Debate: Was Jesus actually resurrected and other arguments

[Prodigal_Son]

And how did Socrates prove his point that a morally upright person is happier AFTER enduring “every extremity of suffering” and being crucified?

Again, using only “earthly evidence.”

Tortured, crucified and dead men are “HAPPIER,” how?

Perhaps only if justice and uprightness (and moral men) live on beyond the grave, beyond the “earthly evidence?”

Are you asking me to summarize the whole Republic for you? Read it yourself. Plato believed that the answer was that an unjust person is not ONE person, but rather legion, and thus lacking integrity. The just person is unified, and therefore always happier. The afterlife isn’t mentioned as the basis for this happiness.

 

[HarryStotle]

Are you asking me to summarize the whole Republic for you? Read it yourself. Plato believed that the answer was that an unjust person is not ONE person, but rather legion, and thus lacking integrity. The just person is unified, and therefore always happier. The afterlife isn’t mentioned as the basis for this happiness.

Actually, this is a very good summary. It also demonstrates that Plato wasn’t a utilitarian. I mean ONE person’s happiness is counted by Plato above the happiness of a legion’s. Greatest happiness for the greatest number wasn’t his principle of happiness, then?

Perhaps the afterlife wasn’t mentioned as the basis for this happiness, but justice and forms were integral to it. The transcendent realm of Platonic forms is beyond this life and correspondence or integrity with the form of justice and what it means to be human would be what determines happiness, no?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Actually, this is a very good summary. It also demonstrates that Plato wasn’t a utilitarian. I mean ONE person’s happiness is counted by Plato above the happiness of a legion’s. Greatest happiness for the greatest number wasn’t his principle of happiness, then?

Yeah, I agree.

Perhaps the afterlife wasn’t mentioned as the basis for this happiness, but justice and forms were integral to it. The transcendent realm of Platonic forms is beyond this life and correspondence or integrity with the form of justice and what it means to be human would be what determines happiness, no?

Roughly. I’m not sure how this fits into your proof of the Resurrection, though.

 

[VictoriousTruther]

I see. So you whon a chess game. Congratulations on your victory! :hugs:

Is our takeaway that life is a game to be won, then, Victorious?

I suppose Jesus would dispute that. The “first will be last” and all that.

You still haven’t built a very convincing case that you ought to be listened to because you won – or is that whon? – a chess game.

I mean chess is a relatively simple game with simple rules. Have you figured out all the rules of life such that you are to be declared the undisputed winner in that game, VictoriousTruther? Tell the truth, now.

I didn’t actually win a chess game, I was just confused on what you mean’t by

blind faith (Victorious)

what am I supposed to get from this. . . that being victorious in a game or in a applicable sense to everyday like means I have blind faith? Then there was this. . .

comforting selfish beliefs (Truther)

Do you mean to imply that anything that could be defined as truth is just a comforting selfish belief? So most scientists and skeptics are just creating selfish comfortable beliefs?

 

[VictoriousTruther]

I suppose Jesus would dispute that. The “first will be last” and all that.

You still haven’t built a very convincing case that you ought to be listened to because you won – or is that whon? – a chess game.

I mean chess is a relatively simple game with simple rules. Have you figured out all the rules of life such that you are to be declared the undisputed winner in that game, VictoriousTruther? Tell the truth, now.

So you think there is supposed to be objective meaning to the process of human life that anybody should be able to attain as emotional comforting? But why the heck are you even commenting on my username? Of course I’m not the winner of life but neither am I the loser as its just life and will play out as it will.

 

[VictoriousTruther]

So you have this uncanny ability to “ascertain what assertions about reality are correct.” Doesn’t everybody have that ability? I mean your average two year old thinks he’s right about everything, to say nothing about the assurance of adolescents in this regard. Your claim amounts to an assertion about reality that we have every reason to doubt until you prove YOUR assertions about reality are correct. So far you haven’t asserted any besides that you have this “ability” that any two year old also thinks they have.

