Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe
year2027

Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?

Recommended Posts

Well, I kind of know where you are coming from, because I was there. Actually it was years ago, and I truly was a believer, but looking back I just got spiritually mugged for a period of time. The devil and the world were playing mind games with me.  One thing that still can frustrate me about God is His seemingly lack of "closeness" I feel at times.  I know I'm not alone. We all want some "Special Word." The truth is, many times God wants to answer our prayers through other people. He wants us to work with each other, believers and non believers alike. He wants to work through peoples hearts. And that can take freaking FOREVER it seems, when we desperately want something NOW.  That being said, we still should be seeing more miracles in the Church. That's our own fault as well. 

But, I'm not trying to convert you, and I know you respect others beliefs. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Raf said:

Ok, so I'm going to tread on this very carefully.

A few years ago, Ken Hamm debate Bill Nye on the subject of evolution.

Ken is not a scientist, but he's a young earth creationist who's studied the subject extensively and is no slouch. (He's an idiot, in my opinion, but he's not a stupid idiot).

Bill Nye is not a scientist either, but he is an advocate for science education.

So both men were asked, what would change your mind?

Ken said, Nothing. Nothing will change his mind. Nothing will shake his faith. Nothing can convince him that the Word of God is not true.

Bill Nye's answer: Evidence. Show me the evidence and I will change my mind.

 

I don't think it's a virtue to say I won't change my mind. I will. But with evidence.

And that's the key difference here. CLAIMS ARE NOT EVIDENCE. Appeals to emotion are not evidence. Non sequiturs (like Romans 1) are not evidence.

 

When we say something like "the disciples saw him and did not believe," we are making an assumption that the story told in that particular gospel is true. It's not. It's a claim, and one that flatly contradicts other claims about the same subject. Mary Magdalene's silence is a claim that flatly contradicts other claims about the same subject. When did Peter get to the tomb? John gives us a claim that flatly contradicts other claims about the same subject.

You know, when The Amazing Spider-Man starring Andrew Garfield contradicts Spider-Man starring Tobey Maguire, which contradicts Spider-Man Homecoming starring Tom Holland, which contradicts Spider-Man starring Nicholas Hammond, you don't try to harmonize the four accounts. Rather, you recognize each as a work of fiction interpreted by different storytellers. But name those storytellers Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (even though those were NOT the authors of those books) and suddenly they're historians!

They're fiction writers. 

 

So believe what you want, but real investigation does not begin with a conclusion. 

Frankly, I don't see why (or how) believing in the resurrection of Christ would ever result from the intellectual processing of "evidence," for some number of reasons.  

Perhaps this is a bit repetitive, but any and all experiential (or, experimental - if you prefer) evidence (as commonly defined) actually leads to the opposite conclusion - there isn't any resurrection from death.  The simple fact is, the ONLY reason anyone nowadays (really) believes that Christ was raised from the dead and lives forevermore, is that they have opened themselves up to the possibility that they won't (rather, that they just can't) make it - or "make sense of it" (... I'm hesitant to think this can be strictly defined, or narrowed down to certain few words) - with their own limited and/or failed abilities.  

If it (i.e., believing in the resurrection of Christ, which equates to salvation) were dependent on man's intellectual prowess or ability to "put together the evidence" (however you care to say or think of it)... then there is little doubt that those that were smarter or endowed with more intellectual or reasoning ability (or maybe even just "better access" to evidence) would be at the front of the line for salvation.  Making God a respecter of persons, don't you think? Why so advantage some, if that were the case, when it comes to salvation?

Edited by TLC
added italicized words

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was actually very well articulated.

Not very persuasive, and not in keeping with the opening posts on this thread, but nonetheless well said without being unnecessarily argumentative... and not the slightest bit personal.

Well done. I'll take some time either later this evening or, more likely, tomorrow to respond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did I say it was not in keeping with the opening posts? Because the opening post on this thread features a video of William Lane Craig, and Craig does NOT argue that the evidence would lead one to conclude that the resurrection did not happen. Quite the opposite, Craig's argument is that the gospels are historical, irrefutable proof of the resurrection. He treats the empty tomb as historical fact, based on the gospels. He does NOT argue that God wants to throw smart people off the scent.

11 hours ago, TLC said:

If it (i.e., believing in the resurrection of Christ, which equates to salvation) were dependent on man's intellectual prowess or ability to "put together the evidence" (however you care to say or think of it)... then there is little doubt that those that were smarter or endowed with more intellectual or reasoning ability (or maybe even just "better access" to evidence) would be at the front of the line for salvation.  Making God a respecter of persons, don't you think?

