The Minimal Facts for the Resurrection of Christ.

Misty said:
That’s definitely a huge stretch.
Click to expand...
True enough, but how many orders of magnitude more of a stretch is the original premise?

I mean, if you call out one, all must be. Reason, or faith. One cannot serve two masters.

Just Sayin’
Ian
 
Akar said:
Look, Quick has certainly overreached on several points, but questioning a cornerstone of the Christian faith such as the Resurrection strikes me as quite a bold move. It is a Dogma, period. There is no room for interpretation here.
Click to expand...
If you are a Christian, yes, I agree that this is unquestionable dogma. You are absolutely correct. But I'm not a Christian. I'm a Jew.

As I said, I normally don't bring it up. But Quick was being very persistent in trying to convert me by appealing to the resurrection. He needed to know why it wasn't going to work.
 
meowzician said:
And that is when they explained shituf to me. Shituf is the Hebrew word that means association. It refers to when a person truly does love and worship God, but mistakenly associates God with a thing, or creature, or person, when God is none of those. It was explained to me that when a Christian looks up into heaven, they do in fact see God, but they view God through glasses that have the word Jesus etched on them.
Click to expand...

I appreciate that you respect my boundaries to believe what I wish and I do the same for you or anyone.

I have some questions though,

was there a real Jesus in your opinion?

Did you know that Jesus is a kids name in Hebrew for Joshua the man who took over after Moses died? I was common during his time.

I bring these up because I can only speculate that because Jesus was with God before his incarnation I believe he knew more about how the world would become when he did. Much of what is said that is symbolic of Jesus was understood by the common people as they had such oral traditions. Lord also in old English means house of bread or the bakery. So many words have different meanings.

Moses means to get water
Manna means "what is it" (but some ways it can mean bread of heaven)
Jesus said this is my body (as he gave the bread to his disciples)

Symbolism then in ancient times was more magically powerful or spiritually was less rational in empirical scientific terms than we have today. People then understood differently as language changed and terms changed and as people understood symbols and why God did things. As you said that you believe a tree exists that grow bigger I think that is true. Though I also believe that as a living word God as language is more than symbolic, it is how mental ideas become reality. God created reality somehow.

I do understand how people must learn these things with Gods help so I believe you must be a wise person yourself to understands what I have said in your own way.
 
Fruiteloop said:
I appreciate that you respect my boundaries to believe what I wish and I do the same for you or anyone.

I have some questions though,

was there a real Jesus in your opinion?
Click to expand...
Oh yes. I am convinced there was a historical Jesus. We know that James existed because we have his writing, and James what the brother of who? Jesus..

But the historical Jesus is not the Jesus of the gospels. We know almost nothing about the historical Jesus because he didn't write anything. The gospel authors basically collected all the stories about Jesus that they could find and wove them together to form a narrative. They made no effort to sort out myths and legends from actual history.

So we basically have only our common sense to try to do that sorting ourselves. While nothing is certain, certain things are more probable than others. Was he born of a virgin? No. That's not how children are conceived. Did he teach Jews to follow the commandments as is recorded in the Sermon on the Mount? Given that he was a Jew born in Judea to a Jewish family in a Jewish culture, and that some of the stories also show him doing Jewish things like being taken to the temple as a baby for the redemption of the firstborn, reading the scrolls at synagogue, visiting the Temple at Hanukkah, ritually washing his hands, and engaging in classic Jewish debates over Torah, it is almost certain that he practiced Second Temple Judaism, and that teaching obedience to the Law has a sky high probability of being a true story.
Fruiteloop said:
Did you know that Jesus is a kids name in Hebrew for Joshua the man who took over after Moses died? I was common during his time.
Click to expand...
Of course. In Jesus time, Yeshua or Yeshu was a very popular name, kind of like John. And yes it is an abbreviated version of Yehoshua, which is usually Anglicized as Joshua.
Fruiteloop said:
I do understand how people must learn these things with Gods help so I believe you must be a wise person yourself to understands what I have said in your own way.
Click to expand...
Wow, I don't know what to say. I don't consider myself wise. I'll be honest with you. I've been learning my entire life and I'm now 65. And the more I've learned, the more it has become crystal clear to me how much more there is out there that I don't know. I would even say that today, I realize that nothing I think I know is certain. I don't see how someone who knows nothing can be wise. But it does touch my heart that you would say something like that.
 