What about assuring US for a change? What do you think about reality? Or are you ONLY about tearing down other people’s assertions?

The problem with demolishers, is that they are rarely builders and the edifices they get around to constructing are gawd-awful ugly and rarely very functional.

So what assurance do we have that when you are finished demolishing everyone else’s assertions that we won’t just be left with a pile of rubble or an unsightly ramshackle tenement where not even self-respecting rats would stoop to live?

I am pretty good at reading people and you do make quite a few spelling mistakes – figuratively speaking, I mean.

I think I was very vague and un-careful with the language used in this post. . .

Science and other philosophical systems of epistemology give us tools upon which to assess the reality will live in. Being able to test the prediction of claims of many on what reality just is and not on what we want it to be.

Are you comparing philosophy and science to two year olds who think they are right about everything? Ever heard of skepticism, at least tentative skepticism?

Your claim amounts to an assertion about reality that we have every reason to doubt until you prove YOUR assertions about reality are correct.

In some ways this is correct but it could be better stated as, “until you have presented well founded reasons based on evidential support in accordance with the sufficient methodologies we possess now to assess a specific testable claim that is proposed to be within its said extent of range, then it can be believed.” A Physical resurrection is not a spiritual one that cannot be seen or doesn’t interact at all with our reality, the resurrected Jesus apparently was able to appear to people and at least be able to be seen.

Continuing on down the quote. . .

I choose not to make truth claims about reality that cannot be substantiated in a more concrete way and would rather assume consequences of certain systems of thought than be completely biased to one or at least admit that I’am biased to this certain thing.

 

[VictoriousTruther]

What about assuring US for a change? What do you think about reality? Or are you ONLY about tearing down other people’s assertions?

The problem with demolishers, is that they are rarely builders and the edifices they get around to constructing are gawd-awful ugly and rarely very functional.

So what assurance do we have that when you are finished demolishing everyone else’s assertions that we won’t just be left with a pile of rubble or an unsightly ramshackle tenement where not even self-respecting rats would stoop to live?

I am pretty good at reading people and you do make quite a few spelling mistakes – figuratively speaking, I mean

I’m not an immaterialist or a materialist or a physicalist or a Naturalist (Ontologically but maybe Methodologically) or a dualist or a pluralist but could put those glasses on to see what the world would look like but remember these are not my eyes. There are other assertions although that can be substantiated to very full values of truth (Different from how many ontological substances there are) like that at least something exists or that the world is reasonably consistent within practical demands. Many other statements or claims follow suit all over the spectrum.

I’m not a glass house who whines at other houses of brick saying they are weak or not made well, i’m merely pointing out that i’ve seen stiff houses and this is not one of them.

 

[VictoriousTruther]

Aren’t you stacking the deck just a bit on this? I mean anyone around Jesus, who knew him well enough and followed him around enough to be convinced by his claim to be God, would have been convinced by him and would have become Christians. Aren’t those precisely the claimants that you disallow a priori? Speaking of bias, shouldn’t you take all claims into serious consideration on their own merit, rather than dismissing some merely because they favour an answer you don’t approve and want to disprove? I mean most of these people had first hand access to all of the facts and were convinced by those facts to the point of being willing to die because of them, and yet here you are demanding only second-hand or hearsay evidence from uninvolved third parties because you don’t want to listen to actual witnesses who were universally convinced by that evidence. Speaking of bias.

I suppose you are unfamiliar with the idea of the Messianic Secret. Jesus kept his real identity (that he was God become man) a secret and shared it only with his closest disciples precisely because if he claimed it openly he would have been charged with blasphemy before he could do any actual teaching. This is why he spoke in parables and cryptic language – Son of Man, Son of God, etc.

