Can one disprove Jesus' resurrection?

[Donn]

Jesus scores a lot of points, but he doesn't score all of them.

That's because Jesus saves.

 

[rakovsky]

I reviewed people's answers and would like to thank you for writing. Here I will briefly summarize the main responses.

Some posters -and I would agree on this - asserted that the Biblical character of Jesus corresponds to and was based on a real person in some general features.
For example, MIKADO wrote:

it seems fairly obvious to me that there probably was some guy named Jesus. or jeshua, or even more likely a few of them that wandered around claiming to be the messiah. IIRR there was a surfeit of them at the time. possibly he even said things like love thy neighbour etc....however, just as in preachers today, this does NOT make you the son of god

Some others like Aepervius rightly pointed out that the problem is not so much the possibility of any resurrection per se but the more supernatural claims in the Bible associated with it like the Ascension. This is because there are cases where people have been found to be clinically dead, lacking detectable brain waves and other necessary vital signs, yet revive nonetheless. The idea that a person's body could be practically dead for an instant and then revive due to, say, some external force reviving the heart and brain is much easier to believe than a body totally vanishing and then reappearing in transfigured form.

As for particular objections to the transfigured resurrection, some of the forum posters made the following points, the first two of which touched on or reiterated what I laid out in my opening post:

1. They noted that such a transfigured resurrection is physically impossible under our understanding of the laws of physics. However, I note that sometimes things that society's understanding of science would rule out can occur nonetheless. The concept of harnassing electric power or radio waves would have sounded like pseudoscience 300 years ago. Further, one poster noted the objection that in the standard monotheist concept of an all-powerful God, extreme anomalies like resurrection are within the Deity's power and thus are not ruled out by the laws of physics.

2. I wasn't placing the burden of proof on skeptics- if they see fit, they could answer that the Christians haven't proved their case in the affirmative either. I wasn't trying to make a trick question, just to explore the idea of whether in this case one could actually prove a negative or whether the idea is merely a fallacy.

3. They saw in the gospel story the attributes of myth, and so to try to disprove it felt like disproving King Arthur or pixies. The difference with the King Arthur legend at least, is that in the case of the gospels the writers intended for their story to be believed as an account from their own era relayed to them through a short chain of witnesses.

4. Some posters used logic arguments to debate the general concepts behind the Christian story, which I will go into further.

5. Some posters, especially Leumas, focused on text criticisms of the Bible, which I'll mention next.

6. Cainkane1 claimed that Jesus' bones were found, but as the IAA and I think Leumas rightly objected, the "Jesus bones' and ossuary" discovery was a hoax.

 

[Donn]

1. They noted that such a transfigured resurrection is physically impossible under our understanding of the laws of physics. However, I note that sometimes things that society's understanding of science would rule out can occur nonetheless. The concept of harnassing electric power or radio waves would have sounded like pseudoscience 300 years ago. Further, one poster noted the objection that in the standard monotheist concept of an all-powerful God, extreme anomalies like resurrection are within the Deity's power and thus are not ruled out by the laws of physics.

You have an elephant and a gnat sitting on a see-saw. Do you suppose the two balance and the see-saw is level?

In the same way you place miracles on the same level as science, using words like "however" and "sometimes".

One is heavier than the other.

 

[tsig]

That's the whole thing about miracles. They're rare exemptions to the physical rules. You can't prove that they're not happening now, let alone on one specific occasion with no verifiable eyewitness accounts a couple of thousand years ago.

It's the same way that you can't prove that magic fairies don't exist now, and you certainly can't disprove a claim that a magic fairy regularly visited Isaac Newton when he was a young child. (Of course, nobody is making that claim. But if they did, you couldn't disprove it.)

Good, now show that such exemptions are possible.

 

[rakovsky]

TSIG, LADEWIG, and LEUMAS touched on some relevant issues of logic behind the Christian story.

TSIG wrote:

Nothing changed, the world is the same now as it was before Jesus came so if he came to change the world it didn't happen.

