Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted

[LNC]

You need to make up your mind what the hell your arguing. Your biblical evidence, {snicker snicker}, means nothing to this crowd. You clearly also want to argue that somehow Philosophy can prove the existence of god. Philosophy can only speculate about the existence or nonexistence of gods. By definition if one were to prove that god exists it would be through Science and NOT philosophy. I think you like to muddy the waters by coalescing the two.

 

Sorry, but your statement merely shows that you know very little about both science and philosophy as your statement reveals a clear category mistake, that is, thinking you can prove God's existence via science. Granted, science does reveal evidence of a non-physical cause of the universe and the presence of intelligence within the universe that cries out for a cause, but those pieces of evidence still require us to use philosophy to draw conclusions as does the whole of the scientific enterprise.

[LNC]

You're still arrogant. And it's your mistake to live in denial. And there's no use to try to explain or answer you anything, because you stubbornly maintain your delusional ideas of the world anyway. We have reached the end of the road, and there's no sense in reiterating arguments since you avoid the ones that prove you wrong, just pick apart the fringe issues, and the arguments which are proven to you to be wrong, you don't even respond to, but still you repeat two weeks later like they've never been challenged. You keep on sidetracking the topics and avoiding the main questions. You disregard and downplay the authority of real Bible scholars, while you put some obscure scientists in the wrong fields from 50 to 100 years ago on the pedestal as your reference.

 

You maintain your view on things, and I'll maintain mine. I disagree with most of the things you say, and you disagree with most of the things I say. I keep my view based on multiple sources, you maintain your view on a few authors religious beliefs 2,000 years ago. You fail to provide any evidence for "absolute" morality, and you fail to prove the historicity of the Bible. You also have failed to prove that God exists, or that there are any supernatural forces in play in our world at all. You have failed to show any reasonable or logical argument for God's existence, the truthfulness of the story about Jesus, or the validity of Christian faith.

 

You have failed. Or like my sons would say: Epic Fail!

 

OK, so what I am gathering by your response is that you really don't have an argument to make so much as a complaint to lodge. I have noted your complaint.

 

I take it that you also are maintaining the position of subjective morality with all of its out-workings. It is an untenable and unlivable position, but I wish you well in your attempt to live it out consistently. Regarding the historicity of the Bible, I will stick with a few minimal passages that are not disputed to make my case and argue from them and still make my case, thank you. I have given many arguments for God's existence that you have not been able to counter, including the kalam argument, the teleological argument, the argument from morality, the argument from mind, and the resurrection argument, non of which have been defeated. Given those, the Christian faith is valid. If you would like to continue, or begin in some cases, trying to refute these arguments, please continue.

 

Han, you make many claims within this post for which you have not carried the burden of proof. Even if my proofs for God were to fail, it wouldn't follow that God doesn't exist, just that the arguments failed. To prove that God doesn't exist you have to do more than try to defeat my arguments, you have to show positive proof for your contention and I have not seen one shred of evidence to that effect. Would you like to take up your cause and actually put forward a case? I will look forward to your reply.

[LNC]

And you have not given me any reason to believe in your convictions either. You present assertions made from pure speculations and without any evidence. You claim to have evidence, but you don't. You use inductive reasoning without proper support. So why should I even argue with you?

 

The question is, do I want you to abandon your belief? You came here. I didn't come to you. So who is on the offensive here? You are coming here to challenge what people believe here, and you're trying to tell me that I'm the one trying to convert you?

 

You have chosen not to listen or understand, and I can't make you, so it's your own choice. Don't project your own faults on others and blame them for your own shortcomings.

 

Actually I have given you many arguments and evidence, the fact that you choose to deny it or refuse to accept it is your choice. You know that your second claim above is a false claim, so I won't address it further.

 

Where did I claim that you were trying to convert me? You haven't even put forward a positive argument for your convictions, so I would hardly say that you are trying to convert me. Yes, you are trying to defeat my arguments, which at best would lead me to skepticism or agnosticism, but certainly not to atheism. However, your counter-arguments haven't been that effective either, so I am not swayed in the least to think that I am standing on any weaker ground than when I started on this site.

 

For you to say that I have chosen not to listen is a bit disingenuous. If you mean that I haven't been swayed by your arguments, I plead guilty to that, but that hardly means that I have not been listening or considering your arguments. But, if you have some other arguments that you think might be more persuasive, I am all ears, metaphorically speaking.

[LNC]

Since we have different definitions of what constitutes "history" and "evidence" from what LNC has, there is no point in further discussion. There is absolutely no agreement on this point and the argument just runs in circles.

 

Please give me your definitions so that we can speak on the same grounds.

[LNC]

One of my Fav's from LNC "The burden of proof is on you as the evidence points heavily in the favor of the resurrection. So, please show me the evidence. Again, anyone can concoct a theory, but the theory needs to be backed up with evidence, otherwise it is highly implausible."

