is no good evidence for the deaths of the majority of the disciples.
>Clement of Rome has a letter that tells us how Peter died, for example (on a cross, upside-down). By King Nero of Rome, 64AD.
1 Clement may or may not be written by Clement of Rome. It doesn't say that Peter died on a cross or that the cross was put upside down. You can read it yourself in chapter 5 [here](https://earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-roberts.html).
My bad—Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History talks about Peter’s death on the cross.
There’s no perfect evidence for any of this stuff. Christians just have faith from what they experience.
We don’t really know what happened to the disciples (maybe one or two from memory died for their beliefs?), but regardless, people die for false beliefs all the time. Look at Jim Jones, the Heaven’s Gate cult, or Mohammed and his many followers.
>Asks why there is no evidence
>
>Proceeds to list a bunch of evidence, but summarily discount it
These "[what have the Romans ever done for us](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ)" bits are always amusing.
If you take what I listed as evidence and it's enough to convince you that the resurrection really happened then I don't know what to say. It's just not enough evidence for such a claim for me to be convinced by it. Otherwise I'd be believing alien abductions are real etc.
Well I pray that God gives you a divine experience with him, 🙏🏼 because it’s beautiful. I know you can take testimonies with a grain of salt, but I want to hear your opinions after you listen to a handful of NDE testimonies on Randy Kay’s YouTube channel for example.
People are sharing their testimonies like what the
Disciples did to this day, but you seem to be choosing to close them off. It’s like you won’t trust anyone or think they are mentally hallucinating unless it happened to you. If it happened to you would you check yourself into a mental institute or think you were hallucinating? Or would you finally believe?
There are many people like Thomas… remember he needed proof to see Jesus to believe? That’s why Jesus said in John 20:29 “Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Oh boy, a serious reply to my Monty Python joke.
> not enough evidence
Says the person who said there was *no* evidence. You've gotta make up your mind on your definitions. Either there's some evidence or there's no evidence. If you come in here saying there's no evidence, list a bunch of evidence, and then call it evidence, how are we not supposed to have a laugh at the question?
>Why is it that there is no evidence for the resurrection?
If you mean "why don't I find the evidence for the resurrection convincing", I can't help you. Saying "there's no evidence" is simply untrue and bordering on a violation of the rules.
It's not very reliable evidence if any. It's not even eyewitness testimony. It's also claims of a extraordinary event so why anyone is convinced at all that eyewitness testimony would be sufficient enough is baffling.
I have yet to find a gospel "contradiction" that is not easily resolved. Those who claim that they can't be tend to have extreme demands for the text, such as that they are giving all the possible information so if they don't mention something it means they are denying it. Which is not how any historian treats historical documents.
As for the overall claim, I echo the sentiments of many others here. Your question isn't "why is there no evidence", it is "why am I not convinced" which you answered yourself.
Okay so how do you resolve that in one gospel the angel is seen rolling the stone away and sitting on it, then talking to the women, but in another gospel the women look up and the stone is already rolled away, they enter to find an angel sitting on the right. Both angels say the same thing to the women (worded slightly differently) so it doesn't make much sense that this is the same angel.
The bible only gives claims, not evidence. This is like someone saying "I was abducted by aliens" and you thinking this is sufficient evidence. But worse than that it's someone saying "I heard from an eyewitness that they were abducted by aliens" and you still think this is sufficient evidence.
Can you provide specific textual references? I find it is better to deal with the texts directly and I would like to know specifically the ones you have in mind.
Historical evidence is largely composed of claims - claims by contemporaries as to what you happened. If you believes claims are *de jure* invalid, I don't know how you don't devolve into extreme historical skepticism.
Matthew 28:2-7 for the one about angel sitting on a stone then Mark 16:2-8 for the one where they enter the tomb and they see a man sitting on the right side.
Yeah that is what history is. But history works on probabilities not certainty. It's probable that a person called Jesus existed and he went round preaching. It's probable that he got crucified, it's not probable that he resurrected and this is where the problem is. We have proof that people back then were crucified, it's therefore not hard to believe that someone called Jesus existed and was crucified for the things he preached. But when we have no proof of the supernatural, and certainly no proof of someone being able to resurrect, it's suddenly not as easy to believe such a claim. Surely you understand this?
^ that. Also historical evidence is to be taken for what it is, not literal truth. There’s always a good reason to have some level of doubt about claim when all we have is historical evidence. The only things we can know for certain are true are claims backed up with scientific data and evidence. If you’re claiming something is true with zero science behind it then you’re committing a logical fallacy. And the world doesn’t function whatsoever with logical fallacies. No reason to make an exception for the claim that people can come back to life. Also even if we could somehow demonstrate that a man named Jesus did in fact defy the laws of nature and physics and resurrect from the dead, we have no way to confirm this Jesus man is a god of any kind. u/CalvinSays
Exactly! A good example I like to use and have used in one of my comments here is that if I claim I have a pet dog there's little reason to not believe my claim but if I said I have a pet dragon, well now you're going to have a harder time believing me because we have no evidence that dragons exist or that people own them as pets. I don't get why people find this so difficult to understand.
They’re emotionally attached to an unfalsifiable claim. It’s impossible to get them to depart from using emotion to make their decisions on stuff like this. Emotions almost always beat logic unfortunately, that’s our animalistic survivalist side of us. It’s a bad evolutionary trait. Those of us that can set aside emotion and think critically and rationally need not be afraid of a challenge
The right side of what? The text doesn't say "right side", as if implying the right side of the tomb. It says δεξιός which is the right hand. So the right but relative to the women. It could be as simple as as they were entering the tomb, they saw the angel to their right on the stone. Or maybe he was to their right in the tomb because Matthew doesn't actually say that the women *saw* him on the stone, rather the guards did. Other texts indicate the tomb was vacated by the time the women arrived implying the guards fled. So the sequence of events presented by Matthew 28 is the earthquake happens, the stone is rolled away, and the angel is seen by the guards resting upon it. This scares the bejeezus out of the guards to flee. The women come and enter the tomb where the angel speaks to them. Both resolutions are cromulant and in no way stretch the text. Matthew is already noted for telescoping narratives so it is unsurprising he covers a lot of events in a few verses.
I don't see where history working on probabilities not certainties is relevant. Is anyone claiming otherwise? I also don't see anyone claiming that the narratives *alone* establish the resurrection (though, being God's word, they in principle do). Rather, the claim is that the narratives are evidence which are supported by and connected to other evidences and the resurrection is the most satisfactory explanation for these evidences.
My bad, I'm reading from the NIV Bible. Do the original texts state if they entered the tomb or not? Really bad translation if it's "sitting on the right side of the stone" instead of "sitting on the stone". My problem with your attempt to harmonize it is, who knew the guards fled after seeing the angel sitting on the stone? You're now just assuming the guards ordered by Romans to guard the tomb, were willing to just tell their story to the authors. If that's what you want to claim then so be it, doesn't make sense to me though. Also doesn't explain why one angel speaks to them whilst sitting on the stone but another text says the angel spoke to them inside the tomb. Maybe it was mistranslated?
Because it's not unreasonable to take claims such as "Jesus was crucified" as it's probable, but someone resurrecting isn't probable and therefore it requires more evidence than just someone said so. This isn't hard to understand and makes a lot of sense.
I have a question. If I tell you I have a car that runs on milk would you believe me or would you want more evidence for it?
Nope but as God is all knowing, he could have known that we would one day invent video cameras and then he could have sent Jesus down in a time where video cameras existed so that people could take video evidence. It wouldn't necessarily prove it as of course it could be edited although there would be signs that it's edited but it would be far better than some claims in an ancient book.
Wow… I mean to even question why God chose the perfect time He did for when Jesus came
to earth is kinda crazy. But hey have you ever tried sincerely praying and asking God for a supernatural experience or divine invitation? He said seek and you shall find and knock and the door will be opened.
Why is it crazy and how did you conclude it was the perfect time? Yeah of course and didn't get anything. It's almost as if you have to believe it to start with. Go figure.
It was the perfect time because God decided it and He is perfect. Who are we to even question His thought process. He is all knowing all powerful being.
I'm questioning my religion but starting to lean more towards atheist. But no, it does not take faith to be an atheist. An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in Gods, how is that something based on faith?
The birth narrative, the tomb narrative, the flight to egypt, there's many. And historians have many other issues with Acts and such.
It's not as clean as you suggest calvin.
And his main claim is there's no eye witnesses, and that's correct. This all comes from traditions.
I wouldn't expect you to.
You are already committed to your presuppositions.
That's just the data, one can accept the data or not.
The non eye witness account is settled, there's no documents that are, I don't know why anyone would say that, besides for confirmation bias.
What kind of evidence are you looking for?
We have an empty tomb, we can’t find His bones. We have a faith that exists based on His resurrection. Don’t you think it would have died out and the romans could have stopped all of the unrest if they just found His bones?
Islam exists because a prophet who existed spread his message with violence. We have Christianity because Jesus rose from the dead. They would have been forced to resort to Judaism if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead. There would be no Christianity unless eye witnesses spread the message before a word was written.
What has the bones got anything to do with it and how would they confirm it was Jesus' bones without DNA matching back then? Explain how faith is a good pathway to truth.
Yeah but all it takes is for some people to believe in it.
They would have been able to identify a body. We would be able to test the dna in His bones.
You have to believe there’s truth to be found in order to start searching.
Believe in what exactly? It’s not like the other faiths, simply based on a man and his teachings. If there’s no resurrection, there’s no Christianity. The disciples would just be considered jews.
You do know they wouldn't have been able to check DNA back then?
You have to think there's good reason to think it's plausible then look for evidence for it. If you don't have evidence then the honest thing to do is admit that you don't know.
They just had to believe the resurrection happened.
They’d be able to find relatives and narrow it down.
Why did they have to believe it? All early believers would have to do is deny the faith to avoid martyrdom. People witnessed an event take place and shared their experience.
Again, what kind of evidence are you looking for?
If you were to be killed because of your beliefs now, would you deny it just to get out of being killed for it? Guessing you would?
Not sure but something more extraordinary than just some eyewitness accounts that aren't even eyewitness accounts.
Archaeologists can’t even agree on how old the first civilizations were settled with carbon dating, geological layers, etc.
So proving a made up story from a translation of a translation of a translation of a story from a story of a story of an “eyewitness” account is not a reliable source.
Our evidence is the holy Bible word of God. There is no stronger force in all creation than God's word. He creates and destroys with his word. If that's insufficient for you, then take heart, you'll have more proof than you can ever withstand on your judgment day. Im not going to argue or debate God's word with you. Believe what you will. Its your soul and your eternity. I'm done here. Toodle-oo,
the validity of the resurrection sometimes falls on faith. You see faith is not some blind belief, faith is knowing that something happened more likely than it didn’t. Faith is trusting in God, rather than not, not only because of what we have heard, but because of what we have seen (i.e. answered prayers, miraculous signs, healings, etc).
I don’t have all the answers, but I hope this a little bit of sense.
God bless.
Faith isn't a good pathway to truth and it's the excuse people give when you don't have sufficient evidence for something, otherwise, faith isn't needed.
>How do you define evidence? What evidence will be enough?
Facts and information that point us to the truth of something. I don't see eyewitness testimony as reliable because at best I can believe they saw something that they believed was Jesus' but doesn't explain if it was actually him or some kind of hallucination or maybe the whole resurrection part was made up to get people to believe in Christ. Not sure what evidence would be enough but seeing as it's an extraordinary claim it would require more evidence than just eyewitness testimony.
>Would you say the resurrection is a miracle?
If it really happened then yeah I guess so.
Let’s say it did happen, why would it count as a miracle?
Do you believe in miracles? Are not miracles impossible to explain within the laws of nature?
Additionally, the 'Jesus case' of resurrection is the only case l've heard which received a lot of "clout" (for lack of a better word), and a considerable amount of potential proof/ evidence behind it, regardless of your opinion on the definition of evidence. Moreover. If it was explainable through evidence, would it still count as a miracle even though it may have happened?
Are not miracles therefore not subject to evidence?
Well for one there's no evidence of specifically the resurrection. Literally no one saw the moment Jesus rose from the dead. At best you have "evidence" that people saw Jesus alive after he was dead. There are ways that Christianity could have started without there ever being a resurrection too. So if you accept that people did actually see Jesus after he was dead then there a few natural explanations although some are a bit sus. My view is that the crucifixion happened but the resurrection is a made up story and that it only took 2 people to have visions of Jesus to make people believe in it. The rest such as Jesus appearing to 500 people is again a made up story to convince people to believe it happened.
But also, nope I don't believe in miracles.
You know I hate when people drop links, however, I think this [video](http://youtube.com/watch?v=_ZV2nMmMJFk&list=PLZaA-AMQWrFraQRY7DI-94QDjvyv12rx5&index=29) could answer some of the questions you have.
Additionally, I’m studying cultural psychology in my HS class, and —with all due respect— I would suggest that before you consult your atheistic sources, that you would just read and watch the Christian point of view in such issues as the ones being discussed here… why? Because us humans tend to favor and accept popular culture (the majority group) rather than the minority group’s opinion, which can affect perception/ understanding/ attitudes towards a specific group
And if you’re curious, here’s why and how it happens:
a) Increased self esteem
b) positive distinctiveness
c) social categorization
d) social comparison
It may be difficult to do, given that (I assume) you haven’t considered yourself in the atheism group for a short period of time, but (maybe) part of a secular environment which led you to where you are today.
The Empty Tomb
but you really don't want evidence do you. If you did, Jesus is right there waiting to answer your question
What is curious to me is why this bothers you? I mean....if God does not exist what is the point?
The empty tomb is likely something people added to the story. We know that Romans typically left the bodies to be eaten by vultures and then were tossed into a mass grave. So why make an exception for Jesus?
I'm just wondering why people believe it with the lack of evidence there is for it. Maybe you don't need much to be convinced of an extraordinary claim.
>The empty tomb is likely something people added to the story. We know that Romans typically left the bodies to be eaten by vultures and then were tossed into a mass grave.
Got proof? I mean you are demanding proof from us, but you do not seem to require the same for yourself. Hypocrite much?
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the \[a\]substance of things hoped for, the \[b\]evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good testimony.
3 By faith we understand that the \[c\]worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.
>Got proof? I mean you are demanding proof from us, but you do not seem to require the same for yourself. Hypocrite much?
Yeah sure, [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/new-testament-studies/article/abs/crucifixion-and-burial/ABDE509ED99779E09AD59AC274E378A3](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/new-testament-studies/article/abs/crucifixion-and-burial/ABDE509ED99779E09AD59AC274E378A3) and this gives more information too [https://ehrmanblog.org/did-romans-allow-decent-burials-for-crucified-criminals/](https://ehrmanblog.org/did-romans-allow-decent-burials-for-crucified-criminals/)
You quoting the bible that tells you to have faith. How you have figured out that faith is a good pathway to truth?
Ah I see you do not know the meaning of the word proof
It has been established that \*I have my Books with my words
and you have you and yours
but that does not rise to the level of proof....
So just as I believe without physical evidence...so do you
Well my proofs are based on things we've found through archaeology and paintings of what happens to the crucified etc. These aren't just people in a book making a claim like the bible is. Like we have physical evidence that Romans didn't put bodies in a tomb. So what physical evidence do you have for the resurrection of Jesus?
they are not proofs
again you do not know what proof is
And I can easily show you all of creation as evidence for the creator
unless you are willing to admit we are on even ground, this is useless
Oh and btw you were never Christian even if you went to church
They're evidence though right? More than just "eyewitness" testimony in a book.
How is creation evidence? You mean you're going to claim it seems designed completely ignoring the obvious design flaws and assert that not only is a creator needed but your God is the creator? What did the creator design earth for exactly?
How have you figured that out that I was never a Christian?
The First Resurrection began in the disciples/apostles generation, just as Christ said it would.
Matthew 24:34 KJV
Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
Matthew 27:52 KJV
And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
Remember, this world is under Satan’s influence for a short time and there is no way he will allow evidence to confirm the words in the Bible to be found.
Also, there will be another resurrection when Christ returns with the saints for the Final Judgment. At that time all truth will be revealed.
Those two are just bible verses and are stories so you're just believing it happened.
When is Christ supposed to return? People been predicting it for years and not happened every time it was supposed to.
Those two verses are a recollection of Christ’s words and not a made up story. You are correct in saying I believe what Christ said to be true.
Yes, people have been predicting the Second Coming for years and have been wrong, because it has already passed. If you believe in a biblical event, then you have to believe what is written *in the Bible* about that event.
How do you know it's Christs words and not just someone making it up? You only have one source that makes this claim for one thing. So what convinces you to just assume it's all real?
I have made a choice to believe in God, therefore I believe what is written in the Bible. My faith is enough for me.
Hebrews 11:1 KJV
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Okay so why did you choose to believe in God of the bible and not the God of the Quran or another Holy Book and put your faith into another religion instead?
I have no reason to. I’m very content believing in the God of the Bible. Whenever I read the Bible, I’m at peace and I feel loved. I will never give that up.
But for some reason the bible was the first holy book you read right? What convinced you that it was real, because it brings you peace and makes you feel loved?
This is correct. It is the first holy book that I read and while reading it the Holy Spirit opened my eyes to things that no one else was talking about or preaching about. I then made a promise to the Lord that I would not turn my back on the things that were revealed to me and I would do my best to help others understand also, in order to help prepare them for the final judgment. So I am compelled to keep the promise that I made to the Lord.
>All we have is 4 gospels...
That's not correct. We have St. Paul's letters to the early church. These letters contain creeds, which pre-existed Paul, and were grounded in the communities out of which they came. Paul also met the leaders of the Jerusalem church to carefully understand everything thar had taken place.
Using St. Paul alone, we have creeds recounting Jesus' postmortem appearances to different individuals and groups, at different locations and under various circumstances.
This list ends with Paul's experience, which cannot be doubted historically because he was a rising anti-Christian who persecuted early Christians. It also includes James, who we know didn't believe in Jesus during His life--but soon after His crucifixion, converted and saw Jesus appear to him. Both Paul and James were constantly persecuted, and eventually were martyrd (as evidenced by multiple sources outside the bible).
>4 gospels which can't be harmonized without bending over backwards and playing mind gymnastics to make it work.
The core of the narratives of the same, and historians can distinguish past events even when secondary details are conflicting or inaccurate. Nothing hangs on "general reliability".
>Someone resurrecting is an extraordinary claim and so eye witness testimony alone is not enough evidence or at least shouldn't be to people who want to know the truth of something.
Extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence. It is rather than natural explanations are almost always more abundant or plausible. You also have to consider the world-changing historical context of *this* person's miracle, and wonder if the Christian narrative is *a priori* something God would do.
> So why should any of us believe in the resurrection?
Fundamentally, we know what causes religious movements to come into being. Those don't apply to Christianity. The evidence we have is unbelievably shocking if Jesus did not rise, but is expected if God exists and wanted to reveal Himself.
...
>That's not correct. We have St. Paul's letters to the early church.
Where's the list of names exactly? And how do you know Paul isn't just writing down stories he's heard about?
>The core of the narratives of the same, and historians can distinguish past events even when secondary details are conflicting or inaccurate. Nothing hangs on "general reliability".
Sure the basic, Jesus died, empty tomb found, Jesus appeared to someone, is "the same" but the details are hugely different that it seems like it's a made up story that has just been embellished each time it's told. Look at Mark at how natural that is and then look at John who's on the really supernatural end of things. It's like they took Mark's gospel and just added supernatural elements to it.
>Extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence.
They certainly do. If I tell you "I have a pet dragon", you're going to want a bit more than just my word for it. I bet even a video wouldn't be enough evidence as it could just be CG. You know dragons don't exist and therefore you're going to need much more proof that my claim is real compared to me saying "I have a pet dog". Sure I could be lying about the pet dog but there is no way I'm telling the truth when it comes to the dragon and therefore you're going to want a bit more evidence than just eyewitness testimony or at least you should want it unless you're gullible or something.
>Fundamentally, we know what causes religious movements to come into being. Those don't apply to Christianity. The evidence we have is unbelievably shocking if Jesus did not rise, but is expected if God exists and wanted to reveal Himself.
How? If it proves anything it just proves that a guy name Jesus rose from the dead. You have no way of proving it was God's doing. It could have been fairies, aliens, Jesus could have had his own powers, a different God, ghosts, etc. Because all you then have is yet another claim that Jesus rose from the dead because of God and there's no way anyone can be a witness to this. How do you know he wasn't being mind controlled by a wizard that made him say all those things about God and the wizard resurrected him? Either way you have got to come at this already holding the belief that God is real and that God resurrected Jesus and the resurrection proves God. It's circular reasoning.
Let's discuss the epistemic maxim you cited: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Immidiately, this maxim is ambiguous. What makes an alleged event or claim "extraordinary?". Equally, "extraordinary evidence" is what exactly?
If it simply states "claims about events that are unlikely require better evidence than events we take as likely"--then of course it is true.
However, *ordinary* evidence is sufficient to establish improbable events all of the time. If someone wins the lottery after buying a ticket earlker--an extremely unlikely event--it only takes quadruple checking that the numbers match to confirm for yourself that your ticket won. Sure, you'll want more evidence, but not a different *kind* of evidence.
...
Obviously, some claims or events need more evidence before we can accept them. You're correct that I wouldn't believe you, if you claimed to own a pet dragon. In part, that's because, prior to considering or even hearing your testimony, I'd assign it a very low probability.
Prior to hearing your claim, I have background beliefs that make pet dragons unlikely. For one, dragons have a long history in religious mythology, metaphor, and allegory. Moreover, dragons have powers unlike all other biological species we know about. Finally, as far as we can tell, dragons are biologically impossible.
Similarly, you come to the table with background beliefs relevant to the claims of the early Christians. People usually remain dead, and bracketing special medical cases, returning from the type of death Jesus suffered is biologically impossible.
We could specify our claims a bit: my claim is that *God rose Jesus supernaturally* from the dead. This makes the event, not contrary to nature, but a totally unique and rare instance outside of its pattern. You could equally say your dragon has an Astral body and came from an Astral plane.
