Zone1 The Best Evidence For The Resurrection

[Bad Bob]

In part, this is a conversation about perceptions. The first Christians perceived Jesus is God because they perceived he rose from the dead. By your logic, unless everyone perceived exactly the same thing, it can't be true. That's not how it works. It makes perfect sense that Jesus was worshipped as God because of what people observed and experienced. All of the evidence supports this. So unless you have evidence of a massive conspiracy, I'm not seeing any evidence that Jesus didn't rise from the dead.

The first Christians - who were Jews - witnessed the supernatural acts performed by Jesus - which included controlling matter, controlling nature, healing physical deformities, healing diseases, raising the dead and resurrecting himself from death - worshiped Jesus as God because they witnessed those miracles and began worshipping Jesus as God after he rose from the dead.

1. Non-Christian historians recorded that the first Christians worshiped Jesus as God because he performed supernatural feats.
2. 24,000 written manuscripts documented the supernatural feats Jesus performed and the first Christians witnessed.
3. The Babylonian Talmud confirms Jewish religious leaders put Jesus to death for sorcery and for leading Israel into apostasy as described in the gospels.
4. There are no opposing accounts that document that Jesus did not perform any supernatural acts.
5. There are no opposing accounts that argue Jesus wasn't put to death for performing sorcery and inciting Israel to apostasy.
6. There are no opposing accounts which document Jesus wasn't resurrected.
7. There are no opposing accounts that the first Christians didn't witness Jesus performing supernatural acts.
8. There are no opposing accounts that document the first Christians didn't worship Jesus as God.
9. There are no accounts that the miracles performed by Jesus were symbolic.
10. The empty tomb.
11. There are no accounts the tomb wasn't empty.
12. There are no accounts of his body being found.
13. But the most important evidence is the dramatic change in behavior of the apostles who were hiding in fear as their leader was put to death by the superpower of the day. The change in their behavior cannot be overstated. They went from cowering in fear to boldly proclaiming Jesus is Lord despite being persecuted, beaten, imprisoned and ultimately put to death for it.
14. Then there is the physical description of the risen Christ which deviated significantly from the prevailing Jewish belief of the day. If this was a conspiracy why wouldn't they just describe the risen Christ in a way that was generally accepted by Jews?
15. Then there is Paul's dissertation on the gravity of believing Jesus is Lord which shows he had nothing to gain and everything to lose and he still chose to worship Jesus as Lord.
16. There is no credible explanation that explains why the Gospels were intentionally written to present the resurrection of Christ as an historical event if indeed they are lies.
17. There is no credible explanation that explains why the apostles began worshipping Jesus as God if indeed the gospels are lies.
18. There is no credible evidence that the apostles weren't the first Christians to worship Jesus as God and were the founders of Christianity.
19. There is no credible evidence that Christianity didn't begin immediately after Jesus rose from the dead.
20. There is no credible evidence that the resurrection of Christ wasn't the catalyst for the start of Christianity.

Not in part, it's all perceptions. There is no proof about anything magical, supernatural or otherwise a violation of natural law.

 

[Bad Bob]

I did a study course some years ago on comparative religions, and came across the Unitarians, a Christian group which doesn’t believe in the Trinity.

I even spoke personally with one of them. She was very interesting and informative with my questions.

I mostly studied behavioral psychology, but, due to a NDE in my teens, I had a very strong interest in different religions along with psychological perceptions in all four years of college. Comparative religions and classes like "Man and Death" and "Man and Religion" were the most memorable.

 

[ding]

Not in part, it's all perceptions. There is no proof about anything magical, supernatural or otherwise a violation of natural law.

I literally just provided the evidence. Where's your evidence of a conspiracy?

 

[ding]

I was being facetious.

It's hard to tell sometimes.

I agree that within science the topic of what is reality remains constantly under discussion. The British journal New Scientist has had various articles over the years on that topic as well as what is consciousness.

Yep. Reality is stranger than we can imagine. Which is why I was open minded about Christ.

Why would observant Jews break the first two commandments and worship a human being?

Exactly. Why indeed. Paul even explained it. Nothing to gain and everything to lose. Unless of course Jesus did rise from the dead and everything he said was true. Which is what Paul concluded.

Yet our earliest writer does not have Jesus walking through walls or cooking breakfast for his disciples on the beach. Paul tells us the risen Christ appeared to various individuals. And what happened to this figure after that appearance? Paul does not tell us. The story of the Ascension is written about only by the much later author of Luke and Acts.

Did Paul believe Jesus is divine?

 

[Bad Bob]

I literally just provided the evidence. Where's your evidence of a conspiracy?

The only person claiming a conspiracy is you. I'm posting about human perception and the natural laws of the Universe.

 

[ding]

The only person claiming a conspiracy is you. I'm posting about human perception and the natural laws of the Universe.

Oh so you accept the gospels and Paul's epistles as the truth. Never mind.

 

[ding]

I'm posting about human perception and the natural laws of the Universe.

