Brian-M
Daydreamer
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2008
- Messages
- 8,044
We can't prove that.
They could be happening when there is no observation.
We can't prove that either.
Can one disprove Jesus' resurrection?
- Thread starter rakovsky
- Start date
We can't prove that.
They could be happening when there is no observation.
We can't prove that either.
The other in-depth objection I saw was text criticisms from Barehl and Leumas:
Barehl made a text criticism where he quotes Luke 24, saying that they saw Jesus twice, didn't recognize him and he disappeared. Another time He ate with them, then they didn't believe it was Him, and then he opened their understanding and they recognized Him.
I think it's an interesting question why they didn't recognize Him in Luke 24. This might be explained in that they were not expecting Him to be a resurrected person and He was in a transfigured form, so they didn't recognize Him. Perhaps they thought He was another person or someone who just looked like Jesus, but then He disappeared so they knew it was Him. Perhaps He was far off in some cases and didn't recognize Him until they got closer, He could have been wearing a hood, and in some cases like John 20 Mary saw Him when it was still dark, so it could have been hard to get a good look at people.
I suppose an alternate explanation is that they were just confusing another normal stranger for Him, but the passage makes it look like whoever they were talking with was a miraculous being too, like when Luke says:
Leumas made several other text criticisms. I think one of the most effective would be to show that the apostles and gospel writers had general dishonesty, so their claims aren't reliable.
Leumas cited some passages in Message 55 of the thread that could have sounded like approving dishonesty, but I believe he misinterpreted the passages.
For example, he quoted Paul saying in 1 Corinthians 9: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).
I did not find this passage dishonest. Paul means that he acted in different ways because of his evangelism. It is like a missionary who visited China or another foreign culture and said "I became like the Chinese (even though I am not Chinese) to win them." Missionaries do this- they go to other cultures, integrate into the culture, learn the language, wear the other country's clothes, and live among the people to associate with them and spread their message more effectively. It doesn't mean that missionaries are knowingly dishonest or that their word on different topics is particularly unreliable because of dishonesty.
More particularly, Paul was a pharisee, and since he was a Christian, he believed that he didn't have to fulfill the Torah very strictly. There are many Reform Jews today who don't reject Torah but don't believe themselves held fast to it, so it doesn't mean the person is knowingly dishonest. However, when someone like Paul or a Reform Jew is in a setting with conservative Jews, they may prefer to follow the Torah more strictly to get along in the society.
Leumas gave another example where in the Old Testament God has an angel cause a lie among God's enemies. There are different explanations for this. One is that God is good but since He is the creator of all things, then even bad things come from God, at least indirectly. Besides, the Old Testament's authors often were writing down their indirect interpretations, impressions and metaphors about God, like when in Psalms it talks about God "walking". So I see this as a direct problem for the Old Testament rather than an issue of the honesty of the New Testament writers living centuries later describing things they or their contemporaries witnessed.
Leumas also suggested that Jesus sent the devil into Judas. However, the passage he cited doesn't say that. It says he gave Judas bread, showing that this was the disciple who would betray him, and that's when Judas did so. And in Luke 22 it says Judas already had an agreement with the temple authorities to betray Jesus, and Satan had been in him. It wasn't as if Jesus had put Satan into Judas in the first place.
Leumas also pointed to Biblical contradictions as a disproof. However, for me factual contradictions in the ancient, sometimes mythical-sounding history of the Old Testament or secondary, lesser contradictions in the New Testament don't persuade me that the gospel authors were actually dishonest. The latter could have been accidental mistakes.
Further, some of them could be only apparent contradictions, like the issue in Luke of whether Judas kissed Jesus like two other gospel authors said.
For example, it says that Judas approached Jesus to kiss him, but Jesus asked him if he would betray Jesus with a kiss. The word "but" here implies that Jesus intervened at that moment, but it didn't mean that Jesus totally stopped him Judas kissing Him.
I gave an example from English grammar, wherein: A policeman came to give me a ticket, but I asked him if he had to do that, and then he gave me the ticket anyway. We already know that Jesus had allowed Judas to leave to betray him at the Last Supper, pointing out to His disciples that this would happen. It makes sense then that Jesus would also allow Judas to kiss him for the betrayal, even if he momentarily intervened like Luke says. Besides, if the signal to the guards in Luke was a kiss, then Jesus' arrest implies that the kiss occurred.
So the contradictions are either about secondary issues or are only apparent contradictions.