However, I do think that the world changed after Jesus' mission: very many nations came to believe in God and they also got a strong set of moral teachings from the Bible.

LADEWIG wrote:

I suppose I could accept contradictions, apparent contradictions, and discrepancies a lot easier if every fourth Christian I meet online did not insist that the Bible is the inerrant and unchangeable Word of God. An inviolate, consecrated Message that must be accepted in its entirety as written.

Furthermore, I would hope that an Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omni-loving, Eternal Being would make sure that each jot and tittle were perfectly placed if the stakes consisted of billions of human souls spending eternity in unimaginable bliss or unimaginable agony.

I understand what he meant about doubting Biblical infallibility, because I don't think all the animal pairs were herded onto Noah's ark, for example.

However, fortunately full acceptance of all the verses in the Bible actually is not demanded in the main Christian Creeds. The gospels themselves don't demand acceptance of all those verses either, and perhaps they even put some verses into question , like where Jesus explicitly gives an opposing teaching against the old "eye for an eye" rule from the Old Testament. So if someone thinks that others must accept all the Bible verses as factually correct for salvation, the person is not really repeating Christian tradition on the question.

Finally, Leumas posted his conversation with Paul Bethke who puts modern nonChristian Jewish society above all other human societies based on his reading of Genesis. I agree with Leumas' critical, instinctual reaction against the way Paul Bethke read and applied this passage to today's world. Perhaps in the time of Genesis one could conceivably divide the world into Jews who believe in Abraham's God and other nations who don't but in the Christian era this distinction in faith is gone. Thus, the Christian reading of the passage in Genesis about blessing Abraham's descendants is that this passage refers to Abraham's spiritual descendants- the peoples of the world who have correct faith in God, not necessarily modern Israelis. Leumas made some other good criticisms on this topic as it pertains to the Old Testament and modern society and politics.

Leumas also touched on Jesus' relationship to the question when he pointed to Matthew 15:21-28. There, Jesus pointed to a saying that said not to give the things for the children to dogs. One could take this saying to label gentiles as dogs. But a gentile woman protested that even dogs get crumbs. After this, Jesus healed her because she showed her faith.

It's important to recognize that Jesus didn't actually say that she qualified as a "dog". In fact, the argument could be made that she no longer qualified as one because the faith barrier that created the distinction in the first place was gone. Jesus repeatedly healed gentiles multiple times even though Jewish law had created such a barrier. In one such occasion of a healing, Jesus said: (Matt 8)

Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
11. And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.

This is different from considering gentiles to still be "dogs". He has found among gentiles greater faith and said that they will come to sit down with Abraham and Jacob (nicknamed "Israel") in heaven.

Probably the best example of how the barrier was removed between Jews and gentiles in Christianity was the discussion at the council of Jerusalem when it was decided that gentiles didn't need to become circumcized and obey the Mosaic law. But in any case the main remark I would have about the passage about the gentile woman is that Jesus does not actually say that she is a dog, and in the end He did not just give gentiles "crumbs" like healing, but full salvation, which was the "food" for the children.

In any case, to narrow the thread down I would prefer to focus more precisely on the Resurrection claims themselves, rather than general logical issues of Christian theology. But I do know that sometimes it's helpful to step back and take a bigger perspective.

 

[Donn]

However, fortunately full acceptance of all the verses in the Bible actually is not demanded in the main Christian Creeds. .. So if someone thinks that others must accept all the Bible verses as factually correct for salvation, the person is not really repeating Christian tradition on the question.

This is known as Café Christianity. Pick and choose. Some cherry tomatoes with your iceberg salad; perhaps, pickles? No one wrote specifics about this, so mix and match.

 

[Ladewig]

LADEWIG wrote:

I understand what he meant about doubting Biblical infallibility, because I don't think all the animal pairs were herded onto Noah's ark, for example.

However, fortunately full acceptance of all the verses in the Bible actually is not demanded in the main Christian Creeds. The gospels themselves don't demand acceptance of all those verses either, and perhaps they even put some verses into question , like where Jesus explicitly gives an opposing teaching against the old "eye for an eye" rule from the Old Testament. So if someone thinks that others must accept all the Bible verses as factually correct for salvation, the person is not really repeating Christian tradition on the question.

