Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Tommy · 09-14-2011, 04:02 PM

Kohai's focus on the details of the resurrection narratives is understandable but seems to miss the perspective of observations that discredit the gopels in general.

It is a historical reality that of the Jews, Roman and Greeks who might have witnessed the miracles or post-resurrection appearances of the Jesus described in the gosples the vast majority carried on with their pre-exisiting beliefs (including those specifically waiting for a Messiah). This casts doubt upon the historical validity of the claims of the gospels in general.

Second, it's only fair to treat sources making wild, uncorroborated claims with skepticism. If Herod massacred the first born in Bethlehem, if the dead walked through the streets of Jerusalem and if a resurrected man appeared to 500 then why did no contemprary Jew or Roman see fit to reord such a spectacle? If a source is dubious on one claim then why trust it on another?

I don't think we can ever know what happened in the empty tomb but if a God wanted us to base our faith upon it you would expect better grounds to believe. :huh:

DoubtingDave · 10-01-2011, 12:30 PM

Thanks for making this debate possible!

Atheos · 10-03-2011, 07:11 PM

My problem with the "Empty Tomb" argument is first you must present evidence of the empty tomb. There is none. The rest is bluster.

sharon45 · 12-14-2011, 05:51 PM

Also most importantly, what about the evidence for jesus himself?

Toto · 12-19-2011, 10:29 PM

I notice that this debate has been over for several months.

While it did not generate many comments here, there will be an online CFI course described here on arguments for the resurrection.

mountainman · 12-20-2011, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jo

The debate itself can be found here.

Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story (6th ed., 2006)

I found no reference to this source in the debate.

Shafeesthoughts · 05-05-2012, 06:34 PM

Paul's quote in Corrinthians... quoted in first part of 'for' debate....

Interesting that the Pauline quote is not a positive one.

If Paul spoke the truth, why would he not make it more positive?
Instead he proceeds with an IF, thus himself calling his presumption into question.

And then his second argument relates to the resuruction in the hereafter and has no raring on the bodily resuruction of Jesus (as) then.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-14-2011, 04:02 PM	#11
Tommy Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tasmania Posts: 383	Kohai's focus on the details of the resurrection narratives is understandable but seems to miss the perspective of observations that discredit the gopels in general. It is a historical reality that of the Jews, Roman and Greeks who might have witnessed the miracles or post-resurrection appearances of the Jesus described in the gosples the vast majority carried on with their pre-exisiting beliefs (including those specifically waiting for a Messiah). This casts doubt upon the historical validity of the claims of the gospels in general. Second, it's only fair to treat sources making wild, uncorroborated claims with skepticism. If Herod massacred the first born in Bethlehem, if the dead walked through the streets of Jerusalem and if a resurrected man appeared to 500 then why did no contemprary Jew or Roman see fit to reord such a spectacle? If a source is dubious on one claim then why trust it on another? I don't think we can ever know what happened in the empty tomb but if a God wanted us to base our faith upon it you would expect better grounds to believe. :huh:

10-01-2011, 12:30 PM	#12
DoubtingDave Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Conowingo, Maryland Posts: 577	Thanks for making this debate possible!

10-03-2011, 07:11 PM	#13
Atheos Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Heart of the Bible Belt Posts: 5,807	My problem with the "Empty Tomb" argument is first you must present evidence of the empty tomb. There is none. The rest is bluster.

12-14-2011, 05:51 PM	#14
sharon45 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Southwest, US Posts: 8,759	Also most importantly, what about the evidence for jesus himself?

12-19-2011, 10:29 PM	#15
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I notice that this debate has been over for several months. While it did not generate many comments here, there will be an online CFI course described here on arguments for the resurrection.

05-05-2012, 06:34 PM	#17
Shafeesthoughts Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: London Posts: 379	Paul's quote in Corrinthians... quoted in first part of 'for' debate.... Interesting that the Pauline quote is not a positive one. If Paul spoke the truth, why would he not make it more positive? Instead he proceeds with an IF, thus himself calling his presumption into question. And then his second argument relates to the resuruction in the hereafter and has no raring on the bodily resuruction of Jesus (as) then.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.