Can one disprove Jesus' resurrection?

[Hawk one]

But Leumas, how can you respond to -this- piece of irrefutable evidence?

 

[Leumas]

But Leumas, how can you respond to -this- piece of irrefutable evidence?

I am mortified!

 

[smartcooky]

Yes indeed... that is a very good equivalent in many ways.

I wonder if we would get such devoted apologetics and semantic gaming to try to argue that Little John was a real witness and his version although contradictory in many important ways to that of Friar Tuck is still as equally an accurate eyewitness testimony of the history of Robin?

I also wonder if anyone calling the whole thing a fabulous myth would be labeled as a nasty fundamentalist a-Robinist just as bad as the really fundamentalist Robinists who insist that Robin and his merry band really wore green tights and feathered pointy hats a la Errol Flynn movies... by liberal Robinists who think the hats are a metaphor ... and just as vehemently (or more so) by self-acclaimed nice and reformed ex-nasty a-Robinists who also hold that the whole thing is a big giant allegory and should be equally an admissible belief as the belief of the nasty fundamentalist a-Robinists?

Well it is a remarkably good fit.

I don't know whether you gave ever heard of "the Hero Pattern", first formulated by Lord Raglan in the mid 1930's. Basically is a list of 22 attributes that heroes (whose reality has not been established) tend to have in common. Each hero is "scored" against the list, the higher the score (i.e. the more attributes that apply to the hero) the more likely they are to be a fictional construct; the lower the score, the more likely it is that they are a real person.

Score around 6 and lower generally indicate a real person, for example, Alexander the Great scores a 6.

The List:
Hero's mother is a royal virgin;
His father is a king, and
Often a near relative of his mother, but
The circumstances of his conception are unusual, and
He is also reputed to be the son of a god.
At birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or his maternal grand father to kill him, but
he is spirited away, and
Reared by foster -parents in a far country.
We are told nothing of his childhood, but
On reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future Kingdom.
After a victory over the king and/or a giant, dragon, or wild beast,
He marries a princess, often the daughter of his predecessor and
And becomes king.
For a time he reigns uneventfully and
Prescribes laws, but
Later he loses favor with the gods and/or his subjects, and
Is driven from the throne and city, after which
He meets with a mysterious death,
Often at the top of a hill,
His children, if any do not succeed him.
His body is not buried, but nevertheless
He has one or more holy sepulchres.

Here are some examples (score : % chance they are fictional)

Moses 20 : 91%
Jesus 19 : 86%
Romulus 18 : 82%
Perseus 18 : 82%
Jason 15 : 68%
Robin Hood 13 : 59%
Apollo 11 : 50%

On this scale, Robin Hood is considerably more likely to be real than either Jesus or Moses!!

http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Jesus-Christ-and-Robin-Hood-are-feathers-from-the-same-bird-20121024

 

[Leumas]

Here are some examples (score : % chance they are fictional)

Apollo 11 : 50%

Is that a coincidence or a setup

 

[smartcooky]

Is that a coincidence or a setup

Its proof positive that there is a 50% likelihood the moon landings were faked...

The reality is that there are only 22 numbers to choose from and 17 of those numbers could tie up with the Apollo programme, (remember, according the HB's the whole Apollo programme was a con job) so there was a much better that even chance that Apollo's score was going to be significant.

 

[Craig B]

You seem to have made up that story because you have no evidence at all to corroborate what you claim.

Please, tell us the historical source which support your statement "this problem arose at an early date."

According to Eusebius 2 Peter is a forgery and does NOT belong in the Canon.

What are you on about? It wasn't written by Peter, to be sure, but so what? Nothing should be "in the canon"? There is no God, so nothing is the word of God. I am simply interested in the issue discussed by the author of the work, the postponement of the Parousia. I don't care who wrote it. I say it's an early second century work, so by that time "scoffers" were asking awkward questions, and they received the answer I quoted.

 

[Leumas]

But Leumas, how can you respond to -this- piece of irrefutable evidence?

