What is the proof for the Resurrection of Jesus?

[Mulefoot]

No it isn't. That's absurd. Anyone can write a letter that says anything. I could write a letter right now that says Jesus is alive and well in Antarctica.

And all anyone can say is "nuh uh!".

I don't think you're even reading my posts. I never said someone couldn't write gibberish. I said one instance is more likely than the other, for obvious reasons.

 

[Galactic Spin]

I don't think you're even reading my posts. I never said someone couldn't write gibberish. I said one instance is more likely than the other, for obvious reasons.

I know you didn't. You said that gibberish was more likely to be true if people were alive who could "refute it", at the time the gubberish was uttered. Same point you have had for 3 pages. It's not getting any better with age.

Then I asked you how someone would refute, for example, the claim that 2 women saw Jesus rise from his grave. Since this is not just germane to your point, but 100% necessary.

That's when you went into a tailspin from which you have yet to recover.

Because it's utter nonsense.

 

[Mulefoot]

I know you didn't. You said that gibberish was more likely to be true if people were alive who could "refute it", at the time the gubberish was uttered. Same point you have had for 3 pages. It's not getting any better with age.

Then I asked you how someone would refute, for example, the claim that 2 women saw Jesus rise from his grave. Since this is not just germane to your point, but 100% necessary.

That's when you went into a tailspin from which you have yet to recover.

Because it's utter nonsense.

Since you can't personally conceive how a very specific refutation might occur, you resist to concede the truth of the point.

Do better.

 

[Galactic Spin]

Since you can't personally conceive how a very specific refutation might occur

Oops, you confused yourself again.

I repeatedly said I could imagine the refutation. And it would be confined to "nuh uh". And that is a problem for your argument. I gave specific, relevant examples.

When asked, it was you who could not conceive (and still has not conceived) of an example of a relevant refutation, despite your entire argument resting on its existence. And you gave no specific, relevant examples.

Clearly, of the two of us, only you seem unable to conceive of any refutations, despite your entire argument relying on their existence.

So, I guess you can stop trying to gaslight, now. It's not going to work for you.

 

[Mulefoot]

Oops, you confused yourself again.

I repeatedly said I could imagine the refutation. And it would be confined to "nuh uh". And that is a problem for your argument. I gave specific, relevant examples.

When asked, it was you who could not conceive (and still has not conceived) of an example of a relevant refutation, despite your entire argument resting on its existence. And you gave no specific, relevant examples.

Clearly, of the two of us, only you seem unable to conceive of any refutations, despite your entire argument relying on their existence.

So, I guess you can stop trying to gaslight, now. It's not going to work for you.

Again, I'm suggesting a general truth to the mindset of the writer, that is completely self-evident, in that a letter written is more likely to be factual on events in cases where the readers and hearers are alive to refute those events based on the readers' and hearers' own first-hand accounts of written events, regardless of any specific refutation you may propose. Your specific refutations on one side of the ledger don't help you with anything to that general point. To refute my point, you must consider both sides, IOW, this is more likely than that. Here's an example of what you're doing, and how you're missing the point.

Me: It is more likely to snow in Florida than Hawaii.
You: It's impossible for it to snow in South Florida.
Me: It is more likely to snow in Florida than Hawaii.
You: You're gaslighting me, and it's not going to work for you.

A counterfactual to my statement would instead propose how my statement was incorrect, i.e. whether the intended readers and/or hearers are/were dead or alive makes does not /can not influence the mindset of the writer, particularly in terms of his reliability of the events he's writing about.

 

[Logicman]

I am not an atheist but you are on the right track.

The 'gospels were written some 70 years after the crucifixion.

The reasons they were way earlier (except for John's Gospel around 90-95 AD) were contained in my previous post to you.

Even today, remembering words, deeds, the where and the how from 35 years ago is a challenge and highly unlikely that it would be accurate.

So.....that means someone else, or elses, wrote it.

