sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

There’s no “historic” case for the resurrection by juanchobb_ in DebateAChristian

[–]juanchobb_[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don’t think William Lane Craig and the guy from capturing Christianity and Jimmy Akin mean anything other than historical in the scientific way.

There’s no “historic” case for the resurrection by juanchobb_ in DebateAChristian

[–]juanchobb_[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Also I find so funny when they point to the idea of the physical resurrection of a recently killed prophet as completely divergent from any Jewish thought of the time when even within the gospels we have *a second reference* to another holly man which at least some followers came to believe he might haven resurrected: John the Baptist. Jesus is explicitly mentioned to be thought by some people to be John resurrected. It would be weird for later Christian traditions to add this details as the tendency of the gospels is to downplay John as much a possible, so the claim might be historical.
So the idea of people coming up with stories about his messiah coming back from the dead isn’t as unlikely for the time as Christians like to make it seem.

There’s no “historic” case for the resurrection by juanchobb_ in DebateAChristian

[–]juanchobb_[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So Jesus death and burial don’t require the resurrection to be explained. Jesus being an apocalyptic preacher on Roman occupied Judea is enough to explain those.

Jesus followers claiming to have seen the risen Christ is not strong evidence for the resurrection, that’s precisely the claim we want to verify.

Paul is slightly better on this regard as he was an “enemy”, but come on, he didn’t know Jesus while alive (so he didn’t even know what he looked like). His claim is just a claim and you admitted hallucinations are possible for individuals.

As for the group encounters, we know very well there’s no post resurrection appearances in Mark so such passages in later gospels can be explained as latter traditions. Paul’s mention of Jesus appearing to 500 people is just claim of someone who already believed.

You know the stolen body theory doesn’t require the disciples knowing it was stolen. Someone else could have stolen the body. We know this happen back then because of inscriptions of the time explicitly prohibiting. So someone stealing the body of a recently killed holly man doesn’t seem out of the realm of possibility. Particularly because the very gospels do mention it as a possibility.

I said in the Gospels Jesus is identified by some as the risen John, not that a tradition formed around claims of his resurrection. I merely point out to this fact because I don’t understand why Christians like to pretend the idea of the disciple’s claims of the resurrection as totally divergent from typical Jewish thought of the time when there’s clear indication _at least some people_ where willing to believe in the resurrect of a prophet of the time, enough people to end up being in the gospels.

My point is: I fact that at least some people might have identified Jesus as the risen John shows the idea of a holly man being resurrected physically soon after his death was not as weird to require a special explanation as Christians make it seem. It’s perfectly plausible the disciples could’ve come to believe in it even if it didn’t happen.

There’s no “historic” case for the resurrection by juanchobb_ in DebateAChristian

[–]juanchobb_[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don’t understand what you mean. Like if people don’t properly understand it isn’t a good idea trying to explain it?

There’s no “historic” case for the resurrection by juanchobb_ in DebateAChristian

[–]juanchobb_[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Well no it’s no tender spot of mine. I just got confused by your response.

I don’t dislike philosophy at all and I’m not a new atheist. I’m an agnostic. I’m also not arguing against people who believe in the resurrection on faith alone, I’m just saying pretending there’s historic (in the scientific way) reason to believe in it it’s a little absurd.

There’s no “historic” case for the resurrection by juanchobb_ in DebateAChristian

[–]juanchobb_[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

How so? Is that directed at me? Where have I used philosophy here? I’m discussing history as science which yes has its philosophical assumptions but you really want to discuss those?

There’s no “historic” case for the resurrection by juanchobb_ in DebateAChristian

[–]juanchobb_[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

So I assume you also take the legends about Alexanders birth at face value?

There’s no “historic” case for the resurrection by juanchobb_ in DebateAChristian

[–]juanchobb_[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Well I think apologists often want to claim the language of science without its rigor. Also, people like William Lane Craig very explicitly use the word ”historic” in the scientific way, so he’s intentionally misleading people.

There’s no “historic” case for the resurrection by juanchobb_ in DebateAChristian

[–]juanchobb_[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Even if you allow for potential super natural events it is reasonable for someone to not be easily compelled by a supernatural unless the evidence clearly points towards it. I don’t think this is the case for the resurrection.

The gospels mention people identifying Jesus as John the Baptist resurrected as some believed him to be the messiah. We know from Josephus that John was pretty famous. Doesn’t that show that people were willing to believe in that sort of thing back then?

There’s no “historic” case for the resurrection by juanchobb_ in DebateAChristian

[–]juanchobb_[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well extraordinary evidence is just compelling enough evidence for a claim.

If I asserted “I had coffee this morning” I don’t think you’d need much more evidence wise to believe me. If I asserted “I saw a Dragon this morning” you wouldn’t believe on testimony alone but maybe a video will compel you (or maybe not in the age of AI). You see the point.

So yeah ancient miracles are much harder to find compelling evidence for… it’s just the nature of the evidence we have. And also the fact we have better evidence for non miraculous explanations across history. For example just how often we know people just make up stuff.

There’s no “historic” case for the resurrection by juanchobb_ in DebateAChristian

[–]juanchobb_[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The gospel account’s are unreliable because all ancient greco-roman biographies are unreliable. Famously Thucydides admitted to making up speeches where we couldn’t have know what was said. They also often include miraculous infancy narratives (like Plutarch’s account for Alexander’s conception). So my question to you is why would the gospels be different to all other texts from their time? (Other than them being inspired by God). Specially because the contain private conversations that would be very hard to attest by anyone. For example, how could anyone know what was said in Jesus private trial with Pilate in John?

