Can a Scientist Affirm the Resurrection?

Peaceful Science
61

Sure, I realize now the way I worded it was not all that clear.

My position is that all the evidence that exists for the alleged resurrection can be accounted for if, at some point after the death of Jesus, some of his followers or followers of the religious cult he inspired came to believe he had been resurrected, but their belief was mistaken. An actual resurrection is not required to explain any of the evidence. Rather, all of the evidence that existed can be explained by things we observe and know to happen in our everyday existence. There is no need to invoke an occurrence that has never never been observed in our time and which would require that the laws of nature as we understand them be violated.

If you disagree, please provide as any pieces of evidence you wish that you believe to be inconsistent with the above, and we can discuss them.

That’s a really strange analogy.

If people are arguing that either cars or trucks are the best vehicle ever, I can say that they have neglected to consider vans. Therefore, it is possible that neither of them are correct. They need to consider all the options.

This does not require that I have an argument for vans being the best vehicles ever, nor that I even believe that.

But if you are arguing that cars are the best vehicle, you cannot demonstrate that by only showing they are better than trucks. You also have to demonstrate that they are better than vans, as well (not to mention all the other vehicles that exist.)

That help?

Ehrman, as far as I know, supports my Conclusion #3. Am I mistaken about that?

EDIT; No, looks like I’m not:

I have to say, @PhylogenyFallacy, it is becoming increasingly difficult to believe you are actually equipped to engage in a serious discussion of this subject. You seem to have a lot coherent position.

1 Like
62

You seem bent on changing the subject on every occasion, replying to questions you were not asked, arguing against positions nobody has advanced, and ignoring the actual arguments being made. It’s very difficult to carry on a discussion under such circumstances.

I was referring to the source I had previously linked to, which answers your claims quite well, and to which you have offered no counter; in fact you refused to even read it. Ehrman is one of the people cited and quoted in that article, but it isn’t by Ehrman. Now do you know what I’m talking about?

Here, again:

Note that the article presents the consensus opinion among biblical scholars, contrary to your belief.

2 Likes
63

I agree with this. Being a Christian I assume it was within 2 months of Christ’s death.
No one argues that the belief in Christ’s resurrection was instantaneous.
(I understand this is likely a mute point because you are referring to a point in time further than what I assume as a Christian)

This is conclusion 2. Or the conclusion that Ehrman takes. Christ was crucified but never raised from the dead. Although, His believers believe He was.

I would argue it is extremely hard to spring a religion in which people are being actively hunted and slaughtered without evidence.
I know there are people out there who want to become martyred for the sake of being immortalized by memory. I do not believe you can find these people at the rates in which Christians were being killed during the 1st century.

I would argue it cannot account for the willingness of the Early Church to actively send themselves to death.

I agree that my conclusion needs a Deus Ex Machina event. I understand many find that implausible. I do not find it in violation to natural laws.

I believe the misunderstanding is you believe conclusion 2 affirms the resurrection. Conclusion 2 does not affirm the resurrection but states that people believed the resurrections occurred when it never had. Dr. Ehrman is conclusion 2.

Now to get where I say you are using mythisist arguments without realizing it

The bold is what I am intrigued about, how do you draw the conclusion there was a massive time gap between Christs’ death and the belief of a resurrections? How do you deal with Paul? (I mention Paul because Dr. Ehrman draws the conclusion the belief in the resurrection was shortly after crucifixion due to Paul.)
(corrected mysticism into mythisism again, seems to be an issue for me :wink: )

64

Which consensus opinion?

Scroll up, I responded to it.

Furthermore, Dr. Ehrman from what I have seen is more than a cited source… Dr. Ehrman is the primary evidence of that source.

If you believe I have not responded to it correctly or adequately, why not take me up on my challenge?

65

Just read it.

Yes, by saying that you read a few paragraphs and decided not to look at the rest.

Since you refused to read the article, what you have seen is not all that relevant.

Your challenge is another misunderstanding. The argument that the gospels are not reliable is simple: they are not attributable to the claimed authors, and nothing links them to eyewitness testimony. While it’s conceivable that everything they say is true (apart from the various contradictions), we have no reason to believe that.

