@Totti
Why is it that Vlad seems never to write to me? Totti, have you ever thought about that?
Of course it is a belief, who denies it? But there are historical evidences. And the others you have posted with that wiki page don’t claim it the same as Christianity or just aren’t consistent. And haven’ t got the same kind of evidence. If it was rock solid evidence then why are there atheists? Why agnostics? I really don’t get the problem here.
What i meant with their ilk is Zeus and all the greek gods.
About literature being written in greek. What is your point?
I’m an ex Christian, sometimes I’m in the mood for some debates.
I will admit that I am a bit disappointed that Jesus stopped appearing. I mean, if Saul/Paul gets a personal revelation, why not anyone else? Especially considering he lived in the 1st century, much closer to the events alleged to have happened there.
I don’t know.
I enjoy a good discussion. If it gets repetitive or boring i will say so and probably stop responding.
I see a circular argument here that leads nowhere. It really has nothing to do with the question of this link. Have a nice weekend.
I agree that it’s in someway a different topic but it’s still relevant. To me atleast.
Greek literature was immersed in myths and stories. And Christian authors writing the NT were most definitely familiar with them. Resurrection was not a foreign concept to them.
In fact, 2nd Century’s Christian apologist, Justyn Martyr, says the following:
“And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.
But does this good discussion have anything to do with the topic? Have a blessed weekend.
I see the same thing. Resurrection is historical, because God… God is real, and therefore resurrection is a real historical event.
Religious discussions are like politics. They maybe interesting, but typically never lead anywhere.
Yes, I have no problem with that. Again what i meant with their ilk is the Greek gods. Could have used another word but i didn’t come up with one then.
Well the question is if you can be a christian while believing in the resurrection.
We are now discussing the resurrection. It’s different. But still about the resurrection.
I trust the moderators will tell us when it’s off topic!
God bless 
1 Like
Enjoy your conversation!
1 Like
The resurrection has evidence and could be historical. Has never been disproved. Resurrection is impossible by the laws of nature, And therefore illogical. We believe God exists and is capable of doing such an action. Therefore the resurrection is not illogical and possible but still needs faith.
Edit: Faith is not the blind faith some people describe.
1 Like
Have you read N.T. Wright’s arguments? Most scientists I’ve seen talking about why they believe in the resurrection claim that they were convinced by them. What he basically argues is that there is very good evidence that the people who claimed Jesus was resurrected were not lying or hallucinating, and that this would probably not be controversial at all if their claims were not about something extraordinary like the resurrection. Of course, that means that you do need faith, since if you believe that the resurrection is an absolute impossibility, then something must be wrong with his arguments.
2 Likes
So you say, ignoring or blatantly misrepresenting the historical evidence. I guess that’s fine if you can convince yourself that you’re being honest about it. But if so, why do you continually shift the subject, misrepresent, and aim for the disingenuous?
1 Like
Now, I’d be curious who were the most scientists that you’ve seen convinced that the resurrection of Jesus actually took place? Do you have any names?
I think, that at best, one could come up with a case for the disciples believing in the bodily resurrection of Jesus and some (perhaps many) scientists would grant you that. The origin of that belief would probably be debated.
But belief in the supernatural has a downside too. According to the mainstream Christian beliefs, there is a Satan, who has supernatural powers too. Presumably, Satan would be able to come up with a ‘supernatural hallucinations’, or create convincing deceptions that would lead Jesus’ followers to believe that Jesus has truly risen.
The case for the bodily resurrection is not very strong, in my opinion. The only thing it has going for it, is the number of followers willing to repeat the resurrection narrative as if it truly happened. I am not convinced that it did.
Am I ignoring evidence for John the Baptist’s resurrection? Or historical Jesus’ resurrection?
Which historical resurrection evidence am I ignoring or blatantly misrepresenting? I thought that I admitted, that IF Jesus rose from the dead, then every other resurrection took place too. What’s wrong with that?
The ones that come to my mind which specifically said they were convinced by N.T. Wright are Francis Collins, Don Page, Ian Hutchinson and Andrew Briggs. If you are asking about the resurrection in general, I think the opposite is actually less common…as far as my experience tell most christian scientists actually believe the resurrection took place, I don’t really recall any christian scientist who said that they don’t believe in the resurrection when asked that question in a talk (well, there is Freeman Dyson and Martin Rees, but both of them declared themselves to be only “cultural” christians), but probably there are some, since even some theologians don’t believe in a bodily resurrection.
History is not my area, but I’ve seen talks given by those scientists and N.T. Wright himself saying that the evidence is just as strong as the evidence for things like the assassination of Julius Caesar, the main difference being the fact that claiming someone was assassinated is way less extraordinary than claiming someone raise from the dead, that is where the faith comes in. I admit however that I’ve never checked the sources for these specific claims.
Yeah, that is exactly the argument, that they actually believed in what they said. You can then establish some hypothesis for why they believed in something if it never happened, like hallucinations, but these hypothesis are also taken into account and their plausibility discussed in his books. Of course, it is no absolute proof (like we can’t absolutely prove that Julius Caesar was not some fictional character, for instance, which is still debated for some figures like Socrates) but it is evidence, albeit partial and inconclusive.
2 Likes