Question For The Christians

[bdp]

Let me know where and why you disagree with him.

 

LNC[/size][/font]

 

No.

[bdp]

Habermas means minimal facts and multiple attestation - 'multiple attestation' meaning multiple books of the bible. 'Minimal facts' are things that are common to all four gospels; Habermas doesn't understand, or doesn't care, that the 'gospels' don't meet accepted requirements for historical documents and that nothing contained in them is supported anywhere else in contemporary literature.

 

You're close. Actually minimal facts are those facts that are considered to be reliable by a vast majority of NT scholars. Yes, many of these facts were multiply attested in 3 or 4 of the gospels; however, that is only a factor of what would count as one of Habermas' minimal facts. Can you explain why you think that the eyewitness accounts within the gospels don't meet the criteria for being historical accounts? Whether or not what is contained is supported in contemporary literature (and i would dispute you on that point) is immaterial as to whether the accounts are considered to be reliable. Your opinion seems to be at variance with the vast majority of NT scholars, so I will look forward to your justification of your view.

 

LNC

 

1. Fuck NT scholars.

 

2. What 'eyewitnesses'? Who wrote the 'gospels'? What do we know about who they were? Who writes about them anywhere else in history? Nobody. The 'gospels' are the putting down on paper of oral traditions, nothing more.

 

3. "...and i would dispute you on that point..."

Oh, please do, I love seeing you get shot down by everyone on this site.

 

'...tis a flesh wound.'

[bdp]

Habermas... is no light weight.

 

Uh, yeah, he really is.

 

To LNC: I believe you came here looking for genuine debate. I don't care for debate, it bores me. Just dismiss my posts, I'll stop posting, and you can carry on debate with Ouroboros and whoever else feels like humouring you. I don't feel like it and it's not fair for me to keep wasting your time and forum space with (the same) dismissals.

[centauri]

It is actually the minimal facts argument for the resurrection. It is based upon certain minimal facts (6) that are accepted by a vast majority of NT scholars (over 90% on these facts) which are sufficient to make the case for the resurrection. He also has six additional facts that are accepted by 75% or more of NT scholars that adds additional strength to the case. The historical existence of Jesus is not a debatable fact for the vast majority of NT scholars (I would guess in the high 90%).

The “facts” for “Jesus of Nazareth” come exclusively from cult writers who were writing for the purpose of establishing their character as a bona-fide messiah.

The existence of mass stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq prior to the invasion was not a debatable fact either.

The vast majority of weapons scholars agreed on these "facts" and Colin Powell sold these facts in front of the world.

 

This is the way that history is done since we cannot go back and recreate events. It doesn't matter whether the subject is Jesus, Plato, Julius Caesar, or Alexander the Great, scholars have to examine the evidence and make a case as to why it is reliable. Then other scholars come along and either confirm the method and evidence or debate it. But again, that is the way that historical analysis is done. It doesn't mean that it is true with 100% certainty, but then we don't know anything with that kind of certainty. However, with the resurrection, we have a high degree of reliability.

 

You have a high degree of reliability that there were stories about a resurrection.

Your reliability comes from cult writers with an obvious agenda to sell “Jesus” as a bona-fide messiah.

The Gospels themselves have glaring inconsistencies regarding events surrounding the god-man.

This is not established history except in the minds of those that want it to be.

[Mister Pappy]

I know him and he is no light weight. Not even skeptical scholars like Crossan, Price, the late Antony Flew or others would consider him anything less than a first rate scholar.

First of all ... how well do you know him? ... That's what I thought. Secondly, why are you always so concerned with what everyone else thinks? You seem to believe that we can be intimidated by name dropping and telling us what others think or believe. Just because someone else believes something, doesn't make it right. Surely your momma told you this simple stuff. Are you incapable of thinking for yourself? Perhaps this explains how you managed to get yourself in this predicament to begin with. The whole world may start eating worms tomorrow. I will not. Get a grip man! Get a grip!

