20/20 Investigation - The Resurection

[Skeptical Greg]

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=772399&page=1

Next week: " The Tooth Fairy Exposed " :rolleyes:

[Alkatran]

Alternate theory:

They killed the wrong guy and jesus took advantage of the situation.

[MRC_Hans]

But nearly every single detail of the Easter story remains a question of debate. Among them : Was the tomb really empty? And even more basic: Was Jesus was ever buried in the first place?And even MORE basic: Was Jesus born in the first place? :rolleyes:

Hans

[Achán hiNidráne]

"If the world view is this is only a material world, and there can be no outside intervention, then, you got a problem explaining the Resurrection," said Strobel."

No, I don't. Assuming that JEEZ-us existed at all, the early Christians made the story up. What more do we materialists need to explain?

[Brown]

If the so-called resurrection were really subject to a serious investigation, there would be major doubts as to whether it really occurred. First, it would be one of the most significant events in history (and according to many people, it is the most significant event in history), yet it escaped the notice of all but a few. Perhaps this was due to the fact that phony resurrection tales had been floated before, but there was no proof for them.

Second, the accounts in the Bible disagree in almost every detail. Who went to the tomb? Was the tomb sealed? Were there angels present? If so, how many and where were they? Was Jesus himself there, alive in some form? Was anyone told afterward about the discovery of the empty tomb? How many disciples ran to the tomb to check it out? About all the Gospels agree on is that Jesus had risen. But there is a very serious lack of "getting the stories straight," which indicates that (at best) none of the accounts is first-hand and that no one really knows what happened. Even taking the resurrection accounts at face value and ignoring all the conflicts among them, there were no witnesses to the actual resurrection event.

Third, according to the Scriptures, there were early murmurings that there had been no miracle at all. The book of Matthew reports that those crafty folks, the Jews, bribed the guards to say that the disciples had stolen the body. Even if this bribery story is nonsense (as it probably is), there are plenty of non-miraculous explanations for the event.

Fourth, at least three Gospels report that people who knew Jesus personally were not sure that the person they saw was the resurrected Jesus. When people who knew the deceased best supposedly see him resurrected, but are not satisfied that the person they saw is indeed their deceased friend, then serious doubt is cast upon the resurrection story. (Up to a few centuries ago, it was not uncommon for imposters to try to assume the identity of influential people who had died or been executed. One way to deter imposters was to display the body publicly for a time, so that people could be assured that the real person in question was dead.)

Now, none of these things means for sure that the resurrection story is false. What they do mean is that there are legitimate questions about the credibility of the reports. Any truly serious investigation would have to address the credibility problems.

[Odin]

(edited by me)If the world view is this is only a material world, and there can be no outside intervention, then, you got a problem explaining Odin hanging himself on Yggdrasil," said Strobel. "But … if the Gods exists and created the universe, this is child's play for them."

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Diogenes
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=772399&page=1

Next week: " The Tooth Fairy Exposed " :rolleyes:
What are the odds the 20/20 report will conclude with "the evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ is scant, the supernatural tellings of ressurrection are wildly unbelievable, and the gospels are so hopelessly contradictory that they ought to be dismissed as history altoghter"...

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Yahweh
What are the odds the 20/20 report will conclude with "the evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ is scant, the supernatural tellings of ressurrection are wildly unbelievable, and the gospels are so hopelessly contradictory that they ought to be dismissed as history altoghter"... I have a feeling the contradictions in the gospels won't be touched on at all.. I hope I'm wrong...

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Brown
Now, none of these things means for sure that the resurrection story is false. What they do mean is that there are legitimate questions about the credibility of the reports. Any truly serious investigation would have to address the credibility problems.

How about the little issue that dead is dead, and people don't come back?

Oh! Except for this one time. Magic, and all that. Some long-dead religious people said so when they founded their cult, so we can consider this instance of a complete defiance of the laws of nature, physics, and common sense with a completely open mind.

The burden of proof of such an outrageously fantastic claim is surely on those who propound it. Since their best evidence to date is millenia-old contradictory multiply-translated hearsay, I don't think they have a particularly good case.

