Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted

[LNC]

Philosophy is "of this world" (the love of wisdom or knowledge....analysis of human existence, experience and the universe). Philosophy is what humans have invented: godless chatter according to the verse. Wisdom of this world is not for you. Have you have volunteered to come here to the "godless" for evangelism? I think you veil your sarcasm while pretending to seriously discuss these posts. You write as if you are innocently naive, but I don't buy it. Unless you really are dense. I don't know.

 

Apparently you are not familiar with the history of philosophy as most of the early philosophers were interested in what lies beyond this world. Plato believed that there were immaterial forms that were the perfection of what is in this world, which he believed to be mere shadows or illusion. I am not sure how you come to all of these psychological conclusions about me from words on your screen. I am here to exchange ideas in pursuit of truth. That should be the quest that we have all embarked upon.

 

Another seemingly innocent and naive response, with a touch of evangelism to boot! You just quoted the new testament's view of the discipline of philosophy. It is not saying you can embrace philosophy while the new testament condemns it.

 

I have nothing against philosophy as long as it is grounded in truth. The Bible doesn't condemn philosophy either, just vain and worldly philosophy. We should be striving toward truth and must use philosophy in that pursuit. Philosophy, as you rightly point out, is the love of wisdom; however, just because someone calls a set of ideas philosophy, doesn't mean that it qualifies as such.

[Deva]

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.

 

I have not read a lot of Biblical scholarship recently but I read enough in the past to convince me that they do not accept all of these events as "facts". Just because its written in the Bible doesn't make it so.

 

Even if most scholars did accept them as facts, why should we accept the word of a majority of NT scholars anyway as our criterion of what is true? Is that good enough for you?

 

In previous centuries thousands or millions of people believed "facts" about the universe that were not true. Majority opinion does not mean truth.

 

I will go so far as to say that if these events could conclusively be proven to be true, I still wouldn't be a Christian. Why don't you address Antlerman's points in Post 332?

[Deva]

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".

 

I was mocking the question, because it is absurd. Of course no one can definitively prove Christianity to be false. That doesn't mean its true, either.

[Antlerman]

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.

This response is misleading. The examples you give are not falsifiable. We have no means to directly examine those "witnesses". In evidence-based disciplines, such as the hard-sciences, you have to have access to data yourself. Third-hand, let alone several hundred-hand hearsay, along with documents that had been altered in their transmission from the original "researcher", let alone language translation issues, let alone cultural context, let alone years of later influences read back into the texts creating layers and layers of patina on top of what he may have meant polluting how later "researchers" read these ancient "research documents", etc, etc, etc, all lead to this being anything but falsifiable.

 

It is therefore not falsifiable at this point, and belief in it becomes a religious claim which by definition lacks supporting evidence. And that's why they call it Faith. What were those words? "Faith is the evidence of things not seen". Not falsifiable in other words. Where evidence exists, faith is unnecessary.

 

 

LNC, you'd make a better atheist with your emphasis on reason and logic. I would suggest if you want your "religious beliefs" to survive, you should maybe build them on something else other than reason and logic. There are far better systems to satisfy that approach to life than Christianity.

[Ouroboros]

Oh well, interesting factoid, but the point on Luke stands.

To you it might, but not to me.

 

I rather believe the research and analysis of modern scholars, than the opinion of an archeologist 100 years ago.

 

I can go as far as to say that Luke perhaps tried to be historical correct, but can we trust what he wrote to be historical truths?

 

Here is a funny situation though. A while ago you demanded evidence from me that the early Christians burned books. Well, if Luke wrote Acts, and Acts is historically accurate, then look up Acts 19:18. So either I'm right about Luke not being a true historical book, and you're being wrong... or... I'm right about early Christians burning books, and you're being wrong. Sometimes you just can't win.

[Ouroboros]

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.

It's a matter of opinion, not deduction. Even if it is a potential probability, it is not a fact. If Jesus was real, then present him to me here and now, alive and kicking, showing himself to me.

