(July 14, 2015 at 3:28 pm)robvalue Wrote: I'm sorry you had to go through that Jenny. I think some people are too rational to be duped, although if the indoctrination is ruthless enough anyone can probably be broken. I am glad your parents didn't react as badly as they could have done.

I wasn't an amazing child at 5, I was simply lucky to have a clear head. I'm not trying to claim superiority over anyone, even those who believe even today. Many much cleverer than me I'm sure have been conned into it because their minds have been poisoned by those responsible for their most basic education. It may well be done with good intentions, although I do wonder how much of it is the fear of having to explain it to a clear headed person rather than force it into a vulnerable young mind.

If there's one thing I despise the most about religion at a basic level I think it's indoctrination. It is what keeps religion going, possibly the only thing.

I'm not particularly sorry.  I wasn't abused.  My atheism hurt my religious parents.  It didn't hurt me so very much.  But I do get the feeling of being a young child wondering how adults can believe.

(July 14, 2015 at 10:37 am)Crossless1 Wrote:

(July 13, 2015 at 6:30 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: The gospels were WRITTEN a few years later based upon the testimony of men who had seen Jesus risen from the dead BEFORE Paul wrote. Those were the men Paul conferred with when he traveled to Jerusalem around AD 35-36.

Do you think that Peter, James and John just left out the part about Jesus being alive (and his tomb being empty) during Paul's visit?

Ok, a few things.  First, not that I expect you to agree or grant this any weight, but I find Paul to be a uniquely poor source for much of anything.  Simply put, I don't trust him.  To me, his letters read like the ravings of a fanatic (first a fanatical opponent of the movement and then a fanatical convert).  I suppose you'll wish to know how I account for this change of heart, but the assumption that his conversion is the result of encountering bedrock truth in his alleged encounter with Christ isn't the only possibility, and any additional speculation is simply that -- speculation.  Paul may have been a bit unhinged.  Who knows?  In ancient times, people a few cards short of a full deck were often granted a special status as having a more direct line to the spiritual realm.  He may have been power-hungry and saw an opening within the movement for fulfilling his own needs for power or status.  Again, who knows?  But I refuse to grant special status as a source of truth to a guy who openly says he will be all things to all people in the pursuit of his self-appointed mission.  Paul seems to me to be the religious equivalent of a used car salesman.  Again, I don't expect you or any other believer to agree with me, but don't in turn expect me to swallow Paul's claims about himself wholesale, any more than you would expect me to uncritically buy whatever the car dealer says when I suspect he's trying to sell a lemon.

But that's kinda the point of this thread, isn't it? Five facts which are accepted by an super-majority of professional NT scholars (and it may surprise you to learn that not all of them are actually Christians) have been outlined and require explanation.

How do you explain ALL FIVE?

Paul WAS converted? Why? How? What caused it? And when you are grasping for an explanation, please be sure that your explanation fits neatly with the facts that Jesus was crucified and that his tomb was found empty. The facts are not stand-alone sound-bites; they are woven together like strands of a cord.

Quote:Second, you ask if I think that Peter, John, and James would forget to mention something like an empty tomb during their encounters with Paul.  It's a fair question.  But again, why the jump to assume that these alleged appearances were physical in nature or that an empty tomb was even mentioned?

Paul was a Pharisee in Jerusalem the day that Jesus was crucified. He was in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost when the Apostles got up to preach, the Holy Spirit fell on the crowd and 3,000 people were added to the Church in a single day. He knew the story of the resurrection because the Sanhedrin had spread the report that the disciples had stolen the body.

So, Paul's knowledge of the empty tomb PRE-DATES his meeting with the apostles after his conversion.

Quote:Couldn't Jesus' appearances (mind you, I'm simply granting the historicity of these appearances for the sake of argument) have been of a "spiritual" nature?  That would be more in line with a Jesus who passes through walls/doors and ascends into the sky.  You're simply assuming an empty tomb based on later Gospel claims.  And if Peter, el al, had mentioned an empty tomb, why is Paul not explicit about it? 