 

This entire statement is so incredibly fallacious that it screams for a response and that's exactly what he's counting on. Over and over and over…. This is a game not a debate. In my opinion, the tactic is to simply be disruptive on this site. He's not here to offer us a legitimate debate.

 

It is one thing to claim that the statement is fallacious and another to actually back up that claim with evidence. So, I will look forward to your evidence. So far, I haven't seen any from you in this whole discussion. I believe it is time to stop making blustery (and empty) claims and to step up and back them up with evidence or at least, argumentation.

[bdp]

LNC is a dick.

[dagnarus]

Yes, and maybe aliens hit the guards with stun rays just before the Apostles came to steal the body. Where is the evidence? You can make assertions all you like, but the fact remains that the evidence does not work in your favor. You still don't explain why these same people whom you claim stole the body then went to their death for a known lie. Then you have to explain all of the other people who claimed to have seen Jesus alive from the dead. Then you have to explain why Paul was radically converted after he claimed to have seen Jesus on the road to Damascus. I could go on with other explanations that have to fit with your theory, which currently do not. So, you think that by simply proposing an implausible explanation that I am the one who is somehow acting irrationally? That argument doesn't work either. Sorry, if you are going to propose a theory it has to meet the test of scope and plausibility, for which your explanation meets neither.

 

What evidence? We have several conflicting reports of an event which happened at least 40 years before the gospels were written. It's quite within the realms of possibility that the original apostles died before these gospel accounts were written down (60 was considered elderly back then). We can't be certain that their was an empty tomb.

 

You say that people would not go to their death for a known lie. What makes you say this. I could well believe that a person would be willing to die instead of admit to a lie. If the apostles had lied about the empty tomb and the resurrection of Jesus, this would have been a lie which had given them a position of respect amongst the early Christians and quite possibly a degree of wealth. Even if we are to assume that these apostles were captured by the Romans because of there preaching Jesus and they would have been allowed to live if they had admitted to their lie it is quite easy to understand why they might choose to die anyway. After all if they stick to their story they'll die a martyrs death and be remembered with honor. If they admit they lied, well they would have to face the people whom'd they'd lied to, they'd lose their respect. They'd have to live with the shame, and quite possibly die because of it. I believe there is a Chinese proverb which says I'd rather die than be mocked. This also gives a reason for manufacturing the story. It means they don't have to deal with the shame of abandoning their homes, work, families for just another messiah wannabe.

 

How do we know all these people saw Jesus arise from the dead. Paul's account can be interpreted as appearing to people in visions. All the other accounts were written after 40 years after the fact when it is quite possible that all the principle characters in the accounts had died. Furthermore how do we know that all these accounts of people who had seen the risen Jesus aren't made up. After all how could the people they were trying to convince know whether there were 500 people who had seen Jesus somewhere or not.

 

As to Paul. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that their are radical converts to all religions. Why should I consider him special.

 

Lastly how does Jesus being resurrected explain everything. It doesn't explain why he only appear to his devoutest followers, those who became leaders of the sect. It doesn't explain why their generation passed away without his return. It doesn't explain why no contemporary historians mention him. (Unless you want to count the forgery inserted into Josephus, or Josephus's possibly mentioning him in passing as the brother of James the Just). It doesn't explain why if he is meant to regenerate and renew the mind of all his believers they are frequently at each other's throats and can't even agree what his message means. It doesn't explain that while believer's are meant to have a new heart, a renewed mind, and a new birth they on the whole are morally no better than the rest of society (regular church attendance is actually part of the profile for a sex offender). There being no resurrection however, would explain all of these.

[Antlerman]

Agree to the dating. The earliest fragment is around 100 CE, and it's probably fairly accurate. But then the fragments are getting quickly closer to 150-200 CE. And since Gospel of Thomas and Q and other sources are dated earlier, and the fragments for the more "filled" stories are dated later, we should (and so does Ehrman, and other historians) conclude that there has been additions to the stories. Things that didn't exist from the beginning. So how much was added? When did the adding start? What was the absolutely first, penultimate, prime story? We can't really know, can we?

 

Hans, do they know definitively why there appear to be no originals left in existence? It is strange that the earliest fragment is around 100 CE but every single original is gone. Wouldn't they have been kept safe, guarded? Was there a fire? Did the Romans search them out and destroy them?

 

Phanta

And herein lies the fatal flaw to the whole of LNC's Evidence-based Faith. They didn't treat scripture the way he does. They didn't venerate the texts themselves as definitive words from God to not be altered. They didn't approach the various writings as holy articles to be preserved as issuing forth from the very mouth of God Himself through the hands of the authors. No, this whole argumentation of LNC's is a much later phenomenon. People back then didn't evaluate things on this level, with these criteria. And as such they didn't approach or handle these texts as one might expect, given the view of them the literalist has.

 

If faith is to be based on evidence, then it's just simply a matter of accepting facts. Not faith. I don't believe in evolution. I have no faith in it. I don't have faith there is a sidewalk in front of my house. I simply accept the weight of evidence and act upon it as reflective of reality. There's no 'walk of faith' in regard to these. If the weight of evidence is in that a man 2000 years ago arose from the dead and lives in a celestial plane, now listening to and responding to the prayers of billions every day, then I'll accept that as reality, just like I'd accept any other evidence-based worldview.

 

If however faith is something more than just that. If its purpose is for inspiration, to offer vision and hope in the face of the ordinary and mundane, then isn't the whole of LNC's argument sort of defeating to that? Isn't he trying to make it something to be accepted as fact, not something that is about faith?

 

I would never accept Christianity based on evidence. What would be the point of it? If its a faith system, then the criteria should be on the value it offers as a faith system. LNC's fatal flaw is that he doesn't understand faith.

[Mriana]

LNC is a dick.

 

More like, Carpetbagger. I noticed we are miles away from the original topic when I logged in today. LNC probably has not read the book, is not interested in reading, and has only come here to push his/her flap-trap agenda. S/he's not interested in discussing the original topic. S/he only responds to the posts s/he has been trained to respond to or that s/he thinks s/he can respond to with nothing but arrogant tripe that makes absolutely no sense. What's worse is, like a Carpetbagger s/he comes to our board from "Christian La-La Land" and is determined to sell his/her brainwashing junk no matter what. Personally, I'm sick of it.

 

So, when are we going to get rid of this arrogant carpetbagging TROLL?

[Ouroboros]

OK, so what I am gathering by your response is that you really don't have an argument to make so much as a complaint to lodge. I have noted your complaint.

Well, I'm not even trying to make an argument with you, because I see it as futile, and done so for quite some time.

 

I take it that you also are maintaining the position of subjective morality with all of its out-workings. It is an untenable and unlivable position, but I wish you well in your attempt to live it out consistently.

You do know that there's a different between subjective morality and relativism, right?

 

Here are the principles for ethical subjectivism:

1. Ethical sentences express propositions.

2. Some such propositions are true.

3. Those propositions are about the attitudes of individual people.

 

And here are the principles for divine command theory:

1. Ethical sentences express propositions.

2. Some such propositions are true.

3. Those propositions are about the attitudes of God.

 

And for moral relativism, it's that all ethical sentences are true, which creates contradictions.

 

As I understand it, even divine command theory falls in under the term subjectivism. So when you say you don't believe in subjectivism, but believe in divine command, you're in fact contradicting yourself. We are both subjectivists. We both believe in universals. The difference is on what basis those universals are founded. You base them on imaginations in your head, which you call revelations, and quotes from the Bible. I base mine on social welfare, stability, peace, freedom, health, long life... which are all values which promotes the welfare for ALL and EVERYONE, if correctly analyzed, reasons, rationalized, and used.

 

In other words, our systems are identical, except that my source is reasons based on values which are human welfare, while your source is a 2,000 year old, and outdated, book, and "revelations" (voices in your head).

 

Which system do you think would work better over time?

 

Regarding the historicity of the Bible, I will stick with a few minimal passages that are not disputed to make my case and argue from them and still make my case, thank you. I have given many arguments for God's existence that you have not been able to counter, including the kalam argument, the teleological argument, the argument from morality, the argument from mind, and the resurrection argument, non of which have been defeated. Given those, the Christian faith is valid. If you would like to continue, or begin in some cases, trying to refute these arguments, please continue.

And I have given you the link to Stanfords Encyclopedia of Philosophy where they provide arguments against the Kalam.

 

LNC vs Stanford... hmm... who gives the better arguments? Oh, ah, it must be the amateur who got it right!

 

Han, you make many claims within this post for which you have not carried the burden of proof. Even if my proofs for God were to fail, it wouldn't follow that God doesn't exist, just that the arguments failed. To prove that God doesn't exist you have to do more than try to defeat my arguments, you have to show positive proof for your contention and I have not seen one shred of evidence to that effect. Would you like to take up your cause and actually put forward a case? I will look forward to your reply.

The thing is: I don't make a claim that God necessarily does not exist. I don't believe God exists, at least not YOUR kind of God. A God, of other kind, sure, perhaps, maybe, but Christian God? No. Kalam doesn't provide evidence for Christian God, but only for a Causator.

 

The claim I make is that Kalam is not enough to definitely and completely prove the existence of a God. It is faulty, because it intentionally avoid several problems (and I'm not going to bring them up, read Stanford's encyclopedia instead). So my conclusion is: Kalam is not good enough, and hence, regarding "a God" (or any God) is merely an agnostic idea. As I have said times before, I'm an agnostic regarding "a God", but I'm in all practical terms (in life, in my actions, values) treating it all as I would do if I was a full blown atheist. The difference between agnostic/atheist and atheist is in pragmatic sense non-existent. So don't demand of me to prove that God does not exist, because I have a different view on it overall, and I have no proof against God, but rather, there are no proof for or against. All arguments and proofs are inconclusive. And yet you treat your argument as a evident and final proof, which it is not. Only Craig and you do, and all the other crazies out there who doesn't read philosophical literature.

[Ouroboros]

And you have not given me any reason to believe in your convictions either. You present assertions made from pure speculations and without any evidence. You claim to have evidence, but you don't. You use inductive reasoning without proper support. So why should I even argue with you?

 

The question is, do I want you to abandon your belief? You came here. I didn't come to you. So who is on the offensive here? You are coming here to challenge what people believe here, and you're trying to tell me that I'm the one trying to convert you?

 

You have chosen not to listen or understand, and I can't make you, so it's your own choice. Don't project your own faults on others and blame them for your own shortcomings.

 

Actually I have given you many arguments and evidence, the fact that you choose to deny it or refuse to accept it is your choice. You know that your second claim above is a false claim, so I won't address it further.

Okay, you have given arguments and you have provided things you consider evidence, which I don't think holds up as evidence at all. My requirement for evidence is obviously much higher than yours. But the funny thing is, you demand higher quality of evidence when it comes to other religions, I wonder why?

 

Where did I claim that you were trying to convert me? You haven't even put forward a positive argument for your convictions, so I would hardly say that you are trying to convert me. Yes, you are trying to defeat my arguments, which at best would lead me to skepticism or agnosticism, but certainly not to atheism. However, your counter-arguments haven't been that effective either, so I am not swayed in the least to think that I am standing on any weaker ground than when I started on this site.

 

This is what YOU said:

You have given me no reason not to believe in my convictions. You present empty assertions and theories with no evidential backing and then what, you want me to abandon the evidence in favor of them? Sorry, that would be to make a blind leap in the dark and I am not disposed to do that.

 

To ME, if I read between the lines, you think that I am trying to convert you.

 

Do you even read your own posts? Do you even know what the hell you are writing? You say one thing, and the next you deny it. So what do you mean with: "you want me to abandon the evidence in favor of them?" Wouldn't that be a matter of you assuming that I want you to abandon you belief and join my belief instead? Isn't that a fair assessment of your statement?

 

For you to say that I have chosen not to listen is a bit disingenuous. If you mean that I haven't been swayed by your arguments, I plead guilty to that, but that hardly means that I have not been listening or considering your arguments. But, if you have some other arguments that you think might be more persuasive, I am all ears, metaphorically speaking.

For instance, did you, or did you not, read the Stanford encyclopedia's argument against Kalam?

 

Or, when I once said that "the early Christians burned books," and you demanded evidence from me, "prove it, they never did," and I gave you a Bible verse to prove it from Acts, then you were quiet. Very convenient. And I've seen that pattern with you several times. You demand a counter proof, evidence, or argument, and when it is really good, there's no answer from you or apology or a statement of acceptance that I or anyone else was right. And why is that? Simply because you don't care. It is a pattern. I've seen it, over, and over, and over, and over again. You repeat the exact same pattern. You demand proof. You get it. You don't respond. You pick up another post and criticize instead.

 

THAT is to intentionally (a repeated behavior) to avoid truth, and it is disingenuous. You ARE a fraud.

 

(And I'm certain that 99% of what I wrote here will go completely over your head, and you'll most likely attack cherry-picked parts of it.)

[Ouroboros]

Hans, do they know definitively why there appear to be no originals left in existence? It is strange that the earliest fragment is around 100 CE but every single original is gone. Wouldn't they have been kept safe, guarded? Was there a fire? Did the Romans search them out and destroy them?

I think it's a very good observation. How come they were so diligent trying to save the work of Philo from Alexandria, but didn't write down, or save any documents or testimonies? As story tells us, the only "book" they really had before 70 CE was Philo's, which was a philosophical, hellenistic Jew who obviously was trying to merge Greek philosophy, religion, and Judaism. (Sounds familiar?) And then they didn't start writing the Gospels until after the destruction of Jerusalem, it's very strange. Wouldn't God reveal his intentions to anyone of the followers? Here we had supposedly thousands, and thousands, and thousands of Christians. Open, willing, hearing God's voice through the thunder of the Holy Ghost, and God never once told them: Please write it down before you forget. No, instead they all wait until most of them were executed. Smart move! Truth, hidden, because of a ill planned project by God himself.

 

However, one explanation is that the early church really didn't think they needed the books. They believed Jesus was coming back in their lifetime, so why need to write the stuff down for next generation? When they discovered that Jesus didn't come back, they started to collect information, but at that time the sources were gone, and they had to collect it through hearsay. The problem with this argument though is that it has to assumes that Jesus existed, that he did claim he was coming back, and hence most likely had some kind of "empty tomb" experience.

[Ouroboros]

Anyone else have a suggestion, with backup, as to what kind of contemporary extraBiblical evidence we should reasonable expect of a resurrection that would not naturally be included as part of the Bible itself, setting aside modern expectations and focusing on confirmed mediums and practices of the time?

Perhaps a record made by the Roman authority at that time, from investigating the event, interviewing the parties, and concluding that something happened that was out of the ordinary.

 

Or letters from ordinary Jewish people, perhaps sent to their families in some distant location, who had seen and heard about the story and possibly also confirmed that the tomb was empty, but didn't know what to believe. And didn't write the story in 3rd person. It would be nice if there was a eyewitness story written from that time which was using the regular, and quite more common way, of reporting what he/she had seen, i.e. in first person. I know that sometimes people (even Josephus) decide to write their testimony in third person, but why would all of them do it? Was it common practice at that time to talk about experiences as "someone else"?

[mwc]

Anyone else have a suggestion, with backup, as to what kind of contemporary extraBiblical evidence we should reasonable expect of a resurrection that would not naturally be included as part of the Bible itself, setting aside modern expectations and focusing on confirmed mediums and practices of the time?

I'll try to give a quick answer to this because of the way you posed the question.

 

Most all Jews of the time believed in some sort of resurrection. The Sadducee's were the notable exception (they did not believe in an afterlife, angels or any of that type of thing...they really didn't have much belief in what we'd call the "supernatural" beyond just their god). The other sects, on the other hand, did accept the idea of resurrection but what that meant varied considerably. By that I mean things like when it was to occur (it generally revolved the Messianic kingdom and judgment but what form they took and what order events would occur, for example, varied), who would be involved (ie. Jews and Gentiles, Jews only, just the "righteous," and various combinations). As you can see there was far from any sort of consensus. From what I can see it didn't so much matter as long as it happened and the "right" people made it to the party (or the "wrong" people never made it to the party would probably be better).

 

But since everyone believed in this (and really they still do) then there are actually quite a few Jewish texts like 2nd Maccabees that predate the bible (and NT) that speak to a resurrection. The DSS have a resurrection text. I Believe 1 Enoch touches on the subject. Though I can't say these texts are like the gospels where it says "So and so was raised from the dead." I'd have to re-read them to say that. If simply coming back from the dead is so very wonderful then what of Lazarus or the many others that "Jesus" (capital "J") rose? He's supposedly a god. So if resurrection is some sort of sign then what of them? He was raised up, not of his own power, but of his "father" which is basically the same thing as "god" raising up Lazarus I would think. But they're different somehow. Lazarus wasn't murdered I guess.

 

But the Greeks believed in bodily resurrection for some. Certain of the demi-gods died and came back to life with bodies. I can't think of their names but I know this seemed to be a point of contention. All Greeks supposedly thought that you died and were a shade. But if that's the case then what of these demi-gods that got restored to flesh and blood bodies? They are the equivalents to "jesus" I would think. But not all Greeks get bodies? Well, according to Jewish beliefs maybe everyone gets a body or maybe they don't. It varied as I said. They also believed like xians where everyone got a body, got judged and then the bad guys got tossed again. Read Revelation for the xian version. The Greeks didn't have these beliefs but if we'renot comparing apples to apples. Or are we? So far there's just a handful of Greeks that wound up with bodies and even in the xian religion only a handful of people ever got their body back except only one became a deity. Looks like the Greeks are slightly ahead.

 

mwc

[LNC]

1. Did the universe come into existence or has it always existed?

 

What's the difference?

 

It makes a huge difference for a materialist/physicalist (m/p). If the universe had a beginning, then the m/p is in trouble since the universe would require a immaterial causal agent. That would count against the m/p position.

 

[quote2. What is the basis of morality?

 

Whose morality?

 

Objective morality, no one owns it as it is objective.

 

3. Does life have ultimate meaning?

 

No.

 

OK, are you willing to live with the implications of that belief?

 

4. If there is no life beyond this one and no ultimate judgment, what do you say to the victims of a mass murderer who simply got away with his or her crime?

 

Nothing can be said. That's the bitch about the holocaust or the genocide of the natives of this continent - it will never be redressed or justified.

 

Why do you consider it to be a "bitch"? That would imply that there was something objectively wrong in these actions. Is that what you are saying?

 

What do you say to the person who has suffered injustice in this life and is looking for hope and justice in the next life?

 

Stop wasting your life and just live it. Looking for 'justice' in a next life that can't be proven? Look for your meanings in this life that you KNOW you have.

 

Not very compassionate of you. OK, wait a minute, you told me in point 3 that life had no meaning and now you are telling this person to look for meaning in this life, so which is it, does life have meaning or are you just emoting empty platitudes to this person?