 

Pray, ask him, make him show himself. You have the golden connection to the throne in Heaven. The best evidence you could give me is real experience, not arguments. Probability and possibility doesn't change my heart, but a real live experience would.

 

So do it.

 

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.

No, the claim I made were not inaccurate at all, since many come to the same conclusion based on the same evidence and using the same argument.

 

There are two viable explanations. You think the one is more probable than the other, I think the other one is more probable. How do you measure probability in these cases? It's just opinions, nothing else.

 

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.

First of all, I said that because I wanted to pull your chain and argue like you do. You keep on saying that you have evidence for the resurrection and the only thing you have provided so far is that an archeologist 100 years ago thought Luke was a real historian (Luke, who wasn't an eyewitness) and you claim that the Gospels are true stories, and that Josephus and others saying that Christians existed means that the resurrection really did happen. That doesn't prove it at all. But yet you keep on saying that YOU proven the resurrection, which you haven't. So I'm using your methodology by just repeating: I have proven it, na-na-na-na!!!.

 

But if you want proof, I can give you proof. Here is a simple test. If Jesus is alive today, and you have a direct line to him, then talk to him, tell him that I'm here and waiting for him. If Jesus doesn't show up. Then I will assume he is dead. (The alternative of course is that he refuse and want me to believe he is dead, or that you are a false prophet.)

[Ouroboros]

Paul was not an eyewitness.

And Luke wasn't either.

[Mriana]

Paul was not an eyewitness.

And Luke wasn't either.

 

True and neither was Mark, Matthew, or John.

[dagnarus]

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.

 

It should be pointed out that both the Gospel of Luke, and the Gospel of John make it clear that when the first disciples saw Jesus they did not recognize who he was, nor did they recognize him as a supernatural being. This should lead us to conclude that according to the bible the person whom they saw, firstly didn't look like Jesus and secondly hadn't been transfigured. Thus we should ask ourselves why did Jesus get plastic surgery after death and resurrection, was he afraid the Jews would capture and crucify him again? Or did the discpiples just meet somebody on the road while they were greifing and got it into their heads somehow that he was Jesus after he left?

 

Next how do we know that these people were radically changed. All you have to do is go to wikipedia to see a list of people which christians used to think were radically changed by Jesus and it later turned out to be quite superficial. Given that how can I tell that these people were radically changed because the Christian church says so. Compare the impression of Joseph Smith you would get from asking a mormon to that which you would get from non-mormon accounts to determine just how reliable that would really be. Then consider how much more exagerated the mormon accounts might be if their weren't any non-mormon accounts about the people in question.

 

Next how do we know that they were willing to die for their believes. Again consider a mormon account of Joseph Smith's death against a non mormon account. Then consider that for the deaths of all the apostles we only have church tradition to back it up. Then consider that all the church traditions about their death are contradictory. For any given apostle thier could be 2 or more different places in which he was martyred and another tradition that he actually died of old age. Matthew may have been martyred in egypt or he may have died of old age according to differing traditions.

 

On to falsifiability. You say one could produce the body. How would we do that now. He would be impossible to identify. Even at the time of the supposed resurrection, according to the book of acts the Disciples started preaching the gospel after 40 days. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that body which the Jewish authorities were able to produce would have been well on the way of decomposition, even still how would people be expected to identify that it was the corpse of Jesus, most wouldn't know what he looked like. Furthermore we have nothing to suggest that the Jewish authorities would have cared enough to produce the body. Lastly I believe that their are strong Jewish taboos against corpses. The only reason which could be given for Jesus even being removed from the cross is because to leave a corpse hanging overnight is an abomination to Jewish law, so it is well within the realm of possibility that the Jews would be unwilling to exhume and display the body on purely religious grounds.

 

How would we interview witnesses today, thier all dead. And as stated previously it is less than clear whether or not they died in such a fashion that they would be compelled to recant.

[bdp]

 

 

 

3. Does life have ultimate meaning?

 

No.

 

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

 

I do every day.

 

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?

 

Ask the Nazis about that. Subjective morality.

 

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?

