Diogenes the Cynic

It's not a question of abnormality but impossibility. It is physically impossible for dead bodies to come back to life and any assertions to the contrary must be assumed to be false until proven otherwise...and that proof has to be irrefutable.
How do you know?
There was nothing extraordinary about dying of crucifixion in the Roman world. Tens of thousands died that way.
What do you mean by "prophetically?" How did he die "prophetically?" (FYI, if you think there were any OT "prophecies" of Jesus' crucifixion, there were not)
There is no evidence that Jesus was buried in a tomb and no evidence that any extraordinary measures were taken to "make sure he stayed in it." The empty tomb story does not arise in Christian literature until at least 40 years after the crucifixion, crucifixion victims were rarely (if ever) allowed proper burials and there is no evidence any tradition of an empty tomb existed (even in oral tradition) before Mark's Gospel.
Because it's impossible.
What arguments would those be?
This is a tautology. "It's not impossible if God exists,: amounts to nothing more than a statement that "If God exists then God exists." It's technically true but useless as an argument. Since there is no evidence that God exists, this kind of argument is a non-starter.
I think you've been misled about what most scholars accept as facts but let's take them one by one.
This one is accurate. Most scholars do still believe this.
There is actually no direct evidence that any disciple ever claimed to have witnessed a physical resurrection of Jesus. There are secondary claims by Paul that Jesus "appeared" to them but he does not describe the nature of these appearances, does not claim a physical resurrection, says nothing of an empty tomb and does not distinguish these appearances from his own visions. Furthermore, he claims that he got this information from his own hallucinations, "not from any man" (he claims to have had these revelations three years before he met any apostles) and his appearance chronology contradicts all four of the Gospels. There is actually no evidence that any human being ever claimed to have seen an empty tomb or a physically resurrected Jesus.
Nope. Not a shred of evidence for either of these claims...especially not that they were ever persecuted or willing to die for their beliefs. That's sheer moonshine and it is not something accepted as historical fact by most scholars.
Wrong. There is no evidence for any apostolic proclamation of a resurrection at all. All such claims come only from non-witnesses and we have no preserved record for what any of Jesus' followers actually believed or claimed.
What is the basis for this rather remarkable assertion? It is certainly not something accepted by modern scholarship and I assure you, there is no evidentiary support for it.
Yes, it is generally accepted that Paul based his ministry on his own hallucinations. So what?
I hope that you, yourself now have a better understanding of what is accepted as minimal fact, because you've obviously been quite in the dark.

Diogenes the Cynic

By the time anybody was making claims of a physical resurrection, Jesus had been dead for forty years. The location of his physical remains (assuming he existed at all) would have probably been unknown, even to his closest associates and non-Christians would have certianly had no reason to know or care where the body was, but even if a skeleton had been produced forty years later (or even ten years later), how was anyone supposed to have been able to prove it was Jesus? DNA?

You also have to bear in mind that by the time Christianity had any momentum, it was among gentiles outside of Jerusalem and Jerusalem had been destroyed. How on earth was anyone supposed to locate a specific set of remains (assuming there were any left at all) in a destroyed city a half-century after the victim had died, how were they supposed to prove it was Jesus and why would they even care to debunk the claims of one obscure cult out of hundreds in the Roman world? This entire line of argument is so fatuous that I'm surprised anyone falls for it at all.
Paul said nothing about an empty tomb or a physical resurrection. He actually claimed that physical bodies could NOT be resurrected and called his follwers "fools" for believing that they could.

Sven

:huh: This just aligns well with the claims about resurrection: We have more extraordinary claims, and just as little evidence as for the resurrection. Anyone can write fairy tales about a super man, who was resurrected later. How exactly are the former fairy tales evidence that the latter (the resurrection) actually happened?

Cruxifiction was close to being ordinary at this time.

There's no prophecy in the OT which speaks about Jesus. Only many, many verses which the gospel writers twisted beyond recognition to make them sound like prophecies.

You are aware that the guards are only mentioned in one of the gospels?

Let me quote from Richard Carrier, a historian who wrote extensively on the topic:

Although one gospel accuses the Jews of making up the theft story, it is only that same gospel, after all, which mentions a guard on the tomb, and the authors have the same motive to make that up as the Jews would have had to make up the theft story: by inventing guards on the tomb the authors create a rhetorical means of putting the theft story into question, especially for the majority of converts who did not live in Palestine. And it is most suspicious that the other gospel accounts omit any mention of a guard, even when Mary visits the tomb (compare Matthew 28:1-15 with Mark 16:1-8, Luke 24:1-12, and John 20:1-9), and also do not mention the theft story--this claim is not even reported in Acts, where a lot of hostile Jewish attacks on the church are recorded, yet somehow this one fails to be mentioned. Neither Peter nor Paul mention either fact, either, even though their letters predate the gospels by decades. Worse, Matthew's account involves reporting privileged conversations between priests and Pilate, and then secret ones between priests and guards that no Christian could have known about (27.62-65, 28.11-15). This is always a very suspicious sign of fiction. Such a story could very easily be a Christian invention. They had the motive to make it up, to answer the objections of later skeptics (just like the Thomas story in John), and the story looks like an invention, because it narrates events that could not be known by the author.

from http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...on/2.html#viii
(which is only a very small part of the long article directly addressing your quesion)

Also see above about writing fairy tales. Hint: Using the bible to prove the bible simply does not work.

Because there's no reason at all to think that this Jesus character was anything else than a mere human. It's as simple as this.

Sounds like a very confused version of the fine-tuning argument. May I point you to the fact that this has been discussed for centuries and there's no reason at all to see it as any kind of successful?
You can start here: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...sign.html#fine

That's a mighty big "if". Especially since you have presented to argument for "a god exists" -> "the Christian god exists".
Additionally, why did your god not sent Jesus directly after the fall? This would have saved billions of people from hell!

Depends. If there are not only similarities, but patterns of similarities, that's a quite good case.

Umm, you apparently have never heard about the game "Chinese whisper"?

May I ask you how do you know that "most scholars, whether liberal, conservative, or otherwise, are willing to grant as true"?

Duck

Because I don't see the body of Jesus walking around today and I don't know of anyone who claims to see the body of Jesus walking around today.

That tells me that Jesus is still dead. (Like Generalisimo Francisco Franco)

What? There was something called the Ascension? :huh:
Well, that's a different story ...

Doug Shaver

What makes it so likely? What undisputed fact is hard to explain except by supposing that Paul met Jesus in the Arabian desert and talked with him?

ZX432

No, actually I mean most as in most. And regardless of whether or not Paul witnessed the resurrection, does that necessarily negate what he reported as true? After all, neither you, nor I, ever saw George Washington cross the Potomac. Does that mean it didn't happen either?

And what reason would that be, given that eyewitness testimony that can be validated is always a prime source of vindication or conviction in courts of law?

Paul's testimony, as found in 1 Cor 15, did not take "many years," though. In fact, most NT scholars agree that Paul received the statement he produced for the Corinthians within about three to seven years, which isn't a whole lot of time to manipulate anything, and get away with it.

Because the claims would have been proven to be untrue, and those in opposition to the Christian movement would have been all too willing to make sure everyone knew about it.

I can assure you that if Mary was living in the vicinity of Jerusalem when faulty stories about Jesus' resurrection were being spread abroad, she would have heard about it.

Oh, they may have gone on and believed, but what would have been the point of doing so? In your mind, were all the early Christians just pathlogical liars and had a death wish in mind, so they believed, lived, and propagated a lie, just so they could be executed? I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. Instead, the evidence points to an event that really did occur, the tradition was either passed or propagated by persons like Paul and the apostles, and it remains a steadfast point which gives the Christian faith something that no other religion has, and that is a concrete reason for living. Otherwise, we are just as Paul described: Worthless liars, still in our sins.

Sure we do. But, then again, if you're a skeptic, and have to have everything proven to you via your five senses (which in my mind is an inefficient, if not dangerous, way to live), then you won't believe otherwise until something happens that you cannot explain naturally, and then what are you going to do?