66

Well lets take the ‘we don’t know who wrote Mark’ argument.
According to a 7 hour debate between Dr. Ehrman and Dr. Licona, 51% of scholars agree that Mark wrote Mark. (Debate occurred april 9th 2022.)

So which consensus is the majority? It cannot be Mark… so which topic?

67

I’m afraid I can’t accept your claim without real documentation. The date and the duration of the debate are not sufficient. And are you really saying that it happened just 11 days ago?

1 Like
68

Understandable, I will find a source now, I remember it from a summary.
And yes, ironically enough this topic is very popular at the moment. It also shows how complex the topic of resurrection can be if two scholars can talk about it for 7 hours and keep everyone’s attention. :joy: we all know how dry and monotone scholars can be.
I will add it as an edit when I find it. After I find it I will be off to bed, it is getting far to late in the hour for me.
(when I posted this comment it self edited and deleted the quote, so look for a second edit. I did not find it this quickly.)

Source is time stamped. I personally believe these people are highly credible. 2 atheists 2 Christians and arguably some of the best youtube channels there are.
Also personally I don’t find either Dr. Ehrman or Dr. Licona dry, it was just a joke.

69

All I need is for you to document the claim that 51% of scholars think that Mark wrote Mark. So far what we know is that a debate happened and that somebody in it supposedly cited a survey. But what survey? Who was surveyed? Was there any response? Ironically, you are using third-hand testimony to support a claim.

1 Like
70

No, two months would be consistent with my claim. As I said before, the belief that the election was stolen from Trump arose, well, pretty much even before election day.

No. You are obviously incorrect. If you are so unable to comprehend plain written English, there is no point in trying to engage you in this discussion.

Conclusion 2 requires “trickery”. Conclusion 3 does not. Neither does Ehrman’s hypothesis.

How much clearer do I have to make it? Is it possible you do not know the meaning of the word “trickery”, even though you use it in your own argument?

You cannot seriously be suggesting that Christians are the only people who have suffered religious persecution? Can you?

Wow. Your claims just keep becoming more outlandish and bizarre.

No, I understand that Conclusion 2 does not affirm the resurrection because I can understand simple English. Not everyone can, I guess.

I don’t. Learn how to read. Get a tutor if that’s what you need.

It’s not “mythisism”. It’s “mythicism.”

The one you’ve already been given more than once.

Even if that is accurate (and the suspiciously precise number makes me doubt it) that does not indicate consensus, but that opinion is evenly split. But I highly doubt even close to 51% believe that. Maybe you overlooked a decimal, and it was 5.1%? :wink:

The Gospel of Mark is anonymous.[10] Its composition is usually dated through the eschatological discourse in Mark 13: most scholars interpret this as pointing to the First Jewish–Roman War (66–74 AD) that would lead to the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70, with the composition of Mark taking place either immediately after the destruction (the majority position) or during the years immediately prior.[11] Earlier dates in the range AD 35–45 are sometimes proposed,[12] but are usually dismissed.[13]

It was written in Greek, for a gentile audience, and probably in Rome, although Galilee, Antioch (third-largest city in the Roman Empire, located in northern Syria), and southern Syria have also been suggested.[14][15] Early Christian tradition, first attested by Papias of Hierapolis (attestation dated c. 125 AD),[16], attributes it to the John Mark mentioned in Acts, but scholars generally reject this as an attempt to link the gospel to an authoritative figure.[7] The author used a variety of pre-existing sources, such as conflict stories,[17] apocalyptic discourse,[18] and collections of sayings (although not the Gospel of Thomas and probably not the Q source).[19]

The consensus among modern scholars is that the gospels are a subset of the ancient genre of bios , or ancient biography.[20] Ancient biographies were concerned with providing examples for readers to emulate while preserving and promoting the subject’s reputation and memory, and also included morals, rhetoric, propaganda and kerygma (preaching) in their works.[21]

Gospel of Mark - Wikipedia

2 Likes
71

Alas this is a perfect example where we differ.
I see them as credible and believe since 4 people are in agreeance of the survey therefore it is true (with high probability).
It’s a glass half full vs a glass half empty.
I do not have access to the debate, it is behind a paywall on Ehrman’s website, so alas we are at an impasse.