[LNC]

Then you can point me to someone who has definitively proven Christianity to be false? OK, then I will look for you to point me to that person. Or, better yet, give me your knock-out argument.

 

To me this is like saying "produce someone that can prove there are no pink unicorns living on the other side of the moon".

 

I will take that as a "no".

[LNC]

It's also a false argument to claim that just because of this, then it must be true. Lack of evidence could also be because the events did NOT happen.

 

There are two explanations to lacking evidence:

 

1) It happened, but all (really, all?) evidence is gone.

 

2) It didn't happen.

 

And until more data can be found, it is actually very reasonable to take the view on point 2, and not 1.

 

Consider all the crazy beliefs out there in the world without evidence. Should we, just because "lack of evidence is not evidence of absence", believe EVERYTHING!?? That's stupid. You must agree to this.

 

There are more things you DON'T believe in like this, than things you DO believe in. Every religion, with every belief, all without evidence, you don't believe them, because they don't make sense, and because you have no evidence for those things to be true.

 

So, your attitude towards other religions, that is OUR attitude towards YOUR religion. Get that into your thick skull.

 

I don't make that claim. I make the claim that there is enough evidence to show that the resurrection is the best explanation of that evidence. I will even limit my evidence to facts that are accepted by a vast majority of NT scholars (even skeptics) and still make the case. So your claims above are, in fact, inaccurate. I am not concerned about other religions as they are really immaterial to this argument.

 

That's because you're blind, not because the arguments exists. Just because you don't understand the counter arguments, doesn't mean they're wrong.

 

Wait, what was your attitude again? "Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence" was it? Isn't it similar here? Just because you can't see the argument against Craig, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

So be consistent.

 

You didn't answer the question. You claimed to have debunked the arguments for the resurrection, which you haven't, and now seem to be avoiding my question regarding the proof of your claim. If you have the goods, let's take a look at what you have.

[LNC]

I'll ask again.

 

From LNC - "We look for natural explanations first and when those fail to fit the data we have to look at other possiblilities. Now, you seem to eliminate explanations that are not natural, which is a presuppositional bias on your part. I, on the other hand, keep my mind open to the possibility of the supernatural as a valid explanatory option."

 

LNC - Give me 1 'Supernatural' event, outside of Christianity, that you are willing to accept as being true.

 

The origin of the universe.

[LNC]

What you mean is that no one has overcome your belief, not that no one has disproved Christianity. IMHO the problem of evil nicely disproves Christianity*. Your insistence that it doesn't is like creationist insistence that the earth is only 6000 years old. Faith is the standard process by which humans can and most often do confidently and steadfastly ignore fact.

 

Of course on the other hand you can't produce any definitive argument that proves Christianity, like writing out the absolute moral rules as I asked you on another thread.

 

*It doesn't offer proof against any god. An asshole god is invulnerable to the argument.

 

1. Christianity is based upon evidence and is falsifiable. 2. Can someone please produce the golden tablets on which the BOM was dictated? How about showing me evidence that Jesus was in America? Sorry, Mormonism is not falsifiable which is why they urge people to feel the "warm burning of the bosom" to determine whether it is true rather than to test the evidence. It is completely subjective.

 

1. What evidence? Oh you mean like 500 anonymous witnesses who never swore out even the least bet of an affidavit? How convenient. Ok then, I have 501 anonymous witnesses who say it was crap. True they didn't swear out any affidavits either, but my witnesses are as good as yours.

 

2.Can somebody please produce the original documents of the bible? Gee, no? But you think you have the real deal anyway. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If I have to accept the authenticity of the bible then I have no reason not to accept the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, the Koran, or the Vedas. Unfortunately your assertion does not over come my lack of bias toward one religion over another. They, including yours, are all equally absurd.

 

By the way the book of Mormon had known sworn witnesses to the existence of the golden tablets. Not 500, but at least we know who they were.

 

OK, I will limit it to a few witnesses who are generally accepted as being credible, even by skeptics, the Apostles Paul and James. Both were skeptics prior to the resurrection and both became so committed to the cause that they were willing to risk their lives for what they believed to be the truth. However, for your information, skeptics don't have a problem with the 500 witnesses either as it is from an early source and a credible source, Paul.

 

Why do you need an original document? What does that give you that we don't have in the manuscript evidence? Even the most skeptical of NT scholars believe that we have over 90% of what was in the originals and that the 10% in doubt does not materially change the meaning of the texts in question (and that includes Bart Ehrman himself). These skeptical scholars don't consider bias to be an issue, why do you? Are you familiar with the manuscript evidence and textual critical methods? It doesn't appear so based upon your comments.

 

I don't know what the BOM and the supposed witnesses has to do with this discussion. The BOM is not my concern since I am not a Mormon.