 

Don't forget that Flew can't even make up his mind what HE believes ... why would any of the rest of us care to try keeping up with him? Jeepers guy! Pick your super hero's more carefully! Give Spider Man a closer look.

[LNC]

He has virtually no credibility among scholars but has mass appeal with the fundies - enough said?

 

To which scholars are you referring? I know of many scholars that give him great credibility. N.T. Wright, J.D. Crossan, Robert Price, Richard Bauckham just to name a few.

 

LNC

[LNC]

Yes, he touts 'scholars' but they're all Xtian scholars, and mostly fundies.

 

You have shown that you are not familiar with his work. He does not look at "mostly fundies" as you claim. He looks at all NT scholars (as they would be the ones with the most credibility on the subject). However, he considers people like Gerd Ludeman, J.D. Crossan, Robert Price, Wolfhart Pannenberg and others who would not be considered "fundies" in anyones reckoning. Maybe you might want to actually read his work before making unsubstantiated claims that are easy to refute.

 

LNC

[Mister Pappy]

N.T. Wright, J.D. Crossan, Robert Price, Richard Bauckham just to name a few.

Why are the opinions of all these people so important to you?

[LNC]

His die-hard defense of the resurrection of Christ, by asserting such things as "the changed lives of the disciples after the story floated" as good evidence, has tainted his reputation as a serious thinker.

 

Again Mister P, you show your lack of understanding of historical analysis and the situation in question. The fact is that the apostles would have had every reason to believe that Jesus didn't rise from the dead. They had no belief in resurrections prior to the final resurrection. Their leader had been crucified as a criminal after being beaten beyond recognition. However, it is not debatable that the disciples went through a radical change rather suddenly. The creed from 1 Cor. 15:1-3 traces back to as early as within 24 months of the resurrection, which is astounding in historical analysis. The post-mortem appearances are attested to by 3 of the 4 Gospels, Acts and other NT books. In other words, it is a multiply attested fact. There is no other reasonable way to explain this change than that they saw what they claimed, the risen Jesus.

 

LNC

[LNC]

Maybe. I think he (or someone else) did a study on the percentage of the supporting scholars, and it was only like 70% that supported the idea of all the minimal facts being actual historical events. Maybe the 70% were the fundies, and the 30% were the liberal scholars.

 

Anyway, with the same argument, Habermas and any Habermas-bot must confess that Evolution is true. There's no debate there. If 70% is enough to make the resurrection true, then 100% of bio anthropologists is rather overwhelming. But they wouldn't, would they?

 

Here is where actually reading his works would help you to get the facts straights. Habermas presents 6 minimal facts that are agreed upon by more than 90% of the scholars and 6 more facts that are agreed to by more than 75 % of the scholars. Habermas uses the first six in his argument with the other six as supporting facts. Historians don't argue that a certain percentage of support for an idea makes it true, they argue that it makes the fact reliable.

 

LNC

[LNC]

I think the discussion of Habermas' approach was taken from this blog:

http://evaluatingchr...s-unpersuasive/

 

He basically took the works of authors and data mined little nuggets that each of the authors in his half-assed meta-analysis might have considered historical, daisy chained them together and said "SEEEEE! 70% of scholars agree on the historicity of the main facts." Never mind the fact that many of the authors used didn't believe in the resurrection in the historic, literal sense.

 

You can make all kinds of assertions when you haven't read the primary source. I can't believe the assertions made from ignorance here. Is it too much to ask to actually read a work that you are critiquing so that you are not arguing straw men? I am unimpressed by this display of blind assertions - and with such certainty! I thought that skeptics based beliefs on evidence. Apparently not in all cases.

 

LNC

[LNC]

According to LNC, Anne Frank didn't go to hell. According to Christianity, this is BS. LNC seems to think that the works of the law are good enough to "outweigh" Anne Frank's sinful actions.

