Can one disprove Jesus' resurrection?

[The Norseman]

Jesus never existed, I traveled back in time and prevented the birth.

I had to destroy all evidence of the time machine.

Ha! Proof-positive that my spell worked!

 

[Leumas]

Leumas, I think you have difficultly with grey areas;

If it you can't prove it happened, then it didn't
If it you can't prove it didn't happen, then it did

If you cant prove its black, then it must be white
If you cant prove its white, then in must be black

I think this might be a False Dichotomy or a Fallacy of the Excluded Middle

Wrong!... but keep trying young geriatric tyro… if you work hard enough and long enough you might one day overcome your Christian Atheism stage and learn enough logic to start reasoning correctly and become a real atheist.

Additionally, I suggest you also do something about your lack of knowledge and skepticism.

Would you defend belief in the resurrection of Osiris the same way?

I neither know what that is or care about it enough to bother finding out,...

I will no longer try to point out your illogic. Your posts demonstrating your inability to hold a civilized discourse on top of your pathetic juvinile antics made me realize that I really should have heeded Mark Twain's advice…

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." — Mark Twain​

I have not reported any of your uncivilized insults and childish shenanigans . I hope no one does because I really want them to stay in this thread as a testimony to the extent of Christian Atheists' cognitive dissonance.

....There is only one thing worse that a religious zealot, and that is zealous atheist....

I was wondering if you would eventually say that.

But thanks for saying so.... enough said!

 

[Leumas]

Jesus never existed, I traveled back in time and prevented the birth.

I had to destroy all evidence of the time machine.

Ha! Proof-positive that my spell worked!

You bloody zealous atheists!

To quote Charlton Heston

"You really did it... you maniacs... god damn you ... god damn you all to hell!"​

....There is only one thing worse that a religious zealot, and that is zealous atheist....

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I think the question of whether or not Jesus was resurrected is way down on the list of claims that need to BE PROVEN FIRST before we need to prove or disprove the resurrection.

So The burden of proof is SO BLOODY UNBEARABLE.

Arguing whether Jesus was or was not resurrected is like arguing whether or not Edward Cullen would be inebriated if he sucked the blood of a drunk Bella Swan.

But I think asking this kind of question does serve a purpose... it legitimizes all the preceding claims that lead to the questioned event.

Asking whether or not the resurrection did occur makes it seem as if it is a given fact that all the preceding events must have occurred since otherwise the resurrection would not be even considered at all.

1. Did Jesus exist?
2. Did he just run away when the going got tough?
3. Did Judas kiss the wrong guy as a ruse?
4. Was he crucified?
5. Did he die?
6. Was his body given back instead of being tossed on a garbage heap?
7. Was the tomb really empty?
8. Was the body stolen?
9. Was CPR performed on him by some GURU?
10. Was he an Alien who had advanced medicine?
11. Did the purported sightings post the purported crucifixion actually happen?
12. Did they see a double?
13. Did they see the real Jesus who never actually was crucified due to the aforementioned ruse or lucky escape?
14. Did they see an Alien Clone?
15. So On
16. So Forth
17. etc.
18. etc.
19. etc.
20. Was he resurrected?

As to that one how you decide that?

 

[Leumas]

Can one disprove that Jesus was a gay sadomasochistic alien!

As to that one how you decide that?

In the spirit of speculation that seems to drive some Christian Atheists to assert that Jesus must surely have had a natural explanation behind all his magic.... I am going to reiterate a clever speculation made by HansMustermann a while ago which I think can explain all of Jesus' magic.

Jesus was a gay sadomasochistic alien who instead of coming to earth to do a bit of hunting like in the movie Predator, he came to Earth to have an erotic gay BDSM session as described below.

Also, lets not forget the naked young lad and his beloved disciple who kept reclining on his bosom all the time especially after a washing of feet orgy all naked.... see this post.

Can anyone disprove that Jesus was a gay sadomasochistic alien who came to Earth in pursuit of a good BDSM session?

God committed suicide for you?

More like God had a gay bdsm exercise for you. He got tied to a cross and tortured and humiliated a bit, while knowing full well that he'll be ok on Sunday, and being in control all the time (by virtue of being an omnipotent God.)

That's neither sacrifice, nor even suicide. It's what some people actually pay a dominatrix to do to them. And if God felt more like playing with some muscular and sweaty guys in the uniforms of an oppressive empire, hey, I'm not gonna judge

 

[smartcooky]

Wrong!... but keep trying young tyro…

I turn 60 this September, but hey, just keep tilting at those windmills youngster!