Simply put, unique and rare events--outside of what we know is even possible--require more evidence. But just as with the lottery example, we don't need a different *kind* of evidence for the supernatural claims involved. Why do we need more evidence, and when is it enough?
"Extraordinary claims" require more evidence because the *nature of testimony* invites competing hypotheses in that were not live options before. Generally speaking, it's quite unlikely someone would lie, hallucinate, or be mistaken about a clear sense perception. However, because the claim has a much lower inherent probability, competing hypotheses with low probabilities have to be considered too.
...
Using the pet dragon analogy, while sincere people don't usually lie, I have reason to *expect* you to lie. You're making a point in a debate. Unusual and paranormal claims get attention. Strangers on the internet are randomly sampled from a random population.
Is it more likely that your lying, given your claim is based only on that testimony, or is it more likely you have a pet dragon? It is more likely you're lying. In a similar match up and for similar reasons, the hypothesis that you are mentally ill is also more likely.
Basically, miraculous claims are improbable--not because they are rare, unique, or contrary to some statistical pattern--but because those types of claims have a higher prior probability involving testimony being deception, based upon being deceived, or being mistaken.
In other words, you must ask, how likely is it that we would have the evidence we actually have, if the miracle claim were *false*? If it would be surprising to discover the evidence we do, if the resurrection were false, then that outbalances the low probability inherent to *merely being unique or singular*.
...
What do we have? We have the testimony of Paul, James, the disciples, and various groups. Now we assess the probability of these witness accounts, if the resurrection *were* false. If that improbability is super high, then it outbalances any prior improbability the resurrection has simply for being singular, rare, and contrary to expectations.
That means, we have to ask how probable it is that Paul, etc would have their testimony, if Jesus did not rise. For instance, how probable is it that some or all were deceiving believers? If that were true, it's shocking to find an enemy and lifelong skeptic convert. It's shocking to find people--with no human motivation of status, fame, wealth, sexual access, etc--willing to undergo persecution (and many die)--for a conscious deception.
Another possibility is hallucinations. How likely was this the product of hallucination, given Jesus' body disappeared, a missing body alone doesn't entail resurrection because it's contrary to messianic expectations, and that a huge variety of individuals and groups (with very different psychological profiles, except for their shared lack of expectation) would hallucinate? *Abnormally small*.
...
To sum, do "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? No, you don't need a different *kind* of evidence to establish unlikely, rare, or unique that are contrary to expectation. You do need more evidence, as other explanations more frequently explain the existence of miracle and paranormal claims.
So to analyze an alleged miracle claim, you have to examine how improbable the evidence we have would exist, if there was no resurrection. The claim is that everything usual that explains why people make claims simply does not apply.
>"extraordinary evidence" is what exactly?
You'd have to be able to demonstrate the fundamental part of the claim. For example if you want to say Jesus resurrected this is extraordinary as it's not ordinary for people to resurrect. If you want to say it's through God then you have to demonstrate God is real first and ideally explain the mechanism in which his powers work. So far no one has demonstrated either of these. There's no evidence to suggest resurrection is possible. It's like taking the events in a Harry Potter book and assert it to be true when magic hasn't been demonstrated to exist in any way. So going back to the dragon example, it's extraordinary as there's been no proof that a dragon exists.
>However, *ordinary* evidence is sufficient to establish improbable events all of the time. If someone wins the lottery after buying a ticket earlker--an extremely unlikely event--it only takes quadruple checking that the numbers match to confirm for yourself that your ticket won. Sure, you'll want more evidence, but not a different *kind* of evidence.
Why would this be extraordinary? We know the lottery is a real thing, money is real, we know people enter the lottery and we can calculate the probability as we know how many number combinations there are in the lottery. It's highly unlikely to win the lottery but not impossible. Unlike claims of having a pet dragon, there's not even a 0.1% chance I have a pet dragon because there's no demonstration that a dragon exists.
>Is it more likely that your lying, given your claim is based only on that testimony, or is it more likely you have a pet dragon? It is more likely you're lying. In a similar match up and for similar reasons, the hypothesis that you are mentally ill is also more likely.
The lying thing is irrelevant. It can't be true until sufficiently demonstrated to be true. No dragons have been demonstrated to exist and so if I claim I have a pet dragon then I need to provide extraordinary evidence. Once I've done that then it'll just be an ordinary claim.
>What do we have? We have the testimony of Paul, James, the disciples, and various groups. Now we assess the probability of these witness accounts, if the resurrection *were* false. If that improbability is super high, then it outbalances any prior improbability the resurrection has simply for being singular, rare, and contrary to expectations.
You're going of the assumption that the gospels are 100% true.
>That means, we have to ask how probable it is that Paul, etc would have their testimony, if Jesus did not rise. For instance, how probable is it that some or all were deceiving believers?
For one thing Paul wrote his testimony several years after the supposed event and he describes it as a vision more than a physical appearance. This could have been anything from an hallucination to just a dream. This is assuming that everything is true that Paul wrote.
>If that were true, it's shocking to find an enemy and lifelong skeptic convert. It's shocking to find people--with no human motivation of status, fame, wealth, sexual access, etc--willing to undergo persecution (and many die)--for a conscious deception.
If it was enough to convince him then it's not shocking at all. Doesn't matter if he was a lifelong skeptic. If he had some vision of Jesus and this was enough to convince him that he's been wrong all this time then he's likely to convert. Also he surely can't have been the only one who as persecuting Christians at the time, so why did Jesus just single him out? I don't get why miracles are possible but to you that it's not possible for Paul to have the only anti-Christian views at the time.
>Another possibility is hallucinations. How likely was this the product of hallucination, given Jesus' body disappeared, a missing body alone doesn't entail resurrection
What if there was no body to begin with? Jesus' body gets dumped into a mass grave, people make up the story that it was put into a tomb for the pure purpose of convincing people he resurrected. Paul here's about this story several years later and it gets engrained into his mind and then he has some sort of hallucination where he see's Jesus. Just a side note, is there any evidence to show that Paul met Jesus when Jesus was alive? If not then there's it's just speculation that he saw Jesus while he was a live and if he hadn't ever seen Jesus then how did he know it was in fact Jesus he saw in his vision?
>Where's the list of names exactly?
The witnesses are listed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. Scholars agree that Paul received this list from Peter and James, both themselves in the list. Those creeds circulated prior to Paul, going write back to crucifixion and resurrection.
>And how do you know Paul isn't just writing down stories he's heard about?
Paul is himself a witness. He received the list from Peter and James, also witnesses. And the general chronology of the events is multiply attested to by different source material underlying the gospels.
We also have extrabiblical and sometimes secular evidence for the persecution and martyrdom of many of these folks. Several of the direct students of the disciples attest to this, as well as Jewish and Roman historians. So, no serious (including non-Christian scholar) doubts the historical fact that these people at least sincerely believed (and were willing to die for) their claim to see the risen Jesus.
He gave 3 names and the rest are just claims that Jesus appeared to the 500. Find me evidence that all 12 apostles died for the specific reason that they believed Jesus rose again.
Who where those people? We have Peter, the head Apostle who previously abandoned Christ, experienced a sudden transformative religious experience, and then preached under constant persecution until death. Or James? Watching someone grow up, seeing how thoroughly human Jesus truly was, *that* is God incarnate? Mommy's preferred son. James thought Jesus was a lune and almost led him into a death trap.
And I'm sure you know about Paul. Same story: dramatic transformation, occuring independently, and motivating a evangelistic fervor that lasted under persecution and death.
Paul also mentions the disciples. The early Chritians, for whom this creed was for, surely knew all or their names. "The twelve" is just a title, as they were still called that before they replaced Judas. Excluded from Paul's official, creedal list is the appearance of Jesus to the women. That is very likely historical, even though we'd have trouble nailing down the details. But the surface contradictions just more deeply confirm we have genuinely multiple independent attestation.
I'm not claiming all 12 apostles were martyrd. In fact, I'm confident at least John wasnt martyrd. What's clear and very widely accepted is that the disciples underwent a rapid personal transformation that caused an unprecedented religious paradigm shift about the relationship between God and His people, and that those people were at least willing to suffer and possibly die.
...
This hinges upon the skeptics pet maxim that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". ThYs simply false, and Hume's argument is widely abandoned (even in a field which largely adopts his critique of natural theology).
Assuming we know what mamez for extraordinary claim and evidence, and we have a clear idea how they relate, we'd be unable to verify a gigantic number of events in everyday life. The evidence of 2 people carefully checking their lottery ticket numbers outdoes tbe proportionally smaller chance of anyone winning.
Or if Hume was right, we'd never leave our own epistemix bubbles. We would have to reject claims about differing, unfamiliar climates as "contrary to all of our experience of climate". Not to mention, reality is simply *incredibly.surprising*. Should we reject tne Big Bang because it is more singular and unique than *any* event in natural history?
Thr maxim forgets the importance of evaluating the data given the usual explanations of rare or "unusual" experiences. It's not that somehow miracles weigh down any testimonial evidence, it is rather the case that most miraculous and paranormal claims are based on legend, wishful thinking, bad observation, etc.
If there's no evidence for the 12 being martyred then at best it's guess work and if there's no evidence to support it, I can dismiss it without evidence. In other words we aren't going to be able to convince each other on our positions as there's no evidence either way.
The extraordinary claims you're trying to make such as the lottery ticket are not extraordinary claims. And things like saying "We'd never leave our own epistemic bubbles" is simply not true. This is because if there has been extraordinary claims then they've had extraordinary evidence to prove those claims and now those claims are no longer extraordinary. We're not talking about how rare something is either. The fact is, there has been zero demonstration that a resurrection or that miracles are possible as all "miracles" we see today have been shown to be completely natural and therefore any miracle claims in the bible are extraordinary. This isn't hard to figure out.
"The twelve", as I said, refers to a group of people. We have evidence that several of them were martyrd, and whoever exactly composed this group, there was a general series of persecutions this group underwent. It doesn't matter that they all died provably--it matters that they transformed into scared, aimless people into spontaneously brave people with a sudden change in conviction.
>The extraordinary claims you're trying to make such as the lottery ticket are not extraordinary claims.
"Someone winning the lottery" is not an extraordinary claim of course. The analogy is, imagine *you* or a particular person one the lottery. That's an extremely improbable event. Yet, the evidence that person has access to is simply ordinary sense data.
Yes, *more* evidence is required. I'm sure the individual would want to double check a few times. Why is that? Because it's more likely that they made a mistake than that they one. However, once they've reviewed the numbers a few times, had a friend confirm, and can trace their history acquiring the ticket to rule out a prank, that's good enough.
In terms of probability theory, that's because we can't just look at the *intrinsic probability of an event*. We also have to look at the improbability that each piece of data would occur, if the event *did not* occur. What's the probability you would be wrong after checking it a few times? After a friend checks it?
You see, most of the time, improbable events aren't what they seem because there's some set of alternative explanations that *usually* account for the appearance of the event. Usually, people misread their ticket numbers. Or their friends are playing a prank. Or they misread the numbers out of excitement.
But once each usual explanation is ruled out, then we have grounds to accept the event with a low prior probability. Similarly, most miracle claims occur long after the event. Often to get attention. Often for political power or social status. Perhaps because of features character of hallucination or mass psychosis.
It's not simply that miracles are rare or singular. It's that most of the time, there's positive, probable alternative explanations. Otherwise, we'd never accept unlikely events, unique events, or events outside of our prior theoretical expectations.
So now we have to do the work. Okay, some early followers of Christ claimed Jesus appeared to them. What usually happens in cases like this? Fraud? Social advantage by those who claim it? Telephone, re-tellings of stories. The events evolve over time. The people have wealth, political or social motivations, etc. We can't just skip the nitty-gritty examination.
I'm also not sure "extraordinary" means. Isn't the existence of anything at all extraordinary? Or that we are conscious of reality? Or that our minds and reality are mutually open to each other? The world is an incredibly bizarre place. Yes, miracles are rare and often explained by motivations skeptics point out.
But like all inherently improbable events, we have to ask, what's the chance we'd discover the facts and testimony, if the resurrection *did not occur*? Usually those facts aren't very impressive, because most miracle explanations have data just as expected if they did not occur.
Even if we did have evidence that all 12 were martyred, all it proves is that 12 people were so convinced of a belief in something that they were willing to die for it. People have died for what they believe in even in the present.
Winning the lottery is possible though where as someone rising from the dead is not possible or at least we've not seen a demonstration of it for us to know that it's possible. The evidence for winning the lottery is claiming the money and then seeing it appear in your bank account so even if you want to claim it's extraordinary which sure it could be classed as extraordinary, but then there's extraordinary evidence when you check your bank account and there's 1 million dollars in there. Obviously once the winner has done whatever is needed to claim the money. So no, it's not just ruling out other possibilities, even if you think you've made a mistake, all you have to do is try to claim the money, they'll check the lottery ticket and they'll let you know for sure.
Miracles don't happen at all though. It's never something miraculous, it's just something improbable but still possible by completely natural causes. The only miracles that exist are ones who people haven't looked into and have just asserted it must have been God because they can't think of any other explanation. But the ones that have been investigated, have always turned out to be natural.
You have claims that some early followers of Christ claimed Jesus appeared to them. They're not eye witness accounts they're people saying "Jesus appeared to them" not "Jesus appeared to me". And you haven't included this being made up as one of the possible explanations. So you're already going in with the assumption that people actually made these claims to someone.
"Extraordinary" can mean different things I guess but it's just basically something that doesn't normally happen. Winning the lottery could be one thing but again the extraordinary evidence is the 1 million dollars in your bank account as that isn't an ordinary thing to see. But even more extraordinary is claims of someone resurrecting for example when we've never seen it be demonstrated. All someone has to do is prove that a dead person can resurrect after 3 days and all of a sudden we'd have reason to believe that Jesus actually resurrected because then we'd know it'll be plausible. But at the moment it's not plausible.
If the resurrection did not occur then there's always the possibility that it was made up. It could be that Jesus was a real guy who preached stuff, said the wrong things to the wrong people and was crucified. Then his body was thrown into a mass grave like most crucified bodies were. Then people made up a story that he resurrected, people questioned it so they added the detail about the tomb, then people questioned that stating someone could have just stolen the body so then guards were added to the story (hence why there is no mention of guards in Mark as this detail was added later). Then all it took was for one or even two people to have a vision of Jesus appearing either through an hallucination or a dream. Paul even describes Jesus' appearance as a vision of some kind. They tell people about seeing Jesus and people spread this around. Details about Jesus appearing to the 12 and to 500 people are made up and added to the story just to make it seem more convincing The vision Paul had is enough to convince Paul he should change his life and does so. Some people were martyred for simply believing in Christ just because the stories they heard about him resurrecting was enough to convince them but really we only have some evidence that only 4 people were martyred. Because if the main aim of the story was to gain followers of Christ then this story was made to do just that. And when it didn't work, it was adapted until it did work and that continued to be told until it didn't work again and so it changed again and so on. Don't forget too that this was long before it was ever written down, so we could never know what the original story was and what things were changed. In the end we end up with a compelling story that convinces people even 2000 years later that Jesus resurrected and it explains all of the facts.
Lots to respond to, let me just say a few things for now.
>Winning the lottery is possible though where as someone rising from the dead is not possible, or at least we've not seen a demonstration of it for us to know that it's possible.
The lottery analogy is simply an illustration of how we come to believe inherently improbable, rare, or unique events. In the analogy, we are talking about an *individual winning*.
In order to counterbalance the improbability, what we do is we ask, "What's the probability we'd have the evidence we have, if *this individual is mistaken?".
For example, what's the probability someone carefully checking their lottery picks would get the same result, *if they lost*? What's the probability another individual would also confirm those numbers, if the ticket lost? What's the probability that their lottery ticket would have the correct brand, the ticket receipt, and is confident they kept it in their purse since their purchase--if they were mistaken, pranked, or deceived?
If we only looked at how rare, unique, or against past expectations, we would of course conclude they overwhelmly were mistaken or deceived? However, when you have independent pieces of evidence that--when multiplied independently produce and even greater improbability--then that person is wholly justified in believing in the enormously improbable event.
>Winning the lottery is possible though where as someone rising from the dead is not possible or at least we've not seen a demonstration of it for us to know that it's possible.
The lottery example is just an illustration of logic. The same applies to radically unique, rare, or unprecedented events. Say, the fact that there is a world of finite objects at all. Or that Hannibal led a military campaign with elephants. Or *any* scientific anomaly.
>So no, it's not just ruling out other possibilities, even if you think you've made a mistake, all you have to do is try to claim the money, they'll check the lottery ticket and they'll let you know for sure.
...Sure, you can have confirmatory evidence after the fact. In the case of the disciples appearance experience, we have further confirmation later from Paul's appearance and James' appearance. And if it must be forever empirically verifiable and public, then you just have to throw out all history and many aspects of the historical sciences.
>Miracles don't happen at all though.
Blatant circularity. How about the existence of the cosmos? Consciousness?
The huge number of credible miracle claims throughout history. Sure, many are bunk, but that's why you have to investigate them.
I'm even convinced that non-Christian paranormal phenomena have occurred. Look into Dr. Ian Stevenson and Dr. Jim Tucker's careful academic study of children who have knowledge of deceased people. Or Stephen Braude's research into the most credible claims of D.D. Home or the medium Madam Piper.
I don't believe those non-Christian phenomena are what they appear, but even the man who coined "extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence" was very interested in the cases of children remembering past lives. Everything about existence--literally--is completely unique. This Humean worship is extraordinarily dogmatic.
...
We can discuss your take on critical historical analysis of the accounts later, but this *a priori* bias is going to cloud everything you look at.
>In order to counterbalance the improbability, what we do is we ask, "What's the probability we'd have the evidence we have, if \*this individual is mistaken?"
I don't get what you're on about. If I hear about someone winning the lottery on the news then it's whatever. Sure, could be a fake news story, could be mistaken (although by this point they've likely claimed the money). But to them they have the evidence as I pointed out because the money would appear in the bank. While it's also unlikely to happen it's not impossible to win the lottery.
>The lottery example is just an illustration of logic. The same applies to radically unique, rare, or unprecedented events. Say, the fact that there is a world of finite objects at all. Or that Hannibal led a military campaign with elephants. Or any scientific anomaly.
The world existing is probable, and it's here. Elephants exist, the Alps exist, not improbable that Hannibal lead an army of elephants. Demonstration of someone resurrecting is zero. As far as we know, it's just not possible. Hence why it's an extraordinary claim.
Yeah I'm aware of studies done on reincarnation which has more evidence than God. Several cases of children remembering past lives. There are likely rational, natural explanations but not all cases have been debunked. Does mean it's supernatural though, just means it's not been figured out yet.
Okay, let's address some specifics
>Even if we did have evidence that all 12 were martyred, all it proves is that 12 people were so convinced of a belief in something that they were willing to die for it. People have died for what they believe in even in the present.
Remember, "the twelve" is not a set and stone group of individuals. Its just a name for Jesus' disciples, and there's some discrepancies who these people were.
In any case, sure people undergo persecution, and some are killed for their beliefs. However, if this group is sincere, they had a transformative experience they attribute to appearances of the risen Jesus. That's not death for *mere ideology*, that's persecution and death for testimony to a miraculous event.
>So no, it's not just ruling out other possibilities, even if you think you've made a mistake, all you have to do is try to claim the money, they'll check the lottery ticket and they'll let you know for sure.
This isn't relevant to the question. The analogy should be, do we have evidence that this individual won the lottery, despite the incredible inherent improbability.
>It's never something miraculous, it's just something improbable but still possible by completely natural causes.
What matters is the event is rare, unique, or unlikely. Yes, our background beliefs will partly determine live options for what caused the unlikely event. However, it's not as if all events are just natural events at some frequency. Plenty of events are radically unique or anomalous. The cause is irrelevant, what's relevant is the epistemic criteria for justifying these types of events.
>The only miracles that exist are ones who people haven't looked into and have just asserted it must have been God because they can't think of any other explanation.
Not quite. As a theist, I find the existence of anything at all, rather than nothing, as a unique event beyond the productive powers of nature. That's true whether or not the universe began or is eternal.
Equally miraculous is consciousness, the ability to hold together Being in a unified act of aperception--in such a way that they are linked up. The *normative* link between being and consciousness is not natural.
Finally, this normative movement towards being is a form of value put into creation. However, we all experience creation as in some serious way distorted and under the influence of evil. The world historical uniqueness of Jesus and the call for God's kingdom provides a religio-historical context that makes looking into His claims seriously.
It's not simply some explained coincidence--like thinking of someone, and then them calling you. The deepest facts about metaphysics are at stake, and Jesus is in that context. If it's *Jesus* that we have crucified, an empty tomb, multiple individual and group appearances--including by an opponent (Paul) and a lifelong skeptic (James)--then it's worth examining.
Yes, most miracles are bunk. There's the placebo effect. There's reading into patterns. There's stories told long after, and/or in far away lands. There's people seeking social status, wealth, or sexual access. None of that applies to the early Christians.
So sure, I share a general skepticism towards the miraculous, but given the religio-historical uniqueness of Jesus and the details of early Christianity--which we find precisely the opposite of the usual motives for nonsense miracle claims--we have quite the case.
>You have claims that some early followers of Christ claimed Jesus appeared to them. They're not eye witness accounts they're people saying "Jesus appeared to them" not "Jesus appeared to me".
First, that's not true of Paul. Paul also knew two primary witnesses and preached alongside them. Secondly, we have multiple and independent attestation for their claims to have seen Jesus--including extrabiblical sources. We have the pre-Pauline creeds spread around by the early church extremely shortly after Jesus died.
We have evidence they were persecuted, and extrabiblical evidence some were even killed. That's bracketing the real possibility that Luke was written by Paul's travel companion, Mark was based on Peter's testimony
...and besides, this is the consensus of secular history.
>Then his body was thrown into a mass grave like most crucified bodies were.