 

I don't remember saying where Anne Frank has ended up. I didn't know here personally (although, I did visit her house when in Amsterdam) and don't know what her eternal destiny is, I am not God. I don't know where you have gotten your information, but it was not from my posts. The only way that works can justify is if a person lives a perfect life. That has only been done once and it wasn't by Anne Frank. Anne Frank, like the rest of us, was a sinner. Her sins condemned her to hell, like ours do for us. Her only hope was to trust in Jesus. I don't know whether she did that, so I don't know what her eternal destiny is. Do you? If so, can you document it?

 

Has LNC ever read the book of Romans?

 

"For no-one will be justified by the works of the Law, for by the Law is the knowledge of sin"

 

No-one is saved by the works of the law.

 

According to Christianity, Anne Frank is in hell.

 

Now, LNC, put that in your pipe and smoke it. And by the way, we still haven't heard your explanation of John 3:18

 

I have read and studied the book of Romans extensively. I am quite aware that no one has been justified by the works of the Law, since no one but Jesus has lived a perfect life. The Law was given as a tutor to point us to the need for salvation by faith (Gal. 3:24). Now, you claim to know that Anne Frank did not trust in Christ and I will look for you to document that. I don't know that for sure as I am not God and wasn't with her when she died. So, I don't know Anne Frank's eternal destiny as you seem to have condemned her to hell by some knowledge you have of her.

 

BTW, I don't smoke and I would suggest that you give up the habit. Read back on my posts and you will find my explanation of John 3:18 if you haven't found it already.

 

LNC

[LNC]

The threat of hell sows dishonest hearts.

 

Could you explain what you mean by that?

 

LNC

[LNC]

Unless they believe in Jesus. Jesus is the magical pixie dust that will undo sin and rebellion, and since everyone, regardless of faith, is born with a sinful nature and rebellious against God, it would mean that what really separate a person from God is the belief in Jesus or not. Since sin and rebellion is something that is uniform for all humans.

 

Or do you believe that some people can live a life without sin or rebellion against God and yet not believe in Jesus?

 

No, Jesus is God, the one against whom the rebellion is directed and the one who took the punishment for that rebellion even though he was innocent. The innocent was put to death by the guilty and the guilty still rail in anger against the innocent victim that they killed. I'm not sure why that is fair, but you seem to be OK with that. Can you explain that to me?

 

We do have a will and the fact that we are born with sin natures does not mean that we are determined to sin, only that we have an inclination to sin. The fact that we don't sin all the time and at every inclination is evidence that we don't have to sin. The fact that we choose to sin is evidence that we need a savior because we are truly guilty for our actions of rebellion.

 

LNC

[Mister Pappy]

Again Mister P, you show your lack of understanding of historical analysis and the situation in question.

Again LNC, you show your lack of substance by the continuous use of this type of language to start practically every response.

 

... it is not debatable that the disciples went through a radical change rather suddenly.

You are wrong. It is debatable. It is more than debatable. On second thought, seeing that there is no reliable source document and / or unbiased corroborating testimony whereby your extraordinary claims may be proven, perhaps you are correct - there is no debate.

 

No, Jesus is God.

Are we supposed to take your word for that? Please provide some extraordinary proof of your extraordinary claim.

 

I am unimpressed by this display of blind assertions ...

I doubt that the goal of anyone here is to impress you. Perhaps that is why you are repeatedly disappointed.

 

... we have an inclination to sin.

Wasn't it sweet of the heavenly Father to create his children with an inclination to do that which would condemn them to hell for all eternity? Your God is not deserving of worship. He is a sadistic abuser of children and guilty, beyond any doubt, of child endangerment - a Class A felony in Wyoming and most other states. What he does deserve is banishment from the universe. I suspect someday he will reap that which he has sowed. Human beings can't possibly remain in this state of ignorance for too much longer.

[Ouroboros]

Maybe. I think he (or someone else) did a study on the percentage of the supporting scholars, and it was only like 70% that supported the idea of all the minimal facts being actual historical events. Maybe the 70% were the fundies, and the 30% were the liberal scholars.

