Resurrection Debate Comments

[Zzyzx]

.
Goose and Zzyzx debate the truth of the resurrection in the Head to Head sub-forum.

Comments are welcome here (H to H thread posts are restricted to the two participants).

[upallnite]

I have been reading and will continue to follow the debate.

My impressions so far.
Zz has continued with his normal method. Ask questions and point out that evidence is not given to support the claims. It has worked in the past and appears to be working again.

Goose has made one criticism that I found useable. He pointed out that Zz kept using "except the bible" when asking for evidence. I think this is a hollow victory because, I think, most people would get that the Koran is not evidence that Jesus was not God.

[Negative Proof]

To me, it seems that both parties are working on the most basic pre-suppositions that can be encountered in any discussion on religion: belief in, or rejection of, the supernatural. If either debater allows their pre-supposition to be forgotten, even for the sake of the argument, they must accept the other's argument as true. Belief in the resurrection requires belief in the bible as the infallible word of god, which requires a belief in god. There is no evidence to support the claim of a resurrection that does not come from the bible. In order for the claim of a resurrection to be proven impossible, one must abandon belief in the supernatural, and allow the process of natural science to prove it could not have happened.

It is an interesting read and a noble attempt at universality, yet doomed, I'm afraid, to regress into an argument that leads to the believer believing because his theory can't be disproven, and the non-believer not believing because of the lack of evidence for supernatural events or entities.

[Vanguard]

I am still unclear on the nature of Z's methodology when determining the veracity of anything historical. If I understand Goose's argument, he claims a very clear one when it comes to arguing for the resurrection - the strength of which parallels evidences for other historical events that have thus far gone uncontested.

Though we are speaking only of the rez it does give one cause to ponder why in so facile a manner the non-theist crowd can accept other events (such as the existence of King Tut's reign) when the strength of evidence is arguably no better than the evidence posed for the Savior's life.

Goose is correct in pointing this out. Z does not offer up a clear methodology. I do appreciate though Z's effort at "calming the waters" by trying to distance himself from personal "gaming" as I call it. One such example would be his most recent effort to desist from using the term "party handbook" instead of simply calling the text by its given name, the Bible.

[Zzyzx]

.

I am still unclear on the nature of Z's methodology when determining the veracity of anything historical.

Zzyzx studied and taught as a scientist.

I promote no particular “methodology” regarding history, but consider historical claims from a perspective of science. When it is claimed that, for instance, “the sun stood still” (to enable favored people to win a battle), or “darkness” and an earthquake accompanied a crucifixion, or that a dead body came back to life, those claims are contrary to what we know about nature.

The Earth did NOT stop rotating (“sun stood still”) except in a legend. Anyone who proposes such a thing has no concept of the physics of planetary motion. Rather than believe that the Earth’s rotation stopped (which would produce catastrophic results) and started again upon command from “gods”, it is far more rational to consider the stories to be legends rather than literally true historical facts.

Likewise, when a claim is made that a dead body came back to life, that story is contrary to everything we know about what happens to a body after death occurs. I have presented a general description and links to forensic biology sources – studies by people that actually investigate such things.

A “methodology of history” is NOT needed to address the claim that a dead body came back to life. That is a matter of science NOT history. Bodies simply do not act that way in real life. There is no known process by which a body can return to life after death has occurred. Since the claim clearly disputes all we know about nature, and since it cannot be shown to be true, a more rational alternative is to consider the “resurrection” story to be a legend rather than literally true historical fact.

When the claim is challenged the only response is “this is a special case” (special plea) and “goddidit” (theological plea). Neither is valid in honorable debate. The “goddidit” claim invalidates rational debate based upon substantiating claims – because that claim can NOT be substantiated.

When one proposes “miracles”, they are speaking theology NOT history and NOT science. If one uses the “goddidit defense”, they bear the burden of DEMONSTRATING that gods actually perform miracles. When they cannot do so, their argument is invalid.

[wrekk]

If we use Goose's method, how would we ever discern anything in history from being fact or fiction?

[bernee51]

.
Goose and Zzyzx debate the truth of the resurrection in the Head to Head sub-forum.

Comments are welcome here (H to H thread posts are restricted to the two participants).

Goose wrote:

1. Why the tomb was found empty. This is quite simple. If Jesus was still found in the tomb He was obviously still dead.
2. It explains the disciples sincere belief Jesus appeared to them. It further explains why the disciples turned from abandoning Jesus from fear before the crucifixion to proclaiming that Jesus was the Christ and that He rose from the dead despite persecution and even possibly death after the crucifixion.
3. The conversion of a church enemy Paul and his subsequent prolific career as an apostle despite hardships, persecutions and ultimately martyrdom.
4. The conversion of James, a sceptic prior to the crucifixion, and subsequent role as a leader in the church.

1. Which tomb? No tomb has been presented. No evidence has been presented that the body of a criminal (in the eyes of th establishment) was, against all common practice, placed in a tomb.

2. A better and more likely explanation is 'performative utterances'

3. Paul's own misogynistic, self-hating writing is indicative of his mental affliction of hysteria. What were his motives?

4. See 2. above.

What is a better explanation - the unproved and unprovable supernatural or a rational analysis?

[daedalus 2.0]

I forget who proffered it, but I would add another angle to the resurrection story.

Often, peopel claim that if you can't prove the writers were writing fiction, then you err on the side that they were accurately reporting events. Personally, I think the M, M, L and J are obvious fictions, but even if they were attempts at writing history consider this:

In the full glare of the modern media we had 9/11, Watergate, JFK assination, etc. Major events that were during an era when we can have photographic, audio, documented proof -

and yet

no one knows exactly what happened. No one knows the motivations of the Oswald, the training background of the attackers, who ordered what at Watergate, etc. Human events are incredibly muddy and virtually impossible to figure out at the time.

For goodness sake, people were POSITIVE we would find WMD's and be greeted with roses in Iraq. The information - again - was spotty.

There is no way the gospel writers could have given an accurate account even if they were recording the events on video camera. The fact that they were written years later, by anonymous people, were obviously copied and/or embellished in parts speaks very strongly that we have no idea what happened.

It is inordinately sensible to treat this tale like other tales of gods or legends. For example, we don't really think Robin Hood, Merlin or Beowulf existed, but especially did everything they are supposed to have done.

One would have to show why the Jesus Chronicles should be considered differently other than "I have a feeling".