[geni]

Originally posted by Alkatran
Alternate theory:

They killed the wrong guy and jesus took advantage of the situation.

I seem to recall that this has some following amounst the islamic faith.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
How about the little issue that dead is dead, and people don't come back?
But jeezus is not people...or even a person. He is god incarnate in human form. "Real Biology" must take the back seat to "Sacred Biology."

That said, I am playing devil's advocate here. I agree with you completely.

[c4ts]

Gee, if Jesus is such a powerful four-dimensional space-time entity, then why did he die in the first place?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by c4ts
Gee, if Jesus is such a powerful four-dimensional space-time entity, then why did he die in the first place?


Well, you see, before Jesus died, no one ever paid for their sins. Lots and lots of sins had accumulated, so Jesus came down and suffered for all of them.

Now, we dont ever have to pay for the sins we commit, because Jesus died for all of them.

Someone dies a horrible painful death, and suddenly everything bad you've ever done is forgiven. It makes perfect logical sense.

[c4ts]

But again, shouldn't an all-powerful being be able to do that without having to die?

[Achán hiNidráne]

Originally posted by Yahweh
What are the odds the 20/20 report will conclude with "the evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ is scant, the supernatural tellings of ressurrection are wildly unbelievable, and the gospels are so hopelessly contradictory that they ought to be dismissed as history altoghter"...

Well, since the majority of 20/20 viewers are likely to be one breed of Christian or another, and they are driven by ratings, I'd say zero to none.

[DavidJames]

The show accepted, without question, the premise that Jesus lived, was crucified, placed in a tomb and the body disappeared.

Basically it was a one hour commercial for Christianity. The whole thing played out like a paid infomercial. The "reporter" was a shill who asked probing questions like (paraphrasing), after he walked out of the tomb, did he smell human? Did he cast a shadow?

This has to be a low point for 20/20 in terms of genuine reporting and journalism.

Next week: A hour commercial for the Da Vinci code. (seriously)

[Kitty Chan]

David

Everytime I happen to sit and watch one of those shows about Jesus or christianity in general very seldom it turns out how you said.

Besides you say the body disappeared, what did they say about that? Or if they left it as disappeared then they catered to all sides of the fence. And fullfilled the need for headlines.

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Now, we dont ever have to pay for the sins we commit, because Jesus died for all of them.



Last part is ok. First part, no not correct. :)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Oh! Except for this one time. Magic, and all that. Some long-dead religious people said so when they founded their cult, so we can consider this instance of a complete defiance of the laws of nature, physics, and common sense with a completely open mind. Yes, but we all have a spirit, and that spirit lives on. If we all understood this, then it would be much easier to reconcile ourselves with the "story" of Jesus. Basically this is all the story tells us (about the afterlife) and, that we should try and show some decency towards each other.

[athon]

This is why it is impossible to ever have a scientific evaluation of a faith-based concept. The concept falls apart under close scrutiny, which pretty much makes the faith part irrelevant. When you make a half-ar$ed effort out of fear of upsetting some parts of your audience, there is no point in evaluating it in the first place.

Watching these shows always makes me angry. I have no problem with faith. I do have a problem when faith and science blur into one; both of these then get abused.

Athon

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Besides you say the body disappeared, what did they say about that? Or if they left it as disappeared then they catered to all sides of the fence. And fullfilled the need for headlines. One of those interviewed said "everyone" agrees the body disappeared. One said Jesus just stood up and shed his shackles and burial cloth, leaving it rumpled on the floor and walked out of the tomb.

Most everything was stated facts beyond dispute. There were some dissenters who don't believe there was a resurrection. They thought people grief caused visions/hallucinations.

Anyone expecting a thorough and serious analysis of available facts would have been disappointed.

[stamenflicker]

But again, shouldn't an all-powerful being be able to do that without having to die?

That is the 64 dollar question. It seems to me that arguing about what "really" happened is pointless. But this question gets to the crux of the issue for anyone of faith, which is even if it did happen, "Why did it happen this way?"

Flick

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
That is the 64 dollar question. It seems to me that arguing about what "really" happened is pointless. But this question gets to the crux of the issue for anyone of faith, which is even if it did happen, "Why did it happen this way?"

