|
Post by Cody™ on Dec 4, 2019 12:12:24 GMT
1) The First Eyewitnesses were Women. The first eyewitnesses of the resurrection were women. All the Gospels note that the first individuals to discover the tomb empty were women. Matthew notes that “After the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to view the tomb…The angel told the women, ‘Don’t be afraid, because I know you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. He is not here. For he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the play where he lay” (Matthew 28:1, 5-6).[1] Women were not held in high esteem. In Greco-Roman culture, a woman’s testimony was not admissible in court. In Jewish circles, it took the testimony of two women to equate that of one man. If one were to invent a story, the last people one would place as the first witnesses would have been women, unless it were otherwise true. 2) Minimal Facts Concerning the Resurrection. Gary Habermas has popularized the so-called minimal facts argument for the resurrection. The minimal facts are those things that are accepted by nearly all New Testament scholars. The minimal facts are “1. Jesus died by crucifixion. 2. Jesus’ disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them. 3. The church persecutor Paul was suddenly changed. 4. The skeptic James, brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed. 5. The tomb was empty.” [2] These facts are nearly universally accepted by New Testament scholars, including liberals. 3) Transformation of the Early Disciples. As noted in the minimal facts, James, the brother of Jesus, was changed from a skeptic to a believer because of the resurrection. James along with his brothers did not believe in Jesus during Jesus’s early ministry (see John 7:5). However, Jesus appeared to James (1 Corinthians 15:3-9) and James became a leader in the early Jerusalem church. His death is recorded by Josephus.[3] Paul is another example of one who was completely transformed by the resurrection of Jesus. Paul had been a persecutor of the church. After witnessing the risen Jesus, Paul became a proclaimer for the church. 4) Embarrassing Details of the Resurrection. Historically speaking, embarrassing details add veracity to a historical claim. The fact that women were the first witnesses, that a member of the Sanhedrin (the same Sanhedrin that executed Jesus) had to give Jesus a proper burial, and that the disciples were fearful and fled all serve as embarrassing factors for the resurrection account. 5) Willingness to Die for What Was Known. Many people will die for what they believe to be true. But no one will die for something they erroneously invented. The disciples knew if they were telling the truth. Yet, one finds that the disciples were willing to die for what they knew to be true. Stephen died by stoning (Acts 7:54-60), James of Zebedee died by the sword at the hands of Herod (Acts 12:2), James the brother of Jesus died,[4] and Peter and Paul died at the hands of Nero.[5] 6) Documentary Evidence. The documentary evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is quite good. The historian seeks to find how many primary and secondary sources[6] can be gathered for an event to determine the event’s historicity. Concerning primary sources, the resurrection has Matthew’s account, John’s account, and Paul’s account in 1 Corinthians 15, including the additional references by James (if one accepts that James wrote the letter attributed to him) and Jude. The following are secondary sources for the resurrection: Luke, Mark, Clement of Rome, and to a lesser degree Ignatius and Irenaeus. 7) Circumstantial Evidence. Douglas Groothius notes that circumstantial evidence for the historicity of the resurrection is “namely, the practice of the early church in observing baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and Sunday worship.”[7] Baptism is based upon the analogy of Jesus’s death, burial, and resurrection. The Lord’s Supper is a symbol of Christ’s sacrificial death. In addition, it is quite odd that faithful Jews would move their worship from a Friday evening into Saturday to a Sunday morning unless something major had occurred on a Sunday morning. The major Sunday morning event was Jesus’s resurrection. 8) The Missing Motive. J. Warner Wallace has noted in his lectures and books that when a conspiracy is formed, three motivating factors are behinds such a move—power, greed, and/or lust.[8] The disciples would hold no power behind claiming the resurrection as history. They were running around while often being threatened by the Jewish and Roman authorities. As far as greed, they taught that one should not desire earthly possessions, but spiritual ones. Lust was not a factor, either. They taught celibacy before marriage and marital fidelity after marriage. In fact, N. T. Wright notes in his classic book, The Resurrection of the Son of God, that the disciples had no theological motivation behind claiming that Jesus had risen from the dead as they were anticipating a military hero and a final resurrection at the end of time. What motivating factors existed for these disciples to invent such a story? None! The only reason the disciples taught the resurrection of Jesus was because Jesus’s resurrection had occurred. 