Well, first of all, I haven't looked into every "alleged miracle" ever asserted. Nevertheless, if it was my intent to do so, then I would take the same approach with them that I would with the resurrection of Jesus. Besides, I never said I rejected anything, yet. I'm saying, lets look at the evidence, first, and go from there.

ZX432

How can you say that none of the resurrection events have any support, when NT scholars, both liberal and conservative alike, have been writing voluminously on the subject for centuries? And no, the stories are not "decades after the fact and not supported by any contemporary sources whatsoever." That is just plainly untrue. Like I said, I just got done reading A.J.M. Wedderburn's book Beyond Resurrection, and although he is by no means a conservative scholar, he is certainly "contemporary," respected, and believes that something took place, even though I would have to say his explanations to try and do away with the historicity of the resurrection are pretty lame. FM, I guess I would recommend that you make a visit to a good theological library, and do some research, because to just blow off in one fell swoop all the books and articles written on the resurrection, saying that there is no support out there is beyond credulity.

Well, lets take a look at what Paul wrote to the Galatians; a letter which nearly all NT scholars attribute directly to Paul. He says in 1:11-12, "For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ." Notice later on in his testimony where this took place: in Arabia, "and returned once more to Damascus." Then he went to Jerusalem (v. 18), which is mostly likely where he picked up the resurrection formula that he would later pass on to the Corinthians, as seen in his letter (1 Cor 15). And as for historical support, there is ample scholarly evidence which has come to the same conclusion as I have, regarding what Paul learned while in Jerusalem, which occurred within a couple years of his conversion. Gerd Ludemann, for example, states,

We can assume that all the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus. At any rate this thesis is probable for 1 Cor. 15.3b-5. It is also likely for 1 Cor. 15.6a, 7 since the conversion of Paul lies at the chronological end of the apperances cited and is probably to be thought of as not later than three years after the death of Jesus.--Gerd Luedemann, The Resurrection of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 38.

And there are a whole host of other statements that I've been able to gather which say the same thing as Ludemann does. So, there is not only biblical evidence that Paul met Jesus, but there is scholarly testimony that what Paul learned after arriving in Jerusalem was early, and not late.

I'm not sure what books you have been reading, but from my perspective there are several good arguments for God's existence that have withstood whatever scrutiny you're talking about, whether it be the Kalaam, Cosmological, Teleological, or Design arguments. And the reason why I know they're withstanding criticism, is because I see many of those in the so-called "sciences" failing to address the arguments made and have instead merely done as you have done thus far in this thread, and that is to just blow them off. Well, blowing off arguments is not answering them, and it is one of the reasons why we see more and more scientists considering and adopting a theological worldview as the basis for practicing their scientific research. But, that's another topic for another thread. Suffice it to say that another broad brush stroke denial really doesn't carry any weight.

I've given you Galatians 1:11-12 for starters. Nevertheless, there is an account of Paul making an excursion to heaven in 2 Cor 12, where he not only heard things that "a man is not permitted to speak," but was admonished by the Lord (Jesus) regardless Paul's fleshly weakness. And of course we have Luke's recording of Paul's conversion and trial testimony found in Acts 9 and 22, where in both instances Paul identifies the person who got Paul's attention on the road to Damascus as none other than Jesus himself.

When we turn to the scholarly accounts of when Paul received the testimony that would become 1 Cor 15, they read like this:

The Christians of the New Testament believed in the resurrection of Jesus for two quite distinct reasons: first, a series of people thought that they had <seen> him; and secondly, there were reports of a more concretely <physical> kind - the tomb was empty and his body had gone, or his disciples touched him, or he ate with them, and so on. The evidence for the first basis, the Appearances, is very early - it goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion.--Michael Goulder, "The Baseless Fabric of a Vision," in Resurrection Reconsidered, Gavin D'Costa, ed. (Oxford: Oneworld, 1996), 48.

Not surprisingly, Christians have found the audacity to speak of Jesus' execution as an expression of God's love. So far as we can tell, it was Paul who first put it into words: "God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us" (Rom 5:8; see also Jn 3:16). Thereby he made explicit what was already implied in the tradition he had received two decades before: "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures" (1 Cor 15:3).--Leander E. Keck, Who is Jesus? (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2000), 139.

