[False statement. There is no scientific or physical proof. There is a religious belief that he did so, and you are entitled to it."]
I have said that the historicity of Jesus rising from the dead is beyond reasonable doubt, you say "False statement. There is no scientific or physical proof." I never said there was - I said that there was historical proof - if you want, I could write a nice long thesis on here on the subject. I won't now, because I think you'd dogmatically reject it, on faith grounds. You seem to trust in the unproven (and hypocritical) statement that everything must be proven by science and physical things to be true.
30 comments
No, we don't think that everything must be proven for it to be true. We just maintain that without proof you'd be dumb to believe it is true without a shadow of a doubt, and in the face of evidence to the contrary, it makes you an idiot.
"I have said that the historicity of Jesus rising from the dead is beyond reasonable doubt,"
The fact that you said that is not in debate, however, the historicity of Jesus is very, very much in doubt. It is interesting that you use the word "reasonable" to defend such an unreasonable statement.
Without scientific or physical proof, there is no "historical proof." Your "historical proof" amounts to no more than Christian tradition.
No. You don't seem to have a good grasp of the difference between faith and proof. I'll be happy to believe in your biblical Jesus as soon as you supply some credible proof of his existence and his deity.
Hypocritical?
The Bible itself shows that the honesty of the disciples was not to be trusted. The whole reason the Romans posted a guard at the tomb was because they expected Jesus' followers to steal the body and claim he rose from the dead. If the Roman soldiers thought Jesus' followers were dishonest enough to pull that kind of trick, why is it hard to believe that a few years later, after the body was buried, the evangelists simply put about the story that the tomb was empty? The stories about the soldiers falling asleep was only written many years later, after the soldiers weren't around to contradict it.
Mind you, what the Romans thought of the disciples didn't necessarily reflect who the disciples actually were. When you deal with a group that is at the center of some sort of controversy, it's only naturally to not trust that group regardless of their actual trustworthiness.
Proof is proof, so put out. And no, I'm not talking about the proof of your drink here. You make the claim he rose from the dead, you provide the proof he did. And no, the bible doesn't count; it contradicts itself too much to be credible for any information.
I have said that the historicity of Jesus rising from the dead is beyond reasonable doubt...
There is no historical evidence of Jesus ever having existed, much less resurrected, outside of the Bible.
"You seem to trust in the unproven (and hypocritical) statement that everything must be proven by science and physical things to be true."
Things that aren't proven can still be true, light had a certain speed before they knew it. Lightning is electricity, even when people still thought it was Zeus throwing his bolts. But something as far out as some guy rising from the grave really need some evidence before I can believe it.
I'd be a lot more willing to believe you if you even had some historical accounts that suggested Jesus rose from teh dead, but it appears only one such account exists and it was written long after the alleged resurrection. You'd think when something so monumentally amazing like that happened people would take notice.
Soton si does not understand the nature of faith.
A belief that stems from faith can neither be proved nor disproved. The resurrection of Jesus is one such belief. There is no evidence of this occurring, but to use a response commonly used against fundies, lack of evidence does not prove the opposite. You can not disprove it happened either. As the person who responded to it mentioned, it is a religious belief, one that the person is free to have or deny. It is not a scientific belief. He needs to learn the difference.
The only books discussing Jesus' "virgin birth" are Matthew and Luke. Scholars agree that these were written comfortably after the first century, which means they could just have had that shit added on, say, to make Jesus look like a Superman.
Why should the "resurrection" be any different?
We should remember that primitive illiterate people would not tend to remember the teachings of a wise man without some sort of mnemonic device, or a totally overaweing mythology to propagate the personality. Message be damned, really, the priesthood uses the awesome personality to serve their purposes.
"...everything must be proven by science and physical things to be true."
No shit, Sherlock. Everything that exists in the physical universe has a scientific explanation. EVERYTHING. We have deciphered most of the explanations by this time, but we have a few phenomena yet to fully explain. It'll happen.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