9) Enemy Attestation of the Resurrection. Historically speaking, if one holds enemy attestation to an event, then the event is strengthened. When one considers the claims of the authorities that the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus (Matthew 28:11-15), the testimony of the resurrection is strengthened. The early belief that the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus is strengthened by the discovery of the Nazareth Inscription that orders capital punishment for anyone who steals a body from a tomb.[9] In addition, several refences to Jesus and his resurrection include citations from Josephus,[10] Tacitus,[11] and Suetonius[12] among others (including the Babylonian Talmud). 10) Multiple Post-Resurrection Eyewitnesses. Finally, there is multiple eyewitness testimony pertaining to the resurrection of Jesus. Several people had seen Jesus alive for a period of 40 days. The eyewitnesses include Mary Magdalene (John 20:10-18), the women at the tomb accompanying Mary (Matthew 28:1-10), the Roman guards (Matthew 28:4), the Eleven disciples (John 21), the two men on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35), an indeterminate number of disciples (Matthew 28:16-20); over five-hundred disciples (1 Corinthains 15:6), to James (1 Corinthians 15:7) and to Paul (1 Corinthians 15:8-9). I am certain that there were many other witnesses that are unnamed. Conclusion:Many other evidences could be given for the resurrection of Jesus. Thinking about the methods of history, one must understand that there is a reason why American accept the first President of the United States as George Washington and not Spongebob Squarepants. History backs up the claim that Washington was the first President. In like manner, history backs up the reality of Jesus’s resurrection. Now the question is this: what will you do with such information? Some will try to ignore the event. Some will try to dismiss it. Others will acknowledge the factual nature of the event and worship Jesus as the risen Lord. It is my prayer that you will do the latter. bellatorchristi.com/2017/04/11/10-reasons-to-accept-the-resurrection-of-jesus-as-an-historical-fact/
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Dec 4, 2019 14:06:07 GMT
You remind me of Joey Bishop in the movie, "A Guide for the Married Man", or Donald Trump as President. You make definitive assertions without specific documentation. [I'm still waiting for Mexico to pay for the wall.]
From what I've read, the first written documentation about Jesus was made about thirty years after his death. Chinese Whispers can revise a story in as little as ten minutes. Imagine what thirty years of Chinese Whispers can do.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Dec 4, 2019 14:15:59 GMT
We don't have eyewitnesses. We have hearsay.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,670
Likes: 1,294
|
Post by The Lost One on Dec 4, 2019 14:25:18 GMT
These points are certainly worth considering, but they are not all that clear cut: 1. Yes - but a good way to make your story seem more believable might be to have unreliable witnesses - people then might think "Well if they were making up they would have made up better witnesses so it must be true." Also, Richard Carrier suggests that the women witnesses might have been concocted to fit with the "first shall be last and last shall be first" theme in the Gospels. 2. This isn't a good argument in itself really. For one thing, I don't think it's true unless you skew the facts somewhat ( www.debunking-christianity.com/2011/10/assessing-minimal-facts-approach-of.html) and for another, it's relying on authority rather than considering the facts on their own merit. 3. Too much assumption that Paul and the Gospel writers did not exaggerate - eg for all we know, Paul was never anti-Christian and made up the Road to Damascus story to wow his readers. 4. Similar to Point 1 - there are other ways this could be interpreted. 5. Relying on the fates of the disciples in Acts being accurate - and even if they did risk death, people can do so for mistaken reasons 6. The documentary evidence is inconclusive at best 7. That would maybe suggest that the idea of Jesus rising on a Sunday was prevalent - not that it actually happened 8. This is a complex one. I know some have argued that Jesus fits the Hellenic model of a dying and rising God though personally I think that argument is a bit weak. Still, I don't think it is ridiculous that the idea of a resurrected Jesus could have been invented, even if it is a poor fit with previous Messianic expectations. 9. I know we talked about this before, but the enemy testimony seems to be based on hearsay about Jesus rather than any accounts of his resurrection 10. All from the Gospel authors and Paul - who may have been either lying or gullible I think though the main problem with these arguments is they rarely seem to convince skeptics, even fairly open-minded ones. If they were that cut and dry, every historian who looks into it would consider Christianity true.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 4, 2019 14:29:33 GMT
1 Reason to Not Accept the Resurrection of Jesus Was Historic:
1. Someone writing in a book that stuff happened, and people saw it, and people believed it, can never be good evidence for anything miraculous when weighed against the prior probability of such miraculous things that never happen in real life in a verifiable manner.