 

Anyway, with the same argument, Habermas and any Habermas-bot must confess that Evolution is true. There's no debate there. If 70% is enough to make the resurrection true, then 100% of bio anthropologists is rather overwhelming. But they wouldn't, would they?

 

Here is where actually reading his works would help you to get the facts straights. Habermas presents 6 minimal facts that are agreed upon by more than 90% of the scholars and 6 more facts that are agreed to by more than 75 % of the scholars. Habermas uses the first six in his argument with the other six as supporting facts. Historians don't argue that a certain percentage of support for an idea makes it true, they argue that it makes the fact reliable.

 

LNC

The fact is that he is using statistics of the number of supporters of what he is trying to judge to be a fact is in fact a way of using ad populum argument.

 

Over 90% of biological anthropologists agree to 100% about more than 90% of the different aspect of Evolution, therefore at least 90% of Evolution is to 100% absolute true.

 

You must agree, it is stupid to use the number of people who agree to a certain idea to be the foundation to how reliable the idea is to be a fact.

 

It is plain stupid, irrational, and illogical, and you know it.

[Ouroboros]

Unless they believe in Jesus. Jesus is the magical pixie dust that will undo sin and rebellion, and since everyone, regardless of faith, is born with a sinful nature and rebellious against God, it would mean that what really separate a person from God is the belief in Jesus or not. Since sin and rebellion is something that is uniform for all humans.

 

Or do you believe that some people can live a life without sin or rebellion against God and yet not believe in Jesus?

 

No, Jesus is God, the one against whom the rebellion is directed and the one who took the punishment for that rebellion even though he was innocent. The innocent was put to death by the guilty and the guilty still rail in anger against the innocent victim that they killed. I'm not sure why that is fair, but you seem to be OK with that. Can you explain that to me?

God killed innocent people in the Bible, you seem to be okay with that. Can you explain that to me?

 

We do have a will and the fact that we are born with sin natures does not mean that we are determined to sin, only that we have an inclination to sin. The fact that we don't sin all the time and at every inclination is evidence that we don't have to sin. The fact that we choose to sin is evidence that we need a savior because we are truly guilty for our actions of rebellion.

 

LNC

Everyone has sinned. Therefore, the "sin" factor can be reduce in the expression. It's superfluous as a parameter for deciding salvation. No one is without sin.

 

God's wrath rests upon all of us, therefore, the "wrath" factor can be reduced in the expression. Same thing here, it's superfluous in deciding who is saved or not. Everyone is on the same page here.

 

The only factor (variable) which the whole formula is dependent upon is belief (faith).

 

You have faith -> go to Heaven.

You do not have faith -> you do not go to Heaven.

 

Unless you decide to say that some people do not sin and do not have God's wrath over them, and that would be very unbiblical.

 

Simple logic. You know, "logic", that's the thing you're supposed to know by now after all your studies but still seem to not fully grasp.

 

Do you know Boolean algebra. Set up the expression for redemption and then simplify (reduce) the formula to its optimal state.

[oddbird1963]

Read back on my posts and you will find my explanation of John 3:18 if you haven't found it already.

 

 

 

No, LNC. You don't explain John 3:18. You merely restate your prior theological position. You do not explain how the words of Jesus which directly contradicts your assertions are NOT contradictions.

 

You have no explanation to offer. You just repeat yourself and hope it passes for explanation.

[bdp]

Yes, he touts 'scholars' but they're all Xtian scholars, and mostly fundies.

 

You have shown that you are not familiar with his work. He does not look at "mostly fundies" as you claim. He looks at all NT scholars (as they would be the ones with the most credibility on the subject). However, he considers people like Gerd Ludeman, J.D. Crossan, Robert Price, Wolfhart Pannenberg and others who would not be considered "fundies" in anyones reckoning. Maybe you might want to actually read his work before making unsubstantiated claims that are easy to refute.