One of 2 things so much more likely:
1) People thought he was dead, but really wasn’t. It was much more common in those times to be buried alive or placed in a tomb by mistake.

2) Someone lied
“Did anyone remember to check his pulse?”
“I thought you did sir”
“F@&k, we’ll just say he came back”
 
A roman soldier stabbed him in the ribs with a spear.

Pretty sure he was dead at burial because of that.

Romans had very stringent rules to make sure people died as planned.

The other two people next to Jesus had there legs broken.
 
meowzician said:
I'm not saying this to hurt you, or discourage you. I would normally not even mention this, but you have specifically brought it up. I don't think anyone has ever risen from the dead after three days. Grief hallucinations are extremely common. I remember when my brother passed, at the service I kept seeing him in the crowd. A think there were people who loved Jesus very much who had experiences much like that. As the stories were told, they grew. It means they loved him. Nothing more.
Click to expand...

Okay... Grief hallucination... Let's see what Dr. Habermas has to say about that...

"Closer to Kent, Michael Goulder applies a related explanation to the experiences of Peter, Paul, and some of the other apostles. Nonetheless, mixing hallucinations and conversion disorder, Goulder thinks that Peter and Paul experienced what he calls “conversion visions,” hallucinations of various sorts that are produced during times of great stress, guilt, and self-doubt."

So, clearly, this is one of the common objections... Let's see how Dr. Habermas handles this...

"However, Rees does admit that bereavement experiences cannot account for the disciples’ simultaneous group encounters with the risen Jesus."

Interesting...

"John Dominic Crossan seems to have lined up in more than one place on these questions. In an earlier journal article, he states quite directly, “Resurrection is not post-mortem apparition.”29 Then in a later dialogue on the subject with N. T. Wright, Crossan either affirms this option or at least seems open to the idea."

IDK, seems like some cope to me... Let's look further...

"Other scholars mention grief visions or hallucinations without necessarily specifying whether or not they consider the possibility that they were actual occurrences."

That's you right there...

"One of the central issues in this entire discussion of Jesus’s resurrection appearances concerns whether a group of people can witness the same hallucination together."

"But favoring the possibility of collective hallucinations is highly problematic on any scenario and on several grounds. (1) To begin, the chief examples of “collective hallucinations” provided by Zusne and Jones (plus many critics) were group religious experiences such as Marian apparitions. However, since these occasions are purportedly theological, by their very nature they simply beg the question regarding whether such experiences could ever actually have occurred under natural conditions in the real world. If these events happened as described, and if they were even possibly miraculous in some sense, then almost assuredly they could not have been hallucinations as normally understood. In other words, what Zusne and Jones assume to be normal, naturalistic, subjective explanations in the first place could be miraculous!51 By so doing, they ruled out even the possibility of real religious occurrences in an a priori manner, before alternative possibilities were considered. Perhaps these events did occur naturalistically, but that does not follow without evidence. Assuming them to be natural occurrences as a starting point without showing that to be the case is unwarranted."

Sorry for the big chuck of text.

"As commented by Frank Larøi, the coauthor of one of the most highly accredited research volume on hallucinations, “in general, ‘true’ collective (mis)perceptions are more commonly illusions.” In this sense, these occasions could be collective without being hallucinations."

So... Maybe you are not actually talking about hallucinations, per se?

"The distinction is this: illusions are disproven by falsifying the reports. Thus, it is known that the sun is not spinning and dancing in the sky because both uninvolved people and telescopes prove this to be the case. Likewise, hunters know the grizzly bear is not Sasquatch as they get closer to it or examine the photographs."

