Is Jesus' Resurrection Plausible?

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Freethinker

And I assert that monkeys fly outta my butt.

Sound like an interesting homeopathic approach to an enema.

I certainly hope that you shampoo the little rascals well afterwards.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by lindagarrette

He {Paul}also tied the resurection to the original sin of Adam which means that without the creation story from Genesis, Christians would have nothing to talk about.

Paul made lots of interesting assertions, but I don't think he hung his hat on anything as much as the centrality of the resurrection (again, I Cor 15). He was a pretty educated guy. By tradition, Pharisees, as Paul was, had the Old Testament memorized. He made lots of Old Testament connections because of his background.

Now, Paul did not accept the physicalist narration of the Gospels. He either didn't know of or consider valid the argument of the empty tomb. So his interpretation of the event was spiritual. That means, it didn't actually happen in the bodily sense.

There is a detailed point-counterpoint on this issue in the link I posted above. To summarize the "point" portion: Becasue Paul did not explicitly mention the empty tomb in I Cor 15 does not mean he did not believe it. It just means he accepted it as part and parcel with the resurrection statement.

I do understand your point, however, and I think it is a valid one.

[bumab]

Originally Posted by lindagarrette

Now, Paul did not accept the physicalist narration of the Gospels. He either didn't know of or consider valid the argument of the empty tomb. So his interpretation of the event was spiritual. That means, it didn't actually happen in the bodily sense. Very hocus pocus.

Could you show me (or anyone really) where he states or implies this? Don't doubt your impression on it, just want to check it out myself!

[lindagarrette]

Originally Posted by bumab

Could you show me (or anyone really) where he states or implies this? Don't doubt your impression on it, just want to check it out myself!

It's not my impression. How can I show what isn't there? There is no reference in any of Paul's writings to the physical Jesus, the tomb, or anything else about his supposed life, only the "teaching" and aftermath. If you can find something to support your claim, then quote it.

[orbsycli]

look at the google ads at the bottom of this thread...

[bumab]

Originally Posted by lindagarrette

It's not my impression. How can I show what isn't there? There is no reference in any of Paul's writings to the physical Jesus, the tomb, or anything else about his supposed life, only the "teaching" and aftermath. If you can find something to support your claim, then quote it.

I didn't make the claim, you did...

"He either didn't know or didn't consider valid..."

Just wondering if you got that from a specific writing or the lack of specific writing. Appears to be the later. I was just curious.

The fact that he DIDN't mention the tomb or any of that only goes to show he didn't consider it important. That could be for at least 3 different reasons:
1. He didn't believe it, as you said.
2. He didn't consider it important, which is doubtful
3. He assumed everyone he was writing to, in the ancient churches, already took that as a matter of course.

Anyway, I was just wondering where you got your info for that statement. Thanks!

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by lindagarrette

There is no reference in any of Paul's writings to the physical Jesus, the tomb, or anything else about his supposed life, only the "teaching" and aftermath.

LG- I do think this is a valid argument, although I tend to agree with some of Bumab's points in response.

I thought it would be useful to include the link below. This is a good discussion/review of four authors/researchers: two Christian apologists, and two atheistic Christian critics. The author of this review (Jeff Lowder) is (I believe) not a Christian, but I am frankly not sure. He reviews in detail the pros and cons of all four sets of arguments in a style much like an academic review article.

I include this because I believe the Christian critics (Barker and Martin) are among the most articulate for the case against elements of Jesus' historicity and/or the resurrection itself. The text in this link is well referenced as well.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ion/chap4.html

The Christian apologistis (McDowell and Craig) are representative of the mass of Christian apologists. McDowell is far less academic, and has sort of a populist style, although he is famous because of it. Craig is a well regarded Th. D. academic theologian.

This is a long read, but the last sentence in the review is the point that I agree with, and is really my only point:

"a rational person may accept or reject the resurrection."

You may recall that my assertion is not that the historicity of Jesus or the resurrection is irrefutable. My assertion is that accepting the resurrection based on a preponderance of evidence is plausible.

I have no problem with folks not agreeing with any of this. I do think that asserting that belief in the resurrection is irrational is itself irrational based on the evidence. Disagreement, however, is perfectly reasonable.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

This is a long read, but the last sentence in the review is the point that I agree with, and is really my only point:
You may recall that my assertion is not that the historicity of Jesus or the resurrection is irrefutable. My assertion is that accepting the resurrection based on a preponderance of evidence is plausible.

And that last sentence is preceeded by the statement, "Finally, there are serious flaws in the arguments advanced by both sides. And even if those flaws were corrected, the arguments would still not constitute a strong apologetic for the resurrection."

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by C1ay

And that last sentence is preceeded by the statement, "Finally, there are serious flaws in the arguments advanced by both sides. And even if those flaws were corrected, the arguments would still not constitute a strong apologetic for the resurrection."

I think I agree with the author as well. The notion of a "strong apologetic" implies (I believe) that the case is airtight or nearly so. I don't think the historical case is airtight. I just think a reasonable person could believe it based on the preponderance of evidence, and not be irrational. I think that is a fair definition of plausibility.

C1ay, I have to admit that I started this because of the large number of references in these posts to either the "irrational" nature of theism or the complete discounting of theism because it is "just faith". I don't think either position is true, and it just makes the proponents seem unschooled. It is reasonable to disagree (as I think you do). I don't think it is reaonable to claim Christianity or theism is irrational.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

I don't think it is reaonable to claim Christianity or theism is irrational.

I don't think I have said that it is. Many people are raised from the time they are born with strong christian influence by parents whose faith is insurmountable. I think it would be irrational to expect that these people would not develop theistic beliefs.

I do not particularly think there is anything wrong with theistic beliefs in and of themselves, only the interpretations of those beliefs by some of the followers. That was the backdrop for the "In the name of God" thread.