RELIGION POLL #1: Resurrection

Author: MisterChris ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 95
  • MisterChris
    MisterChris avatar
    Debates: 30
    Forum posts: 808
    4
    7
    11
    MisterChris avatar
    MisterChris
    RELIGION POLL #1: What is the best argument for/against the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, and why?

    Feel free to discuss below. I have been doing a lot of research into the matter recently. 
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,185
    4
    6
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @MisterChris
    interesting poll, I hope you do more in the future

    the best evidence in my opinion would just be how many people wrote about the event-there are over 10 main ones and they all describe Jesus being real and going through the Resurrection process

    clement of rome and Justin Martry are sources for it
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 40
    Forum posts: 951
    3
    5
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @MisterChris
    Dr. Franklin's examples are, at best, second-hand,  [Clement born in Rome, 35 CE, and Justin Martyr born in Flavia in 100 CE. So, my own testimony by the Holy Spirit of the resurrection of Jesus Christ is just as valid. I trust the first-hand accounts of M,M,L&J more than either Clement or Justin. I trust the witness of the remainder of the 9 apostles [one dying by his own hand before the crucifixion. I trust Paul. I trust Mary. I trust the two on the road to Emmaus.
  • MisterChris
    MisterChris avatar
    Debates: 30
    Forum posts: 808
    4
    7
    11
    MisterChris avatar
    MisterChris
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    Thanks, I've decided to try participating in the forums a bit and thought this would be an interesting little series of posts.
  • MisterChris
    MisterChris avatar
    Debates: 30
    Forum posts: 808
    4
    7
    11
    MisterChris avatar
    MisterChris
    --> @fauxlaw
    I'd agree that accounts 100 years after his supposed death are too young to be reliable. Is there a particular reason you regard the writings of the apostles as historical? 

  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 40
    Forum posts: 951
    3
    5
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @MisterChris
    The apostles were eye witnesses, and I trust their testimonies as factual.
  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,211
    2
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @MisterChris
    The "best" argument? I think the only argument or evidence for it is testimonial evidence (that I'm aware of). IMO testimonial evidence can be convincing, because the average person has no real reason to lie about something they are sure they observed. So I would say the argument or question against testimonial evidence is did they lie about it, did the authors just make it up and what motive did they have to lie..... are the witness accounts recorded in the Bible reliable, basically there's really only one argument and one counter argument lol, should we accept the testimonies as truth or did they lie and which of those stances are more convincing.
    Apart from having a religious or spiritual epiphany all we really have is scriptural based claims that I'm aware of. I guess we could argue for an empty tomb and an unaccounted for corpse if we had such evidence or reliable records outside the Bible.
    So far, I have yet to see anyone propose a good reason or motive to make up such claims. To me at least, the Authors and the Gospel/Epistle accounts come across as very genuine and honest but the nature of a spiritual man resurrecting from the grave is hard to process as believable even for a religious guy. So it's a very difficult topic to get around without just accepting the records as true.
    I'd like to see some arguments for it as the thread gains some traction though.

  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,211
    2
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @MisterChris
    Thanks, I've decided to try participating in the forums a bit and thought this would be an interesting little series of posts.

    I know this is debatable especially within the Christian camp, but I think the truthfulness and factual nature of the message or meat of Jesus' teachings aren't dependent on the resurrection or a belief in it. I don't think a person needs to accept that in order that he apply His teachings. I think what is more important is what is applicable, beliefs come second if they have any real bearing at all. There are beliefs in claims and dogma, and then there is application of teachings. It is the latter that makes the true difference. 

    Granted, it is in the Bible but what I'm trying to say is that no one is forced to believe it....rather they are required to apply that which is applicable. For example if I were teaching you about something lets just say the guitar, and you wanted to learn how to play or become familiar with playing. Lets say I told you I could burn off 200 scales behind my back with just two fingers while eating a pizza in 10 seconds, then later I drew you a diagram of some guitar tabs that shows you what notes to play and finger placement to take home and practice. Which of the two would you find more useful? which of those two would get you closer to being where you want to get learning the guitar?

    So if Jesus told you He walked on water, then told you to go love thy neighbor as thyself, which of those two would be more useful for you? or if one of the Apostles said Jesus rose from the grave, and another one told you seek ye first the Kingdom of God and all these things will be added unto you which would you find more useful?
  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,211
    2
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @MisterChris
    I'm also not telling you to not believe it, what I'm saying is don't expend energy where it doesn't matter. Put your energy and trust on things that actually count, which are the things that make the difference to the self. It doesn't matter whether or not you believe that, what matter is did you apply that which was useful and that which helped you progress. 
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 2,392
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @MisterChris
    A supernatural tale very much in keeping with typical mythology based hypotheses.
  • User_2006
    User_2006 avatar
    Debates: 48
    Forum posts: 518
    3
    3
    11
    User_2006 avatar
    User_2006
    Technically resurrection is possible. Theoretically. Practically no. You'd need your heart pumping blood to all the places, and you'd have to repair any impaired organs. You would need to restore your brain tissues anyways. 