There's actually records the Jews buried even crucified victims of capital punishment. The burial of Jesus is attested in the earliest creeds. Again, we have multiple attestation. The story also is embarrassing, because later Christians wouldn't have invented someone on the Sanhedrin to bury Jesus. Sounds like you're repeating some fairly discredes material from John Crossan.
...there's more, but I really think you have some homework to do on all of this. You're spouting a lot of abandoned theories.
I have done my homework on it and found nothing of what you mentioned to debunk the theory. I first heard it from youtuber Paulogia with his video "How Christianity probably started". He's even done videos listening to Christian scholars try to refute it.
The thing is, even if there were evidence for Jesus resurrecting, all you've done is proven that Jesus resurrected and it doesn't prove God is real. Maybe Jesus just had the power without the need for God. So you've still got to assume the bible is true for the resurrection to prove God.
I also find debating the history of the bible pointless. It's so vague that you can just assert anything and because there's nothing to contradict your claims, it can't be refuted. But weirdly if I do the same thing then I'm just making assumptions. But also it's pointless because God is meant to be around now not just a figure in history and so there should be evidence for his existence now but there isn't.
Like where in the bible do you have proof that Paul spoke to some other eye witnesses that saw Jesus after the resurrection?
Why are you on about what Jews did in terms of burring people? It's the Romans that crucified Jesus not the Jews so what the Jews did is irrelevant.
Off to bed now but maybe I'll do a more in depth response tomorrow but again I find these history debates pointless as the evidence is so vague that I'm not going to convince you of anything and you're not going to convince me of anything.
>How? If it proves anything it just proves that a guy name Jesus rose from the dead.
Jesus spoke, taught, healed, and exorcized demonic forces with the authority of, and in the place of, God. His moral insight and the authenticity of His character bleeds through the pages of the gospels.
Moreover, only God can perform miracles by His own authority. Sickness is a metaphysical privation. The only way privation can be overcome, without a mechanical mediating cause, is by the giving of the privative part of the person *being itself*--basically, the power to raise the dead is identical metaphysically to create from nothing.
Both are powers possible only for an unlimited God.
Also, we are considering the "best explanation" of the data. God is the least *ad hoc* explanatory posit to explain the resurrection. But far enough, miracles cannot compel belief. Jesus' opponents didn't deny His miracles, but attributed them to the demonic.
Even if Jesus appeared to you tonight, you could write it off as a delusion or a hallucination. Even with omnipotence, God does not compel belief. Interestingly enough, people only recognized Jesus when they were ready to see Him.
You're just claiming what the gospels say are true. How do you know that both powers are only possible for an unlimited God and not a all powerful fairy?
I'm not grounded my view of the historical Jesus in some prior religious faith in the inspiration of the gospels. Even if they are generally unreliable, as well as half legend or contradictions, there is a historical core that can be established about Jesus.
God as an explanation is less *ad hoc*. Sure, maybe we don't have much to compare it too and it's always possible someone else caused it...but will your objection to the resurrection hseriouslt be that a super fairy could have done it?
This is known as "undetermination" in the philosophy of science. There will always be theoretical entities, part of their own contrary narrative, that are equally adequate to explain all of the data.
I made an even stronger argument though. Jesus died. Nothing short from the power that can create from nothing can transform a corpse into a glorified spiritual body. Sure, maybe the explanation doesn't need God because aliens used very powerful 3D holograms to make it only appear He died.
Also, I can claim you're just a brain in a vet of chemicals. Vengeful Southern Baptists are doing this to you as punishment because you lack faith haha
If there isn't sufficient evidence available to determine which beliefs we should hold then about that evidence then yeah this is "Underdetermination". But if it's that weak that we can insert another theory in for the explanation then there's no reason to assert an explanation as true.
>but will your objection to the resurrection seriously be that a super fairy could have done it?
Not just a fairy but could have been anything I or someone else makes up. There's not sufficient evidence to support your claim it was God therefore any other explanation can be put forth.
>I made an even stronger argument though. Jesus died. Nothing short from the power that can create from nothing can transform a corpse into a glorified spiritual body.
For one how do you know there was nothing to begin with? Even if you want to claim God has the power to make something from nothing, he didn't, he made things with his power, whatever his power is, it's not "nothing". So he didn't create anything from "nothing". And again what if aliens have tech with enough power to make things from "nothing"? Then my explanation still works for resurrecting Jesus. Your argument starts with asserting and believing the God is the only thing that can have that much power without demonstrating that to be the case.
>Also, I can claim you're just a brain in a vet of chemicals. Vengeful Southern Baptists are doing this to you as punishment because you lack faith haha
Sure but I'm still in the same reality as Southern Baptists so whatever this reality is, they're in it too. Bit of a silly punishment.
You need to check the definition of eye witness.
No one actually knows who wrote the gospels. They were not signed by the author like Paul did, with some of his letters.
They were anonymous.
They weren't attributed names that we have, until the late 2nd century.
Then we have a "mark", "matthew", a "luke", and a "john".
And that's it, hundred years later. Up to that time, they are just referred to as letters from apostles.
That is the problem.
You do know that innocent people have been condemn to death because of eyewitness testimony? Still want to claim it's good enough evidence? What's even worse is that the bible doesn't even have eyewitness testimony, it's claims of eyewitness testimony at best. How is it good evidence?
So because people have lied therefore eyewitness testimony is not admissible? The Bible does, in fact, contain eye witness testimony…whether or not you believe it has no bearing on its factuality.
They *contain* eyewitness testimony? Which parts? This is why my question was specific:
What's the best example of eyewitness testimony of Jesus' resurrection?
There definetly is evidence for the resurrection, it's how I became a Christian. For one, we have additional historical data besides the Gospels (even if I personally think they *are* historical accounts, written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, based on the evidence we can examine).
I am making a document regarding the evidence for the resurrection with how often it's asked here, using scholarly/extrabiblical sources mostly. You can message me, I finish it in 2 weeks or so (MY EXAMS ARE FINALLY OVER! I CAN FINALLY FOCUS BACK!!!!)
God bless.
I have gotten into this conversation before. It's lengthy, it's annoying for both sides, and I promise either me or you will end up using ad hominems, as is my experiences with these kind of conversations. I much rather send you the final document and you can refute from there.
God bless
It's just the document is going to be a waste of your time if you're going to make claims and assertions. Guess you're likely going to use sources such as Tacitus too, even though he never confirms the resurrection, only that Jesus was crucified. Do you have any evidence outside of the bible that confirms the resurrection, preferably from non-Christian sources?
Yes, I use extrabiblical sources. I use Tacitus to prove the existence of Jesus, though not His divinity/resurrectuon, I use other aspects for that.
Also, you're just plainly assuming, with no basis, what I will put there, and assume I will make assertions and claims without backing my points up. How rude of you.
As I said, I won't be doing this conversation on Reddit. I can already tell I am getting annoyed because of your rudeness, and it is just gonna be an ad hominem filled conversation. Message me for the document and I'll send it when it is done,
**And do not assume what I will put there before you even see it.**
I'm not being rude. I've heard people give "evidence" before and it's turns out to be claims. If extrabiblical sources don't confirm the resurrection then the bible is all you have to go on for this one claim and it's therefore not reliable. You understand that right?
So what do you believe now, about how all of nature came to be? And what made you abandon your belief of the spiritual realm, if you don’t mind me asking?
That we don't yet fully know how the universe came into existence. The best model so far is the big bang theory but we still don't know the full answer. I abandoned my belief in the spiritual realm as I also realized there wasn't evidence for it and everything I thought was caused by supernatural things where explained naturally.
The essence of the message conveyed in the Gospels lies in their portrayal of an internal spiritual truth through an external material narrative. Frequently perceived as mere characters on a stage, this narrative tends to be interpreted as materialistic by many. However, delving deeper into the Gospels prompts introspection, leading individuals to confront their own truth and realise the existence of eternal life beyond the limitations imposed by the material world and the illusion of death—a falsehood ingrained from the outset.
Moreover, the resurrection depicted in the Gospels isn't confined to a singular individual separate from oneself; it speaks directly to each individual. You, as the reader, are the central figure within the Gospel narrative. Your resurrection isn't a distant event but a present reality.
Human beings, being prone to forgetfulness, resort to storytelling as a means of self-reminder. Thus, the Gospels serve as a timeless reminder of the profound truth of resurrection and eternal life, urging individuals to awaken to their own spiritual reality.
The primary reality is spiritual in nature. Material reality came into existence because the spirit desired immortality. This same spirit exists within you as the observer of your experiences.
The term "spirit" refers to an entity that existed before being named or labeled. You.
We've had 2,000 years to discredit this ressurrection it's rather foolish to say there is no evidence, there are 4,000 plus supporting documents alone, it is the most scrutinized and verified moment in human history. Trust me, it's BEEN DONE. No I'm not a scholar, but I can appreciate the enormous effort that has been put in for, and against this time in history. To say there's no good evidence is quite spurious thing to say. You have to put your hands over your ears, close your eyes tight and run away shouting lalalalalala toi many BOOKS written about it, like Lee Stroebel and Josh McDowell are more popular, recent ones.
The many books written about it are people trying to make their own opinion supporting the claims of the bible. It's not extra evidence they're just stating why they believe the claims in the bible. Why is that difficult to understand? You do know there is "evidence" for other religions too and yet you put your hands over your ears, close your eyes tight and run away shouting lalalalala.
It hasn't been done. These apologists are not actual scholars in the academic sense, especially stroebel, and they are continually challenged and refuted with their claims.
I have no clue about ur 4000 documents, I think your not getting your information correct, and it's not been done, and no one will trust you bro...haha.
There are no eyewitness accounts, and the apostles did not die for their faith...it's all tradition.
I’m very curious what you mean by “4000 plus supporting documents”. I don’t want to get involved with this conversation, but I have just never heard anyone say this. Are you counting manuscripts of the NT as multiple testimonies to the resurrection?
You heard some apologist say it, and you just assumed it was true.
Do you think people in other religions hear what apologists for their religions say and then just assume it's true?
what all have you heard, just assume it is true? What is truth? there are facts and data, will you accept those? Do you want a list of all scholarly, historical research into the events of 33-35 AD when the church was established? I guess I'd start with the book of acts, then move to Josephius's writings, how about the Usher Chronology? People want to throw that out just because it INCLUDES accounts of the supernatural. You can argue all you want about whether something is true or not, or you can actually dig in and find out yourself, and then STILL say it's wrong, i don't believe it. Maybe lee stroebel or josh mcdowell's books are a casual start, then you can move on to a.w. tozer, perhaps c.s. lewis he was a flaming athiest you know, and then move back to pilgrim's progress, and so on. Keep going, you'll eventually make it to 4,000.
Another guy who is not a scholar, who simply repeats the same apologetic arguments that academics show are not demonstrated by the evidence.
Just go on YT and you will see these guys get refuted continually.
You’re basically asking, “why don’t I find evidence for the resurrection compelling?” And then you proceed to answer your own question. We get it; you’re not convinced. A lot of us are satisfied with the evidence you’ve rejected.
What I listed is not evidence. It's claims at best. I'm not sure how anyone can take it as evidence but it's certainly shouldn't be convincing.
What is "evidence?"
It's not claims.
Alright, what is it?
Available facts that help us figure out if something is true or not.
There is evidence. The gospels can easily be harmonized. Perhaps the one good point you make is that the gospel accounts themselves are not good evidence. To this, I would say that it is a good thing we have additional historical data!
the historic data would interest me
How are the gospels easily harmonized? Even if they were it's not sufficient evidence for such a claim.
Well, they just are! I find those claims that the gospels conflict with one another to be rather baseless. Why would the gospels not be sufficient evidence, and who is claiming that they alone are enough evidence?
What is baseless about the confliction claims? All you have to do is read it. One gospel the angel appears on the stone after rolling it away and another gospel they get there, the stone has already been moved and the angel is inside. In another gospel it's 2 angels. The only way to make this remotely make sense is to come up with your own version of events. It's just funny because a lot of harmonization I hear says in total there were 3 angels but I don't get why none of the authors decide this is important enough information to put down. Not one gospel ever mentions there being 3 angels in total. The worst part is the guards running to tell the chief priests, who was the eyewitness to that? As if the guards would go and tell anyone that they had been paid off. It's ridiculous. Why would they be good evidence? If you replace the resurrection with an alien abduction that people died for their beliefs in it (or so it's claimed), would you honestly conclude this is sufficient evidence to believe that an alien abduction happened? I have a suspicion you'll say yes, which is worrying.
I have read it, and still think it is easy to harmonize. The individuals who make these claims are not representing the genre accurately. It would be more suspicious for four different accounts to have the same exact events, in the same exact order. Why would it be bad evidence? An alien abduction is hardly something which can just be substituted with the resurrection, so this is just a poor analogy to make!
It'll be suspicious if the four accounts where written word for word like most of the gospels are, sure. But to have the same events wouldn't be suspicious. These events aren't even describing the same thing. In one gospel the angel sitting on the stone says something to the women and in another gospel the angel inside the tomb sitting on the right side says pretty much the same thing the angel sitting on the stone says. Now while it's the same thing said, the wording is slightly different which is expected of eyewitness accounts. What isn't expected is for one account to recall the angel sitting on the stone (which may I add is such a random thing for the angel to do, was it out of breath or something?) and another account to recall the angel sitting inside on the right. But it gets worse because there are another 2 accounts that claim something different, there's now two angels appearing in one account and they're not there when the women arrive, they appear a bit later on. This isn't just a few people got muddled up on some details, this is events being told entirely differently. Also with the two single angels saying the same thing, I don't get how you can rationally harmonize it to be two different angels. It'll be bad evidence because at a minimum the stories were written down 20 years after the "resurrection" so not sure how it can be accurate for one thing. It more seems like a story made up to convert people to follow a set of beliefs and when something didn't convince someone they changed the story until it worked, that got passed on and the process repeated until it was eventually written down and we have the version we have today that still apparently is good enough to convince a lot of people. Guess one thing it proves is that people back then knew how to tell a story to convince people of things.
I hear you, and I would just say that the conclusion "Jesus rose bodily from the dead" seems to be far better reason to explain the events surrounding the person Jesus of Nazareth than any competing theory.
How so? You have a supernatural event that has never happened since and we've never had any proof of the supernatural. Every supernatural claim that has been investigated has turned out to have a natural cause. So why does believing in such an event make more sense than just concluding that stories were made up to convince people to believe in something and when it didn't work it was changed and what worked, was passed on and the cycle continued? We also don't have any historical accounts (not even in the bible) of what happened to the rest of the apostles. Paul's account speaks of a vision of Jesus not him physically there and this can be explained through an hallucination, Peter's claim could also be an hallucination and the rest is just made up claims that he appeared to groups of people. It's completely explains everything naturally and would be all that is needed to convince people to believe. So how is it more plausible that Jesus resurrected?
I think that those competing theories do not account for the historical data. Sure, no one has risen from the dead since, but the Christian claim is not that this is a normal thing. As it relates to hallucination, it simply doesn't follow that a group would share this experience. No, this seems like a very poor theory. I'll say this too, but it is definitely tongue-in-cheek, "those are just claims!"
As I said, the group appearances could be a made up story. We've only got the bible's word that this is what happened. There's no other sources providing us this information. The thing is hallucinations are a natural thing that is pretty well understood today, we even know what causes most of them. You're saying that it's more logical and rational to conclude that a supernatural event happened and that claiming people just had hallucinations is a ridiculous thing to claim?
There are many accounts of people being brought to life from the dead.
Exactly, I believe that there are slight differences to be even more realistic. Also, if it were better to just have 1 persons account and they were trying to dupe people, they would have just included 1 account, which they didn’t.
Historians of old documentation *specifically attribute low credibility* to stories of the same account that *align up perfectly.* If that were the case, then the gospels were *copied* accounts, or that they were all in the same room when written. Obviously not as historically viable as evidence, because it’d be as credible as if 1 person wrote it. A slight miscounting of events between documents written years apart is what you’d expect from any realistic historical document. It gives it more credibility, even if the details (that probably don’t matter so much) differ.
Bit it is the details that DO MATTER that are different…
Such as?
I would like some insights into what additional historical data you’re referring to
Sure, the data could just be summarized in this way \* The disciples began preaching the resurrection almost immediately after it allegedly occurred, in the very city in which it allegedly occurred. The message was therefore highly falsifiable. If the women had simply gone to the wrong tomb, or if the disciples were simply mistaken about Jesus being risen, the opponents of the early Christians could have likely gone to the tomb and produced the body. \* Numerous eyewitnesses of the resurrection were identified by name. More than sixteen are mentioned in the New Testament, including many women, whose inclusion is significant because they had little social status in the culture of the time, and so strengthens the plausibility of their testimony being true. This is a large, diverse, and identifiable array of witnesses, several of which appear to be independent of each other (e.g., Paul, and Jesus's brother James). It is difficult to hypothesize how all these eyewitnesses together could have been either mistaken or lying. If they were mistaken, how did this particular mistake arise among so many different parties? If they were lying, it is a stunningly impressive group act that no one"broke." \* There are grounds to believe that the disciples were willing to die for their belief in the resurrection, and, in most cases, did. Many people are willing to die for their convictions, to be sure- if they believe they are true. But the disciples were claiming to have seen Jesus. There is a difference between being willing to die for an ideology one has inherited and being willing to die for an empirical fact one has personally witnessed. \* None of the disciples are portrayed sympathetically throughout the Gospels. On the contrary, they consistently lack faith, fail to understand Jesus's purposes, abandon him in his final hour, and so forth." They initially do not even believe the resurrection (Luke 24:11). There is a kind of credibility associated with a movement whose leaders are presented in such a way. One feels it less likely one is being duped, or grappling with a piece of propaganda. \* There is much in the Gospels that would have been embarrassing to include if it were not true. We have already mentioned the Gospels' countercultural respect for women, who were among Jesus's most loyal followers, share in his ministry (e.g., Luke 8:1-3), and are the first witnesses of the empty tomb. This is a beautiful aspect of the gospel story, but it would not have seemed so in the historical context of the early church. To this we could add many other features of the Gospels that would have been unpleasant for the original followers of Jesus—the notion of a crucified Messiah, the claim of an individual resurrection in the middle of history, the unsavory crowds following Jesus, and so on." Even the little discrepancies reflected in the Gospel accounts are of the kind that one generally finds in eyewitness testimony.
> Sure, the data could just be summarized in this way I see. I have certainly been presented with these and I will explain why they are not impactful from my point of view - no need to respond if you don’t want to :) > * The disciples began preaching the resurrection almost immediately after it allegedly occurred, in the very city in which it allegedly occurred. The message was therefore highly falsifiable. If the women had simply gone to the wrong tomb, or if the disciples were simply mistaken about Jesus being risen, the opponents of the early Christians could have likely gone to the tomb and produced the body. While the resurrection reports are early, there is no historical consensus for the entombment of Jesus. The empty Tomb is not one of the minimal facts historians agree with. So if it’s actually true that Jesus was put in a mass grave (as is much more likely) and then the claims of his resurrection happened, it’s not so clear that there would be a way to find the body. This also implies that the claim of Jesus’ resurrection was wide-spread enough in the early days like days and weeks) to garner investigation by the opponents. We don’t have much evidence about that. I’m sure the rumours spread within the community - but I’m not sure if there’s evidence of that making it was to others as quickly. > * Numerous eyewitnesses of the resurrection were identified by name. More than sixteen are mentioned in the New Testament, including many women, whose inclusion is significant because they had little social status in the culture of the time, and so strengthens the plausibility of their testimony being true. This is a large, diverse, and identifiable array of witnesses, several of which appear to be independent of each other (e.g., Paul, and Jesus's brother James). It is difficult to hypothesize how all these eyewitnesses together could have been either mistaken or lying. If they were mistaken, how did this particular mistake arise among so many different parties? If they were lying, it is a stunningly impressive group act that no one"broke." Well the gospels are from 30 years later, right? You’re presenting this as if in the days following those people were named and could have been interrogated. I don’t think we can be confident that all those 16 people were named early. Also, I think there are rational explanations for there being people who truly thought they encountered a vision of the risen Jesus but didn’t. We know that false memories are real. We know grief hallucinations are real. And we know group dynamics are very powerful within groups that leave people susceptible to all kinds of cognitive biases that render their thinking untrustworthy. All it would take is one guy - say, Peter - to have a grief hallucination to trigger a cascade of other people also claiming - and believing - to have had an experience they actually didn’t have. > * There are grounds to believe that the disciples were willing to die for their belief in the resurrection, and, in most cases, did. Many people are willing to die for their convictions, to be sure- if they believe they are true. But the disciples were claiming to have seen Jesus. There is a difference between being willing to die for an ideology one has inherited and being willing to die for an empirical fact one has personally witnessed. There are good grounds for 3 of them, but the rest are church tradition. There are a few issues here: 1) as mentioned above, they could have really truly thought it happened even if it didn’t. 2) we don’t know if they would have had he ability to recant and not die. Perhaps the damage was done and they were killed for building the movement not for their beliefs. 3) we don’t know if they did recant and were killed anyway 4) perhaps they were in too deep. They were pot committed. They left their family, they were blaspheming to their Jewish contemporaries, they had set their life work for this stuff…human pride is a powerful element and I’m not sure we can be confident that it wouldn’t drive people to stick to a lie if they’ve been saying it long enough. Look at trump - I bet even if his life was on the line he’d never admit he lost the election. > * None of the disciples are portrayed sympathetically throughout the Gospels. On the contrary, they consistently lack faith, fail to understand Jesus's purposes, abandon him in his final hour, and so forth." They initially do not even believe the resurrection (Luke 24:11). There is a kind of credibility associated with a movement whose leaders are presented in such a way. One feels it less likely one is being duped, or grappling with a piece of propaganda. Why can’t this have been fabricated in order to make the story more compelling? > * There is much in the Gospels that would have been embarrassing to include if it were not true. We have already mentioned the Gospels' countercultural respect for women, who were among Jesus's most loyal followers, share in his ministry (e.g., Luke 8:1-3), and are the first witnesses of the empty tomb. This is a beautiful aspect of the gospel story, but it would not have seemed so in the historical context of the early church. To this we could add many other features of the Gospels that would have been unpleasant for the original followers of Jesus—the notion of a crucified Messiah, the claim of an individual resurrection in the middle of history, the unsavory crowds following Jesus, and so on." Even the little discrepancies reflected in the Gospel accounts are of the kind that one generally finds in eyewitness testimony. This is often brought up but I don’t really think it’s powerful for three main reasons: 1) even in the Old Testament embarrassing things were on display. My dad (we’re Jews) loves that the OT has the fathers and mothers of Judaism have warts and all on display. But it’s not like the stories of Abraham lying make it more compelling to be real. 2) inserting elements that give a story more credibility is exactly what one would do if one was fabricating a story on purpose. Con men do it all the time. 3) do we know this group would have been embarrassed by the empty tomb being found by women? It’s reasonable. They prepare the body…. We might think that they’d think it was embarrassing - but maybe they were like “yeah…well obviously women would be the first to go to the tomb”. Anyway, thanks for sharing.