What you describe is fine by me. It seems a reasonable position to take - I suspect many Christians accept that viewpoint. I was merely pointing out that there is a very vocal segment that does not.

 

[Ladewig]

That's because Jesus saves.

Yes, Jesus saves, but Moses pays interest.
[insert joke about banks of the Nile showing a profit]

 

[Brian-M]

Jesus had supposedly been dead and buried for three days and nights. I don't care what the Christians say, you aren't coming back from that.

Are you saying that it would be impossible for a powerful magic being to make a backup copy of Jesus, or to prevent his body from decaying, assuming that such a being actually existed?

Well you can't prove it didn't happen but is it likely? Of course not! The laws of nature remain unchanged even if the gullibility of a credulous era has.

We're not arguing about whether or not it's likely. We're not arguing about whether or not it's something that a sane and rational person would actually be justified in believing.

We're arguing about whether or not it's possible to prove that it didn't happen.

And we can't prove it didn't happen.

There's all kinds of insane garbage that's impossible to disprove, and this falls into that category.

Simply admitting that you can't prove it didn't happen isn't the same thing as saying that you think it's possible that it did happen.

It's possible to be completely convinced that something is impossible without having to claim to know for a fact that it's completely impossible.

 

[Brian-M]

Good, now show that such exemptions are possible.

Why would I need to show that? Nobody here is claiming that they are possible, only that we can't demonstrate (prove) that they're impossible.

 

[Leumas]

This conversation just proves you can't disprove anything when one side gets to invoke magic.

...
There's all kinds of insane garbage that's impossible to disprove, and this falls into that category.
...

With the invocation of magic one Proves too Much so as to become its own proof of falsity by deteriorating into nothing more than a Reductio ad Absurdom.

So let's do this... let's for argument's sake accept all the magic in the god-spiels. Let's immerse ourselves in the world of Jesus where magic and the supernatural are all about and devils and demonic possessions are common everyday occurrences.

The ancients used to believe (and shamefully and pathetically some people still do even in the 21^st century) that you can have someone POSSESSED by a demon or spirit by HEXING their food or drink (see here).

Christians did and still do believe in demonic, satanic and spirit possessions (e.g. Luke 8:27-36, Matthew 4:24, Mark 1:32)

We are also told that Jesus had full control over demons and devils and they knew him very well

Mark 1:34 And he healed many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him.​

Carrying on with this Biblical "logic" one can only conclude that

Jesus is the DEVIL
Or at least the Devil works for or in cahoots with Jesus​

Read CAREFULLY John 13:21-30 (see below) as to what transpired between Jesus and Judas during the last supper night before Judas went and guided the Sanhedrin to Jesus' whereabouts in the garden of Gethsemane (or was it Mount of Olives).

As detailed in the verses you would notice that Jesus HEXED Judas and caused him to be possessed by the devil and that is why Judas immediately departed and went to betray Jesus.

"It is the one to whom I give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish". So when he had dipped the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas son of Simon Iscariot. After he received the piece of bread, Satan entered into him."​

Even in Luke 22:3-4 it says Judas was possessed by the devil while betraying Jesus, but does not elaborate like John does over how he got to be in such a state.

Then Satan entered into Judas called Iscariot, who was one of the twelve; he went away and conferred with the chief priests and officers of the temple police about how he might betray him to them.​

Jesus said someone is going to betray him. They asked him who? Instead of naming Judas outright without any TRICKERY, he instead proceeded to dip a piece of bread into wine then hand it to one of them who was then entered by the devil after eating the HEXED bread?

Upon careful consideration of the verses below it looks like Jesus ordered the devil to possess Judas to compel him to betray Jesus so as to achieve the desired outcome of being finally executed in order to fulfill Jesus' plots .... see especially John 12:27-36 but also see Matthew 16:21-23, Matthew 17:22-23, Mark 8:31-33, Luke 9:21-22.