Besides if you really are interested in independently corroborated claims, you might want to look into the prophet Daniel. Daniel lived around four hundred years before Jesus, predicted the fall of Rome, the coming of the Messiah (literally to the year), the death and Resurrection of Jesus, and the destruction of Jerusalem. Many of Jesus’ cryptic references to himself and to the kingdom of God come from Daniel. And Daniel wasn’t Christian, he was Jewish, so no bias there.

The problem and disagreement is not about how much people believed or followed the claims perpetuated. Even thou many will die for UFO sighting (Not to be offensive like those who bring up the flying spaghetti monster) and many will believe them, we still do not know what really happened or if it happened as postulated. Especially with in this example of us never getting to meet those who originally postulated the story but were written about or at least had their supposed experiences written down. Whereupon the only source for claims regarding this is one source, we don’t get to have competing sources with one more obviously the real event. . . it is only this one story.

 

[VictoriousTruther]

Aren’t you stacking the deck just a bit on this? I mean anyone around Jesus, who knew him well enough and followed him around enough to be convinced by his claim to be God, would have been convinced by him and would have become Christians. Aren’t those precisely the claimants that you disallow a priori? Speaking of bias, shouldn’t you take all claims into serious consideration on their own merit, rather than dismissing some merely because they favour an answer you don’t approve and want to disprove? I mean most of these people had first hand access to all of the facts and were convinced by those facts to the point of being willing to die because of them, and yet here you are demanding only second-hand or hearsay evidence from uninvolved third parties because you don’t want to listen to actual witnesses who were universally convinced by that evidence. Speaking of bias.

I suppose you are unfamiliar with the idea of the Messianic Secret. Jesus kept his real identity (that he was God become man) a secret and shared it only with his closest disciples precisely because if he claimed it openly he would have been charged with blasphemy before he could do any actual teaching. This is why he spoke in parables and cryptic language – Son of Man, Son of God, etc.

Besides if you really are interested in independently corroborated claims, you might want to look into the prophet Daniel. Daniel lived around four hundred years before Jesus, predicted the fall of Rome, the coming of the Messiah (literally to the year), the death and Resurrection of Jesus, and the destruction of Jerusalem. Many of Jesus’ cryptic references to himself and to the kingdom of God come from Daniel. And Daniel wasn’t Christian, he was Jewish, so no bias there.

Supposed eye witnesses, that would also need to be separately supported that these were really eye witnesses of the prime event which is supposedly exactly as they claim it to have been. Angel, son of god, resurrection, the whole biblical package claimed of only a few FOLLOWERS and thus we have to believe their indirect testimony.

The biblical documents contains these assorted claims and how are we supposed to support them when people claim to have seen them and that’s it. Should we ascertain that the angel who moved the stone is as well supported as Jesus was resurrected? Does your testimony argument work when speaking of the other miracles Jesus enacted which have only testimony of the disciples or are at least the supposed occurrence of these events were written down a few (<-- I stress this) times in our history thousands of years ago?

But besides all of this, What is the evidence you have for the apostles being murdered for their faith?

 

[VictoriousTruther]

"Die for a Lie" won't Fly

Christian Apologetics, Bible, Biblical Christianity, Christian Faith, Agnostic, Evangelical, Atheism, Atheist, Creation, John W. Loftus, David Madison

www.debunking-christianity.com

Read this (HarryStotle) critique it if you so choose to take the time to do so. I might take a break from this. . .

 

[Bon_Croix]

The need for Ressurection is:

B/C he died, what victory did he have to show the common man. If he would have died and destroyed death, but not resurrected what sign does man have that he was victorious on man’s behalf?

Thelogically, the Resurrection is what gives us (man) eternal life and something to look forward to ourselves when our body’s are resurrected at the end of time.

 

[VictoriousTruther]

The need for Ressurection is:

B/C he died, what victory did he have to show the common man. If he would have died and destroyed death, but not resurrected what sign does man have that he was victorious on man’s behalf?