"Further, claims regarding the collective hallucination thesis are somewhat or even largely unfalsifiable, at least in the specific sense of solving the overall issue, chiefly because even if the occasions turn out actually to be some other sort of illusory phenomena, hallucinations may still be maintained even after the criteria are properly identified, as with the telescope example above."

"On the other hand, purely natural group events also could simply be called group hallucinations too—like many persons reporting UFOs or other odd sightings. In both sets of circumstances, such identifications also could be very much mistaken. This sort of misapplication could potentially happen in both directions. Thus, either religious or secular sightings could be misidentified as group hallucinations, as Larøi mentions above, making this thesis quite haphazardly applied almost whenever and wherever. But crucial epistemic criteria seem to be missing in both."

"Even if it could be established that people in groups witnessed hallucinations, it is absolutely critical to note that it does not at all follow that these experiences were therefore collective, as in every person witnessing the exact same things. If, as most psychologists and psychiatrists assert, at least the vast majority of hallucinations are private, individual events, then how could groups share exactly the same subjective visual perception? Rather, it is much more likely that the phenomena in question are either illusions—perceptual misinterpretations of actual realities such as the spinning sun example above—or a collection of individual hallucinations. Many specialists have agreed on this as well."

"Moreover, perhaps the largest number of serious problems for utilizing the group hallucination explanation to account for Jesus’s group appearances results from comparing the requirements for these occurrences to the critically recognized portions of the New Testament accounts of Jesus’s postmortem sightings.61 It may be precisely at this interval that the explanatory power of this natural hypothesis is most severely challenged, since much of the accredited New Testament data not only differs from the psychological requirements but actually contradicts the necessary conditions for “collective hallucinations.” In other words, the necessary conditions are precisely what are not reported."

Hence, there is no evidence for them... Unless you have some other evidence to consider???

"To suppose that these believers would exhibit “expectation,” “emotional excitement,” “enthusiasm,” and’ “intoxication” is simply far over the top of a normal psychological response especially in the face of these stark circumstances beginning just a day or so later. This would require of them responses that would scarcely be exhibited even at a normal funeral, let alone a death of this magnitude! That Zusne and Jones postulate that expectation “plays the coordinating role” in all this is most likely the least applicable to Jesus’s disciples, in that it would need to be present in order to get the entire process moving. Yet it was the characteristic that was probably lacking most in them. All indications are that Jesus’s disciples exhibited the very opposite emotions from these that Zusne and Jones assert are the necessary prerequisites for their thesis (though they were not at all considering Jesus’s situation)."

"By comparison, the disciples’ experiences were totally unlike those in the Marian cases above where pilgrims frequently traveled long distances, hoping dearly and even expecting to witness wonderful events, gathering exuberantly with anticipation. These would seem to be very meager grounds of comparison with any of the emotions belonging to Jesus’s disciples after his death."

"Separate studies of both the relevant psychological and medical literature going back even decades have revealed no clear data indicating that group hallucinations have ever actually occurred or at least been observed. Individual hallucinations of course happen, as do illusions and delusions—the latter even in more than one person. But Aleman and Larøi note “the general supposition” made by a number of theorists that “hallucinations are private events.”66 Group hallucinations have not been observed or confirmed in the relevant literature. This by itself does not make them impossible events, but given the huge collections of relevant scientific literature in these areas, this is almost an overwhelming critique by itself."

"So here is the additional knockout criticism: Even if there had been some exceptionally rare realities like mass hallucinations in the world, several group events of that nature were proclaimed in the earliest and strongest Christian sources. Therefore, the chief issue according to the data is that to deal a blow to these appearances, it would not be enough to mount arguments against a single group sighting of the risen Jesus. Even though group hallucinations have arguably never happened in the past, these group events reportedly reoccurred frequently after Jesus’s death."

But you might say, "But I never mentioned "GROUP HALLUCINATIONS!!"

Okay fair enough... Would you like to go over the data that we can be VERY confident that there WERE group appearances? I mean from a HISTORICAL and not religious PoV, of course...
 
ThomasJ79 said:
One of 2 things so much more likely:
1) People thought he was dead, but really wasn’t. It was much more common in those times to be buried alive or placed in a tomb by mistake.

2) Someone lied
“Did anyone remember to check his pulse?”
“I thought you did sir”
“F@&k, we’ll just say he came back”
Click to expand...

No offense, but this does not even get off the ground... One of the most atested historical facts in in all of ancient history is the death of Jesus... I can go through the data if you want, but to say he wasn't actually dead would be to GREATLY insult the Romans saying they had no idea what they were doing when they crucified people...

They knew he was dead... For one reason in particular, because when the spear that pieced his side after he hung there, blood and water came out... That MEANS, the blood had been pooling in his chest cavity for some time...

Not to mention, think about it... You are up on the cross... You literally have to pick yourself up by the nails in your wrists and lift your body to even breath... So. say a guy stays in the down position for a half hour... The guy is dead! He hasn't taken a breath for a half hour.
 
What I mean is people can’t come back from the dead. It’s impossible. The resurrection is a mythology, not a historical fact.
 
meowzician said:
The gospel authors basically collected all the stories about Jesus that they could find and wove them together to form a narrative.
Click to expand...

Alright, so when Luke says...

"So it also seemed good to me, since I have carefully investigated everything from the very first, to write to you in an orderly sequence, most honorable Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things about which you have been instructed."

You are basically saying he was lying... He didn't investigate anything... He just wrote down a bunch of wives tales about Jesus...

Not to mention, we have the four names given for the Gospel in Chruch history... Always, without exception, the authors of the Gospels are: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John...

But say you are right and we can't trust the Gospels at all... That is a common line by people like from the Jesus Seminar...

So, how DO they learn about Jesus? Paul... Even the critical scholars LOVE Paul as a wealth of information about Jesus because this guy was educated, smart as all getup, and stayed in his lane and didn't discuss things he had no idea about...

"For you have heard about my former way of life in Judaism: I intensely persecuted God’s church and tried to destroy it advanced in Judaism beyond many contemporaries among my people, because I was extremely zealous for the traditions of my ancestors. But when God, who from my mother’s womb set me apart and called me by his grace, was pleased reveal his Son in me, so that I could preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone. I did not go up to Jerusalem to those who had become apostles before me; instead I went to Arabia and came back to Damascus.

Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to get to know Cephas, and I stayed with him fifteen days. But I didn’t see any of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. I declare in the sight of God: I am not lying in what I write to you.

Afterward, I went to the regions of Syria and Cilicia. I remained personally unknown to the Judean churches that are in Christ. They simply kept hearing, “He who formerly persecuted us now preaches the faith he once tried to destroy.” And they glorified God because of me.

Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. ;I went up according to a revelation and presented to them the gospel I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those recognized as leaders. I wanted to be sure I was not running, and had not been running, in vain. But not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus in order to enslave us. But we did not give up and submit to these people for even a moment, so that the truth of the gospel would be preserved for you.

Now from those recognized as important (what they once were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to me. On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter was for the circumcised, since the one at work in Peter for an apostleship to the circumcised was also at work in me for the Gentiles. When James, Cephas, and John—those recognized as pillars—acknowledged the grace that had been given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to me and Barnabas, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. They asked only that we would remember the poor, which I had made every effort to do."

Why am I quoting Galatians? Because first of all, the CRITICAL SCHOLARS will just give it to you. They don't dispute it was written by Paul, and they just say what Paul says here, he's at least not lying. So, Paul talks about his pedigree, and talks about how he went to see the Apostles. The thing with this is that Paul and the Apostles basically interviewed each other to see if they were on the same page... Paul says, "They added nothing to me," meaning, they were in FULL agreement.
 
Last edited:
ThomasJ79 said:
What I mean is people can’t come back from the dead. It’s impossible. The resurrection is a mythology, not a historical fact.
Click to expand...

You are free to give an alternate explanation.. But just asserting it can't happen is not only lazy, but demonstrably false... Miracles DO happen... I can give you plenty of scientific examples of both before and after documentation... Including regrown limbs and other people coming to life after being dead.
 
ThomasJ79 said:
One of 2 things so much more likely:
1) People thought he was dead, but really wasn’t. It was much more common in those times to be buried alive or placed in a tomb by mistake.

2) Someone lied
“Did anyone remember to check his pulse?”
“I thought you did sir”
“F@&k, we’ll just say he came back”
Click to expand...
People don't survive crucifixion.
 
QuickTwist said:
You are free to give an alternate explanation.. But just asserting it can't happen is not only lazy, but demonstrably false... Miracles DO happen...
Click to expand...
My friend, you are the one making the claim. What is normal is people staying dead. You are making the extraordinary claim that someone came back. The burden of proof is on you. Whether miracles happen isn't relevant. You have to prove THIS miracle.
 
meowzician said:
My friend, you are the one making the claim. What is normal is people staying dead. You are making the extraordinary claim that someone came back. The burden of proof is on you. Whether miracles happen isn't relevant. You have to prove THIS miracle.
Click to expand...

I've already done my job on that front... You can either TRY to combat the six minimal facts (and I can provide 6 more if you want), or you are going to have to explain the historical facts naturalistically... It's the most important event in human history... To just say, "Lalala, I don't need to provide an answer to this fact that split time in half" is really something...
 
QuickTwist said:
Alright, so when Luck says...

"So it also seemed good to me, since I have carefully investigated everything from the very first, to write to you in an orderly sequence, most honorable Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things about which you have been instructed."

You are basically saying he was lying... He didn't investigate anything... He just wrote down a bunch of wives tales about Jesus...
Click to expand...
His idea of investigation was gathering the stories. He is not lying. He just doesn't mean what you wish he meant.
QuickTwist said:
Not to mention, we have the four names given for the Gospel in Chruch history... Alway, without exception, the authors of the Gosples are: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John...
Click to expand...
This is incorrect. When the gospels first began to be circulated, they were anonymous. The oral tradition attributing them to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John didn't develop until the second century. Textual analysis shows that each gospel had more than one author, with a later editor splicing the pieces together. Even the gospel of John was originally a much smaller book which scholars refer to as the Book of Signs. We do not need copies of these earlier versions to know they existed. The textual evidence is enough.
QuickTwist said:
But say you are right and we can't trust the Gospels at all... That is a common line by people like from the Jesus seminar...
Click to expand...
I of course think I'm right, just as you think you are right. The difference between me and you is that I am always conscious that I make mistakes and may be wrong. This awareness allows me the unusual ability to overcome confirmation bias and change my opinion when new evidence becomes available to me. Remember, I started off Christian. Fully convinced. It was the evidence that changed my mind. It didn't happen overnight. I think about things for long, long periods of time, turning everything over and over, to look for all the alternative explanations, and what they might mean. But yes. I'm saying that you cannot trust the gospels to be historically accurate.
QuickTwist said:
So, how DO they learn about Jesus?
Click to expand...
You mean people back then besides those who actually knew him? Word of mouth. That's why the legends developed. Every storyteller changes the story a bit more.

Do you mean historians and textual analysts? I am not a historian or a textual analyst, so I don't know all their techniques. I do know that it incorporates things like comparison of writing style, dialect, and stuff like that. I know it includes things like looking for outside corroboration. I know it involves using reasoning to figure how probable a passage is.
QuickTwist said:
Paul... Even the critical scholars LOVE Paul as a wealth of information about Jesus because this guy was educated, smart as all getup, and stayed in his lane and didn't discuss things he had no idea about...
Click to expand...
Paul is a good source of information about the Early Church during his missionary journeys. He is not ANY kind of source about Jesus, not even a bad one, since he never met Jesus.
QuickTwist said:
"For you have heard about my former way of life in Judaism:...
Click to expand...
You are acting as if I don't already know all of this. Remember, I was a Christian. A Christian who loved Jesus with all my heart. And a Christian with a very healthy intelligence. I'm not claiming to be a genius. I'm saying that I've studied the Bible, including your New Testament much, much more deeply and fully than the average Christian. I have much of it memorized, and its been given the "INFJ treatment" where we turn things over and over, looking for meaning.

What I'm saying, my friend, is that there is nothing you can say that I haven't already wrestled with, cried over, and let go of.

This thing that you are doing right now? That used to be me. But it is not who I am today.

I KNOW that you are not going to stop being a Christian. I KNOW that you are not going to let go of your idea that the Bible has no error. And I'm fine with that. Really. That is where you are at on your faith journey. We are all on the road, just different places. There is no right place or wrong place. The faith you have is perfectly healthy. Not only am I not trying to undermine it, I hope and pray that you master it.

It may seem to you like I am attacking your faith, but trust me, I am being very gentle. The points I am making are meant to be gentle nudges. If you feel that I am being "too aggressive" or if for ANY reason you want to disengage our conversation, just let me know and I will stop immediately. I would never want to distress you or make you feel threatened. If you are feeling anything like that, those are clear signs that I need to back off. But it is difficult to gauge emotions in text, so I really do need your feedback.
 
just me said:
Remember the words "Jesus said". Prophets spoke about Him.
Click to expand...
The name Jesus never occurs in any of the prophets. Most of the passages you believe to be about the messiah are actually about other individuals like David or Hezekiah or even the People of Israel as a whole. It is incredibly sad that many of the "prophecies" quoted in the gospels are misquotes, yanked out of context, or even (in one case) made up out of whole cloth.

just me said:
Everything Jesus said happened. Jesus said, "Destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in three days."
Click to expand...
You don't know that Jesus ever said that. He never wrote anything. What you have are stories that were passed around orally, and then collected and formed into a narrative. They are not actually eye witness accounts. They are rumors. "My sister's best friend's fiance said..."

However, I realize the depth of meaning that these passages have for you. I am not under any illusion there is even a remote chance you will see them differently. And honestly, I okay with that.

May God bless you. Be at peace.
 
meowzician said:
This is incorrect. When the gospels first began to be circulated, they were anonymous. The oral tradition attributing them to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John didn't develop until the second century. Textual analysis shows that each gospel had more than one author, with a later editor splicing the pieces together. Even the gospel of John was originally a much smaller book which scholars refer to as the Book of Signs. We do not need copies of these earlier versions to know they existed. The textual evidence is enough.
Click to expand...

John was written in 90-95 AD... Not the second century... Also, you are free to provide evidence for any of this...

And even if there are more than one author for the Gospels, it doesn't even matter... It's like saying we can't trust a math proof about some advanced equation because we don't know who solved the problem... The source doesn't matter... You reject the Gospels... Fine... Deal with 1 Corinthians 15 from Paul that predates ANYTHING written in the NT to probably 5 years or less after Jesus was on the earth.

meowzician said:
You are acting as if I don't already know all of this.
Click to expand...

Your explanation for the minimal facts has already been torn to shreds... So I don't think you are actually aware of this particular argument for the resurrection of Christ or are familiar with the literature of Dr. Gary Habermas...

And you might say, "So what? I have come across lots of arguments for Christianity... Why is it a big deal IDK about Dr. Gary Habermas?" Well because, in the words of Dr. Sean McDowell, "Dr. Habermas has probably spent more time studying the resurrection than any other person in human history except possibly the Apostles."

I mean, you said it was grief hallucinations... People don't share hallucinations... So that doesn't work based on 1 Corinthians 15...
 
Last edited:
@meowzician,

You still have not given me an answer why God would raise a heretic from the dead... I can show beyond any reasonable doubt (not all POSSIBILITIES and that would be proof which doesn't exist for history) that Christ was raised from the dead, so the question remains why God would raise a heretic from the dead...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top