 

What's 'compassion' got to do with facing reality? Is that 'compassion' to you, handing out fantasy like an anesthetic? No, life HAS no transcendent meanings, accept that and move on. Anyone who's looking for anything 'in the next life' to sort out perceived wrongs and injustices is a fool.

[bdp]

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.

 

The 'resurrection' is bullshit and to claim it as the 'best explanation' is laughable and has been proven so on this thread over and over - just because you refuse to acknowledge that doesn't make it not so. The people who claim the moon landings were a hoax never acknowledge when their 'evidence' is shot down either. A nutjob is a nutjob is a nutjob.

[bdp]

 

 

 

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 are not 'facts' they are stories in a religious storybook that bear no outside corroboration.

[oddbird1963]

LNC,

 

Ah! The 12 reasons to believe the resurrection is historical!

 

. . . 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.

 

For those who are predisposed to believe in the resurrection, these "facts" result in a "good enough" reason to believe. But when you look at these twelve statements one by one, they do little to bolster a belief that is built upon the supposed trustworthiness of the New Testament texts as historical documents of eye witness accounts.

 

1. Jesus died via crucifixion

There's no reason to think he wasn't crucified, but the details are lost to history. The only accounts we have that go into detail are the NT texts and they are what is being debated here.

 

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

Only obtainable through NT accounts. Yet, we are trying to establish the historicity of those accounts. Why do we believe this is so?

 

3. The disciples fled in despair after the crucifixion

Perhaps. But, once again, there is no independent confirmation. How do we vet the new testament as a source of historical data?

 

4. The tomb in which Jesus was buried was found empty - Oh really? And we know this how?

 

5. The disciples believed that they had seen the risen Jesus. - Bodily? In a vision? Maybe the stories started out a visions and were later recast as accounts of seeing Jesus in bodily form. Maybe one or two disciples had vision, but the others "saw" spiritually that their Lord was risen to the right-hand of the father. They 'caught' the vision and began to 'see' in the qualified spiritual way that believers become enlightened. Then, by the time the stories had been written down, the account had be literalized into a bodily resurrection.

 

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

We don't know that either. Sure, they may have been willing to die. But human psychology when it comes to radical belief, devotion and sacrifice is complex. One thing is certain, a bodily resurrection is the least likely explanation for a willingness to forsake family and friends and die for one's faith. Many millions have done so in the past without witnessing a resurrection.

 

7. The resurrection became the central message of their preaching.

Yes, but that begs the question. Did it start out a message of a spiritual resurrection that later became a story of a physical, bodily resurrection? The fact that it becomes a central message of an appeal to faith doesn't mean that the bodily resurrection actually happened. This does not bolster any argument for the resurrection's historicity.

 

8. They preached the resurrection in Jerusalem shortly after. That too is debatable. Once again, you only have the new testament books to attest to that. Yet, we are trying to vet the New Testament books.

 

9. The church was started.

There's a new religion comes along every year or so. Once again proves nothing, nor does it strengthen the argument. It makes for a great homiletic appeal, but it's all froth and no substance. Not for historical questions, anyway.

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

A new religion with a new ritual? Not too severely different from my response to number 9.

 

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

This proves nothing except maybe that he came to believe in a resurrected Jesus. And, he was not an eyewitness. The argument is not strengthened by this point.

 

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

He may have been in a position to be an eyewitness, but did he have an encounter with the resurrected Jesus in a strictly enlightened sense, or was it a physical , bodily resurrection.? And there's that pesky problem of no corroboration external to the new testament texts.

 

When you say, "These facts are generally accepted by even skeptical NT scholars," you paint with a broad brush as well as make an irrelevant statement. I can only say that I'm not too impressed with NT scholars if they can devote their life to study of all things New Testament and come to these 12 "definitive" facts. I think what they do is let their speculative opinions be known as to what they believe is real in the New Testament. If there is overlap fine, but it is just speculative opinion at the end of the day. I appreciate their studied opinions, but there is not enough actual fact there to make a reasonable appeal to faith or fact.

 

That statement is just an attempt to make an argument by consensus or a "bandwagon fallacy."

