Ask a Catholic

[Wyrd of Gawd]

How'd you know that?

Because a historically reliable NT tells me that Jesus existed, that he was crucified and that he was raised from the dead. This suggests that his claim to be God was legit. If so, then EVERYTHING he said becomes extremely important, and one of the things he talked about was the final exam.

What happened to all of those zombies that popped out of their graves when Jesus was crucified?  Are they still shuffling about?

[Longhorn]

How'd you know that?

Because a historically reliable NT tells me that Jesus existed, that he was crucified and that he was raised from the dead. This suggests that his claim to be God was legit. If so, then EVERYTHING he said becomes extremely important, and one of the things he talked about was the final exam.

Nnnnnnnope.

He still doesn't get it.

For the third time: I'll grant you a historically reliable NT, a Jesus that definitely existed and did by crucifixion and that the gospels are eyewitness accounts. Even if we stretch the credibility of the bible by that much, which is a shitload, it still doesn't prove anything.

Even if the disciples believed Jesus rose from the dead, it still doesn't prove anything.

Hell, even if Jesus rose from the fucking dead, it still doesn't prove anything.

The following leaps in your reasoning:

~the body was not found, ergo Jesus rose from the dead
~the disciples believed Jesus rose from the dead, ergo he rose from the dead
~Jesus rose from the dead, ergo god exists

are entirely baseless and unjustified. You conclude the last possible as necessary based on few 'facts', the authenticity of which is dubious and questionable to say the very least.

You are trying to present historical facts as evidence for (1)a biological phenomenon that is virtually impossible and (2)the existence of a being which should be easy to prove without resorting to anything of the sort, when they are neither all facts nor satisfactory or even appropriate type of evidence for either of your claims.

And NOWHERE does hell even enter the picture.

Watch out for that logical gap you're so eager to spring over, Randy. It's pretty fucking deep.

[pocaracas]

Oh, look, Luckie's back!
Welcome!
You'll find Randy to be a bit reluctant to post links after all the scalding he got from us about that sort of behavior.
But I'm nice, so here are the links:
- Intro: http://atheistforums.org/thread-34162-po...#pid973294
- Fact 1, Jesus died by crucifixion: http://atheistforums.org/thread-34162-po...#pid973916
- Fact 2, Jesus' disciples believed that He rose and appeared to them: http://atheistforums.org/thread-34162-po...#pid975575
- Fact 3, S/Paul, the persecutor of the Early Church, was suddenly changed: http://atheistforums.org/thread-34162-po...#pid980717
- Fact 4, James, the skeptical brother of Jesus was suddenly converted: http://atheistforums.org/thread-34162-po...#pid985969

There will be a "Fact 5, Jesus' tomb was found to be empty"... Must have something to do with women finding it and their testimony to be considered, which was very odd in that day and age - as if behind great men there was a time when there wasn't a great woman.


Then there's that other thread about the reliability of the NT: http://atheistforums.org/thread-33349-po...#pid941520. Just read the OP and you'll see why that thread turned into the 71 pages it now bears. The very first reply captures all that's wrong with that OP in one single line.
(and yes, he does have a word document with all those things previously written - during his 10 year catholic apologetics course or something - and handy for his reference and copy/pasting onto the forum)

[Randy Carson]

Thanks!

I have two threads which cover this material:

1. The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
2. Proving the Resurrection by the Minimal Facts Approach

Thread 1 was my first real attempt at engaging atheists. The thread got bogged down in side issues, and I learned that I would have to take a different approach to interacting with the gang here.

Thread 2 is based upon the idea that it is NOT necessary to rely upon the NT in order to conclude that the resurrection is the most plausible explanation of the facts that are generally accepted by ALL scholars - skeptics and theists alike.

And btw, I have not claimed that the reliability of the NT is the "entire basis" for my faith. But, you have plans...so proceed.

Plans? Whose got plans? Between me and you, I'd say you're the one with the plans! I'm legitimately interested in you answering my question, but it seems you have homework for me to do before you'll even bother answering me. Honestly I'm a mod on vacation for medical reasons; I don't have it in me to go through two very long threads of banter. I'm asking you to simply place your cards on the table for me please and thank you. For instance if I asked you for historical proof of Jesus' existance, it should be easy peasy for you to give me a link to prove what you're saying is true. References and resources that back up your claim. I'd like to see them, truly I would. Can you just give me that, here in this thread? I'm only following a few threads at the moment because that's all I can keep up with. Historical proof of New Testament validity is one of my main interest topics. I'm not close minded--show me what you've got.

Sheesh. Another mod. Why does that continue to surprise me? Everyone's a mod but me.

Since you're on vacation, you must have some time for reading. And since you want evidence for Jesus' existence, you can read Bart Ehrman's book, Did Jesus Exist?

Here's a brief snippet just to give you a flavor of what you can look forward to:

"Serious historians of the early Christian movement--all of them—have spent many years preparing to be experts in their field. Just to read the ancient sources requires expertise in a range of ancient languages: Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and often Aramaic, Syriac, and Coptic, not to mention the modern languages of scholarship (for example, German and French). And that is just for starters. Expertise requires years of patiently examining ancient texts and a thorough grounding in the history and culture of Greek and Roman antiquity, the religions of the ancient Mediterranean world, both pagan and Jewish, knowledge of the history of the Christian church and the development of its social life and theology, and, well, lots of other things. It is striking that virtually everyone who has spent all the years needed to attain these qualifications is convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure. Again, this is not a piece of evidence, but if nothing else, it should give one pause. In the field of biology, evolution may be “just” a theory (as some politicians painfully point out), but it is the theory subscribed to, for good reason, by every real scientist in every established university in the Western world.

