The Evidence Skeptics would like to see for the Resurrection Claim

[shunyadragon]

I know the specifics of many of the purported parallels. I wanted you to post examples that you thought were not 'overstated', simply because it's hard to deal with a broad, general claim of there being parallels, and I wasn't going to go on a tirade about some specific parallels only for you to state that you weren't thinking of those examples, but some other ones.

No need to list if you know the parallels there is no need for listing specific ones, because the parallels are not in the details of any one specific religion nor culture. The fact is that within each cultural and religious context claims were claims made for resurrection and Virgin birth to glorify those, sometimes Gods, that in some way claimed to be Divine or have Divine authority.

The parallels are not necessarily 'copy cat,' because it is apparently human nature to impart 'immortality,' and miraculous events and abilities to glorify those persons.

[Adam]

"I will follow up with a list, but 'so what?' that does not change anything."
Another promise broken, Frank.

[shunyadragon]

"I will follow up with a list, but 'so what?' that does not change anything."
Another promise broken, Frank.

Don't tell me you have not seen the list. It is all over the internet in at least twenty sources.

[shunyadragon]

List of some of the claims of Resurrection that everybody has seen before.

Dionysus
Persephone
Osiris
Odin
Ganesha
Lemminkainen
Tammuz
Krishna
Quetzalcoatl
Attis

OK So what!?!?!?

No need to list if you know the parallels there is no need for listing specific ones, because the parallels are not in the details of any one specific religion nor culture. The fact is that within each cultural and religious context claims were claims made for resurrection and Virgin birth to glorify those, sometimes Gods, that in some way claimed to be Divine or have Divine authority.

The parallels are not necessarily 'copy cat,' because it is apparently human nature to impart 'immortality,' and miraculous events and abilities to glorify those persons.

[Tassman]

I know the specifics of many of the purported parallels. I wanted you to post examples that you thought were not 'overstated', simply because it's hard to deal with a broad, general claim of there being parallels, and I wasn't going to go on a tirade about some specific parallels only for you to state that you weren't thinking of those examples, but some other ones.

They’re not “parallels” in the sense of what exactly happened when god X was born and died compared to god Y. Rather they were expectations by gullible people in a superstitious era of the sorts of qualities that deities would possess in general. And any half-decent deity was expected to be accompanied by miracles, wonders and signs to set him or her above ordinary folk. In this sense Jesus the god/man fulfilled the standard expectations of the day.

[shunyadragon]

They’re not “parallels” in the sense of what exactly happened when god X was born and died compared to god Y. Rather they were expectations by gullible people in a superstitious era of the sorts of qualities that deities would possess in general. And any half-decent deity was expected to be accompanied by miracles, wonders and signs to set him or her above ordinary folk. In this sense Jesus the god/man fulfilled the standard expectations of the day.

Correct claiming they are 'copy cat' or maybe parallels is not the issue. It is more the common thread in human nature that in many cultures and religions immortalized the heroes in each ancient culture and religion equated with miracles, Divine claims, Virgin birth, and immortality, and Resurrection.

[37818]

Tassman,

Jesus was not a "god/man" anything like the pagan myths. He was a man (Luke 18:19). That he was God in the flesh (John 8:24) he was still a mortal man in that he could die (John 10:18) though it is claimed that he died by his own volition (Luke 23:46). Nothing like the pagan god/man myths.

[Tassman]

Tassman,

Jesus was not a "god/man" anything like the pagan myths. He was a man (Luke 18:19). That he was God in the flesh (John 8:24) he was still a mortal man in that he could die (John 10:18) though it is claimed that he died by his own volition (Luke 23:46). Nothing like the pagan god/man myths.

You’ve missed the point that Christian mythology, whilst not paralleling pagan myths in great detail, nevertheless has all the features common to the prescientific worldview regarding gods and mythical heroes, namely the expectation that they would perform miracles and be surrounded by wonders and signs. All the best gods and super-heroes had these qualities.

As for Jesus being a god/man, according to the Doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, ratified at the first Council of Ephesus in 431 CE, Jesus has two complete natures. He’s simultaneously fully god and fully man...in short a god/man.