Leumas also asked how did the gospel writers know many of the things in the gospel, like when he asked:
In the different cases, the people who experienced the events described could have either told the gospel writers, the gospel writers could have been present themselves, or they could have heard it indirectly through others.
For example, Joseph could have told Mary or the disciples about the dream, who in turn could have told the gospel writers, although I suppose that Joseph could have lived until, say, 90 AD and told the gospel writers.
In any case, in some instances the gospel writers were not eyewitnesses, but that doesn't mean that they necessarily made things up.
Barehl made a text criticism where he quotes Luke 24, saying that they saw Jesus twice, didn't recognize him and he disappeared. Another time He ate with them, then they didn't believe it was Him, and then he opened their understanding and they recognized Him.
I think it's an interesting question why they didn't recognize Him in Luke 24. This might be explained in that they were not expecting Him to be a resurrected person and He was in a transfigured form, so they didn't recognize Him. Perhaps they thought He was another person or someone who just looked like Jesus, but then He disappeared so they knew it was Him. Perhaps He was far off in some cases and didn't recognize Him until they got closer, He could have been wearing a hood, and in some cases like John 20 Mary saw Him when it was still dark, so it could have been hard to get a good look at people.
I suppose an alternate explanation is that they were just confusing another normal stranger for Him, but the passage makes it look like whoever they were talking with was a miraculous being too, like when Luke says:
Leumas made several other text criticisms. I think one of the most effective would be to show that the apostles and gospel writers had general dishonesty, so their claims aren't reliable.
Leumas cited some passages in Message 55 of the thread that could have sounded like approving dishonesty, but I believe he misinterpreted the passages.
For example, he quoted Paul saying in 1 Corinthians 9: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).
I did not find this passage dishonest. Paul means that he acted in different ways because of his evangelism. It is like a missionary who visited China or another foreign culture and said "I became like the Chinese (even though I am not Chinese) to win them." Missionaries do this- they go to other cultures, integrate into the culture, learn the language, wear the other country's clothes, and live among the people to associate with them and spread their message more effectively. It doesn't mean that missionaries are knowingly dishonest or that their word on different topics is particularly unreliable because of dishonesty.
More particularly, Paul was a pharisee, and since he was a Christian, he believed that he didn't have to fulfill the Torah very strictly. There are many Reform Jews today who don't reject Torah but don't believe themselves held fast to it, so it doesn't mean the person is knowingly dishonest. However, when someone like Paul or a Reform Jew is in a setting with conservative Jews, they may prefer to follow the Torah more strictly to get along in the society.
Leumas gave another example where in the Old Testament God has an angel cause a lie among God's enemies. There are different explanations for this. One is that God is good but since He is the creator of all things, then even bad things come from God, at least indirectly. Besides, the Old Testament's authors often were writing down their indirect interpretations, impressions and metaphors about God, like when in Psalms it talks about God "walking". So I see this as a direct problem for the Old Testament rather than an issue of the honesty of the New Testament writers living centuries later describing things they or their contemporaries witnessed.
Leumas also suggested that Jesus sent the devil into Judas. However, the passage he cited doesn't say that. It says he gave Judas bread, showing that this was the disciple who would betray him, and that's when Judas did so. And in Luke 22 it says Judas already had an agreement with the temple authorities to betray Jesus, and Satan had been in him. It wasn't as if Jesus had put Satan into Judas in the first place.
Leumas also pointed to Biblical contradictions as a disproof. However, for me factual contradictions in the ancient, sometimes mythical-sounding history of the Old Testament or secondary, lesser contradictions in the New Testament don't persuade me that the gospel authors were actually dishonest. The latter could have been accidental mistakes.
Further, some of them could be only apparent contradictions, like the issue in Luke of whether Judas kissed Jesus like two other gospel authors said.
For example, it says that Judas approached Jesus to kiss him, but Jesus asked him if he would betray Jesus with a kiss. The word "but" here implies that Jesus intervened at that moment, but it didn't mean that Jesus totally stopped him Judas kissing Him.
I gave an example from English grammar, wherein: A policeman came to give me a ticket, but I asked him if he had to do that, and then he gave me the ticket anyway. We already know that Jesus had allowed Judas to leave to betray him at the Last Supper, pointing out to His disciples that this would happen. It makes sense then that Jesus would also allow Judas to kiss him for the betrayal, even if he momentarily intervened like Luke says. Besides, if the signal to the guards in Luke was a kiss, then Jesus' arrest implies that the kiss occurred.
So the contradictions are either about secondary issues or are only apparent contradictions.
Leumas also asked how did the gospel writers know many of the things in the gospel, like when he asked:
In the different cases, the people who experienced the events described could have either told the gospel writers, the gospel writers could have been present themselves, or they could have heard it indirectly through others.
For example, Joseph could have told Mary or the disciples about the dream, who in turn could have told the gospel writers, although I suppose that Joseph could have lived until, say, 90 AD and told the gospel writers.
In any case, in some instances the gospel writers were not eyewitnesses, but that doesn't mean that they necessarily made things up.
skeptichaggis
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2015
- Messages
- 692
If you really really think that their is the least tiniest chance that Jesus ressurected for real then you really really need to read up on basic biology. It did not happen at all 100% guaranteed, really honestly didn't happen.
Now is it possible to survive a crucifixion, yes,the annals of the period(well a bit later)do have at least one survivor. There were probably others. But the claim is death,a couple of days of rotting in the judean heat,then reviving. That is impossible.
I do know you are arguing from a philosophical point of view and you don't think the ressurection is true but you are still really wrong on this. It did not happen.
Garrette,
Yes, I do understand what you are saying. This is a common objection. If you count each normal night individually, you only come up with 2 nights - Sabbath night and Resurrection night. And plus you understand inclusive reckoning.
What I mean is that we are really just dealing with a figure of speech. In ancient Jewish counting, inclusive reckoning meant that even part of a day was counted as a whole 24 hour period made up of a night and a day. Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah explained in the Talmud: "A day and a night are an Onah and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it" [J.Talmud, Shabbath 9.3 and b.Talmud, Pesahim 4a]
Another place in the Talmud, dealing with the number of days in a marriage contract, counts one part of a 24 hour period as a whole period:
http://www.bible.ca/d-3-days-and-3-nights.htm#V
In other words, Jonah was in the whale 3 days and 3 nights, which is three 24 hour periods, and based on inclusive reckoning Jesus was in the tomb three 24 hour periods, which are 3 days and 3 nights.
I know that this is not actually correct in terms of individual calculation. But inclusive reckoning is not actually correct in terms of calculation either. Nor is the way the ancient Jews interchanged "after" a time and "on" a time. In the Old Testament, King Rehoboam ordered people to come to him "after three days", and they came to him "on" the third day.
The term "days and nights" is used numerous times in the Bible for a set number of 24 hour periods like the 40 "days and nights" of the flood.
(https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=days+and+nights&qs_version=KJV) So I am skeptical that it literally means individual days and individual nights instead of being a manner of speech for 24 hour periods. For example, Esther 4 speaks of "3 days, night or day".
But there is another answer that works better if individual nights is required.
The term "being in the heart of the earth" might not necessarily mean being in a physical tomb, but it could be an allegorical expression for dying or being in the earth's full power. In ancient Jewish thought, when a holy person died, he/she went to "Abraham's heart". To go to the earth's heart then could be a reference to Hades, which is sometimes depicted as being in the earth's core. In that case, the calculation of three nights could begin with Jesus' time on the cross when Judea went dark.
Judea goes dark for three hours - 1st night
Judea gets light again - 1st day
Jesus in the tomb Friday evening - 2nd night
Jesus in the tomb Saturday - 2nd day and 3rd night
Jesus' resurrection at dawn on Sunday - 3rd day.
But then, was the resurrection at dawn on Sunday or soon before dawn? If it was before dawn, then would the time on the cross on Friday morning be the third day? So I think it's an interesting question.
Let me mention here a few more general issues that DLH, Hans, and Leumas brought up.
Some people like DLH and HansMustermann debated whether the Bible could be considered evidence or if it is circular reasoning to draw conclusions from the Bible. In fact, the Bible is evidence, because it, like evidence, points to a certain fact or claim. The Bible claims certain facts, so the Bible itself is evidence or an indication of those facts. But just because a book is evidence for a claim doesn't mean that the claim is real.
Additionally, even though the Bible is evidence, it doesn't corroborate itself. The Bible is not a source or piece of evidence that "proves itself". Some outside information or evidence (like Josephus or the Church fathers) must be used if the Bible is to be corroborated.
Next, LEUMAS brought up an issue of general logic:
Leumas asked how could God be so impotent that He could not find another way? I sympathize with part of that objection, in that I am not sure whether no other way was possible. However, that does not mean that God did not choose this way. For example, a surgeon may have multiple ways to treat an illness, and people might ask why the surgeon chose a certain method over others, but that doesn't mean that the surgeon didn't treat the patient in the first place.
Some people like DLH and HansMustermann debated whether the Bible could be considered evidence or if it is circular reasoning to draw conclusions from the Bible. In fact, the Bible is evidence, because it, like evidence, points to a certain fact or claim. The Bible claims certain facts, so the Bible itself is evidence or an indication of those facts. But just because a book is evidence for a claim doesn't mean that the claim is real.
Additionally, even though the Bible is evidence, it doesn't corroborate itself. The Bible is not a source or piece of evidence that "proves itself". Some outside information or evidence (like Josephus or the Church fathers) must be used if the Bible is to be corroborated.
Next, LEUMAS brought up an issue of general logic:
I do understand the logic in the Christian claim. The world is sinful, corrupt, and unhealthy. God is good and all-powerful, so He comes to heal the world that he loves. The world, being violent and corrupt kills God. But being God, God triumphs and helps the people who have also been hurt by the world. God, being a spirit, triumphs, and shares His metaphysical triumph with the people who love God and goodness and mercy too. I find this philosophy very attractive because I see the pureness of God and the corruption of the world, but how can we think that this miracle probably happened?
Leumas asked how could God be so impotent that He could not find another way? I sympathize with part of that objection, in that I am not sure whether no other way was possible. However, that does not mean that God did not choose this way. For example, a surgeon may have multiple ways to treat an illness, and people might ask why the surgeon chose a certain method over others, but that doesn't mean that the surgeon didn't treat the patient in the first place.
Finally, I list a few potential ways I think one could come to a stronger conclusion:
I don't know that there is something else available to us that could conclusively prove there was no miracle.
- One could invent a time machine, travel into the past and see what happened. But we don't have the technology.
- Clairvoyants or remote viewers could see into the past to see what happened. But that is unreliable. Perhaps the clairvoyants are just "seeing" their own personal, subconscious ideas of what happened.
- One could use text criticism like Leumas tried to in order show that the gospel writers and apostles were generally very dishonest. But the texts have been gone over so many times that I doubt someone will find something new or explain the text in a new way that would forcefully prove dishonesty.
I don't know that there is something else available to us that could conclusively prove there was no miracle.
Using a good healthy properly educated brain.... one that has not been vitiated and irrevocably atrophied by years of indoctrination, inculcation, mal-education, misinformation, fear, wishful thinking, illogicality and irrationality and that has not been smothered under a thick dark heavy pall woven with threads made out of the rotten fibers of utter claptrap and hogwash fabricated and spun in the benighted past during the infantile epochs of human psyche when people used to think that magic and demons and fantastical creatures and monsters were all about.
A brain that has the capacity to understand and realize that Nosferatu the vampire and Jesus' resurrection both emanate from the same process of hyper-attribution compounded by hypo-education of imaginations confounded by wishful thinking and fear.
Last edited:
I was wondering if it was the Dart "Swinger" or the Dart "Scamp." 2 door? Four door?
Goodness gracious.... do you even know how to read English?
Luke 22:1-6
22:1 Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.
22:2 And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him; for they feared the people.
22:3 Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.
22:4 And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them.
22:5 And they were glad, and covenanted to give him money.
22:6 And he promised, and sought opportunity to betray him unto them in the absence of the multitude.
I suggest you get someone who knows how to read English and can comprehend the pesky little nuances of sentence SYNTAX to explain to you things like ORDER OF EVENTS as conveyed through the SYNTAX STRUCTURE of English sentences.
He did not "already have an agreement with the temple authorities to betray Jesus" because it says the Sanhedrin were in search for a method to kill Jesus.
It then says that THEN Satan entered Judas after which, Judas went his way... (??after the scene described in John 13:21-31??).... and then he communed with the Sanhedrin who became glad and contracted with him.
AFTER THAT the possessed Judas started looking for an opportunity to do the betraying.
Here is the SEQUENCE of events
- And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him.
- Then entered Satan into Judas.
- And he went his way
- And communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them.
- They were glad
- And covenanted to give him money
- He promised, and sought opportunity to betray him unto them in the absence of the multitude.
Do you notice how everything Judas does is SUBSEQUENT TO SATAN entering him?
Again I suggest you get someone who knows how to read English to explain to you the syntax order and structure of the verses in John 13:21-31.
Why all the TRICKERY and sleight of hand?
Jesus said one will betray him and the disciple Jesus loves while cozily lying on his breasts asks who is it.
Why couldn't Jesus just name Judas.... why did he have to say it was the one who is going to eat a peace of bread which Jesus was going to dip in wine?
Why the TRICKERY?
Then why do the verses say AFTER he ate the HEXED bread Satan entered him?
What is the point of that detail? Why AFTER.... why not before... why couldn't the writer of the god-spiel have said the devilish Judas, or the already possessed Judas, or the nasty Judas.... why emphasize that AFTER eating the bread the devil entered Judas?
But the verses are REALLY ADEMANT to emphasize the importance of the HEXED bread.... because we are also told AGAIN that SUBSEQUENT to having eaten the enchanted bread which caused the satanic possession, Judas who is now under satanic control goes away to complete Jesus' orders.
So.... Satan entered Judas as a result of Jesus giving him a BEWITCHED bread which Jesus hexed. He then AFTER THAT became controlled by Satan whom Jesus ordered to go ahead and quickly do the betraying and Satan obeyed and went out to do it.
The events that followed this SATANIC POSSESSION are then described in Luke 22:1-6 where the god-spiel details how SATAN went to contract with the Sanhedrin (see above).
So yes it was definitely Jesus who caused Satan to possess Judas and Satan then obeyed the orders of Jesus to go ahead and carry out the DEVILISH PLOT to dupe and fool the world.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
First, let me thank you for your continued civil tone. I have the flaw of occasionally letting my civility slip; I will try not to do that here.
That being said, your post is really just trying to talk around the issue. Inclusive Reckoning is not meant to apply to every reference to a passage of time -- only to those in which the wording makes it clear that it applies. When days and nights are mentioned separately, then Inclusive Reckoning decidedly does not apply because the wording makes it clear that the days are not inclusive of the nights.
In regard to your latter point about the hours Judeau went into darkness, this is simply speculation with the express purpose of finding a way to make the wording fit. It's shoehorning of the highest caliber.
Hello, Leumas.
I think you are intelligent and like how you disagreed with the "pro-Israeli" justifications for the current secular theocracy ruling over Palestine. That's a breakthrough for many people.
Also, I see that you are good at focusing very strongly on critical thinking. It's a good thing. However, it seems that you might go overboard a bit in your intensity about some parts of Christianity, my friend. In particular, in your message above you propose that Jesus saw Judas at the Last Supper, and put Satan into Him and that's when Judas decided to betray Jesus. I think you might have been implying that Jesus was actually the one who put Satan into him.
However, please look over at the syntax again in Luke 22, perhaps reading the verses again.
In Luke 22:1-10, Jesus and his disciples are outside the city (verse 10), Judas got Satan in him, then leaves the disciples and agrees with the religious leaders to betray Jesus.
Then, later in Luke 22:14-24, Jesus has arrived inside the city, eats the Last Supper, breaks the special bread and announces someone will betray Him.
Then later in Chapter 22, starting with verse 39, Jesus goes out to the Mount of Olives with the disciples and gets betrayed by Judas.
Then, later in Luke 22:14-24, Jesus has arrived inside the city, eats the Last Supper, breaks the special bread and announces someone will betray Him.
Then later in Chapter 22, starting with verse 39, Jesus goes out to the Mount of Olives with the disciples and gets betrayed by Judas.
So in conclusion, Judas got Satan in him, arranged to betray Jesus, then the last Supper happened with the special bread and prediction of betrayal, then Jesus got betrayed.
So Judas already had Satan in him and was already planning to betray Jesus. Later at the Last Supper Jesus predicted that the person he gave bread to would betray him and then Satan entered Judas (ie. entered him again). But it doesn't actually mean that Jesus made Judas choose to betray him, or that the bread did, or that Jesus actually put Satan into him. It was just a prediction.
Personally, I find the whole episode with Judas disturbing, but betraying people to executioners for money, self-killing, etc. are disturbing for me. On the other hand, I don't necessarily find the story with Judas so confusing like some people do.
Kind Regards.
Last edited:
Hello, Garrette.
Yes, I think a civil tone is more effective because it clarifies arguments. But sometimes people on the internet think bullying is a more effective way because it can browbeat people into submission. I got browbeated very successfully before online when I was defending Palestinian rights with a very intense "pro-Israeli", so I know that the tactic can work, unfortunately.
