Comment

Comment on scholarly evidences for the resurrection

atheists please answer the question below

so virtually all critical scholars say the disciples did think they saw the resurrected Jesus (based on a survey of 1400 journal articles since 1975),

even anti christian agnostic Dr. Bart Ehrman states “there can be no doubt, historically, that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe he was raised from the dead – no doubt whatsoever. This is how Christianity started.”

do you disagree with virtually all critical scholars, including agnostic/atheist scholars?

second, knowing that the disciples PLUS christian killer paul, and agnostic James ALL went to their deaths proclaiming what they KNOW they saw, the resurrected Jesus. (they would not willingly die for a KNOWN liar, loser, fraud, fanatic, lunatic dead criminal who spoke against their cherished religion, if jesus had not been resurrected

third. all naturalistic explanations for the resurrection were debunked since the late 1800s. you cannot give me a naturalistic explanations that hasn’t been debunked can you?

based on the 3 facts above. what would a rational person conclude?

source

Sort:hotnew top

SketchySeaBeast@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
Something like 4% of people in 1997 believed Elvis was still alive.

source
- Nasan@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  He is and I will commit crimes against humanity to assert my flawed beliefs and worldview.
  
  source
- xePBMg9@lemmynsfw.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  The movie Bubba Ho-Tep, clearly show he is still alive.
  
  source
  - SketchySeaBeast@lemmy.ca ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    It’s Bruce Campbell that’ll never die.
    
    source
- Glytch@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  Image
  
  source
betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
Please see other comment. Same response to your re-statement.

source
grumpo_potamus@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
Nah.

source
BussyCat@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
As others have said

Your first point is useless, as you are saying the people who believe in something think they saw something.

The second point is the same as the first

The third point is an interesting point but they hinge on the idea that he really died and was really resurrected when even if you accept the first two points there are many other possible interpretations.

he wasn’t resurrected in the sense of died and was reborn but instead it was a spiritual awakening where he meditated in a cave and returned as a spiritual leader

he wasn’t really dead but was instead in some form of coma

he sustained an injury that normally would kill a person but was able to shortly recover before dying for real 40 days later

it wasn’t him who supposedly came back but someone imitating him

it wasn’t really him who was crucified and was instead someone who pretended to be Jesus to spare him

he did really die and his followers made up the story to make him seem larger and help spread his teachings

And those are just off the top of my head in a few minutes. If you want to have faith there is nothing wrong with that but considering the utter lack of tangible evidence you aren’t going to convert anyone.
source