Conclusion
The resurrection story is almost certainly BS based on the fundamentals of how reason and evidence works.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 4, 2019 14:36:28 GMT
I think though the main problem with these arguments is they rarely seem to convince skeptics, even fairly open-minded ones. If they were that cut and dry, every historian who looks into it would consider Christianity true. The simple way to show how such "evidence" relies on already believing in the thing is to ask believers if they'd credit such "evidence" if offered for any other religion. The obvious answer is "no," and I can guarantee you that believers/scholars of other religions can offer just as much to support their beliefs, since that's what strong belief triggers; a desire to find whatever evidence (no matter how poor) to support what you already believe (aka, confirmation bias). As I mentioned above, it's a pretty simple fact that "someone wrote something down claiming others saw and believed something" is abysmal evidence to overcome the prior probability of something (a resurrection) that never happens in real life. OTOH, it's a great device to use to convince people who don't know any better.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,670
Likes: 1,294
|
Post by The Lost One on Dec 4, 2019 14:41:39 GMT
1. Someone writing in a book that stuff happened, and people saw it, and people believed it, can never be good evidence for anything miraculous when weighed against the prior of such miraculous things never happening in real life in a verifiable manner. That's basically Hume's argument, right? I've always thought it a bit flawed since the prior evidence merely establishes the natural law that the miracle is supposedly breaking and is therefore irrelevant. You can imagine a conversation like this: Peter: I saw Jesus risen from the dead! It's a miracle! Thomas: Don't be silly, people don't rise from the dead. Peter: I know, that's what makes it a miracle. Thomas: I've known hundreds of people to have died and I've never seen any of them rise from the dead. I've never even heard of anyone rising from the dead before. Peter: But that just shows how miraculous it is!
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Dec 4, 2019 14:46:24 GMT
There where no eyewitness of the resurrection.
And non of those reason given are good enough to accept the resurrection of Jesus as historic.
Also number 1 is pretty stupid, i mean do you think women never lie?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 4, 2019 14:56:18 GMT
1. Someone writing in a book that stuff happened, and people saw it, and people believed it, can never be good evidence for anything miraculous when weighed against the prior of such miraculous things never happening in real life in a verifiable manner. That's basically Hume's argument, right? I've always thought it a bit flawed since the prior evidence merely establishes the natural law that the miracle is supposedly breaking and is therefore irrelevant. You can imagine a conversation like this: Peter: I saw Jesus risen from the dead! It's a miracle! Thomas: Don't be silly, people don't rise from the dead. Peter: I know, that's what makes it a miracle. Thomas: I've known hundreds of people to have died and I've never seen any of them rise from the dead. I've never even heard of anyone rise from the dead before. Peter: But that just shows how miraculous it is! I guess Hume's law updated under the terms of Bayesian rationality. Prior probabilities are never irrelevant. They can't be irrelevant. They're part of the fundamental nature of how evidence/reasoning works in forming beliefs. A prior can never be absolute zero, as that would mean no evidence could ever convince you of something. With something like "no resurrections," we can say that the prior is set by all the people who've died and not come back (which would be around 100 billion), but with some small "1" at a distant decimal place representing the possibility of it happening if, indeed, it ever happened. That "1" at a distant decimal place is what any evidence must overcome. In modern terms, if there was a well documented death that happened, and then several days later that person came back, and this was also documented by unbiased researchers/scientists, that might be strong enough evidence to overcome that prior (better still if it was to happen again; even a single case would be highly suspicious and I'd strongly suspect some kind of chicanery). To apply it to your hypothetical conversation, the alternatives that Peter is either lying or mistaken is far more probable than that he's right; people lie and are mistaken all the time, but people never rise from the dead. So compare the probabilities of how often people lie, or are mistaken, and how often people rise from the dead. There's your answer as to which is more likely. The entire "this breaks the natural law therefor we can ignore evidence/reasoning/priors" line of thinking is BS, but it reveals an insight into human intuition about such things, how some people are prone to believing the unbelievable if you can convince them that it was something special. A kind of real-life example of Coleridge's Suspension of Disbelief principle.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Dec 4, 2019 15:08:12 GMT