Turning to the 3 days and 3 nights issue, I think that the mid-day darkness is the best answer for those like you who prefer to read the "days and nights" phrase in an exact, literal, individual sense.
For me, if the sun's shine is blocked from the earth and "darkness covers the land", then this is effectively night for purposes of prophecy. To give an example, when Jesus said that he would be in the heart of the earth, did he mean that the earth had an actual heart organ pumping a liquid that he would be in? By this he must have meant "the heart of the earth" in a prophetic or poetic sense, which could the earth's magma zone or Hades, commonly depicted as a fiery place in the earth.
And since we are dealing with prophecy we don't have to expect a literal fulfillment. For example, if a person dreams of flying on a white bird, then perhaps the dream is "fulfilled" if he/she tries parasailing. The Old Testament gives examples of other dreams in which literal fulfillment of the dreams is unnecessary. So since we are dealing with prophecy, the idea of three "nights" can also be flexible. In an exact literal sense a "night" can be a hiding of the earth from the sun through rotation. But in a prophetic, symbolic sense, the earth could be hid from the sun through an eclipse or some other intervening event as described in the gospel in order for the prophecy of a "night" to be fulfilled.
Perhaps you will not agree with my answer, but I don't know how to explain the prophetic meaning of nights, heart of the earth, etc. without reformulating or expanding on the allegorical meanings of the term and how prophecy works.
Regards.
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Its only a fact to a point. There are enough instances in reality of people being declared clinically dead, and then "waking up" from death. Since the "doctors" of that time did not have modern instruments such as stethoscopes and heart monitors, I think it is far more likely that a person could be declared dead when they were in fact deeply unconscious. If the resurrection story is based on something real that happened to a real person, at or around that time, the likelihood surely is that said person was mistakenly thought to be dead.
NOTE: FTAOD I do not believe HJ actually existed as a real individual
skeptichaggis
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2015
- Messages
- 692
If you had read my other posts on this matter I already stated that central to Christian doctrine Jesus had to be utterly dead.not look dead,but actually dead. Otherwise the whole ressurection would be moot.
That claim(iron age zombie)can be disproved completely. There is no coming back from a three day maggot fest. Period.
The historical history of Jesus is a different matter. Did magic superman Jesus exist-no,no,no. Was their one of many apocyliptical nuts whose life got mashed up by later writers with other cult leaders in Judea at the time very probably.
This is the absolute most meaningless conversation ever.
How are we supposed to have a conversation on any intellectual level with one side going "Yeah but you can't prove that an invisible giant sky wizard didn't change the entire rules of reality at some point in the past to make an impossible thing happen."
That's a somehow even more anti-intellectual version of "I'm just gonna make stuff up at random."
How are we supposed to have a conversation on any intellectual level with one side going "Yeah but you can't prove that an invisible giant sky wizard didn't change the entire rules of reality at some point in the past to make an impossible thing happen."
That's a somehow even more anti-intellectual version of "I'm just gonna make stuff up at random."
Last edited:
Brian-M
Daydreamer
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2008
- Messages
- 8,044
I don't think that there is the tiniest chance that Jesus resurrected for real. I take the position of philosophical materialism, and operate on the assumption that magic and miracles don't happen.
But the question of whether or not Jesus actually resurrected isn't the point. That's not what we're discussing.
We're not even discussing whether or not it's reasonable to believe that it didn't happen.
We're discussing whether or not we can prove that it didn't happen.
And simply pointing out that it is logically impossible according to a reasonable and rational evidence-based world-view doesn't prove anything unless you can also prove that this world-view cannot be wrong.
And that's something which cannot be proven.
The claim is that there was supernatural intervention involved.
If there were a supernatural being involved, then it does become possible.
The supernatural being could have prevented decay from occurring, and later repaired the injuries, or used a copy of the information in his brain that was preserved in an external storage medium (i.e., a "soul") to recreate him later.
I think that's a ridiculous thing to believe happened, but I can't prove that it didn't happen.
The only way to prove it didn't happen is to prove that there was no kind of poly-potent god-like entity meddling in those events. And that's something we can't do.
devnull
Philosopher
Mental masturbation happens though.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
THIS!
Proving a negative is impossible.
I could state that I saw a genuine fire-breathing dragon in my garden, and nobody could prove that I didn't. If I fail to provide proof to substantiate the claim, this is not the same as proving that my claim is false.