Lets discuss problems with the "resurrection" story

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

You're right. Mohammed is not the subject of the thread but your claims of proof of the resurrection are.

I'm not claiming 'proof of the 'resurrection' '.

​

 

[noon]

1. Criticising me rather than my argument is attacking, i.e., 'poisoning the well', 'appeal to ridicule', 'ad hominem', and 'personal attacks'.
2. What you're doing right now.​

1. I've only been talking about your argument. Point out where I've made any ad hominem personal attacks please.

2. Show me my circular reasoning. What is "what I'm doing right now"?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

1. I've only been talking about your argument. Point out where I've made any ad hominem personal attacks please.

2. Show me my circular reasoning. What is "what I'm doing right now"?

1. I wasn't referring to you.
2. What you're doing now.​

 

[noon]

2. What you're doing now.​

That's funny, because I'm not even talking about the resurrection story now, so how I'm showing circular reasoning for that I don't know.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

That's funny, because I'm not even talking about the resurrection story now, so how I'm showing circular reasoning for that I don't know.

That's because your entire line of questioning is circular reasoning.​

 

[noon]

That's because your entire line of questioning is circular reasoning.​

That you can't say what it is. The only circles I'm going in is about what your argument is. That "something odd happened to Jesus", which you denied was your only point, so then I had to talk you through your argument like a child in order to come around your overall point that the people of the time thought something odd happened to Jesus.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

That you can't say what it is.

Everything after this is just question begging since you didn't even know what my argument was until I told you.........and you're still wrong about what it is.

Your reasoning is circular because you don't know what my argument is, yet you've come to a conclusion about it and are disagreeing with it even though you don't.

I was going to go into more detail before the trolling/flaming/derailing began, but no one's interested in an actual discussion about the subject.​

 

[noon]

Everything after this is just question begging since you didn't even know what my argument was until I told you.........and you're still wrong about what it is.

Your reasoning is circular because you don't know what my argument is, yet you've come to a conclusion about it and are disagreeing with it even though you don't.

I was going to go into more detail before the trolling/flaming/derailing began, but no one's interested in an actual discussion about the subject.​

We agreed on what your argument is. You don't have a strong opinion about what happened to Jesus and that's it. You don't know what circular reasoning is nor begging the question. My whole point comprises of not believing the resurrection story. You have the discussion skills of a clown. Nobody's trolling or flaming anything but you like to throw these accusations around because your argument with multiple people falls flat.

 

[Majestyx]

Everything after this is just question begging since you didn't even know what my argument was until I told you.........and you're still wrong about what it is.

Your reasoning is circular because you don't know what my argument is, yet you've come to a conclusion about it and are disagreeing with it even though you don't.

I was going to go into more detail before the trolling/flaming/derailing began, but no one's interested in an actual discussion about the subject.​

what is your argument, what is your opinion on what actually took place?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

We agreed on what your argument is.

'We' did no such thing. You are question begging for assuming a position I don't entertain without proof and continuing to do so.

Question begging = circular reasoning.

Ad hominems aren't arguments.

If you want to actually discuss the topic, drop the attitude. It isn't warranted or necessary, just lame. and considering the posts you agreed with, you're the absolute LAST person to critique anyone's discussion skills.
​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

what is your argument, what is your opinion on what actually took place?

Thanks for asking. My argument is that the Gospels are early eyewitness accounts. The problem is that no Hebrew at that time would believe a story like that to be true, so it is inexplicable as to why they did. Even more inexplicable is the spread of the 'faith' after it's leader was publicly executed. There were multiple 'messiahs' running around whose movements were all destroyed after they were executed, yet only this one persisted. I don't know what took place, but to chalk it up to a fabrication or delusions makes even less sense considering the evidence and history.
Roman and Jewish officials could have squashed all this very easily, yet the evidence shows them making excuses for what happened rather than denying it outright. Not to mention, all the resources Jewish and Roman authorities expended tracking these people down just to execute them if they didn't renounce it when all they had to do was show the corpse.​

 

[Black Hans]

So much distortion, so much work to debunk a so-called fairy tale. Produce the body.

 

[Thsnnor]

The biggest problem was the lie the body was stolen by the Disciples. How could someone know who did what when they were sleeping? Even better if Roman guards were caught sleeping they would be tried with treason and executed.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Thanks for asking. My argument is that the Gospels are early eyewitness accounts. The problem is that no Hebrew at that time would believe a story like that to be true, so it is inexplicable as to why they did. Even more inexplicable is the spread of the 'faith' after it's leader was publicly executed. There were multiple 'messiahs' running around whose movements were all destroyed after they were executed, yet only this one persisted. I don't know what took place, but to chalk it up to a fabrication or delusions makes even less sense considering the evidence and history.
Roman and Jewish officials could have squashed all this very easily, yet the evidence shows them making excuses for what happened rather than denying it outright. Not to mention, all the resources Jewish and Roman authorities expended tracking these people down just to execute them if they didn't renounce it when all they had to do was show the corpse.​

1. It's not inexplicable. Similar to the Protestant Reformation, it is conceivable that some of the devout during that time period were disenchanted with the staunch power-holders of the religion, could relate to Jesus' struggles (i.e. challenging Rabbis etc), interpreted enough of the evidence of his life at the time to consider him to be the long awaited messiah, and slowly jumped ship as it became more acceptable to do so as time progressed..and even if some weren't sure of him being the messiah, they may have agreed with enough of his teachings and disagreed with his persecution enough to not want to be with the "old guard" anymore. After all, Jesus was Jewish and didn't necessarily intend to start a new religion.