 

LNC

 

Fuck you and your presuppositions, dickhead.

[Antlerman]

It's possible to start a formal debate in the Arena, but every time we do, it doesn't pan out. In my case it's the lack of time, so the debate would span over weeks and I lose interest quickly. If Bob and LNC are interested in having a formal 1-on-1 debate, which would be strictly moderated, they can tell me and we'll set it up.

That is my impression of the Arena as well, it doesn't seem to attract any interest because the whole appeal of forums is the free interaction. If people aren't able to participate then it's no different than reading a dry transcript.

 

Maybe this thread needs to be broken into 2 or 3 separate conversations so that it doesn't lose focus?

I think the Arena does work in pinning down what becomes endless circles due to lack of focused effort. I'm going to pull that Nenlow debate out of there since it failed miserably to belong there. I never cared for the strictly formal rules as Bruce had set up originally, and it worked better to just be an on-topic, moderated affair with a separate peanut gallery so others could be engaged in their thoughts as well, but not in distraction from the debate. As I did this with a few other apologists here, it was in fact quite productive. Buddy mellowed out considerably and has actually provided some reasonable discussion since that point. Kat22 conceded her position that Christianity offered more than any other religion or philosophy in this life and has not since debated otherwise, etc.

 

I have thought many times to bring LNC and myself into a focused discussion, but it would be on the basis of not arguing endlessly over "genealogies", so to speak (i.e. 'proper interpretation of scripture'), but rather to where the rubber meets the road: Life. I personally don't expend my energies anymore arguing about Bible scholars, though it did and does have a its place and its value. So likewise talking outside his singular focus of having the Correct argument proving Christianity the only truth, I don't think LNC would be able to engage much beyond that into the greater world where I tend to expend my thoughts and efforts.

 

However, I would be more than happy to moderate a debate between LNC and someone like Bob if he were willing. In fact as a moderator on the site, I think if would be most beneficial for this to happen. It could perhaps cut to the chase, rather than the absurd 3 month delays to posts, in some effort to address each and every point of everyone. That makes for an unfocused, circling mess that is less about any real discussion as something else. So, Bob? Interested? Let's make that Arena useful again?

[bdp]

There is no other reasonable way to explain this change

 

 

OTHER THAN IT IS A PIECE OF UNSUBSTANTUATED FICTION. Period. Get it yet, moron?

 

A dead guy magically became undead. Yeah, real 'reasonable.'

[bdp]

LNC - you're an asshole. I'm tired of being told that I don't understand this or that, or in fact that I haven't even read this or that, merely because I fail to come to the same conclusions you and your chosen heroes come to. Fuck you.

 

It must really be sad to be incapable of independent analytical thought.

[DesertBob]

However, I would be more than happy to moderate a debate between LNC and someone like Bob if he were willing. In fact as a moderator on the site, I think if would be most beneficial for this to happen. It could perhaps cut to the chase, rather than the absurd 3 month delays to posts, in some effort to address each and every point of everyone. That makes for an unfocused, circling mess that is less about any real discussion as something else. So, Bob? Interested? Let's make that Arena useful again?

I guess it would depend on the rules, the topic, and the kind of commitment it would take from me to do it justice, but yes, in principle I would be willing to do something like that.

 

--Bob

[bdp]

I'm betting LNC says no, because any sort of consistent focus is going to annihilate him and he knows it.

[oddbird1963]

There is no other reasonable way to explain this change than that they saw what they claimed, the risen Jesus.

 

 

Given the fact that religionists tend to "speak ministerially" and exaggerate, there is a more than reasonable explanation.

 

Some of the disciples did , in fact, continue speaking for their dead leader after the fact. The stories got blown out of proportion, added to, embellished and then repeated. After many cycles of repeating and embellishing the story, voila! You have stories about changed lives and risen saviors where there really was none before. These are called legends.

 

Totally reasonable, especially since there is no need to explain or account for stories in anonymous books claiming miraculous events that were written down years after the supposed events took place.