Resurrection Refutations?

Pompey Magnus

Wicknight wrote: »

Because it gets around the obvious contradiction in the infallible Bible, obviously

It does look that way alright.

I suppose getting back to the original topic of refuting the resurrection I think one of the big things that strikes me is how today in 2007 so many people truely believe that this is a fact, but how back when the event actually took place there was no massive conversion and acceptance of Jesus by the people living in Jerusalem at the time. I mean these were people who would have seen Jesus preaching in person, they would have seen him carry his cross to his death, they would have heard from actual eye witnesses who would have claimed to have seen Jesus alive. They would have been witness to his miracles or would have known people who were. They would have been able to judge for themselves just how trustworthy these followers of Jesus were instead of people today just having the reproductions of their writings to go on.

As it turned out the vast majority of Jews at the time did not believe their claims, they made a judgement call that the claims were false and that the people making the claims were either liars or misled. If the evidence was not enough for most Jews who lived alongside Jesus and his followers, why is a biased document written by actual followers of Jesus enough evidence for people living today to accept?

Scofflaw

...getting back to the original topic of refuting the resurrection...

It's not necessary, I would say, to refute the resurrection. The OP's problem was the claim that there is "archaeological and historical evidence" for the resurrection, which simply isn't the case.

The evidence for the resurrection is the Bible. That's it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

You make the assumption that Luke's list was intended to be the genealogy of Mary, even though he clearly states it was Joseph's. Why?

Because I don't want to argue with everything you say, and you yourself had assumed that point in post #23.

If you flip that around it seems just as strong an argument against Jesus' legitimacy: Jesus was the legal descendant of Jeconiah and was not a biological descendant of Solomon.

Which you are free to do so, but then you would be agreeing that the virgin birth actually occurred, wouldn't you?

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

It does look that way alright.

I suppose getting back to the original topic of refuting the resurrection I think one of the big things that strikes me is how today in 2007 so many people truely believe that this is a fact, but how back when the event actually took place there was no massive conversion and acceptance of Jesus by the people living in Jerusalem at the time. I mean these were people who would have seen Jesus preaching in person, they would have seen him carry his cross to his death, they would have heard from actual eye witnesses who would have claimed to have seen Jesus alive. They would have been witness to his miracles or would have known people who were. They would have been able to judge for themselves just how trustworthy these followers of Jesus were instead of people today just having the reproductions of their writings to go on.

As it turned out the vast majority of Jews at the time did not believe their claims, they made a judgement call that the claims were false and that the people making the claims were either liars or misled.

You are kidding, aren't you? No massive conversion?

It's perfectly easy to see why the majority rejected the Gospel - to accept it would be to invite persecution and death at the hands of a religious establishment and a political system that were determined to stamp out anything that threatened their position of privilege.

What is truly remarkable is how such a movement spread from a small group of 120 people to tens of thousands in only a few months. Then, in a few more years it spread to millions.

If the evidence was not enough for most Jews who lived alongside Jesus and his followers, why is a biased document written by actual followers of Jesus enough evidence for people living today to accept?

I believe the majority reject the message today for the reason the majority of 1st Century Jews rejected it, for reasons of convenience, respectability & selfishness, irrespective of the evidence.

PDN

Scofflaw wrote: »

The evidence for the resurrection is the Bible. That's it.

No argument there.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

You are kidding, aren't you? No massive conversion?

It's perfectly easy to see why the majority rejected the Gospel - to accept it would be to invite persecution and death at the hands of a religious establishment and a political system that were determined to stamp out anything that threatened their position of privilege.

What is truly remarkable is how such a movement spread from a small group of 120 people to tens of thousands in only a few months. Then, in a few more years it spread to millions.

That's an interesting claim. So by the time of Paul, there were millions of Christians?

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's an interesting claim. So by the time of Paul, there were millions of Christians?

I mentioned Paul? No, it would be a good while after Paul until the million mark was reached.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

I mentioned Paul? No, it would be a good while after Paul until the million mark was reached.

Ah. The "few months" and "few more years" are not literal, then? I wasn't aware of any very good estimates of the growth of early Christianity, and certainly none that would have that timeframe.

I'm not contending you're wrong, just wondering what your sources were.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote: »

Ah. The "few months" and "few more years" are not literal, then? I wasn't aware of any very good estimates of the growth of early Christianity, and certainly none that would have that timeframe.

