The Kurzari Proof

[Mersenne]

Stated by Riksangel.

well, okay, but I read it a dozen times and I cannot see anything that lends itself to the belief that the resurection was true.

just spell out your reasoning for me, I do not see how any of the statements by riksangel support the idea that Paul wasn’t hallusinating or just lying.

 

[Nullasalus]

well, okay, but I read it a dozen times and I cannot see anything that lends itself to the belief that the resurection was true.

just spell out your reasoning for me, I do not see how any of the statements by riksangel support the idea that Paul wasn’t hallusinating or just lying.

Frankly, Rikasangel already said as much as I would. There’s good reason to assume Paul wasn’t lying - What he went through as a result of what would have been a ‘lie’, that he could have stopped the ordeals at pretty much any time by recanting, etc. As for hallucination, it seems entirely out of place and manner considering his background - not to mention it’s consistent with other claims of the resurrection. If Christ really was resurrected, someone with Paul’s background is about as good as a witness as you could hope for for independent verification.

As I said, this isn’t going to convince anyone who doesn’t believe in anything miraculous as a rule (No explanation really possible in that case, if it’s true - The number and background of witnesses will just determine how widespread the hallucination was), or who just plain doesn’t want to believe in it. That’s not to say you can’t say it was all a lie or a hallucination - just, people are going to disagree, and have their own reasons (evidence, in this case) for doing so.

 

[Mersenne]

There’s good reason to assume Paul wasn’t lying - What he went through as a result of what would have been a ‘lie’, that he could have stopped the ordeals at pretty much any time by recanting, etc

Is that really true though? Most persucution of Christians were due to scapegoating of crimes, which recanting wouldn’t have saved you.

As for hallucination, it seems entirely out of place and manner considering his background

why?

• not to mention it’s consistent with other claims of the resurrection.

Most myths have a measure of consistency, they have the same inspiration and copy off of each other. Besides, the stories aren’t that consistent either, and Paul doesn’t even say anything about the earthly existence of Jesus.

If Christ really was resurrected, someone with Paul’s background is about as good as a witness as you could hope for for independent verification.

But he didn’t witness anything. Can you imagine this kind of non-sense in any other context? “Sir, we have a witness to the murder, but she wasn’t actually there, she was astral projecting at the time”

As I said, this isn’t going to convince anyone who doesn’t believe in anything miraculous as a rule (No explanation really possible in that case, if it’s true - The number and background of witnesses will just determine how widespread the hallucination was), or who just plain doesn’t want to believe in it. That’s not to say you can’t say it was all a lie or a hallucination - just, people are going to disagree, and have their own reasons (evidence, in this case) for doing so.

If this kind of evidence were offered up for any other claim people would laugh, it’s ridiculously weak. If you have your own reasons, well, then I guess I can’t really address that, but for the most part the idea is a joke.

 

[Nullasalus]

Is that really true though? Most persucution of Christians were due to scapegoating of crimes, which recanting wouldn’t have saved you.

First, I’m not sure of that. Second, we’re not talking about other Christians in this case - we’re talking about the witnesses to a resurrected Christ, the leadership in particular.

why?

Again, Rikasangel explained the logic here.

Most myths have a measure of consistency, they have the same inspiration and copy off of each other. Besides, the stories aren’t that consistent either, and Paul doesn’t even say anything about the earthly existence of Jesus.

Wait. ‘Most myths are consistent. Also, the resurrection stories aren’t consistent.’ So you’re saying that these don’t sound like myths?

Paul doesn’t need to talk about the earthly existence of Jesus. Just the resurrection and his experience.

But he didn’t witness anything. Can you imagine this kind of non-sense in any other context?

Well, you’re claiming that Paul’s experience of the risen Christ was either a lie or a hallucination. Responses to that have been given - saying ‘He didn’t witness anything important and actual, because Christ was dead and also Paul was probably hallucinating or maybe he was lying!’ is back to what I said: It’s not conclusive, you can happily deny this. The point you’re tripping up on is, while I say you can deny all this and that the evidence for the resurrection isn’t undeniable (I think, when you deal with the events of 2000 years ago, few things will be), your response is apparently ‘It’s absolutely unthinkable and you have absolutely no basis to believe in it!’ People are disagreeing, and are pointing at the evidence that supports their claims. You’re arguing that you can find other (unproven) explanations for the evidence. That’s fine. But it’s not very persuasive. Which is why there isn’t just one ‘explanation for Jesus other than Him actually being resurrected and performing miracles’ out there - there’s dozens.

If this kind of evidence were offered up for any other claim people would laugh, it’s ridiculously weak. If you have your own reasons, well, then I guess I can’t really address that, but for the most part the idea is a joke.

No, you think (or want to think) it’s ridiculously weak - and the last time we discussed this, it was obvious you hadn’t looked into the subject all that diligently, except to find standard ‘arguments against’, repeat them, and cast aside any disagreement as crazy.

People assert Christ was resurrected. What’s more, they claim to have seen and interacted with the risen Christ. Many of the people closest to Christ were willing to die and be tortured for this claim, including the ‘founders’. The standard Christian take on this is ‘They really saw what they think they saw’. One more time - I’ve said that people can disagree with this. But if your argument amounts to ‘I disagree and this is all stupid!’, why waste anyone’s time? You may as well say ‘Christ wasn’t resurrected. That’s impossible!’ - it’s as persuasive to most Christians as ‘Christ was resurrected, and only a God can do that!’ is to non-believers.

 

[Georgea]

Yesterday, I was discussing the resurrection with my brother… Bringing this back to Catholicism, my brother says that just because a large group of people claim that a certain event occurred does not mean that it actually happened (e.g., UFO sightings, Elvis sightings, the Loch Ness monster) and that when trying to prove that an extremely unusual event occured like a resurrection you need more proof than simply the Gospel or eyewitness testimony. What should I say?

I didn’t read all the posts, so I’m sorry if I’m repeating something you already heard…I don’t think your brother’s question can be answered clearly and completely in just a single conversation. It sounds to me like he doesn’t understand who Jesus is and why He lived and died. If your brother is seriously seeking an answer, he really needs to understand who Jesus is, God’s Covenant with the Isrealites, and how Jesus fulfills that Covenant.

For me, the best “proof” I’ve had has been studying the Old Testament and seeing how the New Testament fulfills the Old. “The Great Adventure - A Journey through the Bible” Bible Study by Jeff Cavins is a great resource, though it’s a bit long. However, the question your brother asks is an important one. If he really wants an answer, he needs to commit to learning the answer.

Faith is a gift and it doesn’t seem like God gives it to everybody. Fortunately, though, God tells us to “seek and ye shall find.” I’ll say a prayer that your brother finds the proof he needs or the faith to just believe.
Georgea