John 13:21-31

21 When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.
22 Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake.
23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
24 Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.
25 He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?
26 Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.
27 And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.
30 He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night.
31 Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.​

Notice that Judas is an innocent victim here. Judas was POSSESSED by Satan on the behest of Jesus.

It was Jesus who dipped the bread in an apparently enchanted wine and thus caused poor Judas to become controlled by Jesus’ crony the Devil. Jesus even orders him to go ahead and do what he was told to do quickly.

Given Jesus' powers over demons and devils and his ability to exorcise them out of anyone with just a few words of magic, he could have easily exorcised poor Judas from any demonic possession if it was not his intention for him to be possessed...no?

But Jesus, in order to carry out his plots, caused poor unfortunate Judas to be possessed by the devil and to do a deed that Judas would have not willingly carried out had he not been ENCHANTED and under a magical SPELL.

31Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.​

In other words Jesus NEW JOLLY WELL what the Devil possessing Judas was going to do. He knew jolly well that it was going to accomplish his plotting in order to get glorified.

So here you have it folks….. The DEVIL IS IN CAHOOTS WITH JESUS according to the Bible ITSELF.... if not in fact Jesus is the boss devil himself ordering about a lesser devil.

Of course that is not surprising when you consider that Jesus (the counter ego of YHWH) was already, for a long time before, quite versed in LYING and DECEPTION.

Ezekiel 14:9 And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people
Israel.

2 Chronicles 18:22 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets
​

Notice how he CONTROLS and manipulates poor Pharaoh so as to eventually feign an excuse to massacre children and animals (as he always loved to do).... and for what.... so that he can glorify himself.

Romans 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.​

Notice here what he admits to doing..... and all for what... to glorify himself.

Ezekiel 20:25-26 Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live; And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the LORD.​

Look how he cheats and tricks poor Ahab here

1 Kings 22:22-23 The angel answered, ‘I will go out and become a spirit of lies in the mouths of Ahab’s prophets—they will all speak lies.’ So the Lord said, ‘Yes, that will fool Ahab. Go out and do that.’ So that is what has happened here. The Lord made your prophets lie to you. The Lord himself decided to bring this disaster to you.​

But Above all.... who but the vilest of demons and devils.... who but the most heinous of monsters would say stuff like this

Leviticus 26:14-32 If ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments;.....I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your high ways shall be desolate.....And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.​

And of course his followers LYING for his sake is a good indication of who Jesus really was.

Paul dissimulates and hucksters and shysters for Jesus's sake

• 1 Corinthians 9:20-23 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."

Eusebius, Emperor Constantine's bishop, legalizes deception for Jesus' sake

• How it may be lawful and fitting to use falsehood as a medicine, and for the benefit of those who want to be deceived.

And Martin Luther the founder of Protestantism sanctified lying for Jesus' sake

• What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church ... a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them.

Martin Luther also explained why reason is not something Jesus' followers should value

• Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God

And Jesus fully agreed with him

• Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
• 1 Corinthians 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
• 1 Corinthians 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
• 1 Corinthians 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise;

 

[Brian-M]

With the invocation of magic one Proves too Much so as to become its own proof of falsity by deteriorating into nothing more than a Reductio ad Absurdom.

It seems like you're committing the fallacy fallacy, also known as the argument from fallacy.

Just because the reasons given to support a position are fallacious doesn't mean that the position is false. (It doesn't mean that the position is true either.)

So let's do this... let's for argument's sake accept all the magic in the god-spiels. Let's immerse ourselves in the world of Jesus where magic and the supernatural are all about and devils and demonic possessions are common everyday occurrences.

Why? How would that be relevant?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Ted: X can't happen.
Bob: Yes it can because you can't prove magic never made it happen.

Stunning. Simply stunning.

 

[Leumas]

It seems like you're committing the fallacy fallacy, also known as the argument from fallacy.

No you are the one who is in fact committing the fallacy fallacy by saying that I am committing it.

Magic all around is used to defend a contention of magic and we are told we cannot disprove it because it is magic.

That is just AMAZING ILLOGIC.