[RationalOkie]

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.

 

Name one thing that philosophy has proven?

[RationalOkie]

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.

 

How do you know it wasn't Buddah that created the universe? Provide proof that it wasn't Buddah.

[RationalOkie]

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.

 

You're right! So, where's your evidence that my flying spaghetti monster isn't real? Huh? C'mon, step up.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

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.

Since when? Ehrman himself states that in Misquoting Jesus, one of the reasons why he started to doubt that the bible was the inerrant word of God was because we don't have the originals because if we don't have the original words of the NT manuscripts, how can we know they were inspired? Ehrman has also stated in Misquoting Jesus that there clearly are Christian doctrines who's authenticity comes into question because of changes made to the manuscripts, like the roles of women in the early church and the doctrine of the Trinity. You claim to have read Ehrman and that you're familiar with his works, but I question whether you really have actually read anything he's written. If you really have read Ehrman's works, it's quite clear that you did not understand a word he said, but then you don't understand anything anyone says unless they're speaking Christianeze, so that doesn't surprise me.

 

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.

That's the exact same thing. If you don't see that they are and don't understand when people get pissed off from you threatening them with torture, don't you dare claim you're being persecuted.

 

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.

Are you seriously one of those people who believes humans roamed with dinosaurs? And it might not "weaken" the case for the bible, but it calls into question your earlier claim that the genres the books of the bible are written in are clearly defined. If you yourself can't make up your mind if Job is a poem or a fact, then you should retract your earlier claim that the genres of the books of the bible are obvious.

 

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.

Stop putting words into my mouth I didn't say. I did not say nobody wrote it down. I asked for evidence OUTSIDE the bible that this story really happened. If you can't provide this evidence, then it DOES contradict your earlier claim that you said ALL of the gospels are historically accurate and there is NO MYTHOLOGY in the gospels. How many times do you want me to repeat this? Are you just being frustrating on purpose because you know you have no evidence?

[dagnarus]

Are you just being frustrating on purpose because you know you have no evidence?

 

I think the answer to that one is fairly obvious.

[RationalOkie]

Well.. he lives up to his moniker 'I'm right because I say I'm right'

 

 

You see..there's this 2,000 year old story book that I believe is real...period! In it snakes talk, donkey's talk, people rise from the grave, people are healed, people get swallowed by whales and live, angels come down from heaven and godly men offer up their virgin daughters to appease the naughty men in the town so they wont corn hole the angels {as if they couldn't defend themselves}, people walk on water, blow trumpets and walls fall down and it's aaaaaaaaall true.

 

It's irrefutable because I know people that say that it is and they are smart, smart people. They have degrees and name plates on their desks and some of them have written books so it has to be true. Why would these unemployed men {disciples} bother spending their lives taking money and free food, free room and board from all of those nice illiterate and extremely gullible, and superstitious people? What possible advantage would these unemployed men have to gain? It was even written of them later that some gave their lives for the cause. I'm certain that is irrefutable as well. Since IT IS true you assholes have the burden of proof to disprove that it's not.

 

Now, there are these other religions, that I know very little about, but they're all false because mine is true. It's quite simple really. I don't understand why you people are so dumb and have hardened your hearts to the truth.

 

Gloooooooooory!

[Ouroboros]

Well.. he lives up to his moniker 'I'm right because I say I'm right'

That's something I gave him a long time ago. But he probably can change it himself now if he wants to.

True and neither was Mark, Matthew, or John.

Agree. However, my angle is that Paul and Luke admit themselves that they never met Jesus (IIRC). So even the most hardcore Apologist would have to agree on that point.

[Ouroboros]

These facts are generally accepted by even skeptical NT scholars.

Except the ones YOU won't accept as genuine scholars. Basically, you pick the scholars you think support your view, and say "look all the real scholars agree with me," meanwhile you reject any other scholar who happens to disagree with you.