1. Someone writing in a book that stuff happened, and people saw it, and people believed it, can never be good evidence for anything miraculous when weighed against the prior of such miraculous things never happening in real life in a verifiable manner. That's basically Hume's argument, right? I've always thought it a bit flawed since the prior evidence merely establishes the natural law that the miracle is supposedly breaking and is therefore irrelevant. You can imagine a conversation like this: Peter: I saw Jesus risen from the dead! It's a miracle! Thomas: Don't be silly, people don't rise from the dead. Peter: I know, that's what makes it a miracle. Thomas: I've known hundreds of people to have died and I've never seen any of them rise from the dead. I've never even heard of anyone rising from the dead before. Peter: But that just shows how miraculous it is! I think Yojimbo's point is the quality of the evidence for a miraculous claims. The resurrection of Jesus, if it happened would truly be a miraculous event but the "evidence" we have for it is very weak. Like I pointed out before, we don't even have eyewitness testimony for that miracle and eyewitness testimony is already unreliable.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Dec 4, 2019 15:33:55 GMT
1 Reason to Not Accept the Resurrection of Jesus Was Historic:1. Someone writing in a book that stuff happened, and people saw it, and people believed it, can never be good evidence for anything miraculous when weighed against the prior probability of such miraculous things that never happen in real life in a verifiable manner. ConclusionThe resurrection story is almost certainly BS based on the fundamentals of how reason and evidence works. That’s your presupposition.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 4, 2019 16:12:39 GMT
1 Reason to Not Accept the Resurrection of Jesus Was Historic:1. Someone writing in a book that stuff happened, and people saw it, and people believed it, can never be good evidence for anything miraculous when weighed against the prior probability of such miraculous things that never happen in real life in a verifiable manner. ConclusionThe resurrection story is almost certainly BS based on the fundamentals of how reason and evidence works. That’s your presupposition. No, that's rationality. We all have the same prior for resurrections because none of us have ever seen one. Against that prior we have as "evidence" a book that says this stuff happened. But we know that books can say anything, many of them not true. We know people lie. We know people are mistaken. Again, compare the frequency with which people lie/are mistaken against the probability of resurrections happening. Which is more likely? The answer is blatantly obvious. All the "evidence" you point to requires YOUR presupposition that everything that was written was true and that those writing it (or those reporting it to those writing it) weren't either lying or mistaken. Other than your desire to believe it was true, you have no actual evidence as to its trustworthiness. I'll also add--normally I wouldn't have to point this out to rational people, but you aren't rational--that claims in history books about mundane, everyday things don't require the same level of evidence or skepticism. To say that a person lived, or died, or fought in a battle, or had a lover, or whatever else is all mundane stuff. We know people live, die, fight in battles, have lovers. Of course, all THAT stuff can be wrong too, but the probability it's right is automatically higher than any claims of miracles. So comparing a history book that says "George Washington was the first US president" (we know there are presidents, we know the US is a country, we have numerous documents signed by George Washington, etc.) to a book that says "So-and-so walked on water and was raised from the dead" is hardly the same. The prior probability of the latter is much lower than the former, so the evidence required to believe the latter is equally much higher, and someone saying it happened in a book wouldn't meet any rational person's burden of proof if they didn't already believe it/want to believe it.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 4, 2019 16:37:15 GMT
Just as an illustration of this point, I already said that about 100 billion people have died without being resurrected. That would put the prior probability of it happening in Jesus's case at 0.00000000001, if we're being generous. So, let's take as an example Cody's second reason: "1. Jesus died by crucifixion. 2. Jesus’ disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them. 3. The church persecutor Paul was suddenly changed. 4. The skeptic James, brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed. 5. The tomb was empty."