Wow!! You preempted this post

 

[Ladewig]

The List:
Hero's mother is a royal virgin;
His father is a king, and
Often a near relative of his mother, but
The circumstances of his conception are unusual, and
He is also reputed to be the son of a god.
At birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or his maternal grand father to kill him, but
he is spirited away, and
Reared by foster -parents in a far country.
We are told nothing of his childhood, but
On reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future Kingdom.
After a victory over the king and/or a giant, dragon, or wild beast,
He marries a princess, often the daughter of his predecessor and
And becomes king.
For a time he reigns uneventfully and
Prescribes laws, but
Later he loses favor with the gods and/or his subjects, and
Is driven from the throne and city, after which
He meets with a mysterious death,
Often at the top of a hill,
His children, if any do not succeed him.
His body is not buried, but nevertheless
He has one or more holy sepulchres.

Here are some examples (score : % chance they are fictional)


Jesus 19 : 86%

I am a bit embarrassed to ask, but which 19 items count as hits?

 

[Brian-M]

I am a bit embarrassed to ask, but which 19 items count as hits?

That's a good question. Let's go through the list and see...

Hero's mother is a royal virgin;

Half-point. Mary was not royal.

0.5 / 1

His father is a king, and

No, neither Joseph nor God are kings. (And there's a completely separate entry on the list for gods, so you can't count this as a metaphorical hit, because you'd be double-counting.)

0.5 / 2

Often a near relative of his mother, but

No.

0.5 / 3

The circumstances of his conception are unusual, and

Yes.

1.5 / 4

He is also reputed to be the son of a god.

Yes.

2.5 / 5

At birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or his maternal grand father to kill him, but

Yes.

3.5 / 6

he is spirited away, and

Yes.

4.5 / 7

Reared by foster -parents in a far country.

No. Raised by his mother and her husband in Nazareth in Galilee.

4.5 / 8

We are told nothing of his childhood, but

Half point. Looking it up now, we are told that Jesus and his family visited the temple in Jerusalem every year to celebrate the feast of Passover. That's not nothing, but close to it.

5 / 9

On reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future Kingdom.

No. He returned as child to be raised in Nazareth.

5 / 10

After a victory over the king and/or a giant, dragon, or wild beast,

No.

5 / 11

He marries a princess, often the daughter of his predecessor and

No.

6 / 12

And becomes king.

Half-point. This one might count as a metaphorical yes, because he is referred to as the King of the Jews, even though he isn't a literal king.

6.5 / 13

For a time he reigns uneventfully and

Yes, I suppose.

7.5 / 14

Prescribes laws, but

Half point. He doesn't prescribe laws, but he does interpret and make decisions about how the laws of the Old Testament are to be applied.

8 / 15

Later he loses favor with the gods and/or his subjects, and

No. He doesn't lose favor with his followers, and there's no clear reason for thinking he lost favor with God.

8 / 16

Is driven from the throne and city, after which

Half point. He's not driven, he's taken to a place of execution.

8.5 / 17

He meets with a mysterious death,
Often at the top of a hill,

Half point. There's nothing mysterious about his death.

9 / 18

His children, if any do not succeed him.

Yes. He has no children to succeed him.

10 / 19

His body is not buried, but nevertheless

No. His body is entombed, which counts as burial.

10 / 20

He has one or more holy sepulchres.

Yes.

11 / 21

So by my count it's only about 52% correct.

 

[Leumas]

I am a bit embarrassed to ask, but which 19 items count as hits?

That's a good question. Let's go through the list and see...

......

11 / 21
So by my count it's only about 52% correct.

You were a little too strict on some of those points.

According to the NT fables

1. Hero's mother is a royal virgin
   
   Mary was a virgin and although not a royal she was from a priestly caste and served in the temple.... a kind of vestal virgin.
   
   0.8​
2. His father is a king
   
   He is very tortuously asserted to be of Kingly descent... but he kept repeating how he is going to reestablish his father's kingdom
   
   1.8​
3. Often a near relative of his mother
   
   1.8​
4. The circumstances of his conception are unusual
   
   2.8​
5. He is also reputed to be the son of a god.
   