Heck, I still clearly remember events and even parts of conversations I had in Vietnam during the war, and that was 55 years ago. "You guys watch out now. The area is crawling with VC. We just got hit earlier with small arms and RPG's." - quote following a VC attack on an Army BOQ in Saigon the morning the Tet Offensive began.

But the Apostles had one thing in particular that you aren't taking into account - the Holy Spirit.

“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." - John 14:26

 

[Galactic Spin]

Again, I'm suggesting a general truth to the mindset of the writer, that is completely self-evident, in that a letter written is more likely to be factual on events in cases where the readers and hearers are alive to refute those events based on the readers' and hearers' own first-hand accounts of written events, regardless of any specific refutation you may propose. Your specific refutations on one side of the ledger don't help you with anything to that general point. To refute my point, you must consider both sides, IOW, this is more likely than that. Here's an example of what you're doing, and how you're missing the point.

Me: It is more likely to snow in Florida than Hawaii.
You: It's impossible for it to snow in South Florida.
Me: It is more likely to snow in Florida than Hawaii.
You: You're gaslighting me, and it's not going to work for you.

A counterfactual to my statement would instead propose how my statement was incorrect, i.e. whether the intended readers and/or hearers are/were dead or alive makes does not /can not influence the mindset of the writer, particularly in terms of his reliability of the events he's writing about.

I understand your point. It's not a good point.

For an exercise, apply it to Buddhist writings and Muslim writings and Christian writings. All at the same time.

Then maybe it will become clear to you how useless this point is for determining anything about the probability of the truth of the Christian myth or the gospel story in Mark. .

 

[Mulefoot]

I understand your point. It's not a good point.

For an exercise, apply it to Buddhist writings and Muslim writings and Christian writings. All at the same time.

Then maybe it will become clear to you how useless this point is for determining anything about the probability of the truth of the Christian myth or the gospel story in Mark. .

It's self-evident that it would apply to Buddhist and Muslim writings equally. Doesn't mean you have to believe the claims at all. You're ignoring the larger point that I'm making, and instead fixating on what you part you find simply unbelievable. Consider instead an obscure statement out of Mark like, "Jesus went out beside the lake and a large crowd came to him, and he began to teach them". Maybe that will help.

 

[Galactic Spin]

It's self-evident that it would apply to Buddhist and Muslim writings equally

Exactly. Which shows how useless it is. As we know all the writings cannot be true.

Also, please give an example of how a contemporary could refute the outrageous, magical claims in the gospel of Mark. Your entire argument depends on it, after all.

 

[Mulefoot]

Exactly. Which shows how useless it is. As we know all the writings cannot be true.

Also, please give an example of how a contemporary could refute the outrageous, magical claims in the gospel of Mark. Your entire argument depends on it, after all.

Wow. I'm done.

 

[Galactic Spin]

Wow. I'm done.

You were done a while ago, if this is your only argument.

 

[Daisy]

Were the Eyewitnesses to Jesus’ Resurrection telling the Truth?

The Disciples Were Utterly and Completely Transformed by their firm conviction that they had seen the risen Jesus, even being willing to die for this belief

The Apostle John in John 7:1-5 reports that James the half-brother of Jesus was an unbeliever and apparently rather cynical regarding Jesus’ public ministry (just imagine if it was your brother who claimed to be God!). Jesus’ other brothers even sought to remove Him from public eye because they thought He was insane (Mark 3:21) – but later in Gal. 1:18-19; Acts 15:13-21 – we learn that James had become the leader of the early church in Jerusalem. It is highly likely that James was transformed by something or someone he saw and had a huge change of heart about his half brother Jesus. What was it that changed the mind of James? The most likely explanation was that James had seen the risen Jesus.

The Pharisee, Saul of Tarsus (later, Paul) who was an early persecutor of Jesus’ followers, also had an experience that changed him forever. 1 Cor. 9:1 & 15:8-11 gives us a first-hand account of this experience and it appears three other times in Acts 9:1-9; 22:1-11; 26:9-19.