Flick Which God are we referring to here? The one which rules over death of course ... which, is just another way of letting us know who He is don't you think? And, that perhaps He would like us to approach Him personally. So, why shouldn't the Father be concerned about the welfare of His children? In fact we are probably much more like God than we care to think. ;)

[Kitty Chan]

Thanks David

The more I think about it its headlines. Just to sell emotion without reason. I dont mean christianity either. I mean the networks, producers etc. Emotion sells. And Athons right theres a little of "both" sides to get each to watch, then were all angry after.

I force myself to remember when tv was invented it was to produce commercials. There was a actual rule from somewhere to state that in between commercials the entertainment was supposed to be non harmful or something like that. But its based on selling commercials, nothing else.

So the more watching the better. Conterversy sells well.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but we all have a spirit, and that spirit lives on. If we all understood this, then it would be much easier to reconcile ourselves with the "story" of Jesus. Basically this is all the story tells us (about the afterlife) and, that we should try and show some decency towards each other.

No it doesn't. What is the ethical content of the myth? I realize your personal mysticism is vague, confusing, and rambling, but you're going to have to make a case for finding a "treat each other nicely" message in the missing-body/I'm-still-existing! Jesus story.

Most people find the ethical content in his teachings, not his magic act.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Most people find the ethical content in his teachings, not his magic act. Yep, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand" ...

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yep, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand" ...

Meaning what, exactly? Domination by a deity? End of the world, therefore the irrelevance of ethics? Judgment upon everyone based on how they acted? Or, likely very mystically, all three at once?

I'm sorry to be rude, but you're not Thomas Merton, and you're not Lao-Tzu. You can try to fob people off with Yoda-like vague allusions, but at this point I seriously doubt if anyone mistakes your ramblings for any sort of religious perspicacity.

[Iacchus]

Do you believe in heaven and hell? Are you willing to suggest that there's nothing mystical about what that entails?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you believe in heaven and hell? Are you willing to suggest that there's nothing mystical about what that entails?

No, and yes. If the afterlife is about judgment, then it doesn't seem very mystical at all. It sounds like a supernatural court system, clearly run on rational lines. You were good, you get rewarded. You were bad, you get punished. That's the ethical component. Not mystical at all. Supernatural, yes. Mystical, no.

Mystical would be "good and evil are one" or similar, where everyone goes to heaven only it's also hell. Which would effectively remove the ethical component from the entire process. For example, if the afterlife is merging with The Force, then it wouldn't matter whether you were good or bad in life.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
No, and yes. If the afterlife is about judgment, then it doesn't seem very mystical at all. It sounds like a supernatural court system, clearly run on rational lines. You were good, you get rewarded. You were bad, you get punished. That's the ethical component. Not mystical at all. Supernatural, yes. Mystical, no.Not mystical in the sense that our spirit lives on? Please ... even if most people did believe in this, it would still be "magical."

Mystical would be "good and evil are one" or similar, where everyone goes to heaven only it's also hell. Which would effectively remove the ethical component from the entire process. For example, if the afterlife is merging with The Force, then it wouldn't matter whether you were good or bad in life. Mystical implies none other than a mystery or, that which is not readily understood.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Not mystical in the sense that our spirit lives on? Please ... even if most people did believe in this, it would still be "magical."

No it wouldn't. If true, it would be another, albeit previously unproven, law of physics. The universe is how it is, whether we understand it or not. Living on after death? When you die and continue to exist, it shouldn't take very long to figure out hey! Existence continues after death! And one more thing is understood about the universe.

Mystical implies none other than a mystery or, that which is not readily understood.

Only if the heaven/hell scenario I described above is accurate, then it's not mysterious at all. It's been preached for thousands of years, with some success. Where's the mystery? And if it's true, when it happens to you, it will be even less mysterious and mystical.