Within a few years of Jesus' death a kerygma (a proclamation of faith in Jesus) began to circulate in certain synagogues of Palestine and Syria. It declared that Jesus, having died and been buried, had been raised up on the third day and--here was the first mention of it--had appeared to his followers. Paul himself learned of the formula soon after he joined the Jesus-movement around 32-34 C.E., and he both recorded and expanded in his First Letter to the Corinthians, which he dictated some twenty years later, around 55 C.E.--Thomas Sheehan, The First Coming (New York: Random House, 1986), 110.

Verses 3 - 5 are a terse didactic formulation of the "gospel" (cf. v. 1) that originated in the earliest years following Jesus' death and resurrection. According to Paul, all the apostles enumerated by him proclaim the gospel (cf. v. 11). Central to this gospel is the death of <Christ> for our sins, his burial, his resurrection by God on the third day, and his appearances to Peter, the Twelve, and other apostles. The death and resurrection of Jesus transpired, as the text points out emphatically, "in accordance with the scriptures," that is, in keeping with the will of God as delineated and authenticated in the OT. According to vv. 3 - 5 Jesus' death for our sins and his resurrection by God constitute the center of the gospel of Christ.--Peter Stuhlmacher, Jesus of Nazareth--Christ of Faith (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988), 8.

Paul was converted within two to three years of Jesus' death, perhaps as little as eighteen months after the first reports of Jesus being seen alive after his death. And almost certainly he received this basic outline of the gospel very soon after his conversion as part of his initial instruction. In other words, the testimony of 1 Cor. 15:3-8 goes back to within two or three years of the events described. In terms of ancient reports about events in the distant past, we are much closer to eyewitness testimony than is usually the case.--James D. G. Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1985), 70.

And what does contemporaneous sources have to do with something being true or not? It's not that the sources cannot be provided, I'm just curious at this point what your bias is.

FM, once again, I'm not sure where you've been doing your research, but to say that there are no sources, whatsoever, is just plainly a bit dumbfounding to me. For not only are the biblical sources credible and reliable, the library where I do most of my study is literally filled with books, journals, and articles that have examined, re-examined, shaken down, flipped over, and pressed twice the subject of Jesus and resurrection, with some books and articles being better than others. In fact, there is so much material on the subject of the resurrection confirming that it took place that I seriously doubt that the average person could possibly wade through all of it in a lifetime. So, please, don't be making the kinds of comments that you are above, because they simply are not true.

And just who is it that sings the praises of Mithras on that day, apart from those who know of its existence? Nobody.

Galatians 1:18 tells us, "Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas (Peter), and stayed with him fifteen days." In the words of C. H. Dodd,

We see emerging the outlines of an apostolic Gospel which Paul believed to be common to himself and other Christian missionaries. As the epistles from which we have quoted belong to the fifties of the first century, they are evidence of prime value for the content of the early kerygma. And this evidence is in effect valid for a much earlier date than that at which the epistles themselves were written. When did Paul "receive" the tradition of the death and resurrection of Christ? His conversion can, on his own showing, be dated not later than about A.D. 33-34. His first visit to Jerusalem was three years after this (possibly just over three years on our exclusive reckoning); at the utmost, therefore, not more than seven years after the Crucifixion. At that time he stayed with Peter for a fortnight, and we may presume they did not spend all the time talking about the weather. After that he had no direct contact with the primitive Church for fourteen years, that is to say, almost down to the period to which our epistles belong, and it is difficult to see how he could during this time have had any opportunity of further instruction in the apostolic traditions.--C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments (London: Hodder & Stoughton Limited, 1951), 16.

FM, the rest of your post I'm putting on the back burner for now, because it is just so far beyond rationality that it just isn't worth commenting on. In other words, to discount the basics in the manner that you have, without any evidence of ever consulting what many NT scholars have said about the subject, just doesn't seem to warrant a response. If I'm going to take the time to wade through all of this, then I would encourage that you do likewise, before you comment further. Because when you don't, and you make the blanket comments that you are, you're insinuating that I, and others, are nothing but loons and liars, and I can assure that I, and they, are neither.