    Died on the cross and just pop out of nowhere 3 days after? I didn't think that was even possible. 
  • oromagi
    oromagi avatar
    Debates: 89
    Forum posts: 3,485
    6
    9
    11
    oromagi avatar
    oromagi
    RELIGION POLL #1: What is the best argument for/against the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, and why?

    no first hand accounts of the phenomenon
    paucity of reliable, testable accounts
    the phenomenon is not repeatable in spite of billions of observations of human death
    In short, lack of evidence

  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 40
    Forum posts: 951
    3
    5
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @User_2006
    You have just acknowledged that resurrection is technically possible, and then argued against it for practical bio-tech reasons. Which is it?
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 40
    Forum posts: 951
    3
    5
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @oromagi
    no first hand accounts of the phenomenon
    Matthew, John, Peter, and Paul, at least.
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,185
    4
    6
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @fauxlaw
    the gospels were written around that time
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 40
    Forum posts: 951
    3
    5
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    Which does not discount the actual personal witness of the risen Lord.
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,185
    4
    6
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @fauxlaw
    how do you know?
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 40
    Forum posts: 951
    3
    5
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    By application of faith: read and ponder. Become humble and teachable. Have a sincere desire to know, not by skepticism, but by hope. Pray for knowledge, having faith in Christ that an answer will be given, and that the Holy Spirit will respond with greater knowledge than had before. Don't knock if you haven't tried it. Faith is a sixth sense, just like taste and touch, and the three others. Like echo location and sense of earth's magnetic field in other animals. 
  • Outplayz
    Outplayz avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,108
    2
    3
    4
    Outplayz avatar
    Outplayz
    --> @MisterChris
    The best evidence is looking at people in power today.... they are corrupt, they want the pusy, they want the fame... they want the worship. And... we live in the best time in history. But humans still want this... imagine humans that lived during religious times.... do you really trust them? Are you kidding me.... they want it all. They want to be noticed. This doesn't erase everything they say... but it certainly erases credibility in everything they say being right. 
  • User_2006
    User_2006 avatar
    Debates: 48
    Forum posts: 518
    3
    3
    11
    User_2006 avatar
    User_2006
    --> @fauxlaw
    You have just acknowledged that resurrection is technically possible, and then argued against it for practical bio-tech reasons. Which is it?
    I am more leaning on NO. I don't think this kind of technology exists millennia ago because we don't have it now. We could theoretically go to Pluto if we want, but is it practical? Not at all. 

    I acknoledge the existence of the testimonies, but they may be made-up and I do not consider them as concrete evidence. 

  • User_2006
    User_2006 avatar
    Debates: 48
    Forum posts: 518
    3
    3
    11
    User_2006 avatar
    User_2006
    --> @fauxlaw
    If I have no idea that there is concrete evidence making supporting that evidence that supports the resurrection is concrete, I would most likely say no. We are living in an age in which a 20-year-old woman can simply photoshop and make the evidence of an unsolved mystery evolving into urban legends, and people will trust it despite the "evidence" that is actually fabricated. 

    As well, Although I do not have evidence that the testimonies in the bible are fake, I clearly don't have evidence that says it is real. It is faith or nothing. There is no assured facts when you are asking a non-christian. 
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 40
    Forum posts: 951
    3
    5
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @User_2006
    Where technology is lacking, faith is operative. As for practicality, what is impractical about living forever, progressing forever?
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 283
    Forum posts: 8,662
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @MisterChris
    I don't think you know what a poll is, it's meant to be multiple-choice.
  • User_2006
    User_2006 avatar
    Debates: 48
    Forum posts: 518
    3
    3
    11
    User_2006 avatar
    User_2006
    --> @fauxlaw
    What is the point? Then there will be overpopulation consider people won't die themselves, then there is brutality just to keep the population in a feasible number. Then reproduction will be discouraged and there lacks variation. Resurrection to spread benevolent truth could be practical, but it will be impractical if enforced on all people. 

    This argument is probably flawed and I would like to know what you think.  
  • MisterChris
    MisterChris avatar
    Debates: 30
    Forum posts: 808
    4
    7
    11
    MisterChris avatar
    MisterChris
    --> @EtrnlVw
    I like the take. I agree that it probably boils down to testimony. I am interested to hear arguments as to why the apostles could be lying, though. I think your argument about Jesus' resurrection is interesting, especially the idea of taking what is useful and ignoring the rest, but I'd argue that the most useful thing of all is the verification that Jesus is the Messiah. If that is true, then it means you have a pathway into an afterlife, and that seems useful as hell to me. Anyway, thanks for the post!