2. I also don't know what exactly took place...no one does. Due to this, however, it isn't nonsensical to question some of the evidence as being somewhat fabricated, exaggerated or possibly delusional. There is a preponderant amount of angles to approach this as an investigation to claim reasonable doubt in the complete authenticity and accuracy of what was accounted for historically, just as there are many reasons and examples for those to believe. I don't intend this to be disrespectful in any way, but it's not like there was medicinal treatment for mental illness back then, it is reasonable to think that there were witness accounts and testimonies that weren't necessarily completely accurate. I really don't mean any disrespect to the religion, its current believers or its past believers...Im just saying that not everyone back then (or now) was of clear mind (between Jesus' supporters or detractors).

3. Showing the corpse may not have been enough. For those who fervently believed in Jesus could have just as easily believed that the authorities did not produce the actual body of Jesus.

4. It took over 300 years for the Roman Empire to become officially Christian and that was because of Constantine's mother subconsciously and consciously drilling home its virtues and only after Constantine won an important battle in which beforehand he had a dream about his mother and Jesus..and said that if he won the battle he would convert. This doesn't necessarily seem to be fact driven, but more-so driven by faith, spiritual intuition and subsequent military success. The resources the authorities used to dispel the supporters and that they made excuses for what happened after the fact could be applied to many different types of "rebellion" throughout history. Outright denial wouldn't be sufficient to squash it, just as it isn't today with all the conspiracy theories running rampant. The CIA is famous for the "neither confirm nor deny" approach (their tweet was funny btw).

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

1. It's not inexplicable. Similar to the Protestant Reformation, it is conceivable that some of the devout during that time period were disenchanted with the staunch power-holders of the religion, could relate to Jesus' struggles (i.e. challenging Rabbis etc), interpreted enough of the evidence of his life at the time to consider him to be the long awaited messiah, and slowly jumped ship as it became more acceptable to do so as time progressed..and even if some weren't sure of him being the messiah, they may have agreed with enough of his teachings and disagreed with his persecution enough to not want to be with the "old guard" anymore. After all, Jesus was Jewish and didn't necessarily intend to start a new religion.

Therein lies an issue. We're looking at this from an entirely different perspective and context. 1st Century Hebrews did not believe in Jesus' resurrection because the appearance of the 'messiah' was supposed to herald a 'messianic age' of peace and prosperity called Olam Ha-ba (The World to Come) where all the 'righteous' dead are resurrected to take part in a 'perfect world'. That didn't happen, and the 'messiah' got stapled to a tree.
​

2. I also don't know what exactly took place...no one does. Due to this, however, it isn't nonsensical to question some of the evidence as being somewhat fabricated, exaggerated or possibly delusional. There is a preponderant amount of angles to approach this as an investigation to claim reasonable doubt in the complete authenticity and accuracy of what was accounted for historically, just as there are many reasons and examples for those to believe. I don't intend this to be disrespectful in any way, but it's not like there was medicinal treatment for mental illness back then, it is reasonable to think that there were witness accounts and testimonies that weren't necessarily completely accurate. I really don't mean any disrespect to the religion, its current believers or its past believers...Im just saying that not everyone back then (or now) was of clear mind (between Jesus' supporters or detractors).

When the other explanations entail even more machinations in order to become plausible, they become more 'nonsensical' than the original story. Also, to posit 'mental illness' would not explain the empty tomb. The mass hallucinations that some theorize may be at the core of the story would only account for those that had emotional ties to the man (which rules-out Paul) and all at the same time/place. What documentation we do have shows that the 'hallucinations' occurred at different times to several different groups of people who all 'saw' him doing the same things. According to the DSM, that's not how 'mass hallucinations' work, and the stories predate the DSM by 1900 years.
​

3. Showing the corpse may not have been enough. For those who fervently believed in Jesus could have just as easily believed that the authorities did not produce the actual body of Jesus.

That's the thing. They never even attempted to debunk the spread of the stories by doing something as simple as showing the body. In fact, the documents we have show that those who disbelieved the whole thing went so far as to make up another story blaming the disciples for stealing the corpse which, according to Roman Law, was punishable by death. The disciples and believers were never executed for that charge, though. Even a rumor of that sort would seriously damage their 'credibility' which was (and still is) already in-doubt.
​

4. It took over 300 years for the Roman Empire to become officially Christian and that was because of Constantine's mother subconsciously and consciously drilling home its virtues and only after Constantine won an important battle in which beforehand he had a dream about his mother and Jesus..and said that if he won the battle he would convert. This doesn't necessarily seem to be fact driven, but more-so driven by faith, spiritual intuition and subsequent military success. The resources the authorities used to dispel the supporters and that they made excuses for what happened after the fact could be applied to many different types of "rebellion" throughout history. Outright denial wouldn't be sufficient to squash it, just as it isn't today with all the conspiracy theories running rampant. The CIA is famous for the "neither confirm nor deny" approach (their tweet was funny btw).

The Roman Empire was never 'officially' Christian. Christianity was at first barely tolerated, then illegal. Diocletian tried to 'purge' them in 299 CE. Constantine's 'vision' at the Milvian Bridge vs. Maxentius didn't immediately bestow any favor on them. After the battle, he gave Christians some of their rights back and eased-up rules and regulations specifically targeting them in 313 CE with the Edict of Milan (which entailed toleration for ALL religions). For example, he ordered Sunday to be kept free of all legal proceedings in 321 CE. He adopted the religion after defeating Licinius in 324 CE (Western Roman Emperor), but didn't declare other religions 'illegal'. They just slowly died-out leaving Christianity and Judaism (to a lesser extent) as the only religions of substance in the Empire most likely due to lack-of-support. The Gospels pre-date all of this by almost 300 years.​