 

[smartcooky]

In the spirit of speculation that seems to drive some Christian Atheists to assert that Jesus must surely have had a natural explanation behind all his magic....

I am going to reiterate a clever speculation made by HansMustermann a while ago which I think can explain all of Jesus' magic.

Jesus was a gay sadomasochistic alien who instead of coming to earth to do a bit of hunting like in the movie Predator, he came to Earth to have an erotic gay BDSM session as described below.

Can anyone disprove that Jesus was a gay sadomasochistic alien who came to Earth in pursuit of a good BDSM session?

No, they can't, and neither can you prove it to be true.

Finally... FINALLY, you seem to be beginning to understand the points that Brian-M and myself have been making. Its only taken several days and a few dozen posts.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

In the spirit of speculation that seems to drive some Christian Atheists to assert that Jesus must surely have had a natural explanation behind all his magic.... I am going to reiterate a clever speculation made by HansMustermann a while ago which I think can explain all of Jesus' magic.

Jesus was a gay sadomasochistic alien who instead of coming to earth to do a bit of hunting like in the movie Predator, he came to Earth to have an erotic gay BDSM session as described below.

Can anyone disprove that Jesus was a gay sadomasochistic alien who came to Earth in pursuit of a good BDSM session?

As to the highlighted part it doesn't necessarily require supernatural powers, so the usual part of that the resurrection is against the laws of physics doesn't seem to apply nor does it require a God. So it may be the case that some form of life can be resurrected despite being dead for 3 days.

 

[Leumas]

Christian Atheism

Finally... FINALLY, you seem to be beginning to understand the points that Brian-M and myself have been making. Its only taken several days and a few dozen posts.

No... I said 53 posts back what you are about... I already understood for a while now..

Many have left Christianity but can't quite let go of Christ.

Exactly.... this is the reason for this pathetic Christian "Atheism"

....

I have my own hypothesis for why.... it is an attempt to assuage their throbbing pangs of a chronic cognitive dissonance on so many levels and variations touching their inner psyches.

Much like children who are driven to tears and dismay after discovering the extent of the duplicity of their society and parents in deceiving them for so long and in so many ways with the Santa fable. They are desperate to prove that it is not all a big hoax like all the other woo they are increasingly beginning to realize is claptrap.
So they carry on ferociously debating against the fictiveness of the Jesus fables postulating tenuous modicums of possible likelihood of perhaps maybe something approaching a near similarity to some kind of similitude of a real person or an amalgam persona who they begrudgingly and with extreme consternation concede might maybe possibly not have had anything magical about him, but could have been a xenophobic zealously benighted fanatically religious Rabbi or terrorist or freedom fighter or old-new-age hippie or cult leader according to one's own wishful thinking for what one needs this Jesus to be.

 

[smartcooky]

Leumas, you have accused me of being a "Christian Atheist". I had to look that up because I had not heard that term used seriously before, or at least have never had it directed at me.

So, lets look at what these "Christian Atheists believe, and see if the cap fits

1. The assertion of the unreality of God

I do not believe in mythical deities or Big Sky-Daddies. So far, so good for you.

2. The insistence upon coming to grips with contemporary culture as a necessary feature of responsible theological work

While I am not sure what this gobbledeygook even means, I suppose I agree that contemporary culture is important since I have to live in the contemporary world, so yes - provisionally (upon someone explaining what item 2 means)

Varying degrees and forms of alienation from the church as it is now constituted

I reject the church in all its forms

Recognition of the centrality of the person of Jesus in theological reflection

I have repeatedly stated in the past on this and other forums that I do not believe that Historical Jesus ever existed. The writers of the bible either made him up out of whole cloth, or assembled him by cherry picking attributes from some of the many itinerant preachers prevalent in the middle east at that time.

So, your accusation, and indeed, your whole argument on this subject is an...

 

[Leumas]

No, they can't, and neither can you prove it to be true.

I already did citing numerous references (that thing you don't like much) from the "mishmash of separate stories... that each have practical, non-mythical or non-mystical real world explanations, but which have been misunderstood or misrepresented (either intentionally or unintentionally) and woven into the mytho-historical account by the numerous authors of those stories".

I as a non-believer and speculator like you, decided to take up your "challenge for a non-believer to speculate what might have been the seed of those stories"

"In my case, I believe mis-declared death Jesus being a gay alien in pursuit of an erotic gay adventure with 12 merry earthmen and hot domineering Roman soldiers is a valid explanation for what Christians believe to be the resurrection."

Nonetheless, many Christians believe that he did. I personally consider such a belief to be irrational in that it defies what we know about medical science, and in any case, when has anything about belief in God; Magician been rational.