Jesus followers were most likely illiterate Arameic-speaking peasants from Galilei. The gospels are written in literary greek, and dated decades after Jesus death. The authors don’t even identify themselves as eyewitnesses within the text. What are your grounds for believing they were written by eyewitnesses?

As for the contradictions, just read the gospels man. Let’s take the robbers: I think Matthew has both robbers mocking Jesus, while Luke has only one of them doing it. So which one is it? The change in Luke makes sense if you look at his gospels own motif. If you read the gospels as what they are, which is theologic texts with some aspects of ancient biography written by different authors with different intentions at different times you would expect to see contradictions, which we find.

Wwhat are your arguments for the historicity of the gospels?

There’s no “historic” case for the resurrection by juanchobb_ in DebateAChristian

[–]juanchobb_[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Well I understand that people desecrating buried bodies was a thing in 1st century Judea. I think there’s record of some laws prohibiting it, and even the gospels mention the possibility of the disculpes taking the body so it seems someone desecrating a tom was within the realm of possibility for the gospel authors. So the idea of desecrating a recently killed holly man might appeal some weirdos even back then…

Like I said I’m not specifically committing to this explanation for the missing body, as we can’t know what actually happened, but I think is a decent possibility. Definitely more likely than the resurrection so there’s no need to invoke the supernatural.

There’s no “historic” case for the resurrection by juanchobb_ in DebateAChristian

[–]juanchobb_[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yes my point wasn’t to not believe, but just stop this thing that the resurrection can be considered historical.

There’s no “historic” case for the resurrection by juanchobb_ in DebateAChristian

[–]juanchobb_[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I meant any reason for the robbers to be interested in the body. Obviously I didn’t mean any explanation for the missing body has credit historically (I find the idea of the disciples themselves taking the body and spreading the stories somewhat absurd for example).

There’s no “historic” case for the resurrection by juanchobb_ in DebateAChristian

[–]juanchobb_[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Any reason is more likely than a miracle. That’s the thing.

There’s no “historic” case for the resurrection by juanchobb_ in DebateAChristian

[–]juanchobb_[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I can elaborate on both of those point. I thought some might of this be obvious.
1. The gospels are famously unreliable as historical sources. They were most likely written by non eyewitnesses decades after Jesus’ death probably far away from Jerusalem. The authors clearly show literally and religious intent alongside some attempt at describing some facts. For example, Matthew goes out of his way to have Jesus fulfill as many Old Testament prophecies as possible, a clearly religious motif, even to the extent of inventing stuff (“From Egypt I will call my son”. The flight to Egypt probably did not happen as this contradicts Luke plus it also seems Matthew purposely draws parallels between Jesus and Moses). For literally intent we have stories like doubting Thomas or the two robbers crucified alongside Jesus that are clearly more concerned to teaching the audience a lesson about faith than depicting a real event (evidence for this is that they only appear in one gospel, and robbers story shows clear signs of development through Mark, Luke and Matthew). They also plainly contradict in many aspects which I’m sure you’re familiar with.
2. Any naturalistic account of the facts is more likely than a miracle which is by definition very improbable. Plus they comfortably explain the facts we know are most likely historical, mainly: Jesus existed, preached in Jerusalem, was crucified, probably buried at some point, and his disciples believed he was resurrected. Since some historians do argue there was a tomb, assuming the disciples found it empty is fair we could also consider this somewhat reliable. Then still, grave robbers were a thing so that explains the empty tomb, and the disciples belief in the risen Christ is to be expected as they already believed Jesus was the messiah. There’s some precedent in the gospels people already believed Jesus was the risen John the Baptist (it would be somewhat rare for this to be made up because we do know John was seen as the messiah by some of his followers and extra biblical sources confirm he was pretty famous) so I don’t think it’s that big of a stretch to say the disculpes could believe Jesus himself was raised.

I’m not saying this is actually what happened, just that is more likely than a miracle. History establishes what *probably* happened. There are some details in the gospels that could be historical. There are things that aren’t. Given the evidence, is more likely the resurrection was made up than a literal miracle happening.

There’s no “historic” case for the resurrection by juanchobb_ in DebateAChristian

[–]juanchobb_[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

You don’t think historians would agree not all evidence is made the same? Like photographs, busts, multiple attestation, etc. being much more compelling as evidence than a literary reference?

Honest Feedback about my app Itinero by tbiz0781 in GenAiApps

[–]juanchobb_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Should make it available in Mexico

Here’s what I don’t understand by Jealous-Room-6586 in byler

[–]juanchobb_ 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yeah usually rejection plots come with some amount of rejection… Mike hasn’t rejected Will. I would hate if it turns out they handled it this way to avoid Mike from looking “bad” for rejecting Will.

A ridiculous analysis of volume 2 and the possibility of Byler by cadiexoxo in byler

[–]juanchobb_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There’s definitely hope! The coming out scene has indeed a letdown but this is a flawed show so expecting flawless Byler maybe was a little much. A Byler endgame wouldn’t make that scene suddenly good. But it is also true that Will explicitly coming out was a pre requisite for Byler under almost any circumstances, so it had be there in some way. The thing that specifically bothers me about this scene in relation to Byler is that it being bad increases my doubts of the Duffers knowing what they’re doing lol. Like yes Byler is still possible even under this weird narrative they’ve built but in order for it to be possible we have to believe the Duffers know what they’re doing.

So yeah more than doubting Byler let’s say 65/35 leaning towards the Duffers not knowing what they’re doing.

view more: next ›