If I were still a Christian, I would be insulted by the insinuation.

But no, I do not think providing tangible evidence that the resurrection happened would make God a respecter of persons, ffs. Quite the opposite, I think it would make him someone who would have all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth.

This is really a very clear example of moving the goalposts.

We start a debate with "the evidence points to the resurrection" and literally, within a few pages of posts, change it to "the evidence points away from the resurrection: That's why you have to be humble, like me, to accept it."

It reminds me of Weird Al's parody of "Gangsta's Paradise," titled, "Amish Paradise."

Think you're really righteous? Think you're pure in heart? Well, I know I'm a MILLION times as humble as thou art!"

Funny thing, humility. Claiming it proves you don't have it. What you're describing is not humility. It's gullibility. Accepting something as true when the evidence shows you it's not is gullibility. It's not a virtue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if adapting (for lack of a better word) one's fundamental basis for reality (i.e., what is true) so as to allow for "help from above" (as another way to say it) is (as seems to be in your mind) only perceived as some sort of abandonment of (or disregard for) genuine intelligence or sound reasoning, then that appears to be the perspective of someone that has never actually (or genuinely) experienced help from above.  

Edited by TLC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally, the following are exclusively your words and thoughts, and do not in any way come anywhere even remotely close to mine:

1 hour ago, Raf said:

That's why you have to be humble, like me, to accept it."

In a broad and generally sense of the word, yes, I do not think humility is anyone here's longsuit.  (Myself included.)

So there...

Edited by TLC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet when you claim that it takes humility to accept the resurrection and that you accept the resurrection, you claim the mantle of humility.

I contend that you do not accept the resurrection because you know it to be true, but despite the fact that you know it to be a fiction.

Else you would defend it with facts, not with the contention that the facts lead to the opposite conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Raf said:

Yet when you claim that it takes humility to accept the resurrection and that you accept the resurrection, you claim the mantle of humility.

Yes, I do think it takes a certain humility for anyone to accept (i.e., believe) the resurrection, however said "certain humility" is not something that  anyone should (nor can) lay claim to or don as something unique, "special" or in some weird way ubiquitous unto themselves.  It's much too easy to find oneself moved or transitioned from an honest sense of humility to a rather high and mighty position of "more worth" and self-righteousness.  So, please stop labeling this as some kind of moral justification or emotional rationalization (and/or stop taking it as a personal assault) and lay it (humility) down (and keep it) where it belongs.

1 hour ago, Raf said:

I contend that you do not accept the resurrection because you know it to be true, but despite the fact that you know it to be a fiction.

Then allow me to be perfectly clearly here:  Your conclusion is false and your contention has absolutely no merit.

To repeat (in so many words),  We simply do not share or have exactly the same basis for reality (i.e., what it true,  or "real.")  You limit your reality to what is or can be received via the physical senses.  I do not.  I believe that "reality" not merely can be... but is, determined (i.e., set in order) and augmented by the (invisible) logos  (aka, "the Word of God".)

1 hour ago, Raf said:

Else you would defend it with facts, not with the contention that the facts lead to the opposite conclusion.

Your reality is determined in its entirely by, and communicated exclusively in terms of, "facts."

Mine is not, nor can it be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have not countered my contention. Only expanded upon it.

Good day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not actually surprised that you can't relate to it or make much sense of it, but I suspect some of the other readers that visit here might.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on what?

Surely not reason, which you have gleefully abandoned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry. i meant Humbly Abandoned

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, this was over the moment you admitted the evidence would lead to my conclusion and not yours.

This is a discussion forum, not a "who shall not be moved no matter where the evidence may lead" contest.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TLC said:

Yes, I do think it takes a certain humility for anyone to accept (i.e., believe) the resurrection, however said "certain humility" is not something that  anyone should (nor can) lay claim to or don as something unique, "special" or in some weird way ubiquitous unto themselves

I don't think the word ubiquitous means what you think it means. Then again, I could be wrong.

adjective

existing or being everywhere, especially at the same time; omnipresent
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Raf said:

Honestly, this was over the moment you admitted the evidence would lead to my conclusion and not yours.

This is a discussion forum, not a "who shall not be moved no matter where the evidence may lead" contest.

 

sigh...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rocky said:

I don't think the word ubiquitous means what you think it means. Then again, I could be wrong.

I'm aware of its meaning.  The point of it being, humility isn't.  Not even with the "most humble" of men. Perhaps there's another way to say it, buy it was as poignant a way as I could think of at the time.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 12:00 PM, Raf said:

Based on what?

Surely not reason, which you have gleefully abandoned.