My position is that by invoking magic-did-it one is committing the fallacy of proving too much because when the same argument is used to its absurd conclusion by using reductio ad absurdum (a well known proof method in the fields of mathematics and logic) we can see that the magic-did-it is its own disproof.

You have just labeled a very powerful method of proof in mathematics and logic as a fallacy by just calling it so... and then went ahead to call its usage a fallacy.

The position under question is that magic-did-it.

I am contending that magic-did-it is its own disproof as can be shown by applying it to its absurd conclusions..... that is

even if we grant that magic-did-it we would arrive at results that contradict even the "reality" that has been granted.... i.e. magic-did-it is self-contradictory and thus ILLOGICAL.​

Just because the reasons given to support a position are fallacious doesn't mean that the position is false. (It doesn't mean that the position is true either.)

So are you saying magic-did-it is not a false position?

I doubt you are saying that!!!

The resurrection is a magic-did-it hypothesis and the reason given to support it is that magic-did-it.

The argument that it cannot be disproven is that we cannot prove that magic did not do it.

Magic all around is used to defend a contention of magic and we are told we cannot disprove it because it is magic.

That is just AMAZING ILLOGIC.

Why? How would that be relevant?

Reductio ad absurdum

(Latin: "reduction to absurdity") is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement .... is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance. First recognized and studied in classical Greek philosophy (the Latin term derives from the Greek "εις άτοπον απαγωγή" or eis atopon apagoge, "reduction to the impossible", for example in Aristotle's Prior Analytics),[1] this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as informal debate.​

I grant that magic-did-it and show that by granting it Jesus is the Devil.... not a result that the invokers of the magic-did-it claptrap will really like.

It also shows that there was no resurrection even granting the magic because THE MAGICIAN Jesus CONSPIRED with SATAN to PRETEND that it was a resurrection and thus the WHOLE THING WAS A PLOT and a DEVILISH CONSPIRACY.

It is all nothing but devilish magic which makes the resurrection a moot point altogether if Jesus is the Devil or at least in cahoots with the devil... don't you think?

 

[Leumas]

Ted: X can't happen.
Bob: Yes it can because you can't prove magic never made it happen.

Stunning. Simply stunning.

Indeed! Sophistry and "logic"-tricks to maintain that magic can still exist somehow somewhere sometime to enable 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 willful self-delusion and desperate rhetorical onanisms can go ahead and carry on auto-pleasing themselves.

 

[skeptichaggis]

I would point out again that the whole of Christianity is predicates on Jesus dying on the cross,decomposing for three days(or a good while at least),undecomposing ,completely repairing the enormous damage to his brain ,then skipping of happily.
For the Christian the romans could not have been mistaken about the death,he could not have been near death and revived,he had for Christian belief to be valid be dead.
That's impossible. full stop.
Its not about falicious arguments or in true ken ham style you were not there arguments,its basic biology.
If magic was real why would nations invest in missiles and sonar. They would just neutrilize the enemy with mumbo jumbo if magic was real.

 

[Garrette]

Hello, Garrette.

This is a tangent, but an interesting one. Yes, this is a very good question. The answer is that in ancient Jewish counting, as the Talmud explains, a part of a day was counted as a full 24 hour period (there is a Talmudic verse on this). The phrase "a day and a night" meant one such period. In addition, the 24 hour period of an ancient Jewish day started at sunset (eg. 6 PM). So for example Jesus was in the tomb starting on Friday in the daytime which is counted for the 24 hour period beginning on what we today would count as 6 PM on Thursday. So when it says that Jonah was in the whale 3 days and three nights it means 3 24 hour periods.

In fact, there are several cases in the Old Testament, when a person (Esther 4:16 was one such example) went through 3 of these 24 hour periods and it was stated in similar terms, even though if you calculated it, the person in the Old Testament story did not go through three actual 12 hour daylight days or three nights when each was counted alone. (eg. Esther didn't fast for three days or three nights if daylight days or nights are counted separately). I looked into this ancient "figure of speech" a lot, because I know that it doesn't sound right in modern terms and people ask questions about that all the time.

