Debate: Was Jesus actually resurrected and other arguments

  • Thread starter Thread starter VictoriousTruther
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Let me phrase it this way, does belief in a claim warrant consideration towards the truth or falseness of the claim.
 
Last edited:
Or is this merely the mental mindset they had on this particular claim. This doesn’t need to be rational, or irrational, but they had a reason for accepting the claims irrespective of whether they were true or not. What mattered was whether they were true to themselves irrespective of the absolute truth or falseness of them.
 
Last edited:
Oh it definitely needs to be rational.

Rational people don’t allow themselves to be tortured and murdered because they’re " being true to themselves".

I mean what’s the alternative? What’s the reasonable, rational conclusion you draw from these guys being killed, knowing they’re being killed. None of them broke down and said hey, you know what, we kind of embellished this, maybe we were hallucinating from grief…

I’m sorry, I just don’t think you’re being particularly fair to the evidence here and I’ve appreciated your civility, as well as your skepticism, but I think you’re operating from an erroneous and misguided view of this.

I could ask you as you did me, is the fact you don’t seem to want this to be true making it untrue?

I’m sure there other folks here who can take up your other points but I’m going to have to agree to disagree with you. Thanks for the debate 🙂
 
Rational people would allow themselves to be tortured and murdered if they thought that what they believed in was right and a just cause to fight for. Does someone performing a suicide bombing knowing what they are fighting for is wrong but yet will do it anyway even though there is no reason to in the first place? Are you asserting that if a person believes something that the claim purported and faithfully followed it, then makes it true?

I’m also not claiming that they embellished it or that they hallucinated from grief, it seems you should support many of these propositions as you seem to really like them and want me to assert them but I won’t allow those straw men to influence me any way from what my true position is. Heck, the only conclusion I could come to was that they were dedicated to their faithful position on the claims of the bible regarding the resurrection so much that they would die for their beliefs.

THEY DIED FOR THEIR BELIEFS, we still do not know whether the resurrection claims were either true or false from this.

Again I Must Ask, And Hopefully You Will Not Dodge It Again, Does A Personal Belief In A Claim Lead To A Supported Conclusion On the Truth Or Falseness Of The Claim Itself Without Any Prior Investigation. Just The Fact That They Believed In It. . . Could We Affirm Anything From This?

But lets bury this all and see what your position is. . . (hopefully i’m not straw manning you). You believe that the resurrection is more likely a possibility as an explanation to the empty tomb when there is no way to corroborate this, no first hand written testimony but supposed testimony written long after of an event that incorporates A. the son of god (no reason to accept this) B. an angel that moves the stone (no reason to accept this but you do, possibly) C. that he was here to free us from original sin (you probably do not assert a literal view of genesis but any responses to the existence of original sin is really just ad hoc in nature so original sin is out the window) and he also D. resurrected in some way. . . . . . . . . . . .

Your telling me to accept this because some people believed these claims and died for them but I shouldn’t decide to question them directly? I can’t ask, Is this claim true, because someone died for it means that any of the original claims and externally or undiscussed ones should be accepted? Even the direct claim’s truth or falseness are independent of whether someone would die for them if they believed in them. . . this is one of the many things that no christian will stop telling me, believe it on faith.
 
Last edited:
Just believe it, that is what these early christians did. Did those who died long after the resurrection also have knowledge of these claims or was it merely that they were strong in the faithful proclamations they held to it.
 
Out of respect for you I’m just going to reiterate that I’m bowing out of our back-and-forth, and I appreciate your civility in dialoguing with me.
 
Last edited:
Are you asking for proof of the resurrection? Why would you think the Apostles lied?
 
Last edited:
I believe and I still think its natural to doubt people when making a statement of the supernatural, and while I do believe it couldn’t be a hallucination since group hallucinations don’t usually exsist, we as Christians are under heavy bias and need to look at things from his perspective too. He does make some good points though.
 
Never claimed they lied nor heavily implied it. . . I did however note that they had strong beliefs in a certain number of or set of claims that have not been supported.
 
Please avoid using the word supernatural as this opens up more than is needed for this debate. Note, i’m not an ontological naturalist nor do I profess some special definition of the natural that would some how need a second category deemed the supernatural. I would find that unnecessary.
 
Last edited:
If a person believes in the resurrection, or in a god, the specific claim itself that has been warranted belief needs to be supported. Simply believing to believe or having reasons wholly unrelated to the subject, like emotional appeals or the number of people or the convincing nature of the proselytization of believers, are independent or separate from the truth value that may be assigned to the claim this particular person may exhibit faith towards.
 
VictoriousTruther said:
If a person believes in the resurrection, or in a god, the specific claim itself that has been warranted belief needs to be supported. Simply believing to believe or having reasons wholly unrelated to the subject, like emotional appeals or the number of people or the convincing nature of the proselytization of believers, are independent or separate from the truth value that may be assigned to the claim this particular person may exhibit faith towards.
Click to expand...
If you ask for proof of the resurrection may I ask what kind of proof you need? Us Catholics don’t simply believe because of emotional appeal or because of the number of people. We can’t offer a body to show that Christ resurrected. That would be conflicting with what he accomplished don’t you think? The Apostles knew Jesus. They talked with him, they ate with him, they learned from him, they were there for his final moments on Earth before he resurrected. The Gospel accounts are the accounts of the Apostles about Jesus and his teachings. We know the Apostles existed too, if that helps.

My question to you is, what kind of proof do you need to find in order to be certain?
 
Last edited:
Proof would be difficult as the only times these claims are purposed are in the bible itself with no way to actually assess the claims. It was thousands of years ago so all scientific or forensic evidence kind of goes out the window and were left with blind claims that were heavily faith based with very few sources spouting claims of this kind with probably all of them being the biblical text itself.
 
Last edited:
What would be sufficient enough as evidence to support the resurrection that isn’t merely the beliefs regarding the claims by Christians or how the lack of explanations to the contrary are few? These don’t convince me but what would convince me of a resurrection that was thousands of years ago, in a remote part of the world, with no evidence to suggest a resurrection aside from the apparent testimony of the disciples who they themselves CLAIMED a resurrection but gave nothing beyond their assertions.
 
Last edited:
VictoriousTruther said:
What would be sufficient enough as evidence to support the resurrection that isn’t merely the beliefs regarding the claims by Christians or how the lack of explanations to the contrary are few? These don’t convince me but what would convince me of a resurrection that was thousands of years ago, in a remote part of the world, with no evidence to suggest a resurrection aside from the apparent testimony of the disciples who they themselves CLAIMED a resurrection but gave nothing beyond their assertions.
Click to expand...
Are you asking for testimonies of other people, besides the Apostles, about seeing the resurrected Jesus?
 
The apostles claim to have seen a resurrected Jesus, they die for their beliefs. Is the statement “Jesus resurrected” True or False.

The correct answer is, we cannot address the question as this is a restricted case of experiences not corroborated by anyone else outside their group with no way to assess the claims in any way. We weren’t there to assess what REALLY happened and then mark both descriptions, one from the bible and one from the original event, in a one to one correspondence. It just can’t be done. . .
 
Adding on more testimonials would still leave the claim in cold water as the number of testimonials, however large, would not add up to a truth or false conclusion.
 
Are we talking about a resurrection with no strings attached or the resurrection from certain denominations of christianity that incorporates original sin (which is completely unsupported from the evidence given and thusly demeans all of christianity to an ad hoc response to their belief system)?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top