Thelogically, the Resurrection is what gives us (man) eternal life and something to look forward to ourselves when our body’s are resurrected at the end of time.

So can you support that his death gave eternal life or the claim that our bodies are resurrected at the end of time?

 

[Bon_Croix]

Yes. B/C God told Abram to kill Isaac, his only son, which God had promised him, Abram reasoned that their must be some type of life after death or resurrection. He had to b/c it was also promised to Abram that he would have many descendants, and Isaac had not yet made descendants, and Abram believed God for his word. So, Abram is our Father in Faith.

Then, Jesus, the only son of God was sent, and after his death and resurrection, he gave great hope to those early Jews who believed. The promises made to their ancestor Abram were fulfilled by a descendant of Abram.

How great is that? And, there is a book that document all this, much of which was written or recorded over a period of thousands of years, with the events that are recorded occurring over that same period.

 

[VictoriousTruther]

Yes. B/C God told Abram to kill Isaac, his only son, which God had promised him, Abram reasoned that their must be some type of life after death or resurrection. He had to b/c it was also promised to Abram that he would have many descendants, and Isaac had not yet made descendants, and Abram believed God for his word. So, Abram is our Father in Faith.

Then, Jesus, the only son of God was sent, and after his death and resurrection, he gave great hope to those early Jews who believed. The promises made to their ancestor Abram were fulfilled by a descendant of Abram.

How great is that? And, there is a book that document all this, much of which was written or recorded over a period of thousands of years, with the events that are recorded occurring over that same period.

Great. . . So support the supposed claim with independent verification independent of the bible or with well formed arguments regarding the specific text.

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

Second, following up on the two other claims or arguments you have presented, here is my answer. Dying for a cause does not necessitate the truth or falsity of the cause itself. It merely remains as a testament to how they had emotional attached to the cause itself and how much it meant to them.

Point in case: Branch Davidians, Jim Jones, and some others…

 

[VictoriousTruther]

Point in case: Branch Davidians, Jim Jones, and some others…

Right On, :hugs:

 

[VictoriousTruther]

Please join me in this discussion, i’m losing my mind doing this alone.

 

[HarryStotle]

Please join me in this discussion, i’m losing my mind doing this alone.

Dying for a cause does not necessitate the truth or falsity of the cause itself. It merely remains as a testament to how they had emotional attached to the cause itself and how much it meant to them.

Why are you so emotionally attached to this cause and why does it mean so much to you? Losing your mind for a cause does not necessitate the truth or falsity of the cause itself. At least that is what we’ve been led to believe.

 

[Bon_Croix]

Independent verification. How do I have time and resource for that?

I tell you what. If I set up a gofundme account, you fund me with lets say, 250K USD, I’ll go and verify as much as I can for us (within the best of my abilities-with some time for relaxation–weekends and paid holdiays).

How about that? What do you say? Do we have a deal?

 

[HarryStotle]

Do you mean to imply that anything that could be defined as truth is just a comforting selfish belief? So most scientists and skeptics are just creating selfish comfortable beliefs?

Most scientists and skeptics do not deal with beliefs that require a personal commitment from them that discomforts their belief system. They ostensibly only traffic in “objective” facts that demand no personal commitment from them.

Let’s distinguish facts or theories about facts from the truth required by practical wisdom. It is easy to chide others for their “selfish” beliefs when you assume their beliefs are merely justified by their comfort level. I would suggest that many Christian beliefs are discomforting and demanding in terms of defending and living by them. Your analysis of beliefs is biased to the core.

It would be more comforting simply to ignore all discomforting beliefs and tread only in “objective” territory.

Your “losing your mind” comment indicates that you have some kind of personal stake in the outcome of this discussion. Are you discomforted if your position is shown to be inadequate? Why would you be?

Shouldn’t your supposedly “unselfish” neutrality and objectivity NOT cause you any emotional grief?

And yet you feel like you are losing your mind? Or are you confusing your mind with your ego?