I'm not contending you're wrong, just wondering what your sources were.

The "few months" would be literal, but since my source is the Book of Acts I guess you won't be too impressed!

Rodney Stark, sociologist of religion, has estimated that the number of Christians hit the million mark by about 250AD.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

The "few months" would be literal, but since my source is the Book of Acts I guess you won't be too impressed!

Not very, I have to admit, but I wouldn't dismiss it, either. I wouldn't be particularly surprised by a figure in the low tens of thousands. What are the figures from Acts?

PDN wrote: »

Rodney Stark, sociologist of religion, has estimated that the number of Christians hit the million mark by about 250AD.

Highly likely. Still, two centuries is hardly "a few more years"!

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not very, I have to admit, but I wouldn't dismiss it, either. I wouldn't be particularly surprised by a figure in the low tens of thousands. What are the figures from Acts?

3000 added to the Church on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41) then increased to 5000 in Acts 4:4. Given that there are 17 other references in Acts to unspecified 'great' growth or 'large' numbers at various times, tens of thousands appears to be a reasonable estimate.

Kernunos

well cheers guys, good to see a civil debate about this thing. Ye have given me a few things to think about. Apologies for just posting and running but backpacking across New Zealand gives me plenty of time to read but less to check up internet forums.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

3000 added to the Church on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41) then increased to 5000 in Acts 4:4. Given that there are 17 other references in Acts to unspecified 'great' growth or 'large' numbers at various times, tens of thousands appears to be a reasonable estimate.

Hmm. My main reason for taking those numbers with a pinch of salt (!) is the notorious inaccuracy of ancient figures, which were frequently expressed as nice large round numbers. Also, of course, it doesn't mention those who might leave. On the other hand, explosive growth within new cults is hardly abnormal - there are several million Scientologists, for example - so it's quite possible (taking into account the slightly more limited communications).

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. My main reason for taking those numbers with a pinch of salt (!) is the notorious inaccuracy of ancient figures, which were frequently expressed as nice large round numbers. Also, of course, it doesn't mention those who might leave. On the other hand, explosive growth within new cults is hardly abnormal - there are several million Scientologists, for example - so it's quite possible (taking into account the slightly more limited communications).

Of course such explosive growth becomes easier with modern communications and globalisation. Hence Pentecostalism has grown from 130 in 1896 to over 600 million today.

TheThing!

Kernunos wrote: »

I dont want to just say 'i dont believe' unless i have soem way to back it up

Do you need any more proof than the fact that it is simply not possible? As an atheist surely you are used to rejecting the ludicrous claims religious nuts make. If you contacted a scientist claiming to that you can set things on fire with your mind, but that you cannot prove it, it would be perfectly acceptable for him to say no you cannot and ignore you. Some claims dont the deserve the respect that a proper investigation would lend them.

And with reference to your suggestion that there are books which back up the idea that there is evidence proving that this event occured, I would have a very very long look at the credibility of the author and any evidence put forward, I dont think that it would stand up to even the least stringent examination.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

Of course such explosive growth becomes easier with modern communications and globalisation. Hence Pentecostalism has grown from 130 in 1896 to over 600 million today.

The growth of Pentecostalism would also benefit from the massive growth in population over the 20th century. Possibly the original growth of Protestantism might be a better comparison?

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

PDN wrote:

Of course such explosive growth becomes easier with modern communications and globalisation.

In that case, why didn't Jesus come to earth when broadcasting became commonplace? Or why didn't Jesus invent the radio and telly?

It's strange that an omnipotent deity would come to earth in a minor province with limited mass communications to spend his life impressing a generally uneducated population, when he could have pulled something out of a hat that would have made sure that everybody heard about him.

PDN

stevejazzx wrote: »

No but you can't disprove it either...sound familiar?

No, it doesn't. Should it?

I just felt that, since Wicknight has, in other posts, indicated his belief in Occam's Razor (one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything), he must have some pretty compelling evidence to start multiplying entities in this case.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

In that case, why didn't Jesus come to earth when broadcasting became commonplace? Or why didn't Jesus invent the radio and telly?

It's strange that an omnipotent deity would come to earth in a minor province with limited mass communications to spend his life impressing a generally uneducated population, when he could have pulled something out of a hat that would have made sure that everybody heard about him.