[LNC]

This makes no sense at all. You say you're only judging the falsity of their beliefs, not them as a person, but a person's beliefs is apart of that person. It'd be like if I called you a liar but then I denied I was judging you, I was just judging your claims, yet if you're the person making false claims, then I can't judge the claims without judging the person making the claims. It's logically impossible to separate the claims a person makes from the person making them given that we're talking about people's beliefs here. You make no sense and are just trying to give excuses to be an asshole.

 

You simply misunderstood what I was saying, and maybe I didn't make myself clear enough, but I can't judge a person's beliefs, just the evidence on which those beliefs are based.

 

What factual information does Job contain? Is Leviathan a factual creature? What is it, then? If Revelation contains future events, does this mean only 144,000 men will get into heaven and no women are allowed since Revelation says so or is that symbolic? How do you determine what parts are symbolic and what parts are future events?

 

Some have compared Job's description of Leviathan to a prehistoric creature (although, I don't remember which one off hand). However, we know that large dinosaurs lived in the past, so I don't see any logical problems with this one. Again, Job is in the genre of wisdom literature and I really don't have a problem calling the whole thing allegorical, it doesn't weaken the case for the Bible. So, if you have a problem with it, then let's just call it that.

 

Regarding Revelation, you are confusing Jehovah's Witness doctrine with what is in the actual text, so no, I don't believe that it says that only 144K will enter heaven. Again, the study of Revelation requires a person who is skilled in literary styles, so I rely on their commentary as that is not my field of study.

 

But I'm not talking about the resurrection of Jesus. How many times do you want me to repeat myself? I want non-scriptural evidence that the events in Matthew 27:51-53 really happened. Surely someone somewhere would have written about a bunch of dead Jewish people raising from the dead. You claim 500 people witnessed the resurrection of Jesus, but nobody wrote down that they saw a bunch of dead Jews be raised from the dead? And how does the lack of evidence prove something really happened? So, what if I claimed I saw you murder someone and you denied that you did but I argued that the evidence of absence is not the evidence of absence. Would that be acceptable proof that you really are a murderer? What's the saying? Innocent until proven guilty? So, where's your proof this really happened? Since you admit there's no proof, then there's no reason why we should convert to your religion.

 

I don't consider that account in Matthew to be necessary to make the case for the resurrection. I can build a solid case for the resurrection without that passage. You say that nobody wrote down this account, but here we are discussing someone who did write it down, so your point doesn't stand. Maybe we could realign this discussion on a set of minimal facts that are accepted by a vast majority of NT scholars (including skeptics) and see where we go with that.

[Mriana]

What you mean is that no one has overcome your belief, not that no one has disproved Christianity. IMHO the problem of evil nicely disproves Christianity*. Your insistence that it doesn't is like creationist insistence that the earth is only 6000 years old. Faith is the standard process by which humans can and most often do confidently and steadfastly ignore fact.

 

Of course on the other hand you can't produce any definitive argument that proves Christianity, like writing out the absolute moral rules as I asked you on another thread.

 

*It doesn't offer proof against any god. An asshole god is invulnerable to the argument.

 

1. Christianity is based upon evidence and is falsifiable. 2. Can someone please produce the golden tablets on which the BOM was dictated? How about showing me evidence that Jesus was in America? Sorry, Mormonism is not falsifiable which is why they urge people to feel the "warm burning of the bosom" to determine whether it is true rather than to test the evidence. It is completely subjective.

 

1. What evidence? Oh you mean like 500 anonymous witnesses who never swore out even the least bet of an affidavit? How convenient. Ok then, I have 501 anonymous witnesses who say it was crap. True they didn't swear out any affidavits either, but my witnesses are as good as yours.

 

2.Can somebody please produce the original documents of the bible? Gee, no? But you think you have the real deal anyway. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If I have to accept the authenticity of the bible then I have no reason not to accept the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, the Koran, or the Vedas. Unfortunately your assertion does not over come my lack of bias toward one religion over another. They, including yours, are all equally absurd.

 

By the way the book of Mormon had known sworn witnesses to the existence of the golden tablets. Not 500, but at least we know who they were.

 

OK, I will limit it to a few witnesses who are generally accepted as being credible, even by skeptics, the Apostles Paul and James. Both were skeptics prior to the resurrection and both became so committed to the cause that they were willing to risk their lives for what they believed to be the truth. However, for your information, skeptics don't have a problem with the 500 witnesses either as it is from an early source and a credible source, Paul.

 

Why do you need an original document? What does that give you that we don't have in the manuscript evidence? Even the most skeptical of NT scholars believe that we have over 90% of what was in the originals and that the 10% in doubt does not materially change the meaning of the texts in question (and that includes Bart Ehrman himself). These skeptical scholars don't consider bias to be an issue, why do you? Are you familiar with the manuscript evidence and textual critical methods? It doesn't appear so based upon your comments.

 

I don't know what the BOM and the supposed witnesses has to do with this discussion. The BOM is not my concern since I am not a Mormon.