However, the story has persisted for two thousand years, been discussed for almost that length of time and is widely known and believed by over two billion people world-wide. Mass delusion? Intentional fabrication out of whole cloth? I don't think so. There must surely at some time been an origin to that story.
Like Brian-M, I believe the whole Judeo-Christian mythology of the OT & NT is a mishmash of separate stories, for example the burning bush, the resurrection, water into wine, fishes and loaves, the stopping of the sun in the sky, walking on the water and other, that each have practical, non-mythical or non-mystical real world explanations, but which have been misunderstood or misrepresented (either intentionally or unintentionally) and woven into the mytho-historical account by the numerous authors of those stories. The challenge for a non-believer like me is to speculate what might have been the seed of those stories, and in my case, I believe mis-declared death is a valid explanation for what Christians believe to be the resurrection.

 

[Leumas]

As to the highlighted part it doesn't necessarily require supernatural powers, so the usual part of that the resurrection is against the laws of physics doesn't seem to apply nor does it require a God. So it may be the case that some form of life can be resurrected despite being dead for 3 days.

Yes in Hollywood movies and Science Fiction stories.... but in real life we have not seen any aliens yet let alone ones that can resurrect well and truly dead and already maggot-infested putrid rotting bodies.

So, let's wait and see if aliens can be gods before we go too wild with attributing godly powers to them before we even have seen them.

 

[smartcooky]

Leumas, it is quite apparent to me that you are utterly incapable of understanding what you read, even when it is explained to you over and over.

You are obviously an accomplished PTW... I give up, I'm going to stop feeding you, so you win...

 

[Leumas]

....

I have repeatedly stated in the past on this and other forums that I do not believe that Historical Jesus ever existed. The writers of the bible either made him up out of whole cloth , or assembled him by cherry picking attributes from some of the many itinerant preachers prevalent in the middle east at that time.

But notice what you say below in the blue highlight!

You are contradicting yourself.... much like the Bible does.

Nonetheless, many Christians believe that he did. I personally consider such a belief to be irrational in that it defies what we know about medical science, and in any case, when has anything about belief in God; Magician been rational.

However, the story has persisted for two thousand years, been discussed for almost that length of time and is widely known and believed by over two billion people world-wide. Mass delusion? Intentional fabrication out of whole cloth? I don't think so . There must surely at some time been an origin to that story.

Then you go on to say

Like Brian-M, I believe the whole Judeo-Christian mythology of the OT & NT is a mishmash of separate stories, for example the burning bush, the resurrection, water into wine, fishes and loaves, the stopping of the sun in the sky, walking on the water and other, that each have practical, non-mythical or non-mystical real world explanations, but which have been misunderstood or misrepresented (either intentionally or unintentionally) and woven into the mytho-historical account by the numerous authors of those stories. The challenge for a non-believer like me is to speculate what might have been the seed of those stories, and in my case, I believe mis-declared death is a valid explanation for what Christians believe to be the resurrection .

So which fabricated persona did in fact get "mis-declared dead"?

Can a persona fabricated out of whole cloth be mis-declared dead?

But even if it is an amalgam persona... that still means that someone or some group sat down and AMALGAMATED the persona and as you said "assembled him by cherry picking attributes from some of the many itinerant preachers ".... that is still a fabrication.... no?

So which of the "many itinerant preachers" did the ASSEMBLERS mis-declare for dead and then later they ASSEMBLED his resurrection?

Wouldn't this mis-declaration of death and resurrection have to be cherry picked for one of the many itinerant preachers and wouldn't this then make him the ONLY RESURRECTED persona and wouldn't that be Jesus and there would not be a need for other personas at all.

Which assemblers would believe that one of the personas actually resurrected (albeit mistakenly without them knowing that it was a mis-declaration) and still wish to assemble other itinerant preachers along with this miraculous person?

And if the "assemblers" did in fact still go on to assemble other personas with the one they mis-declared resurrected wouldn't the whole thing be just a huge big lie... so why would then the resurrection be not just another fabrication altogether without any need for a mis-declared anything.... just a big hoax?

I know you know nothing about other religions and myths and do not care to know or want to bother to find out....but there are hundreds of resurrection stories in many mythologies that were available for the "assemblers" of Jesus to have read and thus to try to emulate so as to elevate their MYTH to the level acceptable by the populace of the era.

So it was not just the Jesus persona that was fabricated out of whole cloth or an amalgam of mythical personas but his resurrection too was fabricated out of whole cloth in emulation of the other MYTHS.