The other apostles confirmed Paul’s experience. Paul even made at least two trips to Jerusalem to speak with the apostles in order to talk to them about the “gospel message” He was preaching. On his second trip to Jerusalem Paul met with two of the chief apostles, namely Peter, James the brother of Jesus and John. Paul specifically explained that the purpose of His coming was to identify the nature of the Gospel that he was preaching and that he wanted to be absolutely sure that he was correct (Gal. 2:2).

There are many other detailed eyewitness details which testify that the New Testament writers were telling the truth.

Why would the apostles lie? …If they lied, what was their motive, what did they get out of it? What they got out of it was misunderstanding, rejection, persecution, torture, and martyrdom. Hardly a list of perks!
https://crossexamined.org/what-really-happened-at-jesus-tomb/

 

[Galactic Spin]

Were the Eyewitnesses to Jesus’ Resurrection telling the Truth?

Sure, maybe. Except they didn't witness a resurrection. They witnessed an empty tomb and later saw a man they thought had died.

Resurrection is not actually possible, sorry.

 

[Gordy327]

Sure, maybe. Except they didn't witness a resurrection. They witnessed an empty tomb and later saw a man they thought had died.

Resurrection is not actually possible, sorry.

At least, not without invoking magic.

 

[X Factor]

I went around them. I agree with Gandhi.

The "church" is no more than a tool to control other's behavior. Make a sin and you don't get to eat Jesus flesh that Sunday. Whoop! Whoop! Whoop! off go the sirens SOMEBODY'S going to hell!!!!

I was found by Jesus who took me to an AA meeting. I didn't know it was him then. It took me a year or two to begin to thrash out. If I had I would not have gone. I was a victim of Catholic grammar school and have the scares, physical and psychological to prove it

I have been gifted with college level classes on His life, and especially the ethos and customs of the day. Which presents a much deeper picture.

I drew many conclusions from those courses, not the least of which is that Jesus today would probably take a torch to every christian church and member.

I was called. I followed. The result was and is that I am sober, in my fourth decade! and I know he wants a one-on-one relationship with each of us. I spent 18 years attending various churches and NONE of them came close to being anything like the saviour. In every instance I was met with judgement, from my dress to my looks and to my "heretical" ideas. I'm pretty sure he hated Paul, the woman hater that created all the rules to be followed.

American Christians wield Jesus as a weapon. They pray to him to get even with their enemies not realizing having enemies pisses Him off. He gave us one prayer that calls on us to forgive! He left us with ONE commandment". "Love one another so that all will know you are followers of me"

I don't see the love people. I don't see followers of him, but leaders in corruption.

Are you not now wielding Jesus as a weapon, essentially saying He’d “torch” all His other followers, I guess because you have a legit relationship with Him where nobody else does? Are you forgiving? Do you love your neighbor as yourself or just those you deem worthy?

 

[Fearandloathing]

Are you not now wielding Jesus as a weapon, essentially saying He’d “torch” all His other followers, I guess because you have a legit relationship with Him where nobody else does? Are you forgiving? Do you love your neighbor as yourself or just those you deem worthy?

If you can't stand criticism don't come to a debate site.

Ye,s I object to people who try to run other people's lives, especially wielding a cross.

I seriously object to a nation who calls on Jesus to war against their enemies foreign and domestic. You can't claim to be superior and claim weapons of mass destruction at the same time.

 

[jaypatriot]

Why is the resurrection of Jesus any more likely than those of Romulus, Osiris or Inanna?

I have read that believers claim we have the "eyewitness" reports of those who experienced the resurrection. Why are those words any more believable than those which tell us of other dying and rising deities.?

Would we have coloring of Easter Eggs or Easter egg hunts if it wasn't for the Resurrection?
Would Easter bonnets be in fashion if it wasn't for the Resurrection?
Millions of people who celebrate Easter can't be wrong, can they?
It's called faith.
Like hoping next the FortyNiners will have more durable quarterbacks and get to the Super Bowl.

 

[The Mark]

Why is the resurrection of Jesus any more likely than those of Romulus, Osiris or Inanna?

I have read that believers claim we have the "eyewitness" reports of those who experienced the resurrection. Why are those words any more believable than those which tell us of other dying and rising deities.?

For some reason I'm now thinking of a certain Powerwolf song.

Shut up brain.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Would we have coloring of Easter Eggs or Easter egg hunts if it wasn't for the Resurrection?
Would Easter bonnets be in fashion if it wasn't for the Resurrection?
Millions of people who celebrate Easter can't be wrong, can they?
It's called faith.
Like hoping next the FortyNiners will have more durable quarterbacks and get to the Super Bowl.

Easter was invented about 1100 years after Christ was born.

He was born in May.

The Romans changed it to meet up with their Pagan holiday, the shortest day of the year, which they mistakenly took to mean the 25th, not the 23rd.

If there were "Magi" following a distant star it would have been mid to late May when a comet passed through. I forget the name but it's supposed to come back, some people think that will signal the end of existence.

Which I suggest is mere superstition, something man is very, very precise at.

 

[X Factor]

If you can't stand criticism don't come to a debate site.

Why so hostile? How open to criticism are you?

Ye,s I object to people who try to run other people's lives, especially wielding a cross.

But you’re not doing that? You’re not telling people to ditch their churches and their own beliefs in what a relationship with God looks like because you know what it really should be?

I seriously object to a nation who calls on Jesus to war against their enemies foreign and domestic. You can't claim to be superior and claim weapons of mass destruction at the same time.

Ok, I understand this but I thought we were talking about people’s relationships with God.

 

[jaypatriot]

Easter was invented about 1100 years after Christ was born.

He was born in May.

The Romans changed it to meet up with their Pagan holiday, the shortest day of the year, which they mistakenly took to mean the 25th, not the 23rd.

If there were "Magi" following a distant star it would have been mid to late May when a comet passed through. I forget the name but it's supposed to come back, some people think that will signal the end of existence.

Which I suggest is mere superstition, something man is very, very precise at.

Who really knows if December 25th makes any sense when it comes to the birth of Christ. I don't really care.
And who really knows when Easter was first celebrated.
You say around 1100 A.D. Others sources suggest the 2nd century A.D. as if someone was there to connect the Resurrection and name is Easter Sunday.



"Easter, Latin Pascha, Greek Pascha, principal festival of the Christian church, which celebrates the Resurrection of Jesus Christ on the third day after his Crucifixion. The earliest recorded observance of an Easter celebration comes from the 2nd century, though the commemoration of Jesus’ Resurrection probably occurred earlier."

Easter | Origin, History, Name, Facts, & Dates

Easter, Latin Pascha, Greek Pascha, principal festival of the Christian church, which celebrates the Resurrection of Jesus Christ on the third day after his Crucifixion. The earliest recorded observance of an Easter celebration comes from the 2nd century, though the commemoration of Jesus’...

www.britannica.com

 

[Questerr]

Were the Eyewitnesses to Jesus’ Resurrection telling the Truth?

The Disciples Were Utterly and Completely Transformed by their firm conviction that they had seen the risen Jesus, even being willing to die for this belief

The Apostle John in John 7:1-5 reports that James the half-brother of Jesus was an unbeliever and apparently rather cynical regarding Jesus’ public ministry (just imagine if it was your brother who claimed to be God!). Jesus’ other brothers even sought to remove Him from public eye because they thought He was insane (Mark 3:21) – but later in Gal. 1:18-19; Acts 15:13-21 – we learn that James had become the leader of the early church in Jerusalem. It is highly likely that James was transformed by something or someone he saw and had a huge change of heart about his half brother Jesus. What was it that changed the mind of James? The most likely explanation was that James had seen the risen Jesus.

The Pharisee, Saul of Tarsus (later, Paul) who was an early persecutor of Jesus’ followers, also had an experience that changed him forever. 1 Cor. 9:1 & 15:8-11 gives us a first-hand account of this experience and it appears three other times in Acts 9:1-9; 22:1-11; 26:9-19.

The other apostles confirmed Paul’s experience. Paul even made at least two trips to Jerusalem to speak with the apostles in order to talk to them about the “gospel message” He was preaching. On his second trip to Jerusalem Paul met with two of the chief apostles, namely Peter, James the brother of Jesus and John. Paul specifically explained that the purpose of His coming was to identify the nature of the Gospel that he was preaching and that he wanted to be absolutely sure that he was correct (Gal. 2:2).

There are many other detailed eyewitness details which testify that the New Testament writers were telling the truth.

Why would the apostles lie? …If they lied, what was their motive, what did they get out of it? What they got out of it was misunderstanding, rejection, persecution, torture, and martyrdom. Hardly a list of perks!
https://crossexamined.org/what-really-happened-at-jesus-tomb/

The apostle John was not the writer of the Book of John. None of the Gospels were written by the people they are named after and that is the consensus of basically all Christian Bible scholars.

Your random asshole’s blog goes against the scholarly consensus from his own co-religionists.

 

[Somerville]

[deleted words] Here's an example of what you're doing, and how you're missing the point.

Me: It is more likely to snow in Florida than Hawaii.
You: It's impossible for it to snow in South Florida.
Me: It is more likely to snow in Florida than Hawaii.
You: You're gaslighting me, and it's not going to work for you.

This is an example showing that the commenter knows not whereof they write:

Four decades later, the day it snowed in South Florida still delights

In 1977, before weather events were analyzed, dissected and politicized, it was just snow in South Florida, and it was wonderful.

www.palmbeachpost.com

please note the date for the following link

Mauna Kea Snow Report and Ski conditions

Mauna Kea Snow Report for . Mauna Kea current Skiing and piste conditions. This ski report helps skiers and snowboarders find out last snowfall date, snow depths, piste conditions and offpiste powder in Mauna Kea.

www.snow-forecast.com

Totally off topic but just thought I would provide a bit of information that might, I hope, cause commenters to think before posting irrelevant nonsense

 

[Somerville]

Millions of humans believed the stories of multiple deities for thousands of years, Osiris was worshipped for at least 3000 years, until the Jesus worshippers began to kill them off.

As with Jesus, there are several tales of the dying and rising and what occurred following the resurrections. I believe Logicman posted that Osiris never came back to Earth, staying only in the netherworld. There are stories that he did come back to our world, had sex with Isis, and was then raised to a heavenly existence.

During the first few centuries of the Common Era, there were sects that worshipped an immaterial Christ, others that believed He was born a century earlier than the Bible words tell us. Today, we have four Gospels, there were many others that we know of, until the establishment became THE TRUE FAITH and did to the heretics what they claim was done by the Romans to the early believers.

 

[Logicman]

Millions of humans believed the stories of multiple deities for thousands of years, Osiris was worshipped for at least 3000 years, until the Jesus worshippers began to kill them off.

As with Jesus, there are several tales of the dying and rising and what occurred following the resurrections. I believe Logicman posted that Osiris never came back to Earth, staying only in the netherworld. There are stories that he did come back to our world, had sex with Isis, and was then raised to a heavenly existence.

During the first few centuries of the Common Era, there were sects that worshipped an immaterial Christ, others that believed He was born a century earlier than the Bible words tell us. Today, we have four Gospels, there were many others that we know of, until the establishment became THE TRUE FAITH and did to the heretics what they claim was done by the Romans to the early believers.

Osiris is a myth. Jesus was real life.

And then we have people like you who deny the physical resurrection of Jesus. You also trash Judaism, claiming vast parts of the Torah are made up from whole cloth.