   3.8​
6. At birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or his maternal grand father to kill him
   
   4.8​
7. He is spirited away
   
   5.8​
8. Reared by foster -parents in a far country
   
   Mary was his mother ....but Joseph is his foster father and they went to Egypt for a few years
   
   6.6​
9. We are told nothing of his childhood
   
   We are told one small incident about the temple bit... but absolutely nothing else
   
   7.5​
10. On reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future Kingdom
    
    He made a very big thing of entering into Jerusalem on two donkeys and he was hailed as a king. And he kept saying how he was establishing his father's kingdom.
    
    8.5​
11. After a victory over the king and/or a giant, dragon, or wild beast
    
    The ordeal of the desert against the Devil the ultimate beast.
    
    9.5​
12. He marries a princess, often the daughter of his predecessor
    
    9.5​
13. Becomes king
    
    He enters Jerusalem as the king is prophesied to enter and is hailed by the multitude.
    
    10.5​
14. For a time he reigns uneventfully
    
    11.5​
15. Prescribes laws
    
    Modifying laws and adding to them is prescribing laws...temple on the mount stuff
    
    12.5​
16. Later he loses favor with the gods and/or his subjects
    
    He entered Jerusalem as a king hailed by the multitude...but later they turn on him and prefer to release a thief in his place
    
    13.5​
    
    
17. Is driven from the throne and city
    
    The incident when he is afraid of the Pharisees and runs away.
    
    14.5​
    
    
18. He meets with a mysterious death often at the top of a hil
    
    Crucified on a hill....but also the mysterious incident of meeting the dead Moses and Elijah and being transfigured on a hill
    
    15.4​
19. His children, if any do not succeed him
    
    No children... so
    
    15.4​
20. His body is not buried
    
    No body remains in the cave and since no one actually performed the final entombment we can say that his body was never buried
    
    16.4​
21. He has one or more holy sepulchres
    
    17.4​

So a total of 17.4 of 21 = 83%

 

[SezMe]

At birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or his maternal grand father to kill him

To which you answered yes. He doesn't have a grandfather and his father (god?) didn't try to kill him. Why yes?

 

[Leumas]

To which you answered yes. He doesn't have a grandfather and his father (god?) didn't try to kill him. Why yes?

At birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or his maternal grand father to kill him

It says an attempt is made to kill him.... which was the case... by Herod.

The bit about grandfather or father is preceded with the word "usually"... so it is not necessarily so.... but it still remains that an attempt was made to kill him.

 

[Ladewig]

[*]For a time he reigns uneventfully

11.5​

I really don't see how one can give a full point for "for a time He reigns uneventfully," if He was arrested on capital charges five days after His "coronation."

But I will accept the greater point that there is a certain amount of, shall we say, fuzziness in the arithmetic. And I will concede that arguing over an exact score is a bit of a fool's errand. Jesus scores a lot of points, but he doesn't score all of them.

 

[Leumas]

I really don't see how one can give a full point for "for a time He reigns uneventfully," if He was arrested on capital charges five days after His "coronation."

What it says is

For a time he reigns uneventfully​

The entire story of Jesus from the day he enters Jerusalem as king until he is driven away and dies occurs over a few days.

So reigning a few days with the crowds following him about and swooning over his babble and magic tricks and getting fed by the thousands, regardless of how short a time it took is still "for a time".... no?

The whole story is in COMPRESSED TIME anyhow.

But I will accept the greater point that there is a certain amount of, shall we say, fuzziness in the arithmetic. And I will concede that arguing over an exact score is a bit of a fool's errand. Jesus scores a lot of points, but he doesn't score all of them.

Apollo scores 11 points only 50% and I am sure no one is arguing his veracity or historicity.

I think Zeus, Ganesh, and even Quetzalcoatl will probably score in the single digits.

However, this kind of thing is immaterial and pointless in an argument such as this one.