For a moment I will consider (though not grant) that Jesus' resurrection was purely spiritual.

How on God's green earth does that help the atheist who denies that God even exists? Jesus appears to Paul after his death spiritually? But NOTHING exists after death if naturalism be true.

If you are willing to concede life after death and that a supernatural event like Paul seeing God alive (even spiritually) actually occurred, then we're a lot closer to getting you baptized than I thought.

Quote:For that matter, if there really was such a meeting or series of meetings between Paul and Jesus' direct followers, why is Paul apparently ignorant of or uninterested in Jesus' actual teachings during his ministry?  Did his closest followers just happen to forget to mention any of that too?

Do Paul's letters strike you as being biographies of Jesus? Or did he leave that to his buddy, Luke, who was working on a book of his own? I mean, Luke is documenting the Life of Christ and the Acts of the Apostles, so why does Paul have to do it, also?

The purpose of Paul's letters is primarily theological and pastoral - not biographical or historical. And they are written to BELIEVERS - not to people who did not already know the basics. If there was need for basic instruction, Luke had his notes and probably a copy of Mark, Q and L to teach from.

Quote:Finally, if Paul is not misrepresenting what happened, how is it that he comes up with a theology (for lack of a better word) that is apparently so diametrically opposed to what we can glean about James based on the epistle that was apparently penned by one of James's followers, if not by the man himself?  Did Jesus' own brother so completely misunderstand what Jesus was about that he needed a guy who never met Jesus to get it right?  Perhaps you find that plausible.  I don't.

I think I understand where you're going but just to be sure, could you be more specific about the discrepancy you find between Paul and James?

Thanks.

(July 14, 2015 at 7:50 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: Sooo, I'm Nemo for good now? Cool.

Looks like I really do roll so hard motherfuckers wanna find me

Ever seen/read Little Nemo? It's about a little kid who has to travel through some kind of nightmare world to fight, like, the biggest baddest monster dreamland has ever seen. That shit is nerve-racking.

At any rate...Kudos to Randy for taking the "Ignore" blinders off. I probably still qualify as a rude person the commanding majority of the time, but you know...baby steps.

There are no verifiable facts in the Minimal Facts approach. Calling them "facts" is just an underhanded way of trying to discourage debate on them. In referring to "non-biblical" sources, you're still referring to early christian scripture at least in part...they just happened to be early christian scriptures that for whatever reason did not make it into the bible. This puts their validity as supporting "evidence" about on par with the bible itself, because they are once again the claim.

That's the core problem with the whole argument: it insists on touting claims as evidence. You haven't changed your mind, obviously, looking at all your posts, but for anyone else reading this...that's what happened. Randy spent 84 pages saying "These claims count as evidence of themselves," and most of the rest of us stood back and said "No, Randy, no they do not." For 84 pages. GG everyone.

(July 14, 2015 at 11:51 am)Pizza Wrote:

(July 14, 2015 at 3:06 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Have you stopped to consider that the resurrection of Jesus IS evidence that there is a God? Or that coming to the conclusion that the resurrection makes sense is a step toward faith in God?

Because that assumes the very thing you where to set out to support, "there was a bodily resurrection of Jesus." Your premises assume Christian theism to support Christian theism. I don't understand what you don't understand about that.

Sorry, dude. You fail.

We do not consider that God exists or that Jesus is God until we have evaluated the historical evidence. I have presented information found in NON-BIBLICAL texts from Jewish and Roman authors that lead professional scholars to accept five facts about Jesus of Nazareth.

The question THEN becomes, "What theory best explains these five facts?"

There may be several. That's your job...to come up with them.

The theory which I accept as most plausible is that Jesus rose from the dead. If true, even THEN we have to ask some follow up questions about who this Jesus really is and so forth.

But one step at a time.