Yes I know it sounds weird and like a miscalculation, and it's a common objection, but that miscalculation was an ancient figure of speech that can be found in the Old Testament more than once.

No. I am familiar with Inclusive Reckoning of time, and I even grant there is validity to it. I have no issue with the three days bit; I understand that a part of Friday, all of Saturday, and a part of Sunday constitute three days.

Where you go off the rails -- as do the major proponents of Inclusive Reckoning as the defense against the charge I am levelling -- is the bit about 3 nights.

Your version insists that any part of a day includes the entire 24 hour period, including the hours of darkness, or night. For nearly every reference to the resurrection time period, that interpretation works. But there is one for which it does not work, Matthew 12:40.

For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

In this instance, it is Jesus himself speaking, so I trust you will accept his statement as the authoritative version.

Also in this instance, nights are mentioned separately from days, i.e., they are not inclusive. Jesus emphasized that there would be 3 days AND there would be 3 nights. Inclusive Reckoning does not work here.

 

[Donn]

Jesus emphasized that there would be 3 days AND there would be 3 nights. Inclusive Reckoning does not work here.

C'mon G, the days touch the nights, so they're partsies. Half Sunday is the whole day, we'll take that, thanks. The day touches the night, so we'll take that too.

I mean, really, with all these days and nights touching like this, Jesus has never been here and has always been here.

 

[devnull]

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?

Because miracles dont happen.

 

[Brian-M]

No you are the one who is in fact committing the fallacy fallacy by saying that I am committing it.

You clearly didn't bother to look at either of those sites I linked to which explains what the fallacy fallacy is.

I agree with your conclusion (that there isn't any magic) but I disagree with the argument you're presenting to support it because your argument is fallacious. That's not the fallacy fallacy.

If I were saying that your conclusion is wrong because you used a fallacy, then I'd be using the fallacy fallacy. But I'm not doing that.

Magic all around is used to defend a contention of magic and we are told we cannot disprove it because it is magic.

That is just AMAZING ILLOGIC.

"Magic all around" isn't a necessary condition for the resurrection for the resurrection to have occurred. "Magic in rare and unusual conditions" would suffice.

And it's not the contention that "magic exists" which prevents us from disproving claims that the event occurred, it's the lack of verifiable evidence about the event itself.

You can present a compelling argument that the event didn't happen, you can even demonstrate that the rational position would be to assume that it didn't happen, but you can't demonstrate that it didn't actually happen.

My position is that by invoking magic-did-it one is committing the fallacy of proving too much because when the same argument is used to its absurd conclusion by using reductio ad absurdum

Claiming that someone's assertions are wrong because they're using logical fallacies to support or reach these conclusions is the (fallacy fallacy, also known as the argument from fallacy).

The arguments they present to support their position may be complete garbage, but that doesn't prove that their position is wrong.

even if we grant that magic-did-it we would arrive at results that contradict even the "reality" that has been granted.... i.e. magic-did-it is self-contradictory and thus ILLOGICAL.​

You have not yet demonstrated that this position is self-contradictory.

All you've done is presented an argument that their reasoning is invalid. This itself doesn't demonstrate the claim they were using that reasoning to support is wrong or self-contradictory.

The resurrection is a magic-did-it hypothesis and the reason given to support it is that magic-did-it.

"Magic-did-it" isn't the reason given to support it, it's the "explanation" for how it supposedly occurred. (I'm using the word "explanation" very loosely here.)

As far as I'm aware, no reason to support the claim has yet been presented in this thread.

The argument that it cannot be disproven is that we cannot prove that magic did not do it.

The argument is that you cannot prove that this specific magical event never occurred.

Can you provide any evidence that it didn't occur?
Can you demonstrate that the claim is self contradictory?
Can you demonstrate that the claim contradicts demonstrated facts?

If you can't do at least one of these things, then you can't prove that it didn't happen.

That is just AMAZING ILLOGIC.

Repeating that over and over again doesn't make your position any stronger.