1. Has nothing to do with the resurrection. 2-5 do. So we ask the question like this: "given Jesus rose from the dead, what's the probability these people would believe it?" I'll be kind and put this at 100%. Then we ask this question: "given Jesus didn't rise from the dead, what's the probability his disciples would believe it OR that someone would report that did." Again, all we have to do for this is figure the probability they were mistaken or lying or that the authors were mistaken or lying. People lie and are mistaken all the time, so, again being generous, let's put the probability at 5% (people lie/are mistaken much more frequently than that, but I'm being nice). That makes the new probability 5:0.000000001, or 0.0000000002. So that moved the probability from 1 in 100 billion to 2 in 10 billion.
See how little that number changed by that "piece of evidence?" And I was being generous here. You're never, ever going to get that number to even 50/50 with this kind of evidence. It just can't happen. It's mathematically impossible unless you're being completely irrational with your estimations by, eg, assuming that it was impossible any of these people (either those reporting it, or those writing it down) were lying and/or mistaken.
Edit: Note, I'm not 100% these numbers are 100% accurate. It's kind of a PITA trying to calculate such large numbers online as most calculators just return errors and it's hard keeping all those zeroes straight. Either way, I would guarantee they aren't THAT inaccurate because, fundamentally, it's just hard for such weak evidence to move that prior very far. So whether it's 2 in 10 billion or 2 in a billion or whatever, it's still extraordinarily unlikely, and that's by giving it all the benefits of the doubt.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Dec 4, 2019 17:40:04 GMT
11. Confirming the validity of the testimony of at least four apostles, they were fishermen on the Sea of Galilee, a perilous occupation. Since we've confirmed that their testimony of resurrection would lead to eventual certain persecution, and they had to believe they would either be stoned, flayed alive, burned alive, or beheaded, that would mean a somewhat sado-masochistic personality, which would have been impossible for a fisherman on the Sea of Galilee to survive more than a year, had they been so masochistic. One could believe Saul of Tarsus had a sadistic and masochistic character, but not these four, for sure.
12. The four brothers of Jesus would have been the obvious choices to turn to for actual legitimate sons of David to be the Messiah. From their progeny, one would look for a Messiah who wasn't illegitimate, and only the Resurrection would have prevented the apostles from seeking such. This is the most important aspect of the mention of four brothers, and it had to be of the highest magnitude of importance in the first century.
13. The fact that just this thread has produced such vehement, unprovoked, irrational, illogical, and incoherent responses from those who hate the idea of the resurrection has to be applied to the same character of human beings through History. The fact that "public disapproval" would have been just as full of censorship then, even if it was only half as full of censorship as these posters attempt to do, would have stamped out the very seed of the gospel immediately, and only a supernatural influence could have possibly let it survive more than a few months. I'm sure there will even be posters who further prove this 13th reason as a fact by further vehement, unprovoked, irrational, illogical, and incoherent babble, which could also only be from some negative supernatural influence. I will thank them in advance.
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Dec 4, 2019 18:37:53 GMT
The atheist types tend to believe/accept just about anything else besides the truth.
because for some it boils down to my usual quote...
"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible." - St. Thomas Aquinas
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Dec 4, 2019 19:00:41 GMT
If Cody had been born in India he would make threads like this about Krishna or one of the other Gods in Hinduism.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,670
Likes: 1,294
|
Post by The Lost One on Dec 4, 2019 19:32:44 GMT
"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible." - St. Thomas Aquinas I think that's it really. These arguments are only convincing to those who already believe.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Dec 4, 2019 19:34:12 GMT
If Cody had been born in India he would make threads like this about Krishna or one of the other Gods in Hinduism. Not according to his posts, because he goes against the accepted religion of his culture. Oakes and the other members of the ignorant masses, however, would make threads like this about whatever gods or beliefs were politically correct in whichever country they were born in. Ironic, how Oakes describes himself, and projects it on someone who doesn't fit his description in his narrow mind.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Dec 4, 2019 19:56:48 GMT
"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible." - St. Thomas Aquinas I think that's it really. These arguments are only convincing to those who already believe. So it's not actually an argument then.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Dec 4, 2019 20:23:36 GMT
You don't need logical reasons. Its a matter of faith.
Read William James 'A Will To Believe'
|
|