 

For instance, does Ehrman agree with your list, or does he not? If he does not, then the question is, is he a genuine skeptical NT scholar according to you? If not, then who is a genuine skeptical NT scholar according to you, and what are your conditions for being one? Are they generally accepted as conditions for being a genuine skeptical NT scholar, or are your conditions made up by you? If they are generally accepted conditions, then how come Ehrman and many others call themselves scholars and no one challenges their use of that label?

[RationalOkie]

Well.. he lives up to his moniker 'I'm right because I say I'm right'

That's something I gave him a long time ago. But he probably can change it himself now if he wants to.

True and neither was Mark, Matthew, or John.

Agree. However, my angle is that Paul and Luke admit themselves that they never met Jesus (IIRC). So even the most hardcore Apologist would have to agree on that point.

 

 

The fact that you have to have a department to 'Apologize' for you religion should cause more introspective moments for xtians. What a crappy job that would be…defending the impossible without sounding like a crazy.

[mwc]

12 facts that even the most skeptical of NT scholars accept.

So you'll have no problem naming these scholars? Not a collection of various scholars that together hold these "facts" to be true but an actual list of "the most skeptical NT scholars" that hold all 12 of these items true. With citations of course as I don't want to waste my time trying to track down some off-hand remark a person may have made years ago.

 

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.

As for these "facts," well, lets just assume they're true. I inserted a few little stars in the list. See them up there between 4 and 5? See the disconnect? You're "proving" the resurrection by jumping from an empty tomb (which we're assuming to be true) to people believing they saw someone alive (again, we'll assume this to be true). See that word "believed?" Unless that establishes "seen the risen Jesus" as an absolute fact meaning they didn't just believe it but they did so beyond question, then everything that happens at that point is based on what? An assertion. Nothing more.

 

Lazarus came back from the dead. Apparently even the Jews were aware of him and plotted against him. Nowhere are the Jews aware of the risen Jesus. In Acts they don't speak of him even at the Pentecost just 7 weeks later. No one says a word about any of the events that had just taken place. The disciples appear to be starting from scratch trying to tell those people, many of which would have been present at Passover, what had taken place. Strange considering how amazing a resurrection in the midst of people who believed in and were awaiting resurrection themselves would be.

 

That notwithstanding, the 12 (ironic? I'm sure it's not) facts are disconnected. They are based upon events that may have taken place, an event that even we're told that they must have "believed" in removing the event itself from the realm of fact, and the events following are now based on that "belief" event as opposed to an actual event (likewise number 11). If you wish to alter you answer then you must say the disciples did not believe they saw the risen Jesus but they actually DID see the risen Jesus or better the risen Jesus appeared to his disciples but you know you cannot and your argument crumbles.

 

I used this in another thread but it applies here (from wikipedia):

Abduction means determining the precondition. It is using the conclusion and the rule to support that the precondition could explain the conclusion. Example: "When it rains, the grass gets wet. The grass is wet, it must have rained." Diagnosticians and detectives are commonly associated with this style of reasoning.

 

Abduction

allows inferring a as an explanation of b. Because of this, abduction allows the precondition a to be inferred from the consequence b. Deduction and abduction thus differ in the direction in which a rule like “a entails b” is used for inference. As such abduction is formally equivalent to the logical fallacy affirming the consequent or Post hoc ergo propter hoc, because there are multiple possible explanations for b.

Jesus said he would be resurrected. Jesus was killed, he was buried, the tomb was empty, the disciples "believed" they saw him alive and so, therefore, he must have been resurrected. This logic is all messed up.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

The fact that you have to have a department to 'Apologize' for you religion should cause more introspective moments for xtians. What a crappy job that would be…defending the impossible without sounding like a crazy.

Agree, and also, why do they need someone to "apologize" for something which they say supposedly is so obvious?

 

It isn't obvious, that's why we doubt!

 

And it isn't obvious, because that's why they need specialists to create speculations to explain away all the contradictions and lack of convincing evidence!

[agnosticator]

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.

 

and it is impossible for any human to know what the objective (absolute) moral rules from god are, or that there is a god there to create them. Furthermore, they are irrelevant to god, as morality happens between for social animals and their environment.