We can all invent any number of hypothetical scenarios.
Why didn't God just write the Gospel message in giant letters in the sky?
Why didn't He put all the calories into broccoli instead of bacon?

I suspect that if Jesus had waited to come to earth until broadcasting was commonplace then someone would be asking, "If the Gospel message was so important then why did God wait until now to reveal it?"

I prefer to try to make sense of what is, rather than what I think should be.

Scofflaw

Kernunos wrote: »

well cheers guys, good to see a civil debate about this thing. Ye have given me a few things to think about. Apologies for just posting and running but backpacking across New Zealand gives me plenty of time to read but less to check up internet forums.

You lucky bastid.

enviously,
Scofflaw

lostexpectation

PDN wrote: »

Quite easily, if we employ sound principles of exegesis rather than allowing our personal bias to get in the way.

The issue here is not whether you or I think a virgin getting pregnant is likely or not - the issue is whether Isaiah intended to prophesy something miraculous or commonplace. We know that, since Isaiah reports other miracles more dramatic than a virgin birth, he had no prejudices or presuppositions against the miraculous. Also, this conception and birth was supposed to be an unmistakable sign to Ahaz. Young women got pregnant all the time in Israel (or any other nation). How would that be a sign of anything? A virgin conceiving and giving birth, however, would be an unmistakable sign that God was at work.

This would lead an unbiased translator to conclude that the word almah was probably referring to a 'virgin' rather than to merely 'a young woman'. This was the position taken by the translators of the Septuagint, a Jewish translation of the Old Testament into Greek that, long before the time of Jesus, translates almah as 'virgin'.

Of course if we want to read our Twenty-First Century presuppositions into the text, violating every known principle of textual criticism or of exegesis of ancient texts, then we may come to a different conclusion to those Hebrew translators.

no infact all these people you talk of would have known virgin birth was impossible, but would write their stories to that end anyway.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

Of course such explosive growth becomes easier with modern communications and globalisation. Hence Pentecostalism has grown from 130 in 1896 to over 600 million today.

150 million according to wiki. Impressive as the growth is it just goes to show how you should perhaps take the accounts in Acts regarding the supposed massive growth of early Christianity with a pinch of salt, what with them not having access to good old wikipedia and reliable census data. I mean assuming wikipedia is correct, your statistic for Pentecostalism was out by 450 million, not a trivial figure at all. I mean there is hardly 600 million Protestants around today. Might it be concievable that 2000 years ago the writers of Acts might have been exaggerating slightly also?

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I mean assuming wikipedia is correct

A huge assumption.

Zombrex

I would point out that Scientology grew from 1 person to "10 million" in 50 years (are their 10 million Scientologiests? Only if you ask the CoS )

I wouldn't take that as meaning anything about the validity of Scientology.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

no, but if you read the works of st hubbard you'll understand.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

I believe the majority reject the message today for the reason the majority of 1st Century Jews rejected it, for reasons of convenience, respectability & selfishness, irrespective of the evidence.

Curiously, those are the same reasons I would cite for many people being religious today.

Convenience: Answers all life's questions.
Respectability: Be part of your society's accepted faith.
Selfishness: Provides you with a belief that God will send you to heaven.
Irrespective of the evidence: Evidence?

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

I mean assuming wikipedia is correct

A huge assumption.

Not that huge, though - although the Encyclopedia Britannica objects to the comparison.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

A huge assumption.

Well I do know that wikipedia has been discredited on certain issues and I don't take it as Gospel (;)), but where are the more reliable statistics to show that there are 600 million people who claim to be Pentacostalists, which exceeds the total number of Protestants of all denominations that the admittedly unreliable wikipedia gives of 590 million?

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

Irrespective of the evidence: Evidence?

Yeah I would love to see this evidence as well

Keeping in mind that I've already said I would not worship God even if he existed, if there is a lot of evidence he does exist I have no particular problem accepting that fact.

But as Dades asks, what evidence? What is the evidence that any of this is real?

A book written by religious followers is not evidence that the religion is true, only that it exists. If it was one would be forced to accept all religions that have books (which is most of them)

bonkey

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I mean assuming wikipedia is correct

In this case, I think you would be better off saying that the assumption is that the sources quoted by wikipedia are correct.