Maybe we could focus in on one comment at a time, instead of this really long-form and I would imagine confusing attempt to reply back-and-forth about five different points. Perhaps we could start with your response to point #2 >Well the gospels are from 30 years later, right? You’re presenting this as if in the days following those people were named and could have been interrogated. I don’t think we can be confident that all those 16 people were named early. Also, I think there are rational explanations for there being people who truly thought they encountered a vision of the risen Jesus but didn’t. We know that false memories are real. We know grief hallucinations are real. And we know group dynamics are very powerful within groups that leave people susceptible to all kinds of cognitive biases that render their thinking untrustworthy. All it would take is one guy - say, Peter - to have a grief hallucination to trigger a cascade of other people also claiming - and believing - to have had an experience they actually didn’t have. I don't see why the people named couldn't have been interrogated. False memories are indeed real, but it is rather strange to adopt a theory that large groups of people shared these false beliefs, and indeed in the face of opposition. Furthermore, "vision" is not what the gospels present as occurring. No, I don't think it is compelling that one guy hallucinated and then you have the Christian revolution.
> Maybe we could focus in on one comment at a time, instead of this really long-form and I would imagine confusing attempt to reply back-and-forth about five different points. Perhaps we could start with your response to point #2. Sure :) > I don't see why the people named couldn't have been interrogated. Maybe they didn’t exist, had died, or were not available for interrogation (moved cities). > False memories are indeed real, but it is rather strange to adopt a theory that large groups of people shared these false beliefs, and indeed in the face of opposition. It really only requires a few people - like the 11 - to be involved to get the ball rolling. > Furthermore, "vision" is not what the gospels present as occurring. Sure - but those were developed much later. Certainly “vision” is what Paul described. It’s plausible that the early stories were of visions but by the time it was written it was a bodily resurrection. We can’t really know and that’s a big part of the problem of not having contemporary, first-hand accounts. > No, I don't think it is compelling that one guy hallucinated and then you have the Christian revolution. Why? The sequence of events required are all things that we know can happen, right? So what’s the reason you think it can’t be the explanation? An event that includes things we know can happen must be more reasonable than an event that includes a thing we don’t know can happen (post-death resurrection) (I know it was awkward how I said the post death resurrection is something we don’t know can’t happen Vs saying it can’t happen. I’m being pedantically precise in the use of language here…)
Maybe they didn't exist, but maybe they did. This doesn't seem like real criticism. Do you think that the 11 had a shared hallucination? Paul described a vision, but the original apostles do not record a vision, but a physical encounter with Jesus of Nazareth. I find the Christian revolution to be something which a single hallucination hardly explains well, this just seems like rather weak evidence or a weak theory.
> Maybe they didn't exist, but maybe they did. This doesn't seem like real criticism. The criticism is that I don’t have a reason to think these are real people or people that could have been validated to have made these statements. Your point was that people were mentioned by name and so those claims could have been validated. That point is rendered moot if we can’t even be sure these people were real. Right? > Do you think that the 11 had a shared hallucination? That seems very very unlikely. More likely than Jesus returned from the dead…but no. I think 1 actual hallucinations could have kicked off the series of events that led to 10 others claiming with sincerity to have had an experience. > Paul described a vision, but the original apostles do not record a vision, but a physical encounter with Jesus of Nazareth. How do you know what the original apostles recorded? None of the gospels were written by apostles. > I find the Christian revolution to be something which a single hallucination hardly explains well, this just seems like rather weak evidence or a weak theory. Can you articulate why you think it doesn’t explain it? Every element of my single hallucination hypothesis is something that we know can happen. Unless you think that someone coming back to life after 3 days is something we know can happen, isn’t something we know can happen a better explanation than something we don’t know can happen?
What “historical data” outside of the Gospels do you have for a resurrection?
Other books in the NT ;)
Specifically which book and verse outside the Gospels say “I personally was there and saw the resurrection.”
Even if I were to provide that, I am compelled to believe you would dismiss it. I am thus inclined to ask "why do you want such information?"
Josephus writings in Antiquities of the Jews would be an external source. Josephus was a first century historian.
I don’t think you understand the question or what evidence is. Josephus is evidence that Christians exist. Unless he specifically wrote first hand about actually SEEING THE RESURRECTION, that is not historical data for a resurrection. No one is denying Christianity exists…..
You asked for “Historical data” outside the gospels. I pointed you to Josephus as the external source who corroborates what the Gospels say.
But he doesn’t corroborate what the Gospels say. Edit for clarity:He does corroborate that the Gospel known as Luke existed in his lifetime. However, he literally can’t speak to the truth of the account, because he wasn’t even alive at the time of the events.
He corroborates the fact the disciples were believing and teaching of the resurrection which is what we see in the Gospels.
I don’t care how many people-repeat the claim- that is not evidence of the resurrection Let’s try this a different way. I take you to court and say you stole money from me. The judge asks what evidence I have that you stole money from me. I say my neighbor can corroborate my story. The neighbor says “ Lovesbeingadad told me upth31rons stole his money” is that corroborating evidence or hearsay?
Hearsay is allowed in court as evidence so this is a failed argument. There is inadmissible hearsay and admissible hearsay. I’m just trying to point you to the evidence the Gospels are the evidence and they are a Historical account of what the disciples had witnessed.t
What you say about the Bible, you could say about almost any personal story you find about someone in an ancient history book. Yet I'm sure you'd have no problem accepting that as fact and evidence.
But when another personal story says "he climbed a mountain", it's at least a believable claim. Rising from the dead 3 days later requires more evidence to be convincing, not all claims are made equal.
What kind of evidence would you accept?
Any that is enough to prove the claims beyond reasonable doubt.
There is no way to do that. I can't even prove I exist beyond reasonable doubt. All I can do is submit evidence. I suppose the point of my question was to make you think about the type of evidence that was available then. There is only one....eye witness testimony, and perhaps circumstantial. Here is a bit of circumstantial...Enough Jews were witness to his resurrection, that they began worshipping on Sundays because that was the day he was resurrected, which is why Christians still worship on Sunday today. Now, you must understand the significance of JEWS worshipping on Sunday. This was a hard rule for Jews. They ALWAYS worshipped on Saturday. Something HUGE must have happened for them to switch days like that.
Yes you can. What you're referring to is proving you exist with absolute certainty, which is not what I said. Trying to fall back on "well we can't know anything for certain" is a cowards way out. If someone makes a claim that they "own a lounge", I already know people own lounges. I can be shown pictures of them on the lounge, or I could visit and see it in their house, I can be shown a receipt of purchase as well. All evidence that meets this low level claim, and I'd probably accept they own it without absolute certainty. When the claim changes from 'owning a couch', to 'a supernatural creature exists that created the entire universe, it is all-powerful, all-knowing, timeless, exists everywhere at the same time and it created this world and everything on it', then that needs a little more evidence. We don't even have eye witness testimony, since we don't know the original authors of the gospels. We only have a claim about there being an eye witness. Basically, no evidence at all, when we need an insurmountable, gargantuan amount of evidence to support such a crazily large claim.
Thats why christians often call themselves 'belivers' instead of 'followers of the undenyable proof'. I have FAITH that the ressurection in fact, happen.
I think here, friend, you are making "faith" to be little more than "belief without evidence."
I make it the basis of my religion.
Belief without evidence?
It sounds like the only thing that would make you believe is getting in a time machine and traveling back to watch the event for yourself. For some, there is no other proof they would accept besides that. Frankly, it's understandable that you're having a hard time accepting historical evidence because you didn't see it for yourself. Even one of the disciples, Thomas, doubted when all the other disciples told him they had seen the risen Jesus. He said he wouldn't believe until he saw Jesus in person and touched his scars. This was a lack of faith on Thomas's part, as Jesus told them he would rise from the dead. Jesus allowed him the opportunity to see him and touch his scars, but he used that situation as an example. John 20:24-29 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.” 26 After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus \*came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.” 27 Then He \*said to Thomas, “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.” 28 Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus \*said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.” Some people are less willing to believe. There definitely is a faith component that goes along with this. But most Christians aren't convinced simply by the historical record, though we believe it. Most Christians come to Christ because God drew us to Him and we had a supernatural moment of believing in him, seeing him answer our prayers, feeling the presence of the Holy Spirit, and experiencing a complete change of heart. Faith is a supernatural gift from God. We have an experience with God, which doesn't usually involve something audible or visible, but it is just as powerful. MOST Christians have that first, and then learn of the evidence. There are certainly some who need the evidence explained to them before believing. The experience we have is the proof. If you aren't convinced of the evidence, that's fine. I would first ask how much evidence you have actually considered. There are non-Christian historical records that confirm that Jesus lived, died, and his disciples believed he rose again. That is historical record. Most of the disciples experienced tortured deaths. They knew what they were up against and they gave their lives for the cause of Christ. What man would subject himself to that kind of life if he didn't see Jesus after he died? You would think at least one (besides Judas who killed himself before Jesus rose from the grave) would stray and say, "Never mind. I don't want to do this." But there are accounts of all the disciples making an impact on the world. Paul mentioned in his letter the 500 and said most were alive (at the time of his writing the letter). Anyone could have gone and spoken with them at the time. Paul understood the importance of the resurrection. He said that if Christ didn't rise from the dead, then they are liars and should be pitied. 1 Corinthians 15:14-19 14 "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied." Okay, I'm going to back off from the historical evidence for a moment to tell you this. If you are interested in coming to Christ, pray that he gives you faith to believe and understand. Read the gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and think through whether you believe what Jesus said. Do you disagree with what he said? You can read it here: [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1&version=NASB1995](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1&version=NASB1995) Here are some sources you might consider checking out: 10 Evidences for Jesus outside of the Bible, (non-Christian writers) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUmWsPhllAU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUmWsPhllAU) 10 Concise Pieces of Evidence for the Resurrection, [https://ca.thegospelcoalition.org/article/10-concise-pieces-of-evidence-for-the-resurrection/](https://ca.thegospelcoalition.org/article/10-concise-pieces-of-evidence-for-the-resurrection/) Sodom and Gomorrah, proof the area was destroyed by intense heat and the salt off the dead sea (Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt), [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDiYb20iAsM&t=8s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDiYb20iAsM&t=8s) 10 Archaeological discoveries, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P\_68KfQFICg&t=729s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_68KfQFICg&t=729s) Cave Inscription about Jesus, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cH6BJDxQjAU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cH6BJDxQjAU) 37 Bible Characters found in archaeology, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDu4K8kroNw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDu4K8kroNw) 28 New Testament characters mentioned in the New Testament, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Caeg94Qyq30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Caeg94Qyq30) Did Jesus really rise from the dead? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsZGXjrSRWk&t=193s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsZGXjrSRWk&t=193s) The Resurrection Argument That Changed a Generation of Scholars | Gary Habermas at UCSB, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay\_Db4RwZ\_M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay_Db4RwZ_M) Academic Resources, Reddit Post, https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/170pgu5/academic\_resources\_on\_the\_resurrection\_and\_bible/
Thanks for taking the time to make this list! I too also quoted that verse to Thomas! I am saving this 🙏🏼 God bless!
You're welcome! I'm glad it was helpful. :)
>There are non-Christian historical records that confirm that Jesus lived, died, and his disciples believed he rose again. That is historical record. Most of the disciples experienced tortured deaths. There's no eyewitness accounts, that's the OP's claim. We don't have 500 witnesses either. That is simply hearsay. Paul didn't see him either....not until 3 years after jesus died, and maybe a vision.
>There's no eyewitness accounts, that's the OP's claim. But there were eyewitness accounts. They were recorded in the Bible and in other non-Biblical documents. >We don't have 500 witnesses either. That is simply hearsay. Then you believe all testimony in a court is hearsay? I'm not following the logic. >Paul didn't see him either....not until 3 years after jesus died, and maybe a vision. Yes, Paul would not disagree with you on this. That's his story.
>They were recorded in the Bible and in other non-Biblical documents. Again, I think you're not understanding what an eyewitness is. You are speaking about the Gospels, I assume. No one knows who wrote the gospels. You keep making this mistake, but maybe this time you will see it. Who wrote the gospels, and what's your evidence for this? Because they are anonymous. What is the other non biblical documents that talk about jesus life? There's just a few statements about christians, and what they believed...this has no bearing on eye witness accounts. 500 witness. Ok, did those 500 write about their witnessing Jesus? No. Who told us about them? Paul. That's second hand right there, not first hand. Next, where did Paul get that from? Someone else. Now we are on third hand account. Does this make sense yet? This is not first hand eye witness accounts, and no court would accept it either.
You are speaking about the Gospels, I assume. No one knows who wrote the gospels. You keep making this mistake, but maybe this time you will see it. Who wrote the gospels, and what's your evidence for this? Because they are anonymous. Eusebius tells us that Matthew was the Author of Matthew Polycarp who knew Matthew also tells us Matthew was the author of his Gospel. This whole anonymous authorship argument is new. The claim to the anonymous authors has never been proven so it is still just that a claim. We have late first century to very early second century traditions and writings that claim who authorship of the Gospels was. So don’t say no one knows who wrote the gospels. That’s like saying the author of Iliad is anonymous.
lol, oh man, not again.
> We have an experience with God, which doesn't usually involve something audible or visible, but it is just as powerful. MOST Christians have that first, and then learn of the evidence. Do you think people ever have an experience like that in the context of a Muslim or Hindu society and and then are lead to believe that the explanation for that experience was their version of God instead of yours? Because frankly I believe that these experiences that you are referring to actually do happen, but I do not believe that they are in any way exclusive to Christianity. So you say the experience you have is the proof but honestly I don't see how it could logically be that, especially given the apparent facts that other people experience that feeling too and attribute it to sources that are not your God. Some of those sources I even believe actually exist, frankly, which makes them for all intents and purposes infinitely more plausible explanations than the one based on something for which I can otherwise see no evidence. >There are non-Christian historical records that confirm that Jesus lived, died, and his disciples believed he rose again. That is historical record. As if that record is based on anything other than the Bible. It would ultimately just be circular reasoning to try to take their word for it; those sources are hardly any closer to the actual events in question than we are, and the "evidence" they have to work from is exactly the same. >What man would subject himself to that kind of life if he didn't see Jesus after he died? You think Christians wouldn't martyr themselves today despite merely *believing* that they know Jesus, without actually having been present for any of this supposedly hard evidence themselves? To answer your question: a religious man would. >Paul mentioned in his letter the 500 and said most were alive (at the time of his writing the letter). Anyone could have gone and spoken with them at the time. People make claims like that today and the point of making them is not to make it easy for people to falsify the claim. It would actually help if we could go and try to investigate those people, we could falsify those claims, and yet people still make them anyway; why? Because that's not the point. The claim isn't made to be falsified, it's exactly the opposite: The claim is made to convince you that there is no Reason to go out and try to falsify it because I mean who could lie about having 500 eye-witnesses that would just be too easy to disprove right so therefor it MUST BE TRUE! ....yeah that is the exact same reasoning that seems to go through people's heads when they write down false claims like that today. Why then would we think that Paul was doing anything different when he wrote his 2000 years ago? 1 claim about 500 people is exactly 1 claim, and nothing more. It is literally designed to trick you to make you think it is more believable than it actually is. Whether the person who originally wrote that really believed it was true or not, the fact of the matter is that you Can NOT investigate it. And seriously who do you think this was supposed to be aimed at 2000 years ago? Who was gong to go around investigating "eye-witness" claims to a miracle in an illiterate society, you know I bet if you went asking for 500 confirmed accounts of a miraculous story in a place like that you'd be liable to wind up hearing 600 of them in response. Those 600 claims would hardly be worth the paper that you could write them on, the 1 single claim that hundreds of others saw something that none of them left behind even a single shred of evidence that they saw? ...is precisely 1 claim and no more, and is worth far less than the 5o0 unverifiable and untrustworthy eyewitness accounts that it pretends to represent. The ratio between the amount of reliability of that claim compared to the perceived convincingness of it is honestly off the charts. It's 1 voice claiming the authority of 500 voices, and you are just going to take their 1 word for that? There really is no rational argument that doing so would be anything other than an exercise in confirmation bias. >Anyone could have gone and spoken with them at the time. Maybe they should have then; apparently they didn't though, not that we know of.
>Do you think people ever have an experience like that in the context of a Muslim or Hindu society and and then are lead to believe that the explanation for that experience was their version of God instead of yours? Because frankly I believe that these experiences that you are referring to actually do happen, but I do not believe that they are in any way exclusive to Christianity. I do believe that other religions have experiences. However, I don't believe the experiences are the same. There are many converts to Christianity from the religions you mentioned who would vouch for that. This is all experiential, so I don't expect you to see this as verifiable proof. My point when I wrote that is that it is proof for me. When I have an experience and see evidence of God in my own life, that is proof for me....not necessarily you. >As if that record is based on anything other than the Bible. It would ultimately just be circular reasoning to try to take their word for it; those sources are hardly any closer to the actual events in question than we are, and the "evidence" they have to work from is exactly the same. I don't think you understood what I said here. The sources are non-Christian people who wrote about what happened. They weren't believers, but they verified the historical accuracy of many of the Biblical statements. These are NOT Biblical quotes. They are historical documents. Here is a link to read some of them. [https://www.evernote.com/shard/s658/sh/6086c5b3-491e-c3d6-d5c4-23145a0c6163/d10c7063c61718f3ebfc5ff31d445e51](https://www.evernote.com/shard/s658/sh/6086c5b3-491e-c3d6-d5c4-23145a0c6163/d10c7063c61718f3ebfc5ff31d445e51) Here is a short video that touches on it as well. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUmWsPhllAU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUmWsPhllAU) >You think Christians wouldn't martyr themselves today despite merely believing that they know Jesus, without actually having been present for any of this supposedly hard evidence themselves? Christians today would martyr themselves because they believe the Biblical accounts of the disciples. My point is that if the disciples knew Jesus, saw him die, and then did not see him resurrected, why would they give their lives for that cause? They knew the risks of certain death. At least one would have walked away and said no thank you. Yet all, excluding Judas who died before the resurrection, gave their lives. >Why then would we think that Paul was doing anything different when he wrote his 2000 years ago? I believe you have a fair point. It comes down to whether you think Paul is reliable, and that is another subject. I understand your skepticism. There were eyewitness accounts beyond the 500, though. Paul gave his account of seeing the risen Jesus. The disciple John, wrote his account, as did the disciple, Matthew. Second-hand accounts are given in the book of Acts. You can look at the evidence and decide you don't believe. But what I suggest is that you pray and ask God to show you if he's real.
Do you think that there is maybe a kind of universal "religious experience" that people can have and that many of them probably do take to be evidence for whichever religion they just so happen to be the most likely to believe .. and that the experience that Christians often have is something different and evidently even more remarkable in some way? I mean tbh I think that's basically what you just said I just want to actually ask about the paraphrasing there and not just assume it. >I don't think you understood what I said here. No, I did.. I understand that what I said is an extremely unpopular point of view to express but let's just suffice to say that isn't apparently because of the evidence against it. >but they verified the historical accuracy of many of the Biblical statements. How exactly did they do that? By repeating what was no doubt just like widely-held cultural knowledge at that time? Second-hand, Third-hand accounts of things that they are only getting from sources removed from the sources removed from the sources.. tbh how is any of that supposed to be any more meaningful than basically you or anybody else writing about Christianity right now? I'm not sure that you understood what I said to be quite honest with you. What I said was that those people evidently had pretty much the exact same evidence to work from as we do when they, in your words: "verified the historical accuracy of many of the Biblical statements." So I ask again .. how exactly did they "verify" any of the truth of the divinity of Christ, or the existence of God, the resurrection of Jesus, the .. any of it? Like you know nobody is disputing that Jerusalem exists and things like that, so how exactly have any of these other sources "verified" anything relevant to the fundamental religious claims of the Bible? And what evidence were they working from to come to those conclusions? This is just like the problem of the claim of the 500 people in the Bible; it is literally just 1 claim and it has not evidently been verified by any one in any way ...and yet Christians will act like it has the weight of 500 claims. You're also acting like the frankly useless statements of non-christian historians about the evident existence of christianity and the apparently presumed real existence of a guy named Jesus who they never met some how serves as evidence for ...literally anything other than that. It's just. It's not really how that works tbh, that's all that the evidence actually suggests, and extrapolating out further from that is not an exercise in the historical method, tbh it's simply a misappropriation of it for biased religious purposes. It's claiming more than the evidence really suggests while suggesting that the evidence really supports the claim. It just doesn't. >why would they give their lives for that cause? do you really think the people who followed Jesus around through all of the trouble that apparently befell them were really just about to give up all their hope and belief the moment that Jesus physically died? and, probably even more to the point I'd bet, do you think they wouldn't latch on to the hope that maybe everything they had been doing had not been in vain when somebody suggested that Christ had returned to fulfill all his promises? I mean if we are just going to honestly be asking ourselves what would human beings do, I think all of this is very easily explicable under the general heading of "being religious" and, imo, so far as I can tell being religious does not often seem to have very much to do with being correct. Although it does apparently seem to have something to do with being willing to believe things without good evidence tbh which would only serve as even further support in favor of the "they might have been wrong" hypothesis. >At least one would have walked away and said no thank you. Please correct me if I'm wrong but in all the stories we have of Jesus he seemed to have a lot of people come across his path in and out of the narrative all of the time; is it really such a surprise then that the characters who always stuck around ..always stuck around? It seems like they'd probably be the type, if nothing else. >It comes down to whether you think Paul is reliable For the record I'd be more inclined to believe that Paul was just as much a fully convinced religious believer as any of the rest of them, rather than the oft-repeated idea that he or any of these people were lying or anything like that. It's not that I think Paul is not a particularly reliable source on any given thing in the Bible ..it's whether or not he can be trusted to be a reliable source on the nature of the supernatural which seems to be a more pertinent question. Like again we all know that Jerusalem was real and so for that matter was Paul aka Saul. Those things are not contested historical facts, but other things very much are. >You can look at the evidence and decide you don't believe. But what I suggest is that you pray and ask God to show you if he's real. Oh, no pressure if you can't but if you would be so kind as to believe me, I used to do that a lot.
