King Rat

Poster E here.

Lets see, I've accused you and Magus of being willfully ignorant for espousing an inerrant view of the bible. Seeing as how the bible has been shown to be in error by myself and others on multiple occassions throughout history, I don't see how my comment was inappropriate (silliness on your/my part notwithstanding).

I also accused you of intellectual bankruptcy for side-stepping the hard questions by trying to play word-games with a previous post. I don't see how my comment was inappropriate.

You may not like my comments, but it sounds to me like the tasseled loafers fit perfectly.

I await your resurrection proofs with bated breath and baited hook.

Xixax

I started to write a overly long reply to request everyone "play nice". Instead, I'll just summarize as best I can.

Sarcasm and outright offensive comments are unavoidable on these types of issues. They will happen on both sides. However, that does not remove the need to back up those statements with evidence if requested to present them. It also doesn't mean that when both engage in it, that anyone should feel compelled to bring it to anyone's attention, as in, "Oh look, he's being mean and nasty to me and I don't like it! Either stop it now or I'm not going to listen to you anymore!"

Both sides are responsible for where it led. Either continue to let it lead that way ( which my guess is would eventually lead to moderation ) and forget discussing anything, or agree that for your part you won't respond in kind. That is the only way the discussion will move anywhere, if that is in fact what you want.

I won't bring that part of the thread up again...

I am looking forward to you presenting your arguments and counter-arguments.

Biff the unclean

Too late Xixax. We just got the "Ill present what I think are some good arguments in favor of the resurrection in my next post.'
That's a rather classic line that we have seen many times before. "I have the proof in my other suit. Wait right here and I'll be back with it." Every time we've heard it so far it has meant "goodbye"

Warcraft3

Evolutionist and Xixax:

One of the strongest arguments I have seen in favor of the Resurrection as an actual historical event is the survivial of Christianity during the first century.

While the religion COULD have survived without there being any supernatural events, I do not believe it is it likely it WOULD have.

Those who were followers of Christ were not expecting a resurrection, and those who opposed Christ were attempting to prevent a possible hoax. So, it seems rather unlikely that a false claim to a resurrection would have been made since it would have meant a rather quick death for the religion.

If it was added on at a later time then who would have originally belived it? I would think producing the body would be a rather easy way of crushing the very idea of resurrection.

So why wasnt a body ever produced? And if the diciples DID steal the body then why werent they prosecuted for theft?

The answers that I have seen to these questions from both sides has led me to conclude that the Theists are in a better position here than the skeptics.



Russ

Magus55

Thats all fine and good, until you look at these verses:




Gen 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

Gen 9:12 And God said, This [is] the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that [is] with you, for perpetual generations:

Gen 9:13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

Gen 9:14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:

Gen 9:15 And I will remember my covenant, which [is] between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

Gen 9:16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that [is] upon the earth.


God uses a rainbow as his convenant to never flood the Earth again. If the flood was only local, why are there still local floods to this day?

Here is biblical evidence for a global flood covering the entire Earth.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c005.html

Xixax

I take it this immediately also provides evidence for all other religions making it past their first century as true for you? And if so, why is it they are contradictory?

Claims of the supernatural were not uncommon in the first century regardless, I just find the reasoning stated above rather weak. Of course there were claims of supernatural events, but none that could be refuted considering the vast distances and lack of eye witnesses that would have been opposed, even if a historical Jesus was walking around at the time.

Actually first century people weren't all that concerned with this offshoot of Judaism. They couldn't have cared less what was claimed and wasn't claimed. It wasn't for many decades that Christianity was formally debated.

If anyone had cared to debate the issue. There would have been so few eye witnesses to the resurrection, who would have been able to say with authority that it didn't happen? Not even those debating it centuries later debated whether or not it actually happened, but instead debated why Christians felt it was special considering their gods and holy men had done the same. Claiming this would have done no harm, regardless of whether or not it happened.

By the time we know it was first being claimed decades had passed. Again, even if the first Christians claimed a bodily resurrection on day one, it wouldn't have seemed important to dispute. Other religions and mythologies of the day also claimed resurrections, it wasn't a "big deal".

I mean this sincerely and without any intent to offend: I can only imagine you feel this way because you are Christian. The actual arguments presented for a bodily resurrection of Jesus are based on so many fallacious presumptions that it is difficult to imagine them holding up to more than a slight wind of evidence without crumbling if they weren't held up by the faith and undying commitment of Christians. Christianity did not present anything new and novel to the arena of mythology and religions of its day. It took centuries for it to be molded in such a way as to resemble what it does now.