“Still, as is clear from the avalanche of sometimes outraged postings on all the relevant Internet sites, there is simply no way to convince conspiracy theorists that the evidence of their position is too thin to be convincing and that the evidence for the traditional view is thoroughly persuasive. Anyone who chooses to believe something contrary to evidence that an overwhelming majority of people find overwhelmingly convincing—whether it involves the fact of the Holocaust, the landing on the moon, the assassination of Presidents, or even a presidential place of birth—will not be convinced. Simply will [emphasis original] not be convinced.

“And so…I do not expect to convince anyone in that boat. What I do hope is to convince genuine seekers who really want to know how we know that Jesus did exist, as virtually every scholar of antiquity, of biblical studies, of classics, and of Christian origins in this country and, in the Western world agrees. Many of these scholars have no vested interest in the matter. As it turns out, I myself do not either. I am not a Christian, and I have no interest in promoting a Christian cause or a Christian agenda. I am an agnostic with atheist leanings, and my life and views of the world would be approximately the same whether or not Jesus existed. My beliefs would vary little. The answer to the question of Jesus’ historical existence will not make me more or less happy, content, hopeful, likable, rich, famous, or immortal.

“But as a historian, I think evidence matters. And the past matters. And for anyone to whom both evidence and the past matter, a dispassionate consideration of the case makes it quite plain: Jesus did exist. He may not have been the Jesus that you mother believes in or the Jesus of the stain-glass window or the Jesus of your least favorite televangelist or the Jesus proclaimed by the Vatican, the Southern Baptist Convention, the local megachurch, or the California Gnostic. But he did exist, and we can say a few things, with relative certainty about him.” (Ehrman, Bart, Did Jesus Exist?, 5-6.)

[Randy Carson]

Oh, look, Luckie's back!
Welcome!
You'll find Randy to be a bit reluctant to post links after all the scalding he got from us about that sort of behavior.
But I'm nice, so here are the links:
- Intro: http://atheistforums.org/thread-34162-po...#pid973294
- Fact 1, Jesus died by crucifixion: http://atheistforums.org/thread-34162-po...#pid973916
- Fact 2, Jesus' disciples believed that He rose and appeared to them: http://atheistforums.org/thread-34162-po...#pid975575
- Fact 3, S/Paul, the persecutor of the Early Church, was suddenly changed: http://atheistforums.org/thread-34162-po...#pid980717
- Fact 4, James, the skeptical brother of Jesus was suddenly converted: http://atheistforums.org/thread-34162-po...#pid985969

There will be a "Fact 5, Jesus' tomb was found to be empty"... Must have something to do with women finding it and their testimony to be considered, which was very odd in that day and age - as if behind great men there was a time when there wasn't a great woman.


Then there's that other thread about the reliability of the NT: http://atheistforums.org/thread-33349-po...#pid941520. Just read the OP and you'll see why that thread turned into the 71 pages it now bears. The very first reply captures all that's wrong with that OP in one single line.
(and yes, he does have a word document with all those things previously written - during his 10 year catholic apologetics course or something - and handy for his reference and copy/pasting onto the forum)

Actually, I haven't figured out how to link to a specific post, yet. Can you PM me those instructions so that I can respond more adequately in the future? Thanks.

[Randy Carson]

Because a historically reliable NT tells me that Jesus existed, that he was crucified and that he was raised from the dead. This suggests that his claim to be God was legit. If so, then EVERYTHING he said becomes extremely important, and one of the things he talked about was the final exam.

What happened to all of those zombies that popped out of their graves when Jesus was crucified?  Are they still shuffling about?

Presumably, like Lazarus, they eventually died again. Is this something I need to research for you?

[c172]

Randy Carson


Presumably, like Lazarus, they eventually died again. Is this something I need to research for you?

You're the one that started a thread called "Ask a Catholic".

[Jenny A]

First of all it isn't as if the odds are 50/50 or as if following a religion didn't take time and usually money.  And in the case of Christianity, contradict some of my moral principles.

That last part is the most interesting...which of your moral principles does Christianity violate?

The lack of acceptance of gays part is on my mind right at the moment.  But also the don't tell lies part.  To pretend to believe is to lie.  And then there would be promising to indoctrinate my children with a lie.

[Mystical]

---

Plans? Whose got plans? Between me and you, I'd say you're the one with the plans! I'm legitimately interested in you answering my question, but it seems you have homework for me to do before you'll even bother answering me. Honestly I'm a mod on vacation for medical reasons; I don't have it in me to go through two very long threads of banter. I'm asking you to simply place your cards on the table for me please and thank you. For instance if I asked you for historical proof of Jesus' existance, it should be easy peasy for you to give me a link to prove what you're saying is true. References and resources that back up your claim. I'd like to see them, truly I would. Can you just give me that, here in this thread? I'm only following a few threads at the moment because that's all I can keep up with. Historical proof of New Testament validity is one of my main interest topics. I'm not close minded--show me what you've got.

---

Sheesh. Another mod. Why does that continue to surprise me? Everyone's a mod but me.  

Since you're on vacation, you must have some time for reading. And since you want evidence for Jesus' existence, you can read Bart Ehrman's book, Did Jesus Exist?

Here's a brief snippet just to give you a flavor of what you can look forward to:

---

"Serious historians of the early Christian movement--all of them—have spent many years preparing to be experts in their field. Just to read the ancient sources requires expertise in a range of ancient languages: Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and often Aramaic, Syriac, and Coptic, not to mention the modern languages of scholarship (for example, German and French). And that