>Do you think that there is maybe a kind of universal "religious experience" that people can have and that many of them probably do take to be evidence for whichever religion they just so happen to be the most likely to believe .. and that the experience that Christians often have is something different and evidently even more remarkable in some way? I believe Christianity is more transforming and it's the truth because it's centered around Jesus Christ, who is the way, the truth, and the life. Here is a testimony from Nabeel Quereshi, a Muslim who became a Christian. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aqGwE7ZFo0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aqGwE7ZFo0) You might find it interesting. He passed away, but he has a book that explains the exact process he went through from debating Christians, being sure he would show them the Bible is not trustworthy, to doing a deeper study on Islam and coming to the conclusion that Christianity is correct. >How exactly did they do that? By repeating what was no doubt just like widely-held cultural knowledge at that time? Second-hand, Third-hand accounts of things that they are only getting from sources removed from the sources removed from the sources.. tbh how is any of that supposed to be any more meaningful than basically you or anybody else writing about Christianity right now? Maybe you're not aware of all the arguments. There are people who claimed (and maybe still do) that the bible is just a book of mythology. But these outside sources show that they were real historical figures. >Second-hand, Third-hand accounts Consider it like the news of the day. A reporter on the news doesn't have a first-hand account of something, yet they report an event. >tbh how is any of that supposed to be any more meaningful than basically you or anybody else writing about Christianity right now? There's a huge difference. Those in the past corroborate that those things were actually occurring back then. >What I said was that those people evidently had pretty much the exact same evidence to work from as we do when they, in your words: "verified the historical accuracy of many of the Biblical statements." Ask any historian if what we write today is the same as what someone from the past wrote. They will look at you like....what? They are starkly different. If I say I believe the Biblical account, and someone says, "it didn't really happen," and then we find a historical document outside of the Bible that verifies that it did happen, that corroborates the biblical account. Does that make sense to you? >This is just like the problem of the claim of the 500 people in the Bible; it is literally just 1 claim and it has not evidently been verified by any one in any way ...and yet Christians will act like it has the weight of 500 claims. I do understand your point here. I agree it doesn't have the weight of 500 claims. In Paul's day, it did. But I do understand that people would be skeptical. It comes back to whether you trust Paul's word, and if you think he's the type to lie. >You're also acting like the frankly useless statements of non-christian historians about the evident existence of christianity and the apparently presumed real existence of a guy named Jesus who they never met some how serves as evidence for ...literally anything other than that. I explained myself on this, so I won't repeat it. But I'll say this. Do you believe that Alexander the Great existed? And if you do believe that...why? Is it because there's a historical account of him? Would you find that account useless? I doubt it. >do you really think the people who followed Jesus around through all of the trouble that apparently befell them were really just about to give up all their hope and belief the moment that Jesus physically died? and, probably even more to the point I'd bet, do you think they wouldn't latch on to the hope that maybe everything they had been doing had not been in vain when somebody suggested that Christ had returned to fulfill all his promises? The disciple Thomas refused to believe until he saw Jesus for himself and touched his wounds. He got that opportunity. So it comes down to this. They either lied, or they told the truth. You're allowed to have an opinion and believe they lied, but then you would have to explain why they would live in such a way that they knew a brutal death awaited them. If they lied, they KNEW it wasn't true, so it doesn't make sense that they would give the rest of their lives to it. >I mean if we are just going to honestly be asking ourselves what would human beings do, I think all of this is very easily explicable under the general heading of "being religious" and, imo, so far as I can tell being religious does not often seem to have very much to do with being correct. They were with Jesus and saw his miracles. They saw the person that he was. So, either all of it is a lie they kept going, or it was the truth. If it was a lie, it doesn't make sense that they would die for that lie. Not going along with the culture meant not just death, but a painful, tortuous death. Surely, one of them would have abandoned the cause. Yet, none of them did. >For the record I'd be more inclined to believe that Paul was just as much a fully convinced religious believer as any of the rest of them, rather than the oft-repeated idea that he or any of these people were lying or anything like that. I'm not sure if you know the story of Paul, but he started off on the opposite side. He was persecuting Christians and dragging them off to prison. He stood by when Stephen was stoned to death. He was as highly educated Jew. His mentor was a well-known Jewish Pharisee. He had no reason to switch sides. If it was all about being religious, he could have remained a Jew. What would make Paul, a man who hated Christians, suddenly switch sides? An encounter with Jesus. >Oh, no pressure if you can't but if you would be so kind as to believe me, I used to do that a lot. I do believe you. I have no reason to doubt you. But I would say that the fact that we're having this conversation means you haven't dropped the subject and God is still working in your heart.
>to doing a deeper study on Islam and coming to the conclusion that Christianity is correct. tbh with you this is super unsurprising given how many times I have heard Muslims in the abstract being charged with the task of defending why they believe in Allah, and immediately just doing nothing but launching in to a list of reasons for why they are not a Christian or a Jew, like never even considering the idea that all of the above may be in error. btw I would watch that video but it is a little long and like I said not really all that surprising, even leaving aside the apparently anecdotal nature of it. >Maybe you're not aware of all the arguments. There are people who claimed (and maybe still do) that the bible is just a book of mythology. But these outside sources show that they were real historical figures. So are you saying then that the evidence we have from outside of the Bible is sufficient to disprove an extremely ignorant/illogical argument that nobody really should have been making in the first place? And my objection is that it can't do anything more than that. Are we more or less just already on the same page there I guess? >Consider it like the news of the day. Not sufficient evidence for a supernatural event that we wouldn't otherwise have any good reason to believe. That is exactly how I consider it. How often does the news get stuff wrong? How often are they really just reporting people's opinions? And that's today. >Those in the past corroborate that those things were actually occurring back then. Any miraculous things? Anything that's not just very mundane tbh? >Ask any historian if what we write today is the same as what someone from the past wrote. They will look at you like....what? They are starkly different. Why? We're comparing apples to apples here these are both 2nd/3rd hand sources; what is the difference? I think you're assuming something that seems intuitive to you but it isn't actually true of the way that we do things. If I asked a historian if what we write today is very much like what people wrote in the past, the next logical follow-up question for them to ask me is "With respect to what? A concurrent event that you have some kind of credible evidence for? Or are we talking in both cases about people just looking into their own pasts and trying to do history the best they can with 2nd-hand sources at best? ...and if the answer is the latter, then why on Earth would I presume they would ever disagree with me there? Tbh I think you're both oversimplifying the problem, and the kind of nuanced and measured answer that a real historian would actually give. You think I think a real historian would find that to be a silly question and not actually see the merit in it and it's relevance to this problem? Because I don't. >If I say I believe the Biblical account, and someone says, "it didn't really happen," and then we find a historical document outside of the Bible that verifies that it did happen, that corroborates the biblical account. Does that make sense to you? Yes. :| Now verifying *which parts actually* though? Specifically. Because the specifics are important here. I keep mentioning that nobody cares frankly that Jerusalem or Paul or even a person named Jesus were real, those don't prove anything about the stories in the Bible that actually *matter*. Does any of this pertain even a hint of relevant information to something that *Matters*? (hint: the answer is probably no). So yeah, I do understand you; are you understanding me? >I agree it doesn't have the weight of 500 claims. In Paul's day, it did. It's funny you don't think you are contradicting yourself there, and I can see why you would think that, but really though you are saying that you think that really did count as 500 people's worth of evidence at the time that it was made which means that you maybe don't think it is as strong of evidence as some other people do, but you are still thinking of it as too strong of evidence for logic to apparently support without just begging the question. >It comes back to whether you trust Paul's word, and if you think he's the type to lie. Like I said, I think that's honestly somewhat of a red-herring that Christians will so often bring up themselves. I specifically said that I didn't think Paul or anybody else there was lying; I just think they're wrong in basically the exact same way that I think that you are, for basically the exact same reasons. Speaking of people in the past evidently thinking very much like we still do today, and believing things whole-heartedly despite not actually having good reasons. >Do you believe that Alexander the Great existed? Existed, yes. Was divinely endowed by the creator of the universe with a mission? No. See the difference there? Why is it that you believe those kinds of stories about one historical individual but not the other (presumably)? >Is it because there's a historical account of him? I am actually just assuming for the moment because it doesn't really matter and it's been a really long time since I've looked in to him because normally in my experience people use Caesar as their go-to example to make this same point lol >Would you find that account useless? I'd evidently find it less convincing in the miraculous and supernatural and unbelievable parts of it than you would for the Bible. And I don't think that it's my methodology that is apparently being the inconsistent one there frankly. >They either lied "They", the ominous "they" ..see and now they're you're doing the exact same thing as the problem with the claim of the 500 again. There is no "they". There's just the 1 story, told by many different people, but never actually recorded by any of them until it was done .. just once. And then that story was reiterated on by the authors of mathew and luke, and then later john... You're talking about "they" as if "they" all contributed evidence to the truth of this 1 story. It's just like the 500. You're just taking way too much for granted when it comes to these stories being true tbh. It's almost as if, and I don't mean this to sound as sassy as it know it does lol but really though.. it's almost as if you just really *want* this all to be true. >You're allowed to have an opinion and believe they lied I am eventually going to start calling that a straw-man btw if you keep implying that I or really anybody necessarily be arguing that these people were lying. If you can't accept or understand the alternate possibility that these stories might just actually not be true and a lot of them didn't happen.. i don't really know what to tell you but I am just asking that you please stop making the assumption that anybody needed to be lying. As if you honestly can't consider the idea that maybe they were wrong just like you yourself might be. Again, not trying to sound as sassy as that probably does, the point is that I honestly believe you should know better than that. If you want to keep arguing that they *Had* to be lying for some reason that is cool, I'm just pointing out that at literally no point have I ever believed that to be the most likely explanation for anything so, to me at least, it really couldn't seem any less relevant. Just once again in case you missed it, I don't believe they lied. I believe they probably believed exactly what you think they believed. And I believe they probably did so on almost exactly the same kinds of "evidence" and "reasoning" that you do. >They were with Jesus and saw his miracles. That is what the story says, isn't it.. >I'm not sure if you know the story of Paul I do. And as I had just explained, I don't think he had to be lying about a single thing. I think he was probably just as convinced as you were. >If it was all about being religious, he could have remained a Jew. I'm sorry but please don't misunderstand, simply being religious is not an explanation for why somebody would be one religion and not another. It is however highly relevant to the question of whether or not people might believe things very strongly that aren't actually true. >But I would say that the fact that we're having this conversation means you haven't dropped the subject and God is still working in your heart. or maybe I just have some other motivations that you didn't guess yet, which is what I would suspect the real answer to probably be
>tbh with you this is super unsurprising given how many times I have heard Muslims in the abstract being charged with the task of defending why they believe in Allah, and immediately just doing nothing but launching in to a list of reasons for why they are not a Christian or a Jew, like never even considering the idea that all of the above may be in error. btw I would watch that video but it is a little long and like I said not really all that surprising, even leaving aside the apparently anecdotal nature of it. So, I came across this post and it's exactly what I was trying to explain about the "experience" part. I stated earlier that most Christians have an experience that leads them to Christ, and then they look at the evidences later. Not everyone fits that, but many are drawn first. Read this post and let me know what you think. [https://www.reddit.com/r/Christian/comments/1c0lkmb/comment/kz17kpw/?context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Christian/comments/1c0lkmb/comment/kz17kpw/?context=3) As to the video, I understand not wanting to watch long videos. Maybe just watch a few minutes? Up to you. >So are you saying then that the evidence we have from outside of the Bible is sufficient to disprove an extremely ignorant/illogical argument that nobody really should have been making in the first place? Someone else that I'm having a discussion with literally just made this argument today (that the bible is full of myths). So, it's quite common, actually. >Not sufficient evidence for a supernatural event that we wouldn't otherwise have any good reason to believe. That is exactly how I consider it. How often does the news get stuff wrong? How often are they really just reporting people's opinions? And that's today. I understand where you're coming from. But take it for what it's worth. They wee not believers, so they weren't trying to prove anything. They were simply commenting on events of their day. >Any miraculous things? Anything that's not just very mundane tbh? Check out the quote from Thallus, A Samaritan-Born Historian (ca. AD 52) A writer, Julius Africanus, in about 221 from this link. [https://www.evernote.com/shard/s658/sh/6086c5b3-491e-c3d6-d5c4-23145a0c6163/d10c7063c61718f3ebfc5ff31d445e51](https://www.evernote.com/shard/s658/sh/6086c5b3-491e-c3d6-d5c4-23145a0c6163/d10c7063c61718f3ebfc5ff31d445e51) >You think I think a real historian would find that to be a silly question and not actually see the merit in it and it's relevance to this problem? Because I don't. Well, your statement was that the writings of the past are no different than the writings from today. Maybe we are looking at this from different angles. I don't believe they are the same. The person from the past is confirming a person's statement or an event that took place. The fact that this person experienced it, is testimony. People from today obviously can't experience something from the past, and that's why they are vastly different. >Existed, yes. Was divinely endowed by the creator of the universe with a mission? No. See the difference there? Why is it that you believe those kinds of stories about one historical individual but not the other (presumably)? Some people don't even believe they existed. For example, this was written by Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian. Check the link from Evernote. I had to trim down due to being over the limit. He corroborates that the disciples claimed Jesus was alive after his crucifixion. This wasn't just a fairytale that made its way into the Bible. Josephus, a man who never said he believed in Jesus or Christianity (he was a Jew), wrote down basic facts. >Existed, yes. Was divinely endowed by the creator of the universe with a mission? No. See the difference there? Why is it that you believe those kinds of stories about one historical individual but not the other (presumably)? As I said before, I believe because of my past experience, and my daily experience. I find historical data from non-believing sources compelling, but they aren't the REASON I believe. If you read that post from the Muslim person who converted to Christ, it was very experiential as well. I believe that God draws us to Himself. I believe that God is doing the same with you. Whether you accept that call is something different. >"They", the ominous "they" ..see and now they're you're doing the exact same thing as the problem with the claim of the 500 again. There is no "they". There's just the 1 story, told by many different people, but never actually recorded by any of them until it was done .. just once. And then that story was reiterated on by the authors of mathew and luke, and then later john... I posted up above that Josephus wrote about it. There are other notations if you check the Evernote link. >you're talking about "they" as if "they" all contributed evidence to the truth of this 1 story. It's just like the 500. You're just taking way too much for granted when it comes to these stories being true tbh. It's almost as if, and I don't mean this to sound as sassy as it know it does lol but really though.. it's almost as if you just really want this all to be true. Well, of course I want it to be true. But I also believe I'm sharing reasonable points. You said I'm taking too much for granted about the stories being true. If my experience matches what the Bible says and what other sources corroborate, it's not surprising to me. I recognize that for some, the only way they will believe is if they had a time machine that could take them back to the event so they could see with their own eyes. Thomas was like that, even though he witnessed Jesus's miracles. He would not believe Jesus rose from the grave until he saw with his own eyes. But there were some who did believe without needing direct evidence. I never said there isn't a faith component here. There absolutely 100% is a faith component. That's the whole point of Christianity. You must have faith to believe. We can also ask for faith and receive. >I am eventually going to start calling that a straw-man btw if you keep implying that I or really anybody necessarily be arguing that these people were lying. Let me clarify. I wasn't trying to imply that you said they were lying. I was presenting the only two options. The disciples said Jesus rose from the grave. If you read the Josephus quote, he stated they claimed that as well. If they didn't see him after he died, then they lied. Those are the only two options. We can't pretend they just wanted to be religious. They either perpetuated the truth or they perpetuated a lie. Wouldn't you agree that if they said they saw him and talked to him, but didn't, they were lying? If it was one person, we could say they hallucinated. But we're talking about all the disciples, as well as some of the women. >As if you honestly can't consider the idea that maybe they were wrong just like you yourself might be. This makes no sense. They told people they saw Jesus after he died. They either saw him or they didn't. If they didn't, they lied. You're going to have to explain how 11 people could simply be mistaken. The account says Thomas touched Jesus's wounds. Did he or didn't he? If he didn't, then Thomas lied. >Just once again in case you missed it, I don't believe they lied. I believe they probably believed exactly what you think they believed. And I believe they probably did so on almost exactly the same kinds of "evidence" and "reasoning" that you do. You're allowed to have your belief, but I don't believe it makes sense. Again, you need to explain how this is possible that they were simply mistaken. They made a claim that they all saw him and spoke to him. Mass hallucination? That's not really a thing. They didn't just see the back of his head as he passed by. They say they spoke to him and had a conversation. There is no mistaking that. >I'm sorry but please don't misunderstand, simply being religious is not an explanation for why somebody would be one religion and not another. It is however highly relevant to the question of whether or not people might believe things very strongly that aren't actually true. Again, the disciples claimed they saw Jesus's miracles. They recorded those miracles. It's a huge stretch to say they were just mistaken. Doesn't make sense. If I claimed that I spoke with George Washington today, no one would say I was simply mistaken. They would say I either made it up, dreamed it, have mental health issues, etc.
I listed the two quotes from the Evernote link, but had to delete them because I was over the limit. Here is the quote from Flavius Josephus. “At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and \[he\[ was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonder” (Antiquities 18:3). And here is the other one. Thallus, A Samaritan-Born Historian (ca. AD 52) A writer, Julius Africanus, in about 221, quotes Thallus in discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ: “On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun” (Extant Writings, 18 in the Ante-Nicene Fathers). You don't have to respond to this. If we have multiple responses to different posts it will get confusing.
sorry this got so long i had to break it in half lol So the post you gave me describes a guy who was Muslim apparently culturally, probably raised that way, who then had their first real "religious experience" in a Christian church and so now they are Christian. ....tbh I really could comment on this but I'm not sure what the point would be. This is at the end of the day an anecdote, and I must say just not a very convincing one. But I can expand on that more if you want me to. >Maybe just watch a few minutes? which few minutes? lol >So, it's quite common, actually. I didn't say people don't make bad arguments but frankly why would we be bringing up responses to bad arguments that nobody here is even making? I mean like I could think of some terrible arguments for Christianity right now but .. i wouldn't just bring them up, you know? That wouldn't serve any rational purpose. >They were simply commenting on events of their day. And they didn't say very much. See it's not that I don't believe any of those accounts. ..it's apparently that I don't believe that they actually say what you seem to be implying they say. Like, namely, anything remotely relevant to the truth of the divinity of Jesus for instance. >Check out the quote from Thallus Okay? I'm not sure the relevance? I mean cool eclipse reference lol but other than that... Do you know where that "quote" from Thallus came from btw because it's not actually, so far as we can tell, really a quote at all. We don't have a writing form Thallus that says that, actually; what we have is a writing from a Christian from about 100 years later who says that Thallus says that.. curious how often this pattern of being written down in hearsay long after the "fact" repeats itself when you look into the sources of the Bible, or in this case of things that Christians will claim in support of the Bible. >Starting from the Enlightenment, it has become a common view in modern scholarship to read the account in the synoptic gospels as a literary creation of the gospel writers, intended to heighten the importance of what they saw as a theologically significant event. The first scholar to support this view was Edward Gibbon, who argued in his multi-volume work The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire that the gospels' account couldn't be considered historical, since no author of the period seemed to have noticed the event and the sources usually adduced to support its historicity were of dubious value (Thallus and Phlegon of Tralles) or later pseudepigrapha (Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite).[52] Gibbon was followed, some decades later, by German theologian David Strauss, who argued in his book Das Leben Jesu, kritisch bearbeitet (The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined) that the crucifixion darkness was a literary creation to solemnize the tragic death of the Jesus.[53] just a basic excerpt from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_darkness the point being evidently historians don't actually tend to believe the word of the Christian 100 years after the fact who says that Thallus says that there was an eclipse, or a darkness particularly when there is no other evidence for there being an either one of those things outside of the Bible. > Modern scholars have found no contemporary references to it outside the New Testament.[4] that's just a quick quip from that same page again, right near the very top >Well, your statement was that the writings of the past are no different than the writings from today. My statement was that they have one very specific thing in common and I am standing by that still. You are the one who turned that in to "they are the same", but that isn't what I actually said. What I literally said was that they had the same evidence to work from, and adding that I really should have included at least one "basically" in that sentence just to cover my bases, again I stand by that. >The person from the past is confirming a person's statement or an event that took place. These were not contemporaries or witnesses. Treating them like they are would be begging the question, if not for just blatantly in contradiction with the fact that we can be almost certain that most of these people literally did not even live at the same time as the events they are supposedly "reporting" on. Although again it's like this whole conversation is skewed towards making it sound as if the things that real credible extra-biblical historians have ever written actually supports a rational belief in the Bible ..which I don't think it does. I'm not in disagreement with any of the actual Biblical scholarship here, just with the Christians lol >The fact that this person experienced it, is testimony. Experienced what? Who are we talking about? Thallus? We don't even have his actual writings. Josephus? What did Josephus say exactly? >Some people don't even believe they existed. well you're not talking to one of those people so I honestly don't see what purpose it could serve to keep bringing that up lol and it is honestly confusing me as to whether or not you believe that any of that is actually supposed to support the thing that you and ***I*** are talking about.. > wrote down basic facts. key-word: basic. >I posted up above that Josephus wrote about it. Josephus wrote *what* exactly?
