Unless I'm mistaken there is good evidence for the existence of a Jesus figure. This is very relevant as this figure was known as making supernatural claims that he would rise again etc. There is evidence that suggests that the resurrection did happen which according to the Christian faith was the validation of these claims. Of course you don't have to accept the evidence but there does appear to be supporting evidence that may be relevant which needs to be examined.
How did you lose faith in religion? And why is there so many believers out there
- Thread starter Johnnytoxic
- Start date
Unless I'm mistaken there is good evidence for the existence of a Jesus figure. This is very relevant as this figure was known as making supernatural claims that he would rise again etc. There is evidence that suggests that the resurrection did happen which according to the Christian faith was the validation of these claims. Of course you don't have to accept the evidence but there does appear to be supporting evidence that may be relevant which needs to be examined.
Incorrect.
It's widely accepted that most of the Apostles were killed and during their lives none of them gained any real power. There's also no reports that any of the dozens of disciples had any power over anyone, most of them are martyrs.
Now the Roman Catholic church which most people incorrectly believe was the first church did gain and still has considerable power. Anyone whom follows the Catholic church is blind to what it really is anyway.
It's much different from Islam where you can see a very real difference in power and aggressiveness when Mohammed goes from Mecca to Medina (Or the other way round, I forget which comes first)
Last edited:
Again, this event is only impossible if you assume naturalistic explanations to be the only possible source of explanation.
Of course there may be other accounts that are similar but each account needs to be examined by itself.
The fact that a particular event had a strong effect on the world doesn't necessarily imply that this was legend based.
You're mistaken and there isn't good evidence for the resurrection - where are you getting this from?
Also, Socrates might not have existed but it doesn't matter either way because we evaluate his words independently of his existence. If Jesus existed, it doesn't make his teachings any more credible, assuming we could even accurately attribute them to a single historical figure.
On which point am I mistaken? Evidence for the historical Jesus? Bart Ehrmann, a sceptic writes "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees".
Any reason why you disagree with this particular expert?
Do you think there is no evidence for the resurrection event or you simply don't count the existing evidence as trustworthy?
Last edited:
Soldato
Which evidence is this? When something is clearly impossible, evidence is very difficult to accept. Please present the evidence so we can come to our own conclusions. Unfortunately, eye witnesses simply don't cut it.
Soldato
You know all the things we've learned about our history? all the amazing discoveries we've made about our past? By digging, researching, excavating. The mayans, romans, egyptians, right back to the dinosaurs and before.
How many of the amazing things that are in the bible, do you think we'd have discovered without the bible. Through normal realistic research and excavation methods.
The book is a damn faerie tale, with nothing other than the book as evidence of the past deeds that went off within it.
How many of the amazing things that are in the bible, do you think we'd have discovered without the bible. Through normal realistic research and excavation methods.
The book is a damn faerie tale, with nothing other than the book as evidence of the past deeds that went off within it.
Soldato
Evidenceoverspeculation might be a more apt name.
I see my point still hasn't sunk it. The event in question is impossible based on our knowledge of science.
If an all-powerful being exists that has the power to overrule science then why still consider it impossible.
Of course digging, archaeology is important and I don't think the bible was ever intended to be an encyclopaedia.
Is the whole book untrusted in your viewpoint? Would you not treat it as any other historical text and validate/invalidate each section in turn as opposed to a general classification as a fairy-tale?
Soldato
No, I understand your point and it has sufficiently sunk in. However, I will not accept that anything exists outside a physical universe, other than other universes (possibly).
With regards to your comments aimed at wannabedamned, I would treat the whole thing as a story with sprinklings of historical truth in it.
With regards to your comments aimed at wannabedamned, I would treat the whole thing as a story with sprinklings of historical truth in it.
Soldato
While you are free to think that, that view is just a blind hunch & should be treated as such.
Is there anything to support your theory?, as I can prove that people can be duped, can you prove that it's possible to break the laws of physics?.
The "duping theory" requires less assumptions.
Our understanding of early humans isn't based on just a book - neither is it word of mouth.
Real evidence doesn't exist for anything supernatural, as we have real evidence for early man.
That kind of comment only highlights your ignorance of the subject.
With that attitude debate is pointless.
If you can pull the "magic card" whenever you fall short of a point then it's hardly worthwhile.
No argument you could give for the Abrahamic god would be superior to my argument for say Zeus - or Thor, as "historical evidence" exists for both, as do books & architecture.
Evidence may exist for people, even people who share the same names as biblical figures - but no evidence exists for any supernatural elements (such as miracles or resurrection etc) & you well know it.
Last edited:
You could be exactly right that nothing exists outside the physical universe. In doing so, however, you are required to explain away evidences to the contrary should there be any.
In our resurrection example it seems inadequate to explain away a historical record by simply assuming that the record must be erroneous as it doesn't match your already reached conclusion.
It seems that you are willing to discount history purely if science disagrees, without examining the historical record as it's own entity.
That is why historians deal with history and scientists deal with science!
Or BlindlyFollowsScientistsAsLongAsTheyFinishedUniversity
Ehrmann probably makes a good case for the existence for Jesus, much like he does for pointing out the inconsistencies in the Bible. I haven't seen what evidence he presents for the case and, as I said before, it doesn't interest me much whether Jesus did exist or not; much like Socrates or Aristotle. What matters are the credibility and soundness of the teachings.
Any "evidence" I've seen for the resurrection has been rebuked a thousand times but I'll welcome anything you have if it enlightens me.
Soldato
In part; you're missing the point though.
It is not a repeatable experiment, it cannot be simulated, there is no evidence to suggest that it's possible or any evidence which even leans toward the conclusion that The Bible presents. Lack of evidence is not evidence, I know that, but if evidence is presented, then to form a contrary position, you must have evidence to counter with.
The evidence that I presume you would present, The Bible, cannot be its own evidence, and could only very vaguely be considered evidence.
Where is the historical record of the resurrection? Other than in The Bible.
Soldato
As opposed to your potential moniker; blindlyfollowsreligiondepsiteanenormouslackofevidence
As opposed to your potential moniker; blindlyfollowsreligiondepsiteanenormouslackofevidence
lolOCUK.
I'm not asking you to believe in supernatural. I'm simply asking what reasons you would provide as to why a supernatural event is impossible assuming the existence of an all-powerful deity.
It isn't my theory actually but what I think you mean is the resurrection event. If you look into the historicity of this event then yes you will find those who propose evidence for the occurrence of this event, just in the same way that historians/scholars have proposed evidence for the existence of the Jesus figure.
Of course you can't prove the possibility of breaking the laws of physics.
Yes I agree that direct evidence for the supernatural doesn't exist that will enable us to say 100% that event x did/didn't happen.
I don't think it was me who was making statements that invalidate most of antiquity.
There are historical records of the resurrection, whether you trust the sources or not is a separate question but to deny that such records even exist is quite bizarre.
Of course as has been suggested by other people there are various theories such as development of legend, swoon theory, duped etc. which is why a historical study must be undertaken to determine the reliability of such sources.
The only historical records for the resurrection are the gospels. Using them is like saying that the Edda are evidence of the existence of Thor.