That's why it was a really big deal when Jesus performed all of those miracles and rose from the dead.

 

[ding]

...due to a NDE in my teens...

How did that not violate the natural laws of the universe? You left the land of the living and came back, but Christ couldn't?

 

[Bad Bob]

How did that not violate the natural laws of the universe? You left the land of the living and came back, but Christ couldn't?

Perception. There's no proof I went anywhere. It's an oddity in my life.

 

[ding]

Perception. There's no proof I went anywhere. It's an oddity in my life.

Is there proof you didn't? My point being you are being a little hypocritical when you argue the laws of nature prevented Jesus from being resurrected and then tout your NDE as a real experience.

 

[Bad Bob]

Is there proof you didn't? My point being you are being a little hypocritical when you argue the laws of nature prevented Jesus from being resurrected and then tout your NDE as a real experience.

How do I prove a negative?
How do you prove you didn't climb Mt. Everest?

How is it hypocritical to claim both events were based upon human perception without any factual evidence supporting them?

 

[ding]

Yet our earliest writer does not have Jesus walking through walls or cooking breakfast for his disciples on the beach. Paul tells us the risen Christ appeared to various individuals. And what happened to this figure after that appearance? Paul does not tell us. The story of the Ascension is written about only by the much later author of Luke and Acts.

So since the earliest writer doesn't have Jesus walking through walls or cooking breakfast for his disciples on the beach, you're going to ignore what Paul did write about the resurrection? The resurrection is the absolute cornerstone of Paul's theology. He mentions it frequently across his epistles, utilizing it to explain both the identity of Jesus and the future hope of all believers. 1 Corinthians 15 which is often called the "Resurrection Chapter," is Paul's most extensive discussion on the subject. In verses 3–8, he preserves an early Christian creed, affirming that Christ died for sins, was buried, was raised on the third day, and appeared to multiple eyewitnesses including himself. He argues that if Christ has not been raised, the Christian faith is in vain.

But to your point, the New Testament records several post-resurrection encounters where Jesus appeared to behave in ways that transcended normal human limitations which clearly contrast with everyday physics and physical biology. The most notable phenomena from these post-resurrection accounts include passing through locked doors. In both John 20:19 and John 20:26, Jesus appeared in the center of rooms while the doors were firmly shut. The Gospel accounts state He "came and stood among them," which defies the natural law of solid matter. Then there was vanishing from sight in Luke 24:31, where after walking and breaking bread with two disciples on the road to Emmaus, Jesus suddenly "disappeared from their sight". How about instantaneous travel? The Gospel of John 21 recounts appearances across considerable distances, and in Matthew 28:16, Jesus directs his followers to a specific mountain in Galilee where He meets them after appearing in Jerusalem. At the end of his earthly ministry, Luke 24:50-51 and Acts 1:9 describe Jesus physically "taken up" into heaven while blessing his disciples, an event that suspends the standard laws of gravity.

 

[ding]

How do I prove a negative?

I hear lots of people make that claim. Let's say you were arrested for murder and you didn't do it. By your logic you couldn't prove you didn't do it. But reality says otherwise. You could prove you were somewhere else when the murder happened. You could prove someone else did it. You could even prove it wasn't a murder at all.

So in this situation you could prove Jesus didn't perform miracles or didn't rise from the dead or Jesus wasn't put to death for sorcery and leading Israel into apostasy by claiming to be equal to God or the first Christians who lived in the time of Jesus didn't worship Jesus as God or didn't witness Jesus performing miracles or that the tomb wasn't empty or Jesus didn't appear to others after he rose from the dead using competing testimonies of others.

There are no opposing accounts that document that Jesus did not perform any supernatural acts. There are no opposing accounts that argue Jesus wasn't put to death for performing sorcery and inciting Israel to apostasy. There are no opposing accounts which document Jesus wasn't resurrected. There are no opposing accounts that the first Christians didn't witness Jesus performing supernatural acts. There are no opposing accounts that document the first Christians didn't worship Jesus as God. There are no accounts that the miracles performed by Jesus were symbolic. There are no accounts the tomb wasn't empty. There are no accounts of his body being found.

The absence of competing accounts in and of itself is evidence.

How do you prove you didn't climb Mt. Everest?

Competing accounts that said I wasn't there that week. That they never saw me at base camp. Lack of proof of travel.

How is it hypocritical to claim both events were based upon human perception without any factual evidence supporting them?

You dismiss the accounts of the gospels so you can't exactly make that claim. There's tons of evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. The most obvious being they began worshipping him as God as soon as he did it.

 

[Bad Bob]

I hear lots of people make that claim. Let's say you were arrested for murder and you didn't do it. By your logic you couldn't prove you didn't do it. But reality says otherwise. You could prove you were somewhere else when the murder happened. You could prove someone else did it. You could even prove it wasn't a murder at all.