(July 14, 2015 at 12:56 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(July 14, 2015 at 3:06 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Have you stopped to consider that the resurrection of Jesus IS evidence that there is a God? Or that coming to the conclusion that the resurrection makes sense is a step toward faith in God?

Until the resurrection of Jesus is proven, it is evidence of nothing.  I have no idea what you mean by the resurrection "making sense."  But coming to baseless conclusions, does seem to be the hallmark of faith in god.

The Minimal Facts are:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion
2. Jesus' disciples believed that He rose and appeared to them
3. Saul, the persecutor of the Church, was suddenly changed
4. James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed
5. Jesus' tomb was found to be empty

Do you have a theory about what happened that accounts for all five?

If so, we need to give it careful consideration. Thanks.

(July 14, 2015 at 9:54 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: The Minimal Facts are:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion

A lot of people during that time did.  There is no reason to believe >if< Jesus existed, that this would make the situation special at all.

(July 14, 2015 at 9:54 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: 2. Jesus' disciples believed that He rose and appeared to them

People on drugs/alcohol possibly believe purple dragons steal their farts.  The unsubstantiated claims of what some ancient goat herders may or may not have believed is completely moot.

(July 14, 2015 at 9:54 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: 3. Saul, the persecutor of the Church, was suddenly changed.

Good for him?  This is barely a fact, and an irrelevant one at that.

(July 14, 2015 at 9:54 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: 4. James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed.

See previous answer.

(July 14, 2015 at 9:54 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: 5. Jesus' tomb was found to be empty.

Cool.  So what?  Somebody could have stolen it, animals could have gotten to it, etc ad nauseum.  >If< Jesus existed, there is a myriad of logical reasons a body may not be found.  

(July 14, 2015 at 9:54 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Do you have a theory about what happened that accounts for all five?

If so, we need to give it careful consideration. Thanks.

Yep.  Sure do.

(July 14, 2015 at 10:23 pm)Spooky Wrote:

(July 14, 2015 at 9:54 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Do you have a theory about what happened that accounts for all five?

If so, we need to give it careful consideration. Thanks.

Yep.  Sure do.

Does it rhyme with "All 5 of your 'facts' are unsupported bullshit"?

(July 14, 2015 at 10:29 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Does it rhyme with "All 5 of your 'facts' are unsupported bullshit"?

Indeed.

(July 14, 2015 at 2:19 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Here is another well-reasoned rebuttal to Randy's bullshit.  For anyone who wants to use it.  

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co...ch-of.html

Quote: Habermas and Licona ignore the fact that a miraculous resurrection is always going to be more improbable than any improbable speculation about what may have happened instead. Improbable things happen all the time. People get struck by lightning. People win contests against overwhelming odds. So non-miraculous explanations of the resurrection might all be improbable, and yet better explain the evidence, since a miracle can still be far less likely to be true than those other improbable explanations. Unless they can show that our “improbable” explanations are more improbable than a miracle (and they never do), their argument can’t even get off the ground.

Unless you are a religious shithead who believes in "miracles."  Then...anything is possible if you want it to be.

Well, I know I have done well when even the great Minimalist is forced to give up his usual profanity-laced one-line responses and actually dig for a more substantive response on the Internet. Unfortunately, the article by John Loftus is poorly chosen.

The article is brief - only six paragraphs overall - and the first paragraph is simply a series of quotes from Habermas and Licona (and Craig) explaining their purpose. Okay, that was a necessary set up for Loftus' readers, but now we're down to five paragraphs of rebuttal.

In paragraph two, Loftus attempts to make much of the fact that H & L consider the Bible "irrelevant". Well, yes, for the purposes of the minimal facts approach, that's correct. We don't need to make the full-blown argument for the historical reliability of the NT when arguing "minimal facts". That's the beauty of it. That's why no one in this forum and thread has made a dent in the argument itself. The approach is based on unassailable historical evidence. However, it would be important to keep the purpose of arguing the minimal facts in mind: many skeptics and atheists, etc, have issues (understandably) with the Bible as a whole. These issues can be addressed adequately but it is a HUGE task - not one that can be done in a few minutes or even a few years. The minimal facts approach provides a sound-bite-sized argument that can encourage a skeptic to examine the evidence for Christianity more deeply. It is one tool - not the whole toolbox.