I doubt any science or statistics or archaeology or real history or pointing out commonality with other fictions or presenting EXTRA-BIBLICAL facts and realities would ever convince entrenched Jesus-believers of anything.

The only thing that I think will ever jar their faith for a few seconds until they regain their casuistic faculties is evidence from the bible itself which shows them how even the bible proves them wrong.

But the shock of biblical "facts" proving them wrong only lasts for a few dazed moments after which the endless illogical fallacies and hackneyed sophistry and pathetic casuistry and trite apologetics start flying about laying all around them defensive walls of impervious piles of claptrap that even if any atom of proper logic or reason did manage somehow to break through to their entrenched and vitiated minds it would be so utterly tainted with all the hogwash it had to penetrate that it is rendered useless anyhow.

If a person is in fact able to think with rationality and reason and logic and is sufficiently skeptical to be able to shed the thick dark pall of societal indoctrination and cultural inculcations and parental brainwashing and is able to think impartially then all s/he needs is to just sit down and read this one argument against the bible:

The most logically and rationally and scientifically effective and irrefutable argument against the bible is:
NSFW - WARNING!!! Not suitable for simple minds

READING THE BIBLE

[imgw=400]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_51282543582378e20a.jpg[/imgw]

No other sources or references or tomes are needed. Just read this one book and a person able to exercise rationality and reason and logicality would not be able to reach any other conclusions than

that the Bible is

Vitiating, vague, contradictory, auto-refuting, malevolent, morally abhorrent, scientifically imbecilic, schism inducing, racist, bigoted, belligerent, and evil.​

and that its purported divine author is

Infanticidal, genocidal, megalomaniacal, homicidal, racist, bigoted, lying, raping, incestual, jealous, lustful, gluttonous, greedy, slothful, envious, vain, pompous, wrathful, vengeful, deceitful, egotistical, malevolent, scheming, benighted and a moronic hypocrite.​

Unfortunately, most people are unable to really and truly overcome the mental vitiation they have suffered during their most vulnerable cerebral developmental stages.... and what is most tragic is that their own parents are the enslavers of their minds.

 

[Ladewig]

I agree with 20.5 of the 22 statements in the previous post.

 

[Leumas]

I agree with 20.5 of the 22 statements in the previous post.

Only?

 

[skeptichaggis]

humans dont die for three days then pop back to life

I'm surprised anyone voted against not being able to know for certain because it happened 2000yrs ago. We do know absolutely the ressurection did not happen. Human beings that is the species homo sapiens can not be violently done to death then three days later revive.
We know this for a FACT.
This is not about proving a negative or other philosophical position, we know as in really really know this can't happen. It is possible to look dead and be alive and I believe Josephus describes someone who survived crucifixion but the question was did the ressurection really happen. No you can't pop your clogs on Monday then wake up and put them back on three days later.
The only position with proof-in this case solid-is that Jesus did not die on the cross then spontaneously revive three days later and let his buds poke their grubby hands in his wounds. Its like job and the whale(fish sorry,can you believe Christians correct you on that,cos like that's the problem with that story) it didn't happen you can't live inside a fish,its not about proving negatives,its just impossible.

 

[azzthom]

Can we disprove the resurrection? In a scientific sense - No. In a legal sense - yes, I think we can. Certainly beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Leumas]

Can we disprove the resurrection? In a scientific sense - No. In a legal sense - yes, I think we can. Certainly beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a scientific sense too... as logically and rightly pointed out by Skeptichaggis in this post.

Perhaps in a Philosophical sophistic way there remains a 10^-1099999 possibility for casuists and wishful thinkers to jump up and down and say with a stupid snigger "aha...so you are not 100% sure and thus it is just a belief".... but people who wish to play this kind of wilful selfdelusion and desperate rhetorical onanisms can go ahead and carry on auto-pleasing themselves.

 

[Brian-M]

We know this for a FACT.

We're not talking about natural processes. We're talking about magic a miracle.

How can we possibly know that a miracle didn't happen two thousand years ago?