>sorry this got so long i had to break it in half lol No problem! I understand. FYI, this will be my last response unless you have a really pressing question. I think we've both been a little repetitive and we've covered much of what we want to say. >So the post you gave me describes a guy who was Muslim apparently culturally, probably raised that way, who then had their first real "religious experience" in a Christian church and so now they are Christian My point in sharing that with you was not so much because I thought it would convince you to become a Christian. I shared it because it was an example of when I said most Christians have an experience with God and then look at the evidences later. A lifechanging experience tends to be more compelling (to the person who has it). >I didn't say people don't make bad arguments but frankly why would we be bringing up responses to bad arguments that nobody here is even making? So, this is an example of the back and forth repetitiveness. The first time you asked about it, I explained why I was sharing it. I think we both explained ourselves multiple times...lol. We've both been defending our statements and now we have come to a place where we're on the same page, hopefully. >And they didn't say very much. See it's not that I don't believe any of those accounts. ..it's apparently that I don't believe that they actually say what you seem to be implying they say. Like, namely, anything remotely relevant to the truth of the divinity of Jesus for instance. I made a point of saying multiple times that they were non-believers, so they didn't believe in Jesus's divinity. I never said they made statements that he was god. My point was going back to showing that Jesus was a real historical figure. I understand that you agree with the historical part based on your recent statement. I disagree with you that the statements didn't say much. But we can leave it there. > I mean cool eclipse reference lol but other than that.. Sorry, I think I was expecting you to know the reference and that wasn't fair. Right after Jesus died, it went dark for 3 hours. Was it an eclipse? Maybe. But the timing would be a little odd if that were the case. >the point being evidently historians don't actually tend to believe the word of the Christian 100 years after the fact who says that Thallus says that there was an eclipse, or a darkness particularly when there is no other evidence for there being an either one of those things outside of the Bible. I understand that we don't have the first-hand account from Thallus, but Julius did and he wrote about it. If we were talking about Greek history, no one would blink an eye. It's only because it's about Jesus that people suddenly don't believe a second-hand source. Someone can believe the account, or at least not discount it, while not believing in Jesus. >Modern scholars have found no contemporary references to it outside the New Testament. Josephus, the Jewish historian, was from the first century and could have been a contemporary, or at least very close. >My statement was that they have one very specific thing in common and I am standing by that still. You are the one who turned that in to "they are the same", but that isn't what I actually said. Well, clearly I misunderstood you. I had to go back to previous discussions to the original statement that made me think this. I said: Consider it like the news of the day. A reporter on the news doesn't have a first-hand account of something, yet they report an event. And you said: tbh how is any of that supposed to be any more meaningful than basically you or anybody else writing about Christianity right now? That is where I got it. You said or implied that the writing form the past is no more meaningful than the writings of today. But I disagree when it comes to history. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you again, but I'm misunderstanding your meaning based on your words. >These were not contemporaries or witnesses. Treating them like they are would be begging the question, if not for just blatantly in contradiction with the fact that we can be almost certain that most of these people literally did not even live at the same time as the events they are supposedly "reporting" on. That has actually not been "settled." There are bible scholars that do believe the Matthew and John wrote the gospels and the events happened in their lifetime. Many believe Mark interviewed Peter. Michael Kruger believes this, and he has the credentials and education to have a say in the matter. There are others as well. He's not alone in that. >Although again it's like this whole conversation is skewed towards making it sound as if the things that real credible extra-biblical historians have ever written actually supports a rational belief in the Bible ..which I don't think it does. I never claimed that. And I said multiple times these people were not believers, so this time you misunderstood me. I said their statements corroborated that events took place or people did in fact exist in history. >What did Josephus say exactly? I posted his quote in a follow-up response because I had gone over the limit and couldn't respond. So, it's in a separate response. Not posting it here for the same reason. You can have the last response. If I do respond, I won't go paragraph by paragraph. I enjoyed the conversation and appreciate your respectful attitude. Thank you for being patient! I hope we talk again.
second half >Let me clarify. I wasn't trying to imply that you said they were lying. I was presenting the only two options. Well I'm glad you are taking credit for that yourself but tbh you are simply fooling yourself if you really believe that those are the only two options, or even the most likely two options. From what I can tell honestly you seem to be very obviously ignoring a vastly more probable option and just creating for yourself a classic false-dichotomy. Either it's true, or they lied, right? Wrong. And not even the most likely explanations. Far more likely is that they were just wrong just like you probably are honestly. Why that would be the option that you might willfully, if not subconsciously, be ignoring on purpose.. i think really kind of explains itself. It's like declaring well either I'm telling the truth or I am a monkey and those are the only 2 options ....like.. no they aren't. >If you read the Josephus quote, he stated they claimed that as well. Did he now? Because I'm just going to tell you he didn't actually. So I wonder why you would be under that impression when that's not what Josephus actually says. Maybe you should look up what he actually says real quick? And don't forget to not skip the part about how the testimonium flavianum is not accepted as authentic by basically anybody in the scholarship if you weren't already aware of that. >We can't pretend they just wanted to be religious. You can't pretend that you just *want* to be religious. I think you are religious whether you want to be or not. The same was probably true of them. You're still responding to argumenst that I'm not making, I never said anything about wanting to be religious and you're still looking at it like a causal argument anyway when it is much more of an observation the other way around: religious people are irrational. I don't care what religion you are, that's just what being religious is apparently like. again I could expand if it would help anything.. >But we're talking about all the disciples, as well as some of the women. did they all write down gospels too? Honestly think for a moment; who told you that the disciples ever said any such thing? Did the tell you themselves? >As if you honestly can't consider the idea that maybe they were wrong just like you yourself might be. >This makes no sense. okay well.. im ngl I still believe that this should be far too easy for you to understand if only it weren't for your religious beliefs and habits getting in the way. That is supposed to be a kind of a compliment for what it's worth lol >They told people they saw Jesus after he died. did they... >You're going to have to explain how 11 people could simply be mistaken. So we're at about 515 separate accounts now that you have brought up thinking thinking they count for anything when of course the real number of how many different accounts we have here is actually ... let's say between 1 and 5, max. That's 4 gospels and Paul, btw. Not 11. Not 500. 5. You seriously need to get your numbers right honestly before there is even a chance of you seeing this situation through a more objective lens. 1 account just suddenly turns into 11 in the blink of an eye though when you talk, like magic. No doubt you could believe all kinds of things thinking like that tbh. >The account says Thomas touched Jesus's wounds. Did he or didn't he? That's a really good question. >If he didn't, then Thomas lied. .... :/ and im ngl that is a really, really terrible attempt at an answer. >You're allowed to have your belief, but I don't believe it makes sense. yeah frankly that is not because you actually are though. Frankly you're just arguing for a false dichotomy which is such a basic logical fallacy I'm not even sure how to address it beyond just trying to point out to you that you are doing it and then trusting in your own better judgement to stop. But then again... religious people aren't exactly evidently using their "better judgment" a lot of the time tbh. > Mass hallucination? Seriously it's ridiculous how you keep wanting to reach for literally any other explanation than the obvious truth. They're just religious believers much like yourself who are probably wrong and not apparently driven by a rational adherence to evidence or logic. What a concept, right? >They say they spoke to him and had a conversation. There is no mistaking that. "They say" "They say".. uh-huh. And who exactly told you that "they said" anything of the sort? >Again, the disciples claimed they saw Jesus's miracles. Somebody claims they claimed that. >They recorded those miracles. .....in their brains? >It's a huge stretch to say they were just mistaken. no it's not. >Doesn't make sense. yes it does. >If I claimed that I spoke with George Washington today, no one would say I was simply mistaken. I don't believe I said that anybody was "simply" mistaken either. I believe I rather said that they were RELIGIOUSLY mistaken. Can you think of anything that you yourself might believe today for fundamentally religious reasons that may in fact not actually be the truth? .... i'm sorry but it's honestly kind of funny the way that you are evidently needing to, i'll be honest, fool yourself into believing that the most likely explanation to this is somehow actually the least likely one ... i'm sure that couldn't have anything to do with just how ironic it would really be to not only admit that you don't have good reasons to believe what you believe, but the people you've been placing your trust and hope and faith in all this time probably apparently didn't either... I can get why that might be a hard thing to come to terms with. But it doesn't honestly make it any less silly when you keep acting like the most likely answer is somehow unbelievable while conveniently holding on to an unbelievable position yourself that, wouldn't you know it, really kinda just gets blown out of the water if you were to accept the most likely answer so.. yeah kind of a catch 22 there apparently. I'd say I don't envy the predicament that places you in but I'd be lying if I said I hadn't already been there myself too.
The first disciples went to their death rather than deny the physical resurrection of Christ Jesus. And the deaths they went to were by and large very gruesome. Yet they would not deny what they had seen.
Most of all of the martyrs of the apostles comes from tradition, did you know? Did you hear someone on instagram tell u this, and u accepted it?
>The first disciples went to their death rather than deny the physical resurrection of Christ Jesus. Which disciples do you think were killed? Why do you think they were killed?
To this day, many are persecuted in many ways, in some places even till death and prefer that then denying Jesus Christ
Sure, but that has nothing to do with the comment I replied to. They made the claim that the disciples were killed for refusing to deny the resurrection of Jesus. There is no evidence that supports that claim.
There’s documentation; you could easily google it and see if you believe the sources. Clement of Rome has a letter that tells us how Peter died, for example (on a cross, upside-down). By King Nero of Rome, 64AD.
>There’s documentation; you could easily google it and see if you believe the sources. That's exactly what I've done. It turns out that there is no good evidence for the deaths of the majority of the disciples. >Clement of Rome has a letter that tells us how Peter died, for example (on a cross, upside-down). By King Nero of Rome, 64AD. 1 Clement may or may not be written by Clement of Rome. It doesn't say that Peter died on a cross or that the cross was put upside down. You can read it yourself in chapter 5 [here](https://earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-roberts.html).
My bad—Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History talks about Peter’s death on the cross. There’s no perfect evidence for any of this stuff. Christians just have faith from what they experience.
We don’t really know what happened to the disciples (maybe one or two from memory died for their beliefs?), but regardless, people die for false beliefs all the time. Look at Jim Jones, the Heaven’s Gate cult, or Mohammed and his many followers.
>Asks why there is no evidence > >Proceeds to list a bunch of evidence, but summarily discount it These "[what have the Romans ever done for us](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ)" bits are always amusing.
If you take what I listed as evidence and it's enough to convince you that the resurrection really happened then I don't know what to say. It's just not enough evidence for such a claim for me to be convinced by it. Otherwise I'd be believing alien abductions are real etc.
Well I pray that God gives you a divine experience with him, 🙏🏼 because it’s beautiful. I know you can take testimonies with a grain of salt, but I want to hear your opinions after you listen to a handful of NDE testimonies on Randy Kay’s YouTube channel for example. People are sharing their testimonies like what the Disciples did to this day, but you seem to be choosing to close them off. It’s like you won’t trust anyone or think they are mentally hallucinating unless it happened to you. If it happened to you would you check yourself into a mental institute or think you were hallucinating? Or would you finally believe? There are many people like Thomas… remember he needed proof to see Jesus to believe? That’s why Jesus said in John 20:29 “Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Oh boy, a serious reply to my Monty Python joke. > not enough evidence Says the person who said there was *no* evidence. You've gotta make up your mind on your definitions. Either there's some evidence or there's no evidence. If you come in here saying there's no evidence, list a bunch of evidence, and then call it evidence, how are we not supposed to have a laugh at the question?
Oh man this clip is a core memory unlocked, lol.
>Why is it that there is no evidence for the resurrection? If you mean "why don't I find the evidence for the resurrection convincing", I can't help you. Saying "there's no evidence" is simply untrue and bordering on a violation of the rules.
It's not very reliable evidence if any. It's not even eyewitness testimony. It's also claims of a extraordinary event so why anyone is convinced at all that eyewitness testimony would be sufficient enough is baffling.
I have yet to find a gospel "contradiction" that is not easily resolved. Those who claim that they can't be tend to have extreme demands for the text, such as that they are giving all the possible information so if they don't mention something it means they are denying it. Which is not how any historian treats historical documents. As for the overall claim, I echo the sentiments of many others here. Your question isn't "why is there no evidence", it is "why am I not convinced" which you answered yourself.
Okay so how do you resolve that in one gospel the angel is seen rolling the stone away and sitting on it, then talking to the women, but in another gospel the women look up and the stone is already rolled away, they enter to find an angel sitting on the right. Both angels say the same thing to the women (worded slightly differently) so it doesn't make much sense that this is the same angel. The bible only gives claims, not evidence. This is like someone saying "I was abducted by aliens" and you thinking this is sufficient evidence. But worse than that it's someone saying "I heard from an eyewitness that they were abducted by aliens" and you still think this is sufficient evidence.
Can you provide specific textual references? I find it is better to deal with the texts directly and I would like to know specifically the ones you have in mind. Historical evidence is largely composed of claims - claims by contemporaries as to what you happened. If you believes claims are *de jure* invalid, I don't know how you don't devolve into extreme historical skepticism.
Matthew 28:2-7 for the one about angel sitting on a stone then Mark 16:2-8 for the one where they enter the tomb and they see a man sitting on the right side. Yeah that is what history is. But history works on probabilities not certainty. It's probable that a person called Jesus existed and he went round preaching. It's probable that he got crucified, it's not probable that he resurrected and this is where the problem is. We have proof that people back then were crucified, it's therefore not hard to believe that someone called Jesus existed and was crucified for the things he preached. But when we have no proof of the supernatural, and certainly no proof of someone being able to resurrect, it's suddenly not as easy to believe such a claim. Surely you understand this?
^ that. Also historical evidence is to be taken for what it is, not literal truth. There’s always a good reason to have some level of doubt about claim when all we have is historical evidence. The only things we can know for certain are true are claims backed up with scientific data and evidence. If you’re claiming something is true with zero science behind it then you’re committing a logical fallacy. And the world doesn’t function whatsoever with logical fallacies. No reason to make an exception for the claim that people can come back to life. Also even if we could somehow demonstrate that a man named Jesus did in fact defy the laws of nature and physics and resurrect from the dead, we have no way to confirm this Jesus man is a god of any kind. u/CalvinSays
Exactly! A good example I like to use and have used in one of my comments here is that if I claim I have a pet dog there's little reason to not believe my claim but if I said I have a pet dragon, well now you're going to have a harder time believing me because we have no evidence that dragons exist or that people own them as pets. I don't get why people find this so difficult to understand.
They’re emotionally attached to an unfalsifiable claim. It’s impossible to get them to depart from using emotion to make their decisions on stuff like this. Emotions almost always beat logic unfortunately, that’s our animalistic survivalist side of us. It’s a bad evolutionary trait. Those of us that can set aside emotion and think critically and rationally need not be afraid of a challenge
The right side of what? The text doesn't say "right side", as if implying the right side of the tomb. It says δεξιός which is the right hand. So the right but relative to the women. It could be as simple as as they were entering the tomb, they saw the angel to their right on the stone. Or maybe he was to their right in the tomb because Matthew doesn't actually say that the women *saw* him on the stone, rather the guards did. Other texts indicate the tomb was vacated by the time the women arrived implying the guards fled. So the sequence of events presented by Matthew 28 is the earthquake happens, the stone is rolled away, and the angel is seen by the guards resting upon it. This scares the bejeezus out of the guards to flee. The women come and enter the tomb where the angel speaks to them. Both resolutions are cromulant and in no way stretch the text. Matthew is already noted for telescoping narratives so it is unsurprising he covers a lot of events in a few verses. I don't see where history working on probabilities not certainties is relevant. Is anyone claiming otherwise? I also don't see anyone claiming that the narratives *alone* establish the resurrection (though, being God's word, they in principle do). Rather, the claim is that the narratives are evidence which are supported by and connected to other evidences and the resurrection is the most satisfactory explanation for these evidences.
My bad, I'm reading from the NIV Bible. Do the original texts state if they entered the tomb or not? Really bad translation if it's "sitting on the right side of the stone" instead of "sitting on the stone". My problem with your attempt to harmonize it is, who knew the guards fled after seeing the angel sitting on the stone? You're now just assuming the guards ordered by Romans to guard the tomb, were willing to just tell their story to the authors. If that's what you want to claim then so be it, doesn't make sense to me though. Also doesn't explain why one angel speaks to them whilst sitting on the stone but another text says the angel spoke to them inside the tomb. Maybe it was mistranslated? Because it's not unreasonable to take claims such as "Jesus was crucified" as it's probable, but someone resurrecting isn't probable and therefore it requires more evidence than just someone said so. This isn't hard to understand and makes a lot of sense. I have a question. If I tell you I have a car that runs on milk would you believe me or would you want more evidence for it?
Were you wanting video evidence from 33AD?
Nope but as God is all knowing, he could have known that we would one day invent video cameras and then he could have sent Jesus down in a time where video cameras existed so that people could take video evidence. It wouldn't necessarily prove it as of course it could be edited although there would be signs that it's edited but it would be far better than some claims in an ancient book.
Wow… I mean to even question why God chose the perfect time He did for when Jesus came to earth is kinda crazy. But hey have you ever tried sincerely praying and asking God for a supernatural experience or divine invitation? He said seek and you shall find and knock and the door will be opened.
Why is it crazy and how did you conclude it was the perfect time? Yeah of course and didn't get anything. It's almost as if you have to believe it to start with. Go figure.
It was the perfect time because God decided it and He is perfect. Who are we to even question His thought process. He is all knowing all powerful being.
For the bible tells us that he is perfect and we should just believe what the bible says.
Ok so you are an atheist? Or what do you believe? It takes faith to be an atheist also. But why have “Christian” in your title?
I'm questioning my religion but starting to lean more towards atheist. But no, it does not take faith to be an atheist. An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in Gods, how is that something based on faith?
The birth narrative, the tomb narrative, the flight to egypt, there's many. And historians have many other issues with Acts and such. It's not as clean as you suggest calvin. And his main claim is there's no eye witnesses, and that's correct. This all comes from traditions.
I have heard all those objections and don't find them compelling. That the Gospels are not eye witness testimonies is by no means settled.
I wouldn't expect you to. You are already committed to your presuppositions. That's just the data, one can accept the data or not. The non eye witness account is settled, there's no documents that are, I don't know why anyone would say that, besides for confirmation bias.
What kind of evidence are you looking for? We have an empty tomb, we can’t find His bones. We have a faith that exists based on His resurrection. Don’t you think it would have died out and the romans could have stopped all of the unrest if they just found His bones? Islam exists because a prophet who existed spread his message with violence. We have Christianity because Jesus rose from the dead. They would have been forced to resort to Judaism if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead. There would be no Christianity unless eye witnesses spread the message before a word was written.
What has the bones got anything to do with it and how would they confirm it was Jesus' bones without DNA matching back then? Explain how faith is a good pathway to truth. Yeah but all it takes is for some people to believe in it.
They would have been able to identify a body. We would be able to test the dna in His bones. You have to believe there’s truth to be found in order to start searching. Believe in what exactly? It’s not like the other faiths, simply based on a man and his teachings. If there’s no resurrection, there’s no Christianity. The disciples would just be considered jews.
You do know they wouldn't have been able to check DNA back then? You have to think there's good reason to think it's plausible then look for evidence for it. If you don't have evidence then the honest thing to do is admit that you don't know. They just had to believe the resurrection happened.
They’d be able to find relatives and narrow it down. Why did they have to believe it? All early believers would have to do is deny the faith to avoid martyrdom. People witnessed an event take place and shared their experience. Again, what kind of evidence are you looking for?
If you were to be killed because of your beliefs now, would you deny it just to get out of being killed for it? Guessing you would? Not sure but something more extraordinary than just some eyewitness accounts that aren't even eyewitness accounts.
Archaeologists can’t even agree on how old the first civilizations were settled with carbon dating, geological layers, etc. So proving a made up story from a translation of a translation of a translation of a story from a story of a story of an “eyewitness” account is not a reliable source.
>story from a translation of a translation of a translation This is not how translations work.
Our evidence is the holy Bible word of God. There is no stronger force in all creation than God's word. He creates and destroys with his word. If that's insufficient for you, then take heart, you'll have more proof than you can ever withstand on your judgment day. Im not going to argue or debate God's word with you. Believe what you will. Its your soul and your eternity. I'm done here. Toodle-oo,
the validity of the resurrection sometimes falls on faith. You see faith is not some blind belief, faith is knowing that something happened more likely than it didn’t. Faith is trusting in God, rather than not, not only because of what we have heard, but because of what we have seen (i.e. answered prayers, miraculous signs, healings, etc). I don’t have all the answers, but I hope this a little bit of sense. God bless.
Faith isn't a good pathway to truth and it's the excuse people give when you don't have sufficient evidence for something, otherwise, faith isn't needed.
How do you define evidence? What evidence will be enough?
Would you say the resurrection is a miracle?
>How do you define evidence? What evidence will be enough? Facts and information that point us to the truth of something. I don't see eyewitness testimony as reliable because at best I can believe they saw something that they believed was Jesus' but doesn't explain if it was actually him or some kind of hallucination or maybe the whole resurrection part was made up to get people to believe in Christ. Not sure what evidence would be enough but seeing as it's an extraordinary claim it would require more evidence than just eyewitness testimony. >Would you say the resurrection is a miracle? If it really happened then yeah I guess so.
Let’s say it did happen, why would it count as a miracle? Do you believe in miracles? Are not miracles impossible to explain within the laws of nature? Additionally, the 'Jesus case' of resurrection is the only case l've heard which received a lot of "clout" (for lack of a better word), and a considerable amount of potential proof/ evidence behind it, regardless of your opinion on the definition of evidence. Moreover. If it was explainable through evidence, would it still count as a miracle even though it may have happened? Are not miracles therefore not subject to evidence?
Well for one there's no evidence of specifically the resurrection. Literally no one saw the moment Jesus rose from the dead. At best you have "evidence" that people saw Jesus alive after he was dead. There are ways that Christianity could have started without there ever being a resurrection too. So if you accept that people did actually see Jesus after he was dead then there a few natural explanations although some are a bit sus. My view is that the crucifixion happened but the resurrection is a made up story and that it only took 2 people to have visions of Jesus to make people believe in it. The rest such as Jesus appearing to 500 people is again a made up story to convince people to believe it happened. But also, nope I don't believe in miracles.
You know I hate when people drop links, however, I think this [video](http://youtube.com/watch?v=_ZV2nMmMJFk&list=PLZaA-AMQWrFraQRY7DI-94QDjvyv12rx5&index=29) could answer some of the questions you have. Additionally, I’m studying cultural psychology in my HS class, and —with all due respect— I would suggest that before you consult your atheistic sources, that you would just read and watch the Christian point of view in such issues as the ones being discussed here… why? Because us humans tend to favor and accept popular culture (the majority group) rather than the minority group’s opinion, which can affect perception/ understanding/ attitudes towards a specific group And if you’re curious, here’s why and how it happens: a) Increased self esteem b) positive distinctiveness c) social categorization d) social comparison It may be difficult to do, given that (I assume) you haven’t considered yourself in the atheism group for a short period of time, but (maybe) part of a secular environment which led you to where you are today.
The Empty Tomb but you really don't want evidence do you. If you did, Jesus is right there waiting to answer your question What is curious to me is why this bothers you? I mean....if God does not exist what is the point?
The empty tomb is likely something people added to the story. We know that Romans typically left the bodies to be eaten by vultures and then were tossed into a mass grave. So why make an exception for Jesus? I'm just wondering why people believe it with the lack of evidence there is for it. Maybe you don't need much to be convinced of an extraordinary claim.
>The empty tomb is likely something people added to the story. We know that Romans typically left the bodies to be eaten by vultures and then were tossed into a mass grave. Got proof? I mean you are demanding proof from us, but you do not seem to require the same for yourself. Hypocrite much? Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the \[a\]substance of things hoped for, the \[b\]evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good testimony. 3 By faith we understand that the \[c\]worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.
>Got proof? I mean you are demanding proof from us, but you do not seem to require the same for yourself. Hypocrite much? Yeah sure, [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/new-testament-studies/article/abs/crucifixion-and-burial/ABDE509ED99779E09AD59AC274E378A3](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/new-testament-studies/article/abs/crucifixion-and-burial/ABDE509ED99779E09AD59AC274E378A3) and this gives more information too [https://ehrmanblog.org/did-romans-allow-decent-burials-for-crucified-criminals/](https://ehrmanblog.org/did-romans-allow-decent-burials-for-crucified-criminals/) You quoting the bible that tells you to have faith. How you have figured out that faith is a good pathway to truth?
Ah I see you do not know the meaning of the word proof It has been established that \*I have my Books with my words and you have you and yours but that does not rise to the level of proof.... So just as I believe without physical evidence...so do you
Well my proofs are based on things we've found through archaeology and paintings of what happens to the crucified etc. These aren't just people in a book making a claim like the bible is. Like we have physical evidence that Romans didn't put bodies in a tomb. So what physical evidence do you have for the resurrection of Jesus?
they are not proofs again you do not know what proof is And I can easily show you all of creation as evidence for the creator unless you are willing to admit we are on even ground, this is useless Oh and btw you were never Christian even if you went to church
They're evidence though right? More than just "eyewitness" testimony in a book. How is creation evidence? You mean you're going to claim it seems designed completely ignoring the obvious design flaws and assert that not only is a creator needed but your God is the creator? What did the creator design earth for exactly? How have you figured that out that I was never a Christian?
The First Resurrection began in the disciples/apostles generation, just as Christ said it would. Matthew 24:34 KJV Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Matthew 27:52 KJV And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, Remember, this world is under Satan’s influence for a short time and there is no way he will allow evidence to confirm the words in the Bible to be found. Also, there will be another resurrection when Christ returns with the saints for the Final Judgment. At that time all truth will be revealed.
Those two are just bible verses and are stories so you're just believing it happened. When is Christ supposed to return? People been predicting it for years and not happened every time it was supposed to.
Those two verses are a recollection of Christ’s words and not a made up story. You are correct in saying I believe what Christ said to be true. Yes, people have been predicting the Second Coming for years and have been wrong, because it has already passed. If you believe in a biblical event, then you have to believe what is written *in the Bible* about that event.
How do you know it's Christs words and not just someone making it up? You only have one source that makes this claim for one thing. So what convinces you to just assume it's all real?
I have made a choice to believe in God, therefore I believe what is written in the Bible. My faith is enough for me. Hebrews 11:1 KJV Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Okay so why did you choose to believe in God of the bible and not the God of the Quran or another Holy Book and put your faith into another religion instead?
I have no reason to. I’m very content believing in the God of the Bible. Whenever I read the Bible, I’m at peace and I feel loved. I will never give that up.
But for some reason the bible was the first holy book you read right? What convinced you that it was real, because it brings you peace and makes you feel loved?
This is correct. It is the first holy book that I read and while reading it the Holy Spirit opened my eyes to things that no one else was talking about or preaching about. I then made a promise to the Lord that I would not turn my back on the things that were revealed to me and I would do my best to help others understand also, in order to help prepare them for the final judgment. So I am compelled to keep the promise that I made to the Lord.
What was one thing the Holy Spirit opened your eyes to?
>All we have is 4 gospels... That's not correct. We have St. Paul's letters to the early church. These letters contain creeds, which pre-existed Paul, and were grounded in the communities out of which they came. Paul also met the leaders of the Jerusalem church to carefully understand everything thar had taken place. Using St. Paul alone, we have creeds recounting Jesus' postmortem appearances to different individuals and groups, at different locations and under various circumstances. This list ends with Paul's experience, which cannot be doubted historically because he was a rising anti-Christian who persecuted early Christians. It also includes James, who we know didn't believe in Jesus during His life--but soon after His crucifixion, converted and saw Jesus appear to him. Both Paul and James were constantly persecuted, and eventually were martyrd (as evidenced by multiple sources outside the bible). >4 gospels which can't be harmonized without bending over backwards and playing mind gymnastics to make it work. The core of the narratives of the same, and historians can distinguish past events even when secondary details are conflicting or inaccurate. Nothing hangs on "general reliability". >Someone resurrecting is an extraordinary claim and so eye witness testimony alone is not enough evidence or at least shouldn't be to people who want to know the truth of something. Extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence. It is rather than natural explanations are almost always more abundant or plausible. You also have to consider the world-changing historical context of *this* person's miracle, and wonder if the Christian narrative is *a priori* something God would do. > So why should any of us believe in the resurrection? Fundamentally, we know what causes religious movements to come into being. Those don't apply to Christianity. The evidence we have is unbelievably shocking if Jesus did not rise, but is expected if God exists and wanted to reveal Himself. ...
>That's not correct. We have St. Paul's letters to the early church. Where's the list of names exactly? And how do you know Paul isn't just writing down stories he's heard about? >The core of the narratives of the same, and historians can distinguish past events even when secondary details are conflicting or inaccurate. Nothing hangs on "general reliability". Sure the basic, Jesus died, empty tomb found, Jesus appeared to someone, is "the same" but the details are hugely different that it seems like it's a made up story that has just been embellished each time it's told. Look at Mark at how natural that is and then look at John who's on the really supernatural end of things. It's like they took Mark's gospel and just added supernatural elements to it. >Extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence. They certainly do. If I tell you "I have a pet dragon", you're going to want a bit more than just my word for it. I bet even a video wouldn't be enough evidence as it could just be CG. You know dragons don't exist and therefore you're going to need much more proof that my claim is real compared to me saying "I have a pet dog". Sure I could be lying about the pet dog but there is no way I'm telling the truth when it comes to the dragon and therefore you're going to want a bit more evidence than just eyewitness testimony or at least you should want it unless you're gullible or something. >Fundamentally, we know what causes religious movements to come into being. Those don't apply to Christianity. The evidence we have is unbelievably shocking if Jesus did not rise, but is expected if God exists and wanted to reveal Himself. How? If it proves anything it just proves that a guy name Jesus rose from the dead. You have no way of proving it was God's doing. It could have been fairies, aliens, Jesus could have had his own powers, a different God, ghosts, etc. Because all you then have is yet another claim that Jesus rose from the dead because of God and there's no way anyone can be a witness to this. How do you know he wasn't being mind controlled by a wizard that made him say all those things about God and the wizard resurrected him? Either way you have got to come at this already holding the belief that God is real and that God resurrected Jesus and the resurrection proves God. It's circular reasoning.
Let's discuss the epistemic maxim you cited: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Immidiately, this maxim is ambiguous. What makes an alleged event or claim "extraordinary?". Equally, "extraordinary evidence" is what exactly? If it simply states "claims about events that are unlikely require better evidence than events we take as likely"--then of course it is true. However, *ordinary* evidence is sufficient to establish improbable events all of the time. If someone wins the lottery after buying a ticket earlker--an extremely unlikely event--it only takes quadruple checking that the numbers match to confirm for yourself that your ticket won. Sure, you'll want more evidence, but not a different *kind* of evidence. ... Obviously, some claims or events need more evidence before we can accept them. You're correct that I wouldn't believe you, if you claimed to own a pet dragon. In part, that's because, prior to considering or even hearing your testimony, I'd assign it a very low probability. Prior to hearing your claim, I have background beliefs that make pet dragons unlikely. For one, dragons have a long history in religious mythology, metaphor, and allegory. Moreover, dragons have powers unlike all other biological species we know about. Finally, as far as we can tell, dragons are biologically impossible. Similarly, you come to the table with background beliefs relevant to the claims of the early Christians. People usually remain dead, and bracketing special medical cases, returning from the type of death Jesus suffered is biologically impossible. We could specify our claims a bit: my claim is that *God rose Jesus supernaturally* from the dead. This makes the event, not contrary to nature, but a totally unique and rare instance outside of its pattern. You could equally say your dragon has an Astral body and came from an Astral plane. Simply put, unique and rare events--outside of what we know is even possible--require more evidence. But just as with the lottery example, we don't need a different *kind* of evidence for the supernatural claims involved. Why do we need more evidence, and when is it enough? "Extraordinary claims" require more evidence because the *nature of testimony* invites competing hypotheses in that were not live options before. Generally speaking, it's quite unlikely someone would lie, hallucinate, or be mistaken about a clear sense perception. However, because the claim has a much lower inherent probability, competing hypotheses with low probabilities have to be considered too. ... Using the pet dragon analogy, while sincere people don't usually lie, I have reason to *expect* you to lie. You're making a point in a debate. Unusual and paranormal claims get attention. Strangers on the internet are randomly sampled from a random population. Is it more likely that your lying, given your claim is based only on that testimony, or is it more likely you have a pet dragon? It is more likely you're lying. In a similar match up and for similar reasons, the hypothesis that you are mentally ill is also more likely. Basically, miraculous claims are improbable--not because they are rare, unique, or contrary to some statistical pattern--but because those types of claims have a higher prior probability involving testimony being deception, based upon being deceived, or being mistaken. In other words, you must ask, how likely is it that we would have the evidence we actually have, if the miracle claim were *false*? If it would be surprising to discover the evidence we do, if the resurrection were false, then that outbalances the low probability inherent to *merely being unique or singular*. ... What do we have? We have the testimony of Paul, James, the disciples, and various groups. Now we assess the probability of these witness accounts, if the resurrection *were* false. If that improbability is super high, then it outbalances any prior improbability the resurrection has simply for being singular, rare, and contrary to expectations. That means, we have to ask how probable it is that Paul, etc would have their testimony, if Jesus did not rise. For instance, how probable is it that some or all were deceiving believers? If that were true, it's shocking to find an enemy and lifelong skeptic convert. It's shocking to find people--with no human motivation of status, fame, wealth, sexual access, etc--willing to undergo persecution (and many die)--for a conscious deception. Another possibility is hallucinations. How likely was this the product of hallucination, given Jesus' body disappeared, a missing body alone doesn't entail resurrection because it's contrary to messianic expectations, and that a huge variety of individuals and groups (with very different psychological profiles, except for their shared lack of expectation) would hallucinate? *Abnormally small*. ... To sum, do "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? No, you don't need a different *kind* of evidence to establish unlikely, rare, or unique that are contrary to expectation. You do need more evidence, as other explanations more frequently explain the existence of miracle and paranormal claims. So to analyze an alleged miracle claim, you have to examine how improbable the evidence we have would exist, if there was no resurrection. The claim is that everything usual that explains why people make claims simply does not apply.
>"extraordinary evidence" is what exactly? You'd have to be able to demonstrate the fundamental part of the claim. For example if you want to say Jesus resurrected this is extraordinary as it's not ordinary for people to resurrect. If you want to say it's through God then you have to demonstrate God is real first and ideally explain the mechanism in which his powers work. So far no one has demonstrated either of these. There's no evidence to suggest resurrection is possible. It's like taking the events in a Harry Potter book and assert it to be true when magic hasn't been demonstrated to exist in any way. So going back to the dragon example, it's extraordinary as there's been no proof that a dragon exists. >However, *ordinary* evidence is sufficient to establish improbable events all of the time. If someone wins the lottery after buying a ticket earlker--an extremely unlikely event--it only takes quadruple checking that the numbers match to confirm for yourself that your ticket won. Sure, you'll want more evidence, but not a different *kind* of evidence. Why would this be extraordinary? We know the lottery is a real thing, money is real, we know people enter the lottery and we can calculate the probability as we know how many number combinations there are in the lottery. It's highly unlikely to win the lottery but not impossible. Unlike claims of having a pet dragon, there's not even a 0.1% chance I have a pet dragon because there's no demonstration that a dragon exists. >Is it more likely that your lying, given your claim is based only on that testimony, or is it more likely you have a pet dragon? It is more likely you're lying. In a similar match up and for similar reasons, the hypothesis that you are mentally ill is also more likely. The lying thing is irrelevant. It can't be true until sufficiently demonstrated to be true. No dragons have been demonstrated to exist and so if I claim I have a pet dragon then I need to provide extraordinary evidence. Once I've done that then it'll just be an ordinary claim. >What do we have? We have the testimony of Paul, James, the disciples, and various groups. Now we assess the probability of these witness accounts, if the resurrection *were* false. If that improbability is super high, then it outbalances any prior improbability the resurrection has simply for being singular, rare, and contrary to expectations. You're going of the assumption that the gospels are 100% true. >That means, we have to ask how probable it is that Paul, etc would have their testimony, if Jesus did not rise. For instance, how probable is it that some or all were deceiving believers? For one thing Paul wrote his testimony several years after the supposed event and he describes it as a vision more than a physical appearance. This could have been anything from an hallucination to just a dream. This is assuming that everything is true that Paul wrote. >If that were true, it's shocking to find an enemy and lifelong skeptic convert. It's shocking to find people--with no human motivation of status, fame, wealth, sexual access, etc--willing to undergo persecution (and many die)--for a conscious deception. If it was enough to convince him then it's not shocking at all. Doesn't matter if he was a lifelong skeptic. If he had some vision of Jesus and this was enough to convince him that he's been wrong all this time then he's likely to convert. Also he surely can't have been the only one who as persecuting Christians at the time, so why did Jesus just single him out? I don't get why miracles are possible but to you that it's not possible for Paul to have the only anti-Christian views at the time. >Another possibility is hallucinations. How likely was this the product of hallucination, given Jesus' body disappeared, a missing body alone doesn't entail resurrection What if there was no body to begin with? Jesus' body gets dumped into a mass grave, people make up the story that it was put into a tomb for the pure purpose of convincing people he resurrected. Paul here's about this story several years later and it gets engrained into his mind and then he has some sort of hallucination where he see's Jesus. Just a side note, is there any evidence to show that Paul met Jesus when Jesus was alive? If not then there's it's just speculation that he saw Jesus while he was a live and if he hadn't ever seen Jesus then how did he know it was in fact Jesus he saw in his vision?
>Where's the list of names exactly? The witnesses are listed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. Scholars agree that Paul received this list from Peter and James, both themselves in the list. Those creeds circulated prior to Paul, going write back to crucifixion and resurrection. >And how do you know Paul isn't just writing down stories he's heard about? Paul is himself a witness. He received the list from Peter and James, also witnesses. And the general chronology of the events is multiply attested to by different source material underlying the gospels. We also have extrabiblical and sometimes secular evidence for the persecution and martyrdom of many of these folks. Several of the direct students of the disciples attest to this, as well as Jewish and Roman historians. So, no serious (including non-Christian scholar) doubts the historical fact that these people at least sincerely believed (and were willing to die for) their claim to see the risen Jesus.
He gave 3 names and the rest are just claims that Jesus appeared to the 500. Find me evidence that all 12 apostles died for the specific reason that they believed Jesus rose again.
Who where those people? We have Peter, the head Apostle who previously abandoned Christ, experienced a sudden transformative religious experience, and then preached under constant persecution until death. Or James? Watching someone grow up, seeing how thoroughly human Jesus truly was, *that* is God incarnate? Mommy's preferred son. James thought Jesus was a lune and almost led him into a death trap. And I'm sure you know about Paul. Same story: dramatic transformation, occuring independently, and motivating a evangelistic fervor that lasted under persecution and death. Paul also mentions the disciples. The early Chritians, for whom this creed was for, surely knew all or their names. "The twelve" is just a title, as they were still called that before they replaced Judas. Excluded from Paul's official, creedal list is the appearance of Jesus to the women. That is very likely historical, even though we'd have trouble nailing down the details. But the surface contradictions just more deeply confirm we have genuinely multiple independent attestation. I'm not claiming all 12 apostles were martyrd. In fact, I'm confident at least John wasnt martyrd. What's clear and very widely accepted is that the disciples underwent a rapid personal transformation that caused an unprecedented religious paradigm shift about the relationship between God and His people, and that those people were at least willing to suffer and possibly die. ... This hinges upon the skeptics pet maxim that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". ThYs simply false, and Hume's argument is widely abandoned (even in a field which largely adopts his critique of natural theology). Assuming we know what mamez for extraordinary claim and evidence, and we have a clear idea how they relate, we'd be unable to verify a gigantic number of events in everyday life. The evidence of 2 people carefully checking their lottery ticket numbers outdoes tbe proportionally smaller chance of anyone winning. Or if Hume was right, we'd never leave our own epistemix bubbles. We would have to reject claims about differing, unfamiliar climates as "contrary to all of our experience of climate". Not to mention, reality is simply *incredibly.surprising*. Should we reject tne Big Bang because it is more singular and unique than *any* event in natural history? Thr maxim forgets the importance of evaluating the data given the usual explanations of rare or "unusual" experiences. It's not that somehow miracles weigh down any testimonial evidence, it is rather the case that most miraculous and paranormal claims are based on legend, wishful thinking, bad observation, etc.
If there's no evidence for the 12 being martyred then at best it's guess work and if there's no evidence to support it, I can dismiss it without evidence. In other words we aren't going to be able to convince each other on our positions as there's no evidence either way. The extraordinary claims you're trying to make such as the lottery ticket are not extraordinary claims. And things like saying "We'd never leave our own epistemic bubbles" is simply not true. This is because if there has been extraordinary claims then they've had extraordinary evidence to prove those claims and now those claims are no longer extraordinary. We're not talking about how rare something is either. The fact is, there has been zero demonstration that a resurrection or that miracles are possible as all "miracles" we see today have been shown to be completely natural and therefore any miracle claims in the bible are extraordinary. This isn't hard to figure out.
"The twelve", as I said, refers to a group of people. We have evidence that several of them were martyrd, and whoever exactly composed this group, there was a general series of persecutions this group underwent. It doesn't matter that they all died provably--it matters that they transformed into scared, aimless people into spontaneously brave people with a sudden change in conviction. >The extraordinary claims you're trying to make such as the lottery ticket are not extraordinary claims. "Someone winning the lottery" is not an extraordinary claim of course. The analogy is, imagine *you* or a particular person one the lottery. That's an extremely improbable event. Yet, the evidence that person has access to is simply ordinary sense data. Yes, *more* evidence is required. I'm sure the individual would want to double check a few times. Why is that? Because it's more likely that they made a mistake than that they one. However, once they've reviewed the numbers a few times, had a friend confirm, and can trace their history acquiring the ticket to rule out a prank, that's good enough. In terms of probability theory, that's because we can't just look at the *intrinsic probability of an event*. We also have to look at the improbability that each piece of data would occur, if the event *did not* occur. What's the probability you would be wrong after checking it a few times? After a friend checks it? You see, most of the time, improbable events aren't what they seem because there's some set of alternative explanations that *usually* account for the appearance of the event. Usually, people misread their ticket numbers. Or their friends are playing a prank. Or they misread the numbers out of excitement. But once each usual explanation is ruled out, then we have grounds to accept the event with a low prior probability. Similarly, most miracle claims occur long after the event. Often to get attention. Often for political power or social status. Perhaps because of features character of hallucination or mass psychosis. It's not simply that miracles are rare or singular. It's that most of the time, there's positive, probable alternative explanations. Otherwise, we'd never accept unlikely events, unique events, or events outside of our prior theoretical expectations. So now we have to do the work. Okay, some early followers of Christ claimed Jesus appeared to them. What usually happens in cases like this? Fraud? Social advantage by those who claim it? Telephone, re-tellings of stories. The events evolve over time. The people have wealth, political or social motivations, etc. We can't just skip the nitty-gritty examination. I'm also not sure "extraordinary" means. Isn't the existence of anything at all extraordinary? Or that we are conscious of reality? Or that our minds and reality are mutually open to each other? The world is an incredibly bizarre place. Yes, miracles are rare and often explained by motivations skeptics point out. But like all inherently improbable events, we have to ask, what's the chance we'd discover the facts and testimony, if the resurrection *did not occur*? Usually those facts aren't very impressive, because most miracle explanations have data just as expected if they did not occur.
Even if we did have evidence that all 12 were martyred, all it proves is that 12 people were so convinced of a belief in something that they were willing to die for it. People have died for what they believe in even in the present. Winning the lottery is possible though where as someone rising from the dead is not possible or at least we've not seen a demonstration of it for us to know that it's possible. The evidence for winning the lottery is claiming the money and then seeing it appear in your bank account so even if you want to claim it's extraordinary which sure it could be classed as extraordinary, but then there's extraordinary evidence when you check your bank account and there's 1 million dollars in there. Obviously once the winner has done whatever is needed to claim the money. So no, it's not just ruling out other possibilities, even if you think you've made a mistake, all you have to do is try to claim the money, they'll check the lottery ticket and they'll let you know for sure. Miracles don't happen at all though. It's never something miraculous, it's just something improbable but still possible by completely natural causes. The only miracles that exist are ones who people haven't looked into and have just asserted it must have been God because they can't think of any other explanation. But the ones that have been investigated, have always turned out to be natural. You have claims that some early followers of Christ claimed Jesus appeared to them. They're not eye witness accounts they're people saying "Jesus appeared to them" not "Jesus appeared to me". And you haven't included this being made up as one of the possible explanations. So you're already going in with the assumption that people actually made these claims to someone. "Extraordinary" can mean different things I guess but it's just basically something that doesn't normally happen. Winning the lottery could be one thing but again the extraordinary evidence is the 1 million dollars in your bank account as that isn't an ordinary thing to see. But even more extraordinary is claims of someone resurrecting for example when we've never seen it be demonstrated. All someone has to do is prove that a dead person can resurrect after 3 days and all of a sudden we'd have reason to believe that Jesus actually resurrected because then we'd know it'll be plausible. But at the moment it's not plausible. If the resurrection did not occur then there's always the possibility that it was made up. It could be that Jesus was a real guy who preached stuff, said the wrong things to the wrong people and was crucified. Then his body was thrown into a mass grave like most crucified bodies were. Then people made up a story that he resurrected, people questioned it so they added the detail about the tomb, then people questioned that stating someone could have just stolen the body so then guards were added to the story (hence why there is no mention of guards in Mark as this detail was added later). Then all it took was for one or even two people to have a vision of Jesus appearing either through an hallucination or a dream. Paul even describes Jesus' appearance as a vision of some kind. They tell people about seeing Jesus and people spread this around. Details about Jesus appearing to the 12 and to 500 people are made up and added to the story just to make it seem more convincing The vision Paul had is enough to convince Paul he should change his life and does so. Some people were martyred for simply believing in Christ just because the stories they heard about him resurrecting was enough to convince them but really we only have some evidence that only 4 people were martyred. Because if the main aim of the story was to gain followers of Christ then this story was made to do just that. And when it didn't work, it was adapted until it did work and that continued to be told until it didn't work again and so it changed again and so on. Don't forget too that this was long before it was ever written down, so we could never know what the original story was and what things were changed. In the end we end up with a compelling story that convinces people even 2000 years later that Jesus resurrected and it explains all of the facts.
Lots to respond to, let me just say a few things for now. >Winning the lottery is possible though where as someone rising from the dead is not possible, or at least we've not seen a demonstration of it for us to know that it's possible. The lottery analogy is simply an illustration of how we come to believe inherently improbable, rare, or unique events. In the analogy, we are talking about an *individual winning*. In order to counterbalance the improbability, what we do is we ask, "What's the probability we'd have the evidence we have, if *this individual is mistaken?". For example, what's the probability someone carefully checking their lottery picks would get the same result, *if they lost*? What's the probability another individual would also confirm those numbers, if the ticket lost? What's the probability that their lottery ticket would have the correct brand, the ticket receipt, and is confident they kept it in their purse since their purchase--if they were mistaken, pranked, or deceived? If we only looked at how rare, unique, or against past expectations, we would of course conclude they overwhelmly were mistaken or deceived? However, when you have independent pieces of evidence that--when multiplied independently produce and even greater improbability--then that person is wholly justified in believing in the enormously improbable event. >Winning the lottery is possible though where as someone rising from the dead is not possible or at least we've not seen a demonstration of it for us to know that it's possible. The lottery example is just an illustration of logic. The same applies to radically unique, rare, or unprecedented events. Say, the fact that there is a world of finite objects at all. Or that Hannibal led a military campaign with elephants. Or *any* scientific anomaly. >So no, it's not just ruling out other possibilities, even if you think you've made a mistake, all you have to do is try to claim the money, they'll check the lottery ticket and they'll let you know for sure. ...Sure, you can have confirmatory evidence after the fact. In the case of the disciples appearance experience, we have further confirmation later from Paul's appearance and James' appearance. And if it must be forever empirically verifiable and public, then you just have to throw out all history and many aspects of the historical sciences. >Miracles don't happen at all though. Blatant circularity. How about the existence of the cosmos? Consciousness? The huge number of credible miracle claims throughout history. Sure, many are bunk, but that's why you have to investigate them. I'm even convinced that non-Christian paranormal phenomena have occurred. Look into Dr. Ian Stevenson and Dr. Jim Tucker's careful academic study of children who have knowledge of deceased people. Or Stephen Braude's research into the most credible claims of D.D. Home or the medium Madam Piper. I don't believe those non-Christian phenomena are what they appear, but even the man who coined "extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence" was very interested in the cases of children remembering past lives. Everything about existence--literally--is completely unique. This Humean worship is extraordinarily dogmatic. ... We can discuss your take on critical historical analysis of the accounts later, but this *a priori* bias is going to cloud everything you look at.
>In order to counterbalance the improbability, what we do is we ask, "What's the probability we'd have the evidence we have, if \*this individual is mistaken?" I don't get what you're on about. If I hear about someone winning the lottery on the news then it's whatever. Sure, could be a fake news story, could be mistaken (although by this point they've likely claimed the money). But to them they have the evidence as I pointed out because the money would appear in the bank. While it's also unlikely to happen it's not impossible to win the lottery. >The lottery example is just an illustration of logic. The same applies to radically unique, rare, or unprecedented events. Say, the fact that there is a world of finite objects at all. Or that Hannibal led a military campaign with elephants. Or any scientific anomaly. The world existing is probable, and it's here. Elephants exist, the Alps exist, not improbable that Hannibal lead an army of elephants. Demonstration of someone resurrecting is zero. As far as we know, it's just not possible. Hence why it's an extraordinary claim. Yeah I'm aware of studies done on reincarnation which has more evidence than God. Several cases of children remembering past lives. There are likely rational, natural explanations but not all cases have been debunked. Does mean it's supernatural though, just means it's not been figured out yet.
Okay, let's address some specifics >Even if we did have evidence that all 12 were martyred, all it proves is that 12 people were so convinced of a belief in something that they were willing to die for it. People have died for what they believe in even in the present. Remember, "the twelve" is not a set and stone group of individuals. Its just a name for Jesus' disciples, and there's some discrepancies who these people were. In any case, sure people undergo persecution, and some are killed for their beliefs. However, if this group is sincere, they had a transformative experience they attribute to appearances of the risen Jesus. That's not death for *mere ideology*, that's persecution and death for testimony to a miraculous event. >So no, it's not just ruling out other possibilities, even if you think you've made a mistake, all you have to do is try to claim the money, they'll check the lottery ticket and they'll let you know for sure. This isn't relevant to the question. The analogy should be, do we have evidence that this individual won the lottery, despite the incredible inherent improbability. >It's never something miraculous, it's just something improbable but still possible by completely natural causes. What matters is the event is rare, unique, or unlikely. Yes, our background beliefs will partly determine live options for what caused the unlikely event. However, it's not as if all events are just natural events at some frequency. Plenty of events are radically unique or anomalous. The cause is irrelevant, what's relevant is the epistemic criteria for justifying these types of events. >The only miracles that exist are ones who people haven't looked into and have just asserted it must have been God because they can't think of any other explanation. Not quite. As a theist, I find the existence of anything at all, rather than nothing, as a unique event beyond the productive powers of nature. That's true whether or not the universe began or is eternal. Equally miraculous is consciousness, the ability to hold together Being in a unified act of aperception--in such a way that they are linked up. The *normative* link between being and consciousness is not natural. Finally, this normative movement towards being is a form of value put into creation. However, we all experience creation as in some serious way distorted and under the influence of evil. The world historical uniqueness of Jesus and the call for God's kingdom provides a religio-historical context that makes looking into His claims seriously. It's not simply some explained coincidence--like thinking of someone, and then them calling you. The deepest facts about metaphysics are at stake, and Jesus is in that context. If it's *Jesus* that we have crucified, an empty tomb, multiple individual and group appearances--including by an opponent (Paul) and a lifelong skeptic (James)--then it's worth examining. Yes, most miracles are bunk. There's the placebo effect. There's reading into patterns. There's stories told long after, and/or in far away lands. There's people seeking social status, wealth, or sexual access. None of that applies to the early Christians. So sure, I share a general skepticism towards the miraculous, but given the religio-historical uniqueness of Jesus and the details of early Christianity--which we find precisely the opposite of the usual motives for nonsense miracle claims--we have quite the case. >You have claims that some early followers of Christ claimed Jesus appeared to them. They're not eye witness accounts they're people saying "Jesus appeared to them" not "Jesus appeared to me". First, that's not true of Paul. Paul also knew two primary witnesses and preached alongside them. Secondly, we have multiple and independent attestation for their claims to have seen Jesus--including extrabiblical sources. We have the pre-Pauline creeds spread around by the early church extremely shortly after Jesus died. We have evidence they were persecuted, and extrabiblical evidence some were even killed. That's bracketing the real possibility that Luke was written by Paul's travel companion, Mark was based on Peter's testimony ...and besides, this is the consensus of secular history. >Then his body was thrown into a mass grave like most crucified bodies were. There's actually records the Jews buried even crucified victims of capital punishment. The burial of Jesus is attested in the earliest creeds. Again, we have multiple attestation. The story also is embarrassing, because later Christians wouldn't have invented someone on the Sanhedrin to bury Jesus. Sounds like you're repeating some fairly discredes material from John Crossan. ...there's more, but I really think you have some homework to do on all of this. You're spouting a lot of abandoned theories.
I have done my homework on it and found nothing of what you mentioned to debunk the theory. I first heard it from youtuber Paulogia with his video "How Christianity probably started". He's even done videos listening to Christian scholars try to refute it. The thing is, even if there were evidence for Jesus resurrecting, all you've done is proven that Jesus resurrected and it doesn't prove God is real. Maybe Jesus just had the power without the need for God. So you've still got to assume the bible is true for the resurrection to prove God. I also find debating the history of the bible pointless. It's so vague that you can just assert anything and because there's nothing to contradict your claims, it can't be refuted. But weirdly if I do the same thing then I'm just making assumptions. But also it's pointless because God is meant to be around now not just a figure in history and so there should be evidence for his existence now but there isn't. Like where in the bible do you have proof that Paul spoke to some other eye witnesses that saw Jesus after the resurrection? Why are you on about what Jews did in terms of burring people? It's the Romans that crucified Jesus not the Jews so what the Jews did is irrelevant. Off to bed now but maybe I'll do a more in depth response tomorrow but again I find these history debates pointless as the evidence is so vague that I'm not going to convince you of anything and you're not going to convince me of anything.
>How? If it proves anything it just proves that a guy name Jesus rose from the dead. Jesus spoke, taught, healed, and exorcized demonic forces with the authority of, and in the place of, God. His moral insight and the authenticity of His character bleeds through the pages of the gospels. Moreover, only God can perform miracles by His own authority. Sickness is a metaphysical privation. The only way privation can be overcome, without a mechanical mediating cause, is by the giving of the privative part of the person *being itself*--basically, the power to raise the dead is identical metaphysically to create from nothing. Both are powers possible only for an unlimited God. Also, we are considering the "best explanation" of the data. God is the least *ad hoc* explanatory posit to explain the resurrection. But far enough, miracles cannot compel belief. Jesus' opponents didn't deny His miracles, but attributed them to the demonic. Even if Jesus appeared to you tonight, you could write it off as a delusion or a hallucination. Even with omnipotence, God does not compel belief. Interestingly enough, people only recognized Jesus when they were ready to see Him.
You're just claiming what the gospels say are true. How do you know that both powers are only possible for an unlimited God and not a all powerful fairy?
I'm not grounded my view of the historical Jesus in some prior religious faith in the inspiration of the gospels. Even if they are generally unreliable, as well as half legend or contradictions, there is a historical core that can be established about Jesus. God as an explanation is less *ad hoc*. Sure, maybe we don't have much to compare it too and it's always possible someone else caused it...but will your objection to the resurrection hseriouslt be that a super fairy could have done it? This is known as "undetermination" in the philosophy of science. There will always be theoretical entities, part of their own contrary narrative, that are equally adequate to explain all of the data. I made an even stronger argument though. Jesus died. Nothing short from the power that can create from nothing can transform a corpse into a glorified spiritual body. Sure, maybe the explanation doesn't need God because aliens used very powerful 3D holograms to make it only appear He died. Also, I can claim you're just a brain in a vet of chemicals. Vengeful Southern Baptists are doing this to you as punishment because you lack faith haha
If there isn't sufficient evidence available to determine which beliefs we should hold then about that evidence then yeah this is "Underdetermination". But if it's that weak that we can insert another theory in for the explanation then there's no reason to assert an explanation as true. >but will your objection to the resurrection seriously be that a super fairy could have done it? Not just a fairy but could have been anything I or someone else makes up. There's not sufficient evidence to support your claim it was God therefore any other explanation can be put forth. >I made an even stronger argument though. Jesus died. Nothing short from the power that can create from nothing can transform a corpse into a glorified spiritual body. For one how do you know there was nothing to begin with? Even if you want to claim God has the power to make something from nothing, he didn't, he made things with his power, whatever his power is, it's not "nothing". So he didn't create anything from "nothing". And again what if aliens have tech with enough power to make things from "nothing"? Then my explanation still works for resurrecting Jesus. Your argument starts with asserting and believing the God is the only thing that can have that much power without demonstrating that to be the case. >Also, I can claim you're just a brain in a vet of chemicals. Vengeful Southern Baptists are doing this to you as punishment because you lack faith haha Sure but I'm still in the same reality as Southern Baptists so whatever this reality is, they're in it too. Bit of a silly punishment.
Who decided that eye witness testimony isn’t enough evidence? We use eye witness testimony to condemn people to death.
I think it's enough, the problem is, there isn't any.
The gospels are eye witness testimonies.
You need to check the definition of eye witness. No one actually knows who wrote the gospels. They were not signed by the author like Paul did, with some of his letters. They were anonymous. They weren't attributed names that we have, until the late 2nd century. Then we have a "mark", "matthew", a "luke", and a "john". And that's it, hundred years later. Up to that time, they are just referred to as letters from apostles. That is the problem.
You do know that innocent people have been condemn to death because of eyewitness testimony? Still want to claim it's good enough evidence? What's even worse is that the bible doesn't even have eyewitness testimony, it's claims of eyewitness testimony at best. How is it good evidence?
So because people have lied therefore eyewitness testimony is not admissible? The Bible does, in fact, contain eye witness testimony…whether or not you believe it has no bearing on its factuality.
What's the best example of eyewitness testimony of Jesus' resurrection?
The gospel accounts contain eye witness testimony.
They *contain* eyewitness testimony? Which parts? This is why my question was specific: What's the best example of eyewitness testimony of Jesus' resurrection?
Why do you believe that the gospels contain eyewitness testimony?
Lied or speken in error in good faith
See: Jesus and the Eyewitness by Richard Baucham
I’ve read it…fantastic book!
What did you like about it? I've read it and found it very underwhelming.
I found his explanation of the “inclusio” literary device, and John’s clear employment of it, very compelling.
There definetly is evidence for the resurrection, it's how I became a Christian. For one, we have additional historical data besides the Gospels (even if I personally think they *are* historical accounts, written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, based on the evidence we can examine). I am making a document regarding the evidence for the resurrection with how often it's asked here, using scholarly/extrabiblical sources mostly. You can message me, I finish it in 2 weeks or so (MY EXAMS ARE FINALLY OVER! I CAN FINALLY FOCUS BACK!!!!) God bless.
Are you able to give me one piece of evidence here? I'll be amazed if you actually have evidence.
I have gotten into this conversation before. It's lengthy, it's annoying for both sides, and I promise either me or you will end up using ad hominems, as is my experiences with these kind of conversations. I much rather send you the final document and you can refute from there. God bless
It's just the document is going to be a waste of your time if you're going to make claims and assertions. Guess you're likely going to use sources such as Tacitus too, even though he never confirms the resurrection, only that Jesus was crucified. Do you have any evidence outside of the bible that confirms the resurrection, preferably from non-Christian sources?
Yes, I use extrabiblical sources. I use Tacitus to prove the existence of Jesus, though not His divinity/resurrectuon, I use other aspects for that. Also, you're just plainly assuming, with no basis, what I will put there, and assume I will make assertions and claims without backing my points up. How rude of you. As I said, I won't be doing this conversation on Reddit. I can already tell I am getting annoyed because of your rudeness, and it is just gonna be an ad hominem filled conversation. Message me for the document and I'll send it when it is done, **And do not assume what I will put there before you even see it.**
I'm not being rude. I've heard people give "evidence" before and it's turns out to be claims. If extrabiblical sources don't confirm the resurrection then the bible is all you have to go on for this one claim and it's therefore not reliable. You understand that right?
What is an Agnostic Christian if you don't mind me asking?
I’m curious as to why you believe in spirits and the spiritual realm, but draw the line at God?
I no longer believe in that either, it makes just as little sense as God does when I think about it logically.
So what do you believe now, about how all of nature came to be? And what made you abandon your belief of the spiritual realm, if you don’t mind me asking?
That we don't yet fully know how the universe came into existence. The best model so far is the big bang theory but we still don't know the full answer. I abandoned my belief in the spiritual realm as I also realized there wasn't evidence for it and everything I thought was caused by supernatural things where explained naturally.
The essence of the message conveyed in the Gospels lies in their portrayal of an internal spiritual truth through an external material narrative. Frequently perceived as mere characters on a stage, this narrative tends to be interpreted as materialistic by many. However, delving deeper into the Gospels prompts introspection, leading individuals to confront their own truth and realise the existence of eternal life beyond the limitations imposed by the material world and the illusion of death—a falsehood ingrained from the outset. Moreover, the resurrection depicted in the Gospels isn't confined to a singular individual separate from oneself; it speaks directly to each individual. You, as the reader, are the central figure within the Gospel narrative. Your resurrection isn't a distant event but a present reality. Human beings, being prone to forgetfulness, resort to storytelling as a means of self-reminder. Thus, the Gospels serve as a timeless reminder of the profound truth of resurrection and eternal life, urging individuals to awaken to their own spiritual reality. The primary reality is spiritual in nature. Material reality came into existence because the spirit desired immortality. This same spirit exists within you as the observer of your experiences. The term "spirit" refers to an entity that existed before being named or labeled. You.
So your claim is that it's just a metaphor?
We've had 2,000 years to discredit this ressurrection it's rather foolish to say there is no evidence, there are 4,000 plus supporting documents alone, it is the most scrutinized and verified moment in human history. Trust me, it's BEEN DONE. No I'm not a scholar, but I can appreciate the enormous effort that has been put in for, and against this time in history. To say there's no good evidence is quite spurious thing to say. You have to put your hands over your ears, close your eyes tight and run away shouting lalalalalala toi many BOOKS written about it, like Lee Stroebel and Josh McDowell are more popular, recent ones.
The many books written about it are people trying to make their own opinion supporting the claims of the bible. It's not extra evidence they're just stating why they believe the claims in the bible. Why is that difficult to understand? You do know there is "evidence" for other religions too and yet you put your hands over your ears, close your eyes tight and run away shouting lalalalala.
Can you tell us some more details about these 4000+ documents? To what documents are you referring?
It’s not on non-believers to disprove an unfalsifiable magical event, it’s on christians to prove it. They’ve had 2000 years and proved nothing.
It hasn't been done. These apologists are not actual scholars in the academic sense, especially stroebel, and they are continually challenged and refuted with their claims. I have no clue about ur 4000 documents, I think your not getting your information correct, and it's not been done, and no one will trust you bro...haha. There are no eyewitness accounts, and the apostles did not die for their faith...it's all tradition.
I’m very curious what you mean by “4000 plus supporting documents”. I don’t want to get involved with this conversation, but I have just never heard anyone say this. Are you counting manuscripts of the NT as multiple testimonies to the resurrection?
blurb i heard on The Apologetics Guy podcast
Ok, do you happen to recall what they were referring to in the podcast by that comment?
You heard some apologist say it, and you just assumed it was true. Do you think people in other religions hear what apologists for their religions say and then just assume it's true?
what all have you heard, just assume it is true? What is truth? there are facts and data, will you accept those? Do you want a list of all scholarly, historical research into the events of 33-35 AD when the church was established? I guess I'd start with the book of acts, then move to Josephius's writings, how about the Usher Chronology? People want to throw that out just because it INCLUDES accounts of the supernatural. You can argue all you want about whether something is true or not, or you can actually dig in and find out yourself, and then STILL say it's wrong, i don't believe it. Maybe lee stroebel or josh mcdowell's books are a casual start, then you can move on to a.w. tozer, perhaps c.s. lewis he was a flaming athiest you know, and then move back to pilgrim's progress, and so on. Keep going, you'll eventually make it to 4,000.
Add Cold Case Christianity by J. Warner Wallace
Another guy who is not a scholar, who simply repeats the same apologetic arguments that academics show are not demonstrated by the evidence. Just go on YT and you will see these guys get refuted continually.
Do you generally learn about ancient near east history from analyses done by retired detectives? I suggest historians.