h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This is a continuation of the "Reading/read 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins" conversation: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F19585?thread=4005961&post=50138260#p50138260

Wether he did or not, one thing I find interesting is the fact that he wasn´t recognised afterwards. Did he perhaps disguise himself?

Go ahead, WG. Tell us why you believe he did.

Since it is such an outstandingly extraordinary claim, it's up to you to convince me, not the other way around.

I don't think he was recognised because no one expected him to be alive. A sort of... "no, no, I'm seeing things...it can't possibly be, because I saw him die, it's just a look alike...." I think the lack of recognition came from those who saw him, not because he was any different.

Just my opinion

UG

<>

I agree it's an outstandingly extraordinary claim. The starting point is, I think, to establish the historical facts we can agree are true about Jesus and look at it from there.

<>

And therein lies the rub. There are no such facts.

Noggin

As a Christian, a believer in Christ's teachings, I don't feel that I have to believe every single thing that has ever been written about Jesus.

His teachings touched my heart when I was very young and it's something that I've always held onto.

I can't imagine that anyone knows for certain that he physically rose from the grave or not, but my practical intelligence tells me this is highly unlikely. What is more likely is that he spiritually rose from the state of death to live with us as he always has done. Within our hearts.

mia

Well, all the other people I've seen rise from the dead looked kinda weird, they always do in zombie moovies... So perhaps that iswhy no one recognized him?

"The starting point is, I think, to establish the historical facts we can agree are true about Jesus and look at it from there."

No, the starting point is to establish

(1) precisely what it is you claim happened
(2) the evidence for that event.

Any discussion of other events (e.g. nativity, last supper, crucifixion) is the usual pointless obfuscation - a dishonest attempt to pretend that if one does not ouright reject the evidence for event A, one must needs give some linked credence to the entirely unconnected event B.

So:

(1) PRECISELY what do you claim happened? (i.e. do you believe a three day old corpse was reanimated, or that a new body complete with wounds was generated (how?) or some wishy washy new age guff like "he spiritually rose from the state of death to live with us as he always has done", or what?)

(2) What is your evidence for that event?

As you have previously proven yourself quite slow to understand questions, I'll repeat my request to please stick to the subject YOU chose - the resurrection - and please don't dishonestly start trying to derail the thread onto other claimed events.

SoRB

Hi mia,

His teachings touched my heart too when I was young, but when I grew up a bit more I realised it was only something I wanted to believe was true, and not something true in itself. A sort of officially sanctioned invisible friend, as it were.

Spiritually rising from the dead is kind of vague: I'm not really sure what you mean. Is spiritually rising just some sort of metaphor, or was there an actual disembodied consciousness of some sort, that rose out of the tomb? Do you mean that he lives in everyone's hearts - Christian and non-Christian, or just Christians only? What about people who were around before he died? Did he live in their hearts too?

mia:

"As a Christian, a believer in Christ's teachings, I don't feel that I have to believe every single thing that has ever been written about Jesus."

Why bother calling yourself a Christian then?

"His teachings touched my heart when I was very young and it's something that I've always held onto."

Strange how there are some childhood fairy stories we never grow out of. Me, I still like Star Wars.

"I can't imagine that anyone knows for certain that he physically rose from the grave or not, but my practical intelligence tells me this is highly unlikely."

And yet "true" Christians would have you believe the literal resurrection is where their religion stands or falls.

Indeed, I'm with them. If Jesus *didn't* resurrect, his apostles are all liars and he was just a nice but deluded bloke with some good conjuring tricks and popular stories.

"What is more likely is that he spiritually rose from the state of death to live with us as he always has done. Within our hearts."

But if that's all you think happened, you're basically an atheist cherry picking some of your morality from the bits of Christianity that don't offend you. Why not take responsibility for yourself?

SoRB

Ahh, the let's bash a Christian thread has arisen again.

Historical facts:

1) Someone called Jesus might have existed...in fact lots of people called Jesus existed.

2) Someone called Jesus was crucified...within the realms of possibility it is certainly probable that this is the case.

3) He will have had, with 100% certainty, had a 'last supper' unless he only had breakfast or dinner all his life or never ate.

Now these three 'facts' could be proved if you looked hard enough for 'some bloke called Jesus'.

Now lets have a look at some other statements:

a) God impregnated a virgin woth His son.
b) His son did loads of miracles.
c) His son rose from the dead.

Statements a, b and c are the ones you need to be justifying. Facts (1) ,(2) and (3) are irrelevant to the 'extraordinary claim'.

Let's assume facts (1),(2),(3) are correct. Now, get to work on statements a, b and c. Particularly (c); the thread title.

I don't think Christians have to prove anything ...


a) It is a belief system.

b) If you need proof you don't believe.

c) If you don't believe, why engage or be bothered trying to make yourself look superior by making someone else look stupid.

son of roj
as a christian myself we believe he rises from the dead

The evidence for that event....

what is in the bible how do i know its 100% accurate i don't know perhaps its not it must come down to faith over the hows and whys if you get what i mean

For some things, "prove" is too strong a word. But why believe in something for which there is no evidence, and which is contrary to many things for which there is shedloads of evidence ?

Noggin

<>

NO we don't get what you mean. That's why we keep asking what it is that you think such vague forms of words are supposed to convey, and about what?

Noggin

>>But why believe in something for which there is no evidence, and which is contrary to many things for which there is shedloads of evidence<<

Why not ... it isn't compulsary like some things .... you can choose to believe or not.

By the same token you can debate in a reasonable manner the pros and cons of the various 'theories' without being obnoxious, or you can come on all uppity demanding proof.

Back on subject, I saw a BBC4 documentary where they had quite a case for the theory that he was removed from the cross heavily drugged, left to sleep it off in the grave, awoke feeling a bit rough, after a couple of weeks - not days - was seen again just before he departed to live a full life somewhere in Africa (not sure about his final resting place) So maybe in a certain fashion he did arise again.

I think Sorb's hit the nail on the head here:

<>



So can you demonstrate they were all liars? If you can Christianity falls. End of.