It'd be just another fact of life. It may sound glamorously exciting and mystical now, but that's just because you're looking from outside. Once it happens, it'll be quite mundane.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Once it happens, it'll be quite mundane. Possibly. But no. Because we're speaking of an altered state, from the state that we're experiencing currently. Much in the way the butterfly doesn't share the same experience as the caterpillar. Albeit I'm sure butterflies do get used to being butterflies. The contrast between the two, however, are quite drastic ... the butterfly being comparable to someone who's been enlightened, and the caterpillar comparable to someone who's completely in the dark. Which is why to us, this is still a mystery, and smacks of mysticism. I'm sure it's much less of a mystery for those who have passed on and experienced it though. :)

[KelvinG]

How come Christian mythology somehow ranks high enough in importance to have 20/20 do an investigation on one aspect of it?

Oh, that's right, it's not about reality it's about ratings.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by KelvinG
How come Christian mythology somehow ranks high enough in importance to have 20/20 do an investigation on one aspect of it? Isn't that a bit like asking why Christian mythology ranks high enough in importance to have Michelangelo carve a sculpture about one aspect of it, or to have Kierkegaard write a philosophical book about it? (Not to elevate 20/20 to that degree, of course.) Regardless of how serious or unserious this journalistic "investigation" might be, Christian mythology is more significant to Western civilization than any other historical or cultural phenomenon. Or have you not noticed the course of the past 2,000 years?

That said, ratings doubtless had a lot to do with 20/20's choice of topic.

[Yaotl]

I saw a little of this. I stopped watching a little after someone said something along the lines of "most historians agree that Jesus existed." The people they got to speak (that I saw) were so obviously believers it was pointless for me to watch. Fine that they want to boost ratings and everything, but why with this? Just do another expose on teens on spring break and be done with it.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Yaotl
I saw a little of this. I stopped watching a little after someone said something along the lines of "most historians agree that Jesus existed." Was that what caused you to stop watching? Because, although that's a statement that requires some qualification as to the meaning of "Jesus existed", it's more or less a true statement about the weight of contemporary scholarly authority on the matter of the basic historicity of Jesus.

[bignickel]

What weight? The statement made on the program has just defined, to the watching audience, that history is something that gets 'voted' on by 'historians'.

What's the evidence for Jesus' existance? One book full of contradictory stories, containing extremely powerful events that somehow no other contemporary historian included in their own writings.

So "most historians agree that Jesus existed" is not only wrong, but implies that voting, and not evidence, is how we decide "what happened."

Just my .02 on that specific comment; I didn't know the program was on, but doubtful I would have watched anyway, given that network's track record.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by bignickel
What weight? The statement made on the program has just defined, to the watching audience, that history is something that gets 'voted' on by 'historians'.

What's the evidence for Jesus' existance? One book full of contradictory stories, containing extremely powerful events that somehow no other contemporary historian included in their own writings.

So "most historians agree that Jesus existed" is not only wrong, but implies that voting, and not evidence, is how we decide "what happened."By "weight", I was referring to the predominant view among contemporary scholars with professional expertise in the relevant fields (the people, events, languages and culture of first- and second-century Palestine).

There have been a couple of threads in the past that have surveyed the literature and shown that the Jesus-myth hypothesis does not enjoy very much currency among serious scholars. Unfortunately, the best threads I can recall have been pruned.

Nevertheless, while voting does not make history (or archaeology, or physics, etc.), there is surely some significance to the presence of a substantially prevailing view among specialists in the field. Does it establish what actually happened? Of course not. Does it establish a potential basis for a valid argument from authority? Well, arguably, yes - just as in any other field of endeavor.

If you're interested in how and why professional historians formed their opinions on this or any other point, you need only refer to the published scholarship. I wasn't offering any opinion on the nature and adequacy of the evidence for a historical Jesus. I was merely observing that there is a sense in which the 20/20 comment was accurate enough, so far as it goes.

[Yaotl]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Was that what caused you to stop watching? Because, although that's a statement that requires some qualification as to the meaning of "Jesus existed", it's more or less a true statement about the weight of contemporary scholarly authority on the matter of the basic historicity of Jesus.

It was the last straw, so to speak. I stopped watching after that because they didn't qualify the statement or say that it is debatable. The statement might be true in a sense, but it wasn't , to me, "accurate enough" to go without explanation.