In any case.... fabricated people (whether out of whole cloth or out of amalgamations of personas) do not get mis-declared dead.... they are fabricated imaginary people and imaginary people do not get mis-declared anything.... they just get declared to be things out of the imagination of the fabricators.

 

[Tricky]

"Proof". You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[smartcooky]

But notice what you say below in the blue highlight!

You are contradicting yourself.... much like the Bible does.

Oh please!!!!

... The writers of the bible either made him up out of whole cloth, or assembled him by cherry picking attributes from some of the many itinerant preachers prevalent in the middle east at that time.

and

Mass delusion? Intentional fabrication out of whole cloth? I don't think so. There must surely at some time been an origin to that story.

do NOT contradict each other. There is nothing contradictory about offering alternatives in conversation or debate, but expressing a preference for one over the others. I'm effectively saying that

a. fabrication out whole cloth is possible
b. mass delusion is possible
c. misunderstanding of reality based events is possible

My preference is c. but that does not rule out a. or b. as being the truth

Its akin to me offering someone a choice of three fine wines but suggesting they do try a particular one because its my favorite. Saying that one of them is my favorite does not mean the other two wines are no good, and does not make the person wrong if they prefer one of the other two instead.

You really do seem unable to comprehend the written word; every time you quote and argue against other posters, you confirm it with your own words. You appear to simply cherry pick certain phrases and words from posts and base your replies on those phrases without realizing that the context in which they were said is vital to understanding what was written.

Your debating skill set appears to consist primarily of Googling irrelevant references, posting irrelevant (and misapplied) links and using lots and lots of emboldened text and multicolored highlights. It makes your posts very pretty, but ultimately meaningless because little, if any of it is original thought.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

...

So they carry on ferociously debating against the fictiveness of the Jesus fables postulating tenuous modicums of possible likelihood of perhaps maybe something approaching a near similarity to some kind of similitude of a real person or an amalgam persona who they begrudgingly and with extreme consternation concede might maybe possibly not have had anything magical about him, but could have been a xenophobic zealously benighted fanatically religious Rabbi or terrorist or freedom fighter or old-new-age hippie or cult leader according to one's own wishful thinking for what one needs this Jesus to be.

So if I am a Christian Atheist and I accept the need for the recognition of the centrality of the person of Jesus in theological reflection, I doubt that I would accept that HJ was not real a person but rather an amalgam persona.
I think you are fighting your own straw man in some cases.

So am I an atheist? Yes.
Do I find Christianity important? Yes, but only because it is a part of our culture. I don't find any form of religion important as a religion in itself both in the negative and positive sense. To fight a religion simply because it is a religion is to attach to much importance to the concept of religion. Further I don't believe that you can be certain that only be fighting to remove religion "as something bad", that you can be certain that it is replaced with something better.

In other words, yes, you can fight the bad guys, but what do you want to replace it with? I.e. what is your positive version of a better world, Leumas?

With regards

 

[Leumas]

Oh please!!!!

<snip a load of moving the goal posts nonsense>

http://rationalia.com/forum/images/smilies/goalposts.gif

Edited by jsfisher: 

Hotlink image replaced with URL.

 

[tsig]

Leumas, it is quite apparent to me that you are utterly incapable of understanding what you read, even when it is explained to you over and over.

You are obviously an accomplished PTW... I give up, I'm going to stop feeding you, so you win...

Oh please!!!!



and



do NOT contradict each other. There is nothing contradictory about offering alternatives in conversation or debate, but expressing a preference for one over the others. I'm effectively saying that

a. fabrication out whole cloth is possible
b. mass delusion is possible
c. misunderstanding of reality based events is possible

My preference is c. but that does not rule out a. or b. as being the truth

Its akin to me offering someone a choice of three fine wines but suggesting they do try a particular one because its my favorite. Saying that one of them is my favorite does not mean the other two wines are no good, and does not make the person wrong if they prefer one of the other two instead.

You really do seem unable to comprehend the written word; every time you quote and argue against other posters, you confirm it with your own words. You appear to simply cherry pick certain phrases and words from posts and base your replies on those phrases without realizing that the context in which they were said is vital to understanding what was written.

Your debating skill set appears to consist primarily of Googling irrelevant references, posting irrelevant (and misapplied) links and using lots and lots of emboldened text and multicolored highlights. It makes your posts very pretty, but ultimately meaningless because little, if any of it is original thought.

Odd way of stopping.

 

[carlitos]

Leumas -- you might consider changing your approach a little bit. I agree with some of what you are saying, but there is no need to be so caustic about it. The highlighting and formatting does not help either.

And you can add me to the list of someone who has no idea what a "Christian atheist" is.