Mageth

Wow...did you ever miss the point FM was actually making.

Iasion

Greetings,

It's a religious fantasy story with no historical evidence. That's why it's not true.


No-one saw Hercules clean the Augean stables.
No-one saw Osiris sealed in a coffin
No-one saw Attis castrated.
No-one saw Jesus resurrected.


Nonsense.
Eye-witnesses are notoriously UN-RELIABLE.

Anyway,
we have no eye-witness accounts.

According to modern NT scholars - NOT ONE BOOK of the NT was written by anyone who met any historical Jesus.


Paul lists a series of VISIONS - so what?
Anyway, legends can and do arise in DAYS, not years.


Why would they?
Did anyone prove the Golden Ass was untrue?
No.
So according to YOUR argument, that makes it TRUE.

The reality is that many weird and wonderful cults claimed all sorts of bizarre beliefs that were never debunked - so what?


IF ?
So what ?
Do you have any EVIDENCE ?


No-one said it was a lie.
Please PAY ATTENTION.


What evidence?
So far, all you have done is preach faithful beliefs.

WHERE is the HISTORICAL evidence please ?



Of course not - you ignore all other "miracles", but pretend YOUR miracles are real.


Great.
WHEN are you going to produce this evidence for us?


Iasion

Iasion

Greetings,

Do you think writing about the resurrection proves it true?


It is clearly and obviously true.

There is NO CONTEMPORARY evidence for Jesus or the Gospel events - you certainly haven't cited any.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentin...lyWriters.html

And,
the dates of the Gospels are usually given as about 65-120 or so - long long after the events.

Indeed, no other Christian writer shows any knowledge of the Gospel events until about a CENTURY after the alleged events. For instance - the EMPTY TOMB is not mentioned outside the Gospels until mid 2nd century - what is your explanation for that?


Very funny. You present nothing but faithful preaching, you preach your Christian beliefs from faithful believers, but you know little about what actual scholars claim. It is you who needs to read and learn - so far all you have done is preach faithful beliefs without any evidence.


See that?
Paul learnt from NO MAN !
Got that?


Now you claim Paul learnt from men - when Paul just claimed the exact OPPOSITE.



Where?
Paul never met Jesus - he had a VISION.
The Bible does NOT say Paul met Jesus.
You have presented no evidence that Paul met Jesus.
You even cited where Paul specifically said he learnt "from NO MAN".


Rubbish.
Complete and utter balderdash.


Luke did not record anything.
G.Luke is by someone who never met Jesus or Paul.
Paul did not meet Jesus - he had a vision.


People <see> Krishna to this day.


False.
There are no such "reports".
There are merely conflicting anonymous religious legends from decades later.



Yes.
APPEARANCES - so what?
Jesus, Krishna etc. appear to people to this day.
So what?

What?
Paul did NOT LEARN anything from others.
Paul clearly stated he did not learn anything.
YOU QUOTED Paul saying he learn nothing from any man.

Now, you pretend he learnt from others.
Do you really not realise how obviously you contradicted yourself?


(Page after page of faithful preaching snipped...)


Great scott!
Are you serious?


Then why can't you provide any sources?
So far all you have done is preached faithful beliefs.

None of us are curious about YOUR bias - it's obvious.



There are no contemporary historical sources for Jesus - you certainly haven't provided any.


Really?
Why do only believers think that, hmm ?
Why do scholars not agree, hmm ?

Let me ask you - is the Bhagavad Gita credible and reliable?


So, let's see if I have this right -
many books about something makes it true?

So, according to you, the Greek myths are true?
Because there libraries "filled with books, journals, and articles that have examined, re-examined, shaken down, flipped over, and pressed twice the subject of Greek myths"

This is truly bizarre - the idea that the number of books makes a myth true.


Scholars?
What scholars?

You quoted page after page of true believers.
You preached faithful beliefs to support your faith.

But you cited no actual historical evidence for the resurrection at all.


Iasion