 

Paul was not an eyewitness.

[LNC]

LNC, falsifiable means one can prove it false. IF Christianity is falsifiable, then it can be proven false. Likewise, so can Mormonism. I suggest you get your dictionary out, because I don't think you are using that word in the manner you are wanting, unless you do mean that Xianity is falsifiable, then what you are saying is that it is able to be proven false.

 

Your definition of falsifiability is close but not quite accurate. Falsifiability means that it is possible to present evidence that some of the claims of the belief are false. This doesn't mean that the claims are false, just that, if they were, then evidence could be provided to falsify those claims.

 

Here are examples of falsifiable vs. non-falsifiable claims.

 

Falsifiable: Jesus was crucified and rose bodily from the tomb and was claimed to have been seen by many witnesses in many different times and locations and in many different circumstances. Those witnesses were radically changed by this belief, even leading some to risk, and in some cases, to give their lives for this belief.

 

This claim can be falsified in many ways. One could produce the body; show that the tomb is not empty; falsify the claims of the witnesses; get a witness to recant and admit to lying; etc.

 

Non-falsifiable claim: Jesus rose spiritually and lives in my heart.

 

Since the body would remain in the tomb and no one could actually prove that Jesus rose or prove that the person was not experiencing this subjective experience, it would be non-falsifiable.

 

I hope that clears up the differences.

[LNC]

Of course on the other hand you can't produce any definitive argument that proves Christianity, like writing out the absolute moral rules as I asked you on another thread.

 

LNC is absolutely absolved from having to write out absolute moral rules-God

 

That's good, because it is impossible for a subject of this world to create objective (absolute) moral rules. Only God can be the source of objective morality.

[LNC]

He's more qualified than you. And he's more qualified than someone who got his degree 100 years ago.

 

Yes, and we can still check his facts and say he is wrong when the facts bear that out.

 

You must admit, it's confusing. Two guys, both "sirs", same birth place, only born a year and few months apart. It's easy to make a mistake when this happens. And I must admit, this is very strange. Extremely strange.

 

Can it be true? Two people, both sirs, with the same names, born almost at the same time, but completely different careers. And the two sources are Nobel Prize committee, and the other Encyclopedia Britannica. You must admit this is extremely strange!

 

So I guess, Nobel Prize committee's resources is NOT doing research completely. Maybe they have been giving prizes in chemistry to apologists since the beginning, but where lying about it?

 

Again, you must admit, this is strange. Do you have some explanation to this coincident?

 

---

 

Damn! Further research, looking into what Encyclopedia Britannica said about Sir William Ramsay, those liars say he was a chemist. Damn! They must be possessed with DEMONSssssss... Something is up the walls here, and I'd like to know exactly what it is.

 

But then, I can also find the Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, archeologist, in Oxford's archives. They must be possessed by the demons of Darwin.

 

This is a very strange mystery...

 

It is very strange, but I guess it was a good time in history to be named William Ramsay and to be born in Glasgow, Scotland. I wonder if they knew each other, were related (cousins maybe?) and were confused by the King or Queen (depending upon the date of the event) when they were bestowed Knighthood. "Didn't I just Knight you last week?" Oh well, interesting factoid, but the point on Luke stands.

[LNC]

My own bolding for emphasis. So I take it that it is automatically a correct eyewitness account if its in the Bible? Eyewitness accounts are not automatically acceptable in a court of law today for events that are much less incredible than the resurrection of a bunch of people. ALL Biblical accounts of this purported event and the so-called resurrection of Christ were written at least 70 years after the fact according to Biblical scholars. Why should we believe them? Do you believe stuff like this on the hearsay of people or because it was written in some old book?

 

LNC, you are being deliberately obtuse if you can't see what Neon is getting at. You know very well, LNC, that there is NO reason for accepting the resurrection unless you accept the Bible as "proof" or as you like to refer to it --"data".

 

Different accounts carry different weights of credibility with NT scholars. They have different methodologies that are applied (lower critical methodology) to determine whether an account is of higher or lower weighting. However, the case for the resurrection can be made using a set of about 12 facts that even the most skeptical of NT scholars accept. Here are those facts for your consideration:

 

1. Jesus died via crucifixion

2. Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea

3. The disciples fled in despair after the crucifixion

4. The tomb in which Jesus was buried was found empty

5. The disciples believed that they had seen the risen Jesus

6. The disciples lives were radically changed by the event - they were willing to die for their belief

7. The resurrection became the central message of their preaching

8. They preached the resurrection in Jerusalem shortly after

9. The church was started

10. Worship was established on Sunday rather than Saturday as the day of the resurrection

11. Paul, a persecutor of the church, was converted after claiming to have seen the risen Jesus

12. James, the brother of Jesus, also a skeptic, was converted.

 

These facts are generally accepted by even skeptical NT scholars.