[shunyadragon]

Tassman,

Jesus was not a "god/man" anything like the pagan myths. He was a man (Luke 18:19). That he was God in the flesh (John 8:24) he was still a mortal man in that he could die (John 10:18) though it is claimed that he died by his own volition (Luke 23:46). Nothing like the pagan god/man myths.

You're still missing the point. It is not a question of being the same of similar with pagan myths.

[hansgeorg]

Dear Christians. Don't you see? The reason that the Resurrection appearances were only to believers and to one non-believer on a dark, desert highway is because they didn't ever happen! These stories are most likely legends, or, inventions by the Gospel authors for theological purposes. Think, guys! The preponderance of evidence points to these miracle claims as being fiction.

I don't know what you mean by "legends", I generally find them trustworthy.

As for "inventions by the Gospel authors" - how did they persuade Christians who had been around before that they had believed it all along, if they hadn't?

As for preponderance of evidence, there is sufficient evidence (if you don't systematically censor anything which smells of "legend") that miracles happen, and all being healed who pray for it is not a requiremet of its being credible.

Miracles are not tested like physicians test drugs, they are public events and to be tested like you test other allegations of how public events have happened, like assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo.

[hansgeorg]

The author of Mark is a Gentile Christian living in Antioch or Rome who had never stepped foot in Palestine; never knew Jesus; and had never met any of the Eleven or Paul. He was a devout Christian who wanted to spread the Good News of Jesus...as he knew it, based on the legends circulating about Jesus at the time in his region of the world.

Yea, sure. Christianity being "legends circulating" among ... whom, exactly?

Pagans? Jews? Christians?

If among Christians, how did they start "circulating" in the first place, and what did it take for a legend to circulate among them?

In circa 75 AD, "Mark" writes a book about Jesus. It isn't meant to be a historical biography. It is meant as a first century version of a Jack Chick gospel tract with exciting stories and devious supernatural beings and spectacular supernatural events all for the purpose of extolling the virtues of Jesus of Nazareth. This is why Paul never mentions any of Jesus' miracles in any of his epistles: Because no one on earth in the 50's and 60's AD had ever heard of any miracles by Jesus!

The parts of Jack Chick which are systematically just invented, are systematically not the part that there are miracles, but the Anticatholicism + his Protestant misunderstandings of Justification, driven to extremes by his anticatholicism, unless it is the reverse. What he peddles by Avro Manhattan is strictly not supernatural at all, but as fictional as Harry Potter.

Pope Gregory, on the other hand (590-604), promised Queen Brunhilda remission of her sins.

"The most Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles.. will cause thee to appear pure of all stain before the judge everlasting" (2) as long as she granted him, Gregory, what he asked of her, that, money, real estates, and investitures which yielded abundant revenues to the Church: a practice which became a tradition during the oncoming centuries.

And note (2) is "St. Gregory, Letter 65"

The problem is, even if it sounds like a reference, it isn't.

I quoted the above on my post where I also looked, very systematically for this reference "St. Gregory, Letter 65 ".

... here are the SEVERAL letters 65 of each book having one:

Book III, Letter 65
http://newadvent.com/fathers/360203065.htm

To Mauricius Augustus.

Book VI, Letter 65
http://newadvent.com/fathers/360206065.htm

To Mauricius, Emperor.

Book IX, Letter 65
http://newadvent.com/fathers/360209065.htm

To Januarius, Bishop of Caralis (Cagliari).

Book XI, Letter 65
http://newadvent.com/fathers/360211065.htm

To Augustine, Bishop of the Angli .
...

There was none of the several letters 65 which was to Brunhilda.

http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot....nstantine.html

Nevertheless, Avro Manhattan being on Chick Tracts doesn't make his work in the least "infected" with the supernatural. But it is still as fictional as Harry Potter.

[MaxVel]

See where it says 'banned' under Gary's name? That means he won't be replying to your post.

[Doug Shaver]

Miracles are not tested like physicians test drugs, they are public events and to be tested like you test other allegations of how public events have happened, like assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo.

Are you suggesting that the evidence for Jesus' resurrection is about as good as the evidence for Ferdinand's assassination?