I think you are either new to this topic, or trying to create an argument where there is none for the sake of an argument.
The reason for the word trickery was to encompass all beliefs held by position 2. One being a Hallucination theory (the one Dr. Ehrman subscribes to)
The people believed Jesus was resurrected but they were tricked by hallucination.
Another being stolen body.
The people believed Jesus was resurrected but they were tricked, because someone stole the body.
Not completely dead theory.
The people believed Jesus was resurrected but they were tricked, because Jesus never really died, He just appeared dead.
Twin theory (what muslims use)
The people believed Jesus was resurrected but they were tricked, a person who looked like Jesus died on the cross, not Jesus.
And many more.

when did I say that?

Do you want a cookie :wink:

I believe I can read. By saying within the century or so, you are stating it’s within 70 years + or - a few years. So I am intrigued if you cannot pin down the origins to the Christian belief of the resurrection, how do you deal with Paul?

Thanks, I am not good with grammar or spelling.

72

So, as suspected, you don’t understand the meaning of the term “trickery”.

BTW, Muslims do not believe the twin theory. Not all of them, anyway. Probably not even most.

And the explanation for the belief in the resurrection that I prefer is not included among those you list.

i will also say that I do not agree with Ehrman if he says hallucinations are the most likely alternative to an actual resurrection (and as a psychiatrist specializing in schizophrenia, hallucinations are sort of my business). I think he equivocates (likely unintentionally) between hallucinations and visions. They are not the same thing, IMHO.

If that is not what you believe, then your attempted argument fails. The fact that Christians were murdered for their beliefs does not entail that their beliefs were true.

The exact date when the belief in the resurrection took hold is immaterial to my argument.

2 Likes
73

Now that’s telling. Who said that 4 people are even in agreement on that survey and that they believe it, much less that they have any independent knowledge of it? This is what you call good evidence?

I think the problem, actually, is that you don’t know what “trickery” means. The word implies purposeful deceit. It all comes down to poor writing skills on your part.

1 Like
74

I think the “4 people” PF is referring to are 4 people appearing on the video they posted: “David Wood, the Apostate Prophet, InspiringPhilosophy, and MythVision” (the latter three, I assume are using their Youtube handles). I presume that these four heard somebody, on the debate they are discussing, mention the survey in question, but this sort of third-hand description doesn’t offer much in the way of certainty over details.

1 Like
75

Well, the whole belief in the resurrection is based on nothing more. So at least @PhylogenyFallacy is being consistent.

And even if we were to accept his incorrect definition of “trickery” as correct, I am still not sure it covers the scenario that I favour, which is that belief in the resurrection arose for reasons similar to those responsible for any of the many conspiracy theories and whacky beliefs that groups of people often hold in common. We don’t need to know why this phenomenon occurs to know for a fact that it does occur.

1 Like
76

I’m not aware of any scientific evidence of a resurrection. Can you cite any?

If you can’t, and no-one else can either, then it is correct to say there is no scientific evidence of a resurrection.

Of those, only Mark may be an eye-witness, and he does not describe a resurrection.

They most certainly do contradict each other. The name of Jesus’s paternal grandfather is a clear example.

Not at all. The best you can say is that Jesus, like Wat Tyler, almost certainly existed, and some (but not all) of the acts ascribed to him are probably true, while others are probably not. The resurrection cannot be verified as true.

Added:

Then you haven’t looked at many sources, and are biased in choosing the few that you do look at. Even the gospels themselves don’t point to the authors’ being eye-witnesses. Luke even says he is not an eye witness, but recounting tales passed down to him.

2 Likes
77

I would not expect an eye-witness account to be written 70 years after the events took place.

There are further holes in your argument, but the ones already mentioned are sufficient to sink it.

1 Like
78

That idea was abandoned a long time ago. Either you’re really old, or your education was really bad (or both).

2 Likes
79

The only such person in this thread is you.

1 Like
80

As is my habit in this discussion, I’d go with another option that you did not mention. :wink: