Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
20/20 Investigation - The Resurection
- Thread starter Skeptical Greg
- Start date
-
- Tags
- investigation
Achán hiNidráne
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2004
- Messages
- 3,974
No, I don't. Assuming that JEEZ-us existed at all, the early Christians made the story up. What more do we materialists need to explain?
Brown
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 12,984
If the so-called resurrection were really subject to a serious investigation, there would be major doubts as to whether it really occurred. First, it would be one of the most significant events in history (and according to many people, it is the most significant event in history), yet it escaped the notice of all but a few. Perhaps this was due to the fact that phony resurrection tales had been floated before, but there was no proof for them.
Second, the accounts in the Bible disagree in almost every detail. Who went to the tomb? Was the tomb sealed? Were there angels present? If so, how many and where were they? Was Jesus himself there, alive in some form? Was anyone told afterward about the discovery of the empty tomb? How many disciples ran to the tomb to check it out? About all the Gospels agree on is that Jesus had risen. But there is a very serious lack of "getting the stories straight," which indicates that (at best) none of the accounts is first-hand and that no one really knows what happened. Even taking the resurrection accounts at face value and ignoring all the conflicts among them, there were no witnesses to the actual resurrection event.
Third, according to the Scriptures, there were early murmurings that there had been no miracle at all. The book of Matthew reports that those crafty folks, the Jews, bribed the guards to say that the disciples had stolen the body. Even if this bribery story is nonsense (as it probably is), there are plenty of non-miraculous explanations for the event.
Fourth, at least three Gospels report that people who knew Jesus personally were not sure that the person they saw was the resurrected Jesus. When people who knew the deceased best supposedly see him resurrected, but are not satisfied that the person they saw is indeed their deceased friend, then serious doubt is cast upon the resurrection story. (Up to a few centuries ago, it was not uncommon for imposters to try to assume the identity of influential people who had died or been executed. One way to deter imposters was to display the body publicly for a time, so that people could be assured that the real person in question was dead.)
Now, none of these things means for sure that the resurrection story is false. What they do mean is that there are legitimate questions about the credibility of the reports. Any truly serious investigation would have to address the credibility problems.
Second, the accounts in the Bible disagree in almost every detail. Who went to the tomb? Was the tomb sealed? Were there angels present? If so, how many and where were they? Was Jesus himself there, alive in some form? Was anyone told afterward about the discovery of the empty tomb? How many disciples ran to the tomb to check it out? About all the Gospels agree on is that Jesus had risen. But there is a very serious lack of "getting the stories straight," which indicates that (at best) none of the accounts is first-hand and that no one really knows what happened. Even taking the resurrection accounts at face value and ignoring all the conflicts among them, there were no witnesses to the actual resurrection event.
Third, according to the Scriptures, there were early murmurings that there had been no miracle at all. The book of Matthew reports that those crafty folks, the Jews, bribed the guards to say that the disciples had stolen the body. Even if this bribery story is nonsense (as it probably is), there are plenty of non-miraculous explanations for the event.
Fourth, at least three Gospels report that people who knew Jesus personally were not sure that the person they saw was the resurrected Jesus. When people who knew the deceased best supposedly see him resurrected, but are not satisfied that the person they saw is indeed their deceased friend, then serious doubt is cast upon the resurrection story. (Up to a few centuries ago, it was not uncommon for imposters to try to assume the identity of influential people who had died or been executed. One way to deter imposters was to display the body publicly for a time, so that people could be assured that the real person in question was dead.)
Now, none of these things means for sure that the resurrection story is false. What they do mean is that there are legitimate questions about the credibility of the reports. Any truly serious investigation would have to address the credibility problems.
What are the odds the 20/20 report will conclude with "the evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ is scant, the supernatural tellings of ressurrection are wildly unbelievable, and the gospels are so hopelessly contradictory that they ought to be dismissed as history altoghter"...Diogenes said:
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Re: Re: 20/20 Investigation - The Resurection
I have a feeling the contradictions in the gospels won't be touched on at all.. I hope I'm wrong...Yahweh said:
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
Brown said:
How about the little issue that dead is dead, and people don't come back?
Oh! Except for this one time. Magic, and all that. Some long-dead religious people said so when they founded their cult, so we can consider this instance of a complete defiance of the laws of nature, physics, and common sense with a completely open mind.
The burden of proof of such an outrageously fantastic claim is surely on those who propound it. Since their best evidence to date is millenia-old contradictory multiply-translated hearsay, I don't think they have a particularly good case.
SezMe
post-pre-born
But jeezus is not people...or even a person. He is god incarnate in human form. "Real Biology" must take the back seat to "Sacred Biology."TragicMonkey said:
That said, I am playing devil's advocate here. I agree with you completely.
[deacon]c4ts said:
Well, you see, before Jesus died, no one ever paid for their sins. Lots and lots of sins had accumulated, so Jesus came down and suffered for all of them.
Now, we dont ever have to pay for the sins we commit, because Jesus died for all of them.
Someone dies a horrible painful death, and suddenly everything bad you've ever done is forgiven. It makes perfect logical sense.
[/deacon]
Achán hiNidráne
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2004
- Messages
- 3,974
Re: Re: 20/20 Investigation - The Resurection
Well, since the majority of 20/20 viewers are likely to be one breed of Christian or another, and they are driven by ratings, I'd say zero to none.
Yahweh said:
Well, since the majority of 20/20 viewers are likely to be one breed of Christian or another, and they are driven by ratings, I'd say zero to none.
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
The show accepted, without question, the premise that Jesus lived, was crucified, placed in a tomb and the body disappeared.
Basically it was a one hour commercial for Christianity. The whole thing played out like a paid infomercial. The "reporter" was a shill who asked probing questions like (paraphrasing), after he walked out of the tomb, did he smell human? Did he cast a shadow?
This has to be a low point for 20/20 in terms of genuine reporting and journalism.
Next week: A hour commercial for the Da Vinci code. (seriously)
Basically it was a one hour commercial for Christianity. The whole thing played out like a paid infomercial. The "reporter" was a shill who asked probing questions like (paraphrasing), after he walked out of the tomb, did he smell human? Did he cast a shadow?
This has to be a low point for 20/20 in terms of genuine reporting and journalism.
Next week: A hour commercial for the Da Vinci code. (seriously)
Kitty Chan
Muse
- Joined
- May 14, 2004
- Messages
- 826
David
Everytime I happen to sit and watch one of those shows about Jesus or christianity in general very seldom it turns out how you said.
Besides you say the body disappeared, what did they say about that? Or if they left it as disappeared then they catered to all sides of the fence. And fullfilled the need for headlines.
Everytime I happen to sit and watch one of those shows about Jesus or christianity in general very seldom it turns out how you said.
Besides you say the body disappeared, what did they say about that? Or if they left it as disappeared then they catered to all sides of the fence. And fullfilled the need for headlines.
Kitty Chan
Muse
- Joined
- May 14, 2004
- Messages
- 826
Yahweh said:
Last part is ok. First part, no not correct.
Yes, but we all have a spirit, and that spirit lives on. If we all understood this, then it would be much easier to reconcile ourselves with the "story" of Jesus. Basically this is all the story tells us (about the afterlife) and, that we should try and show some decency towards each other.TragicMonkey said:
This is why it is impossible to ever have a scientific evaluation of a faith-based concept. The concept falls apart under close scrutiny, which pretty much makes the faith part irrelevant. When you make a half-ar$ed effort out of fear of upsetting some parts of your audience, there is no point in evaluating it in the first place.
Watching these shows always makes me angry. I have no problem with faith. I do have a problem when faith and science blur into one; both of these then get abused.
Athon
Watching these shows always makes me angry. I have no problem with faith. I do have a problem when faith and science blur into one; both of these then get abused.
Athon