Biff the unclean

One of the strongest arguments I have seen in favor of the Resurrection as an actual historical event is the survivial of Christianity during the first century.
Gnostic Christianity? Arian Christianity? A lot of Christianities survived.

Those who were followers of Christ were not expecting a resurrection, and those who opposed Christ were attempting to prevent a possible hoax. So, it seems rather unlikely that a false claim to a resurrection would have been made since it would have meant a rather quick death for the religion.
Why would it mean a quick death for religion when the dead and resurrected hero god was a very common theme in Hellenistic and Persian religions of the day?

If it was added on at a later time then who would have originally belived it?
The same people who believed it about all the other gods. The same people who believe it about Elvis

I would think producing the body would be a rather easy way of crushing the very idea of resurrection.
Making the assumption that there was such a person and that the surviving stories (but not all the others) about him are correct. You have not established this.
No one could produce the body of the resurrected Adonis for the simple reason that he was mythical.

So why wasnt a body ever produced? And if the diciples DID steal the body then why werent they prosecuted for theft?
Because both the body and the Disciples are parts of the same work of fiction. Like Jesus the Apostles are only characters in a story. There is no evidence that they ever existed outside of the pages of the novel they appear in.

The answers that I have seen to these questions from both sides has led me to conclude that the Theists are in a better position here than the skeptics.
The reply you have made shows that you have given this almost no thought at all. Why do you call something that consists solely of transparent assertions " one of the strongest arguments"?

King Rat

Explanation number one (yours):

Xtianity survived because a never before or since miracle occurred and a human son of a god rose from the dead.

Explanation number two:

Xtians recognized the power of the extant Mithraic mythos to bind believers together and appropriated the myth for themselves long after Jesus' death.

Explanation number three:

The Xtian leaders were shocked and in disarray at the death of their supposed savior and in order to restore faith among their followers invented a 'miraculous' story.

Explanation number four:

The bible is an amagalm of myths, morality plays, songs, etc. stitched together from oral traditions. The equivalent of believing that the plays of Shakespeare are the word of god.

Explanation number five:

Jesus never existed and is a combination of several different historical figures.

None of these possiblilities can be definitively proven but are equally valid. Which one is true Steadele?
(hint: Try using Occam's Razor)

Mageth

Originally posted by steadele
One of the strongest arguments I have seen in favor of the Resurrection as an actual historical event is the survivial of Christianity during the first century.

While the religion COULD have survived without there being any supernatural events, I do not believe it is it likely it WOULD have.

One word: Mormonism. Those arguments (the ones that apply) work equally well in proving Mormonism and Joseph Smith's claims about golden tablets and angels.

Those who were followers of Christ were not expecting a resurrection,

Even after all of Jesus' talk about being resurrected?

and those who opposed Christ were attempting to prevent a possible hoax.

Huh? Where's the evidence for this?

So, it seems rather unlikely that a false claim to a resurrection would have been made since it would have meant a rather quick death for the religion.

If there's any lesson we can learn from history, it's that the world is full of people willing to believe false claims, no matter how fantastic the claims are and how much evidence there is against them, or lack of evidence there is for them. Do you think the First Century believers were any less apt at defending their fantastic claims, in spite of the lack of evidence to support them, than you are? Or that there were fewer people willing to believe such fantastic claims backed up by little or no evidence than there are today?

If it was added on at a later time then who would have originally belived it?

Apparently, quite a few people. There's always been an ample supply of credulous people.

I would think producing the body would be a rather easy way of crushing the very idea of resurrection.

It would be hard to produce a convincing body decades after the alleged events, even if someone was interested in crushing the new little resurrection cult, one of countless cults in the region, no doubt.

So why wasnt a body ever produced?

At the time, the cult was too insignificant and unknown for anyone to bother. Decades later, when the stories were finally recorded, it was too late to produce a body to disprove the story, even if anyone was interested in doing so.

And if the diciples DID steal the body then why werent they prosecuted for theft?

IF there was a body, and IF they did steal it, who the hell would care? Bodies weren't exactly considered someone's property that could be stolen, I would assume.

The answers that I have seen to these questions from both sides has led me to conclude that the Theists are in a better position here than the skeptics.

The burden of proof lies with the theist to prove (or at least provide evidence of) the resurrection, not the skeptics to disprove it. Which you haven't done, BTW. Your arguments are incredibly weak and completely unpersuasive.

Biff the unclean

The problem with this is that "biblical" evidence is merely evidence of what happens in the bible.
The conjecture that the bible story is tied to some local flood vaguely remembered from the end of the last Ice Age ties the story to reality.
Your web link denys this link.
Therefore leaving as the only possibility that the Noah's flood is only a silly folk tale.