Evidently your position is that anything not based in material facts isn't (indeed, can't be) reasonable...  which I see as being a very erroneous premise.

However, I really don't care to delve much into why it is.  (Especially given the degree of entrenchment you've expressed in that regard.)

You "reason" one way, and I reason another way.  I have no issue seeing or admitting that, but apparently you do.  Anything not done (i.e., reasoned) "your way" is ALWAYS thought of as being inferior, logically deficient, without merit, and (if little else)... void of reason. 

Now, go right ahead and think or call this some sort of ad hominine attack on you, personally.  But honestly speaking, it's not.  It's faulting the perspective that you have presented on what is (or can be thought of as being) "reasonable."

When the apostle Paul, as his manner was, reasoned with various men in his day and time... do you likewise think (as you have done thus far) that because he based many of his words and thoughts on scripture that he too had "gleefully abandoned" reason?  Or, perhaps you suppose that his (or anyone else's, for that matter) manner of reasoning was only valid (or reasonable) to the point that it contained or was based on hard factual (material) evidence.   Frankly, it a bit of a challenge to me trying to understand why you're so stuck on "cold hard facts," so to speak.  There's just too many times it seems that "said facts" (i.e., evidences) are incomplete, and eventually end up moving or changing.
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TLC said:

Evidently your position is that anything not based in material facts isn't (indeed, can't be) reasonable...  which I see as being a very erroneous premise.

However, I really don't care to delve much into why it is.  (Especially given the degree of entrenchment you've expressed in that regard.)

You "reason" one way, and I reason another way.  I have no issue seeing or admitting that, but apparently you do.  Anything not done (i.e., reasoned) "your way" is ALWAYS thought of as being inferior, logically deficient, without merit, and (if little else)... void of reason. 

Now, go right ahead and think or call this some sort of ad hominine attack on you, personally.  But honestly speaking, it's not.  It's faulting the perspective that you have presented on what is (or can be thought of as being) "reasonable."

When the apostle Paul, as his manner was, reasoned with various men in his day and time... do you likewise think (as you have done thus far) that because he based many of his words and thoughts on scripture that he too had "gleefully abandoned" reason?  Or, perhaps you suppose that his (or anyone else's, for that matter) manner of reasoning was only valid (or reasonable) to the point that it contained or was based on hard factual (material) evidence.   Frankly, it a bit of a challenge to me trying to understand why you're so stuck on "cold hard facts," so to speak.  There's just too many times it seems that "said facts" (i.e., evidences) are incomplete, and eventually end up moving or changing.
 

TLC, just curious, can you back up that claim (about the erroneous premise) with scripture?

The record of Daniel and some of his pals suggests that material facts provide a reasonable basis for decision making. In fact, the record in Daniel chapter 1 provides the basis for how to model scientific experiments, specifically medical research. 
 

Then the king ordered Ashpenaz, chief of his court officials, to bring into the king’s service some of the Israelites from the royal family and the nobility— young men without any physical defect, handsome,showing aptitude for every kind of learning, well informed, quick to understand, and qualified to serve in the king’s palace. He was to teach them the language and literature of the Babylonians.[b] The king assigned them a daily amount of food and wine from the king’s table.They were to be trained for three years, and after that they were to enter the king’s service.

Among those who were chosen were some from Judah: Daniel,Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah. The chief official gave them new names: to Daniel, the name Belteshazzar; to Hananiah, Shadrach; to Mishael, Meshach; and to Azariah, Abednego.

8 But Daniel resolved not to defile himself with the royal food and wine, and he asked the chief official for permission not to defile himself this way. Now God had caused the official to show favor and compassion to Daniel, 10 but the official told Daniel, “I am afraid of my lord the king, who has assigned your[c] food and drink. Why should he see you looking worse than the other young men your age? The king would then have my head because of you.”

11 Daniel then said to the guard whom the chief official had appointed over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, 12 “Please test your servants for ten days: Give us nothing but vegetables to eat and water to drink.13 Then compare our appearance with that of the young men who eat the royal food, and treat your servants in accordance with what you see.”14 So he agreed to this and tested them for ten days.

15 At the end of the ten days they looked healthier and better nourished than any of the young men who ate the royal food. 16 So the guard took away their choice food and the wine they were to drink and gave them vegetables instead.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That model is now known as randomized control trials. Take equal numbers of test subjects, give half a placebo, and half the medication they want to test. 

Record the results and RELY on said results and data for decisions and judgment.

Why didn't God tell Daniel to just tell Ashpenaz that he had special instructions from God?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While this may be only indirectly related to the thread topic of the question on the Resurrection of Christ, it does go to TLC's argument against rational argument. (Three comments above this one)

That concept (as TLC set it forth for us) has bothered me for quite some time. Besides TWI being caught up in fundamentalism, it's also fundamentally flawed regarding what really boils down to intuition. But VeePee taught the concept as "reaching up into Daddy's cookie jar." We've seen, both here on GSC and in other forums/platforms, things argued as truth/fact that simply lack any kind of legitimate reasoning or factual basis.

I'm reading a book by Rutger Bregman at this time. The book has political undertones and overtones and major themes. But that's not why I bring it up. Chapter 9 of Bregman's book is titled Beyond the Gates of the Land of Plenty. In that chapter, Bregman cites Daniel 1 for the first historical record of randomized control trials. And he gives great examples of how, not limited to trying out new pharmaceuticals, policy decisions that previously had been made on spendings immense amounts of money solely on the basis of intuition sometimes worked but often failed.

He then demonstrates, with extensive citation of source documentation, how evidence data takes the guess work out of the equation and makes all the difference in the world on outcomes that can make a difference in the lives of people.

My point is that I simply am appalled at the brazenness of TLC's silly irrational argument about what more reasonably should be labeled human intuition rather than revelation from God. Forty years ago, I bought into the silly irrational way of thinking. I don't anymore. But I don't consider myself atheist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

17 hours ago, TLC said:

Evidently your position is that anything not based in material facts isn't (indeed, can't be) reasonable...  which I see as being a very erroneous premise.

13 hours ago, Rocky said:

TLC, just curious, can you back up that claim (about the erroneous premise) with scripture?

 

It's not a claim per se; it's my perspective on it... which quite frankly, seems (as evidenced below) that you have very little (if any) real or honest interest in.

12 hours ago, Rocky said:

My point is that I simply am appalled at the brazenness of TLC's silly irrational argument

You've already made up your mind, and seem to have it all figured out already.  

But here's the rub. You totally missed what I was even talking about.
(But go ahead, feel free to blame me for failing to communicate it properly, and take no blame yourself for failing to see it.  I'm sure it's not the first or last time I'll be accused like that.)

12 hours ago, Rocky said:

While this may be only indirectly related to the thread topic of the question on the Resurrection of Christ, it does go to TLC's argument against rational argument. (Three comments above this one)

 As I am not opposed to rational thinking based on material facts (and never said something as stupid or as silly as that.)

Evidently you missed this:

17 hours ago, TLC said:

You "reason" one way, and I reason another way.  I have no issue seeing or admitting that,

The issue at hand undoubtedly resides in seeing or understanding the difference between a reality based exclusively on material (i.e., physical) evidence, and reality based (or formulated, if you prefer) on such evidence augmented with spiritual (aka, invisible) information.  The later doesn't exclude or deny the former, it supersedes it.   

12 hours ago, Rocky said:

But I don't consider myself atheist.

So what? There's far more agnostics than atheists, not to mention the many that think or claim to be Christian, that are still bound in their thinking to the limits of their physical senses.

If you really (i.e., more honestly) want scriptural support for examples of reasoning beyond the boundaries of the physical sense, some of the easier to grasp examples of it are probably found in the Pauline epistles. (Although, perhaps you - like others of note here at GSC - don't really recognize and consider those writing as being "scripture.")

For instance, what "material facts" do you think Paul used as a reasonable basis to conclude (Eph. 2:19) that these Gentiles at Ephesis (to who he was writing) were fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God?  Or, for that matter, that Jesus was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification (Rom. 4:25)?   

Edited by TLC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait until he finds out Paul didn't write Ephesians and that Daniel never existed.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really wish I could chime in on this, but I'm not too proud to say that you guys are talking way over my head. And my parents never had the money to bribe me into a college that would take my poor pathetic grades. I do have a dog I bribed into obedience school for 125 dollars though. Sorry. I felt I had to chime in and let you know I'm trying to follow this, but I'm just having a really hard time. Excuse the interruption. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, RottieGrrrl said:

I really wish I could chime in on this, but I'm not too proud to say that you guys are talking way over my head. And my parents never had the money to bribe me into a college that would take my poor pathetic grades. I do have a dog I bribed into obedience school for 125 dollars though. Sorry. I felt I had to chime in and let you know I'm trying to follow this, but I'm just having a really hard time. Excuse the interruption. 

It's really not all that complicated.  It boils down to our perception and understanding of reality. In other words, what we believe is real (or true.)  

Consider, for example, 2Kings 6:15-20.

What was real?

...depends on what (or who's) perspective you are looking at it from.
Or, does it?  Did "what was real" in the situation actually change?

    

Edited by TLC
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...