In paragraph three, Loftus complains about the fact that H&L are isolating the five minimal facts from the rest of the Bible and that "it's not fair for their side to take off the table any "facts" that [his] side objects to." Why is that, Mr. Loftus? The goal of the minimal facts approach to arguing for the resurrection is not to deny that there are issues that you might object to and to which believers should ultimately provide reasonable explanations. The goal is to clear away the clutter and distractions and focus on the core issues: what can be known with near certainty about Jesus Christ and what conclusions can and should be drawn from that knowledge. This is just a crack in the door that allows a bit of fresh air into the room; the shade that is drawn slightly to allow a shaft of light to pierce the darkness. Haberman, Licona and Craig would all agree that much work remains to be done from that point forward, but at least such work becomes possible with the acceptance of the minimal facts.

In paragraph four, Loftus asks, "Did Habermas consider Muslim scholars in his survey? Can he even read modern Arabic?" The better questions to ask, Mr. Loftus, is whether there are any world-class New Testament scholars whose opinions are to be considered and whether these scholars are presenting their views in the peer-reviewed periodicals that were surveyed. If so, then the answer would be yes, they were included. If not, then no Muslims were included. But if there are no world-class NT scholars who are Muslims, why bring it up? To score cheap debating points?

In paragraph five, Loftus points out that H&L have evaluated the theories of non-believers and found them wanting. Indeed. And I feel the same way about the ideas proposed in this thread. But so what? If there is a better theory available to explain the minimal facts, by all means, share it with us. Loftus then fills out the balance of this paragraph with a simple statement of the skeptic's position. He writes:

Quote:What escapes them is that they fail to realize non-believers do not have to propose an explanation of these isolated facts at all. We’re first and foremost arguing that the New Testament is so riddled with discrepancies and evolving layers of religious tradition coming from a superstitious era that it leaves a great deal of room for doubt—that it’s much more likely no one can know what happened if we take the New Testament at face value—which means Christians cannot believe Jesus rose from the grave either. That’s what we’re saying. The rest is conjecture and speculation since we don’t have any of the evidence we really need (as even Licona admits). Our speculation only comes after arguing that reasonable people must doubt a straightforward reading of the tales in these texts.

Loftus is simply too cavalier when he argues that non-believers "do not have to propose an explanation of these isolated facts at all." And the reason it is important to consider them is because of the larger eschatalogical context of the gospel message. If this life is not all that there is, then it is wise to consider what fate awaits us after death. Christianity posits that there is life after death and offers answers to these types of questions as well as evidence of its truthfulness in the form of a a unique, supernatural event which, if true, gives us a reason to be receptive to the full message delivered by God through Jesus Christ. Loftus concludes his rehashing of the atheist argument by saying, "we don't have any of the evidence we really need" - while completely ignoring the fact that H&L are providing the very evidence that he is demanding. But he cannot see the forest for the trees.

Finally, in paragraph six (quoted by Min), Loftus states, "Habermas and Licona ignore the fact that a miraculous resurrection is always going to be more improbable than any improbable speculation about what may have happened instead." That's a bit of an understatement, isn't it? But so what? Christians argue that in the five facts, we have a sequence of events that is not easily explained. And as improbable as it might seem, the resurrection of Jesus appears to us to be the BEST explanation of all that we know about these events.

Since Loftus points out that "a miraculous resurrection is always going to be more improbable than any improbable speculation about what may have happened instead", I think it would be useful to consider whether "any" reasonable alternatives which explain ALL of the facts adequately can actually be found.

I still haven't seen any facts, let alone five of them.