So in this situation you could prove Jesus didn't perform miracles or didn't rise from the dead or Jesus wasn't put to death for sorcery and leading Israel into apostasy by claiming to be equal to God or the first Christians who lived in the time of Jesus didn't worship Jesus as God or didn't witness Jesus performing miracles or that the tomb wasn't empty or Jesus didn't appear to others after he rose from the dead using competing testimonies of others.

There are no opposing accounts that document that Jesus did not perform any supernatural acts. There are no opposing accounts that argue Jesus wasn't put to death for performing sorcery and inciting Israel to apostasy. There are no opposing accounts which document Jesus wasn't resurrected. There are no opposing accounts that the first Christians didn't witness Jesus performing supernatural acts. There are no opposing accounts that document the first Christians didn't worship Jesus as God. There are no accounts that the miracles performed by Jesus were symbolic. There are no accounts the tomb wasn't empty. There are no accounts of his body being found.

The absence of competing accounts in and of itself is evidence.

Competing accounts that said I wasn't there that week. That they never saw me at base camp. Lack of proof of travel.

You dismiss the accounts of the gospels so you can't exactly make that claim. There's tons of evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. The most obvious being they began worshipping him as God as soon as he did it.

1) that's why the prosecution has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and 2) if I had an alibi, it proves I didn't do it.

 

[ding]

1) that's why the prosecution has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and 2) if I had an alibi, it proves I didn't do it.

My point was that it is possible to prove a negative.

 

[Bad Bob]

My point was that it is possible to prove a negative.

No, it's not. By having an alibi, I'm proving a positive.

As the link below points out, a "negative" can be proved with contradictory, meaning positive, evidence like an alibi in our discussion.

The Burden of Proof

Proof of a Negative Claim

So you simply cannot prove general claims that are negative claims -- one cannot prove that ghosts do not exist; one cannot prove that leprechauns too do not exist. One simply cannot prove a negative and general claim.

"Negative statements often make claims that are hard to prove because they make predictions about things we are in practice unable to observe in a finite time. For instance, "there are no big green Martians" means "there are no big green Martians in this or any universe," and unlike your bathtub, it is not possible to look in every corner of every universe, thus we cannot completely test this proposition--we can just look around within the limits of our ability and our desire to expend time and resources on looking, and prove that, where we have looked so far, and within the limits of our knowing anything at all, there are no big green Martians. In such a case we have proved a negative, just not the negative of the sweeping proposition in question."-Richard Carrier, "Proving a Negative "(1999) by Richard Carrier at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html

 

[ding]

No, it's not. By having an alibi, I'm proving a positive.

As the link below points out, a "negative" can be proved with contradictory, meaning positive, evidence like an alibi in our discussion.

The Burden of Proof

Proof of a Negative Claim

So you simply cannot prove general claims that are negative claims -- one cannot prove that ghosts do not exist; one cannot prove that leprechauns too do not exist. One simply cannot prove a negative and general claim.

"Negative statements often make claims that are hard to prove because they make predictions about things we are in practice unable to observe in a finite time. For instance, "there are no big green Martians" means "there are no big green Martians in this or any universe," and unlike your bathtub, it is not possible to look in every corner of every universe, thus we cannot completely test this proposition--we can just look around within the limits of our ability and our desire to expend time and resources on looking, and prove that, where we have looked so far, and within the limits of our knowing anything at all, there are no big green Martians. In such a case we have proved a negative, just not the negative of the sweeping proposition in question."-Richard Carrier, "Proving a Negative "(1999) by Richard Carrier at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html

Proving your alibi (i.e. a positive) is how you are proving you didn't commit the murder (i.e. a negative).

 

[alang1216]

I make a distinction on historical events and embellishments. You say you don't make a distinction between the OT and NT but you do. You see embellishments in the OT as supernatural acts of God because it makes God look bad. You see supernatural acts in the NT as embellishments because you don't want to see God look good.

Incorrect. I mentioned the OT stories because you claimed the Jews saw God only as good and loving and I believe their view was more complex than that. I can't imagine Jesus and Nahum talking about the same God.

Incorrect. I logically believe every extant attribute of reality exists because God is the source of existence and is those extant attributes. God isn't a thing. God is an action.

From the Book of ding?

That is illogical and anthropomorphic.

Or it isn't.

And yet you blame God for commanding violence and punishment in the OT. How would that be possible without supernatural acts.

Again, I only mentioned Joshua to show how Jews viewed their God and what his morality was.

 

[BreezeWood]

their pilgrimage, the first century events is the refutiation of judaism: false commandments, hereditary idolatry, religion of apartheid, heavenly personifications that never occurred et al.

Your comments suggest you are on the lunatic fringe.

is that what the culmination - 70ce - is for you. the events or jesus.

- being blind is your issue than any one else's in this thread.

 

[BreezeWood]

He regularly worshipped in Jewish communal worship

never, nor those who truly followed his message and theirs ...

their pilgrimage, the first century events is the refutiation of judaism: false commandments, hereditary idolatry, religion of apartheid, heavenly personifications that never occurred et al.

why would they.

oh, and by the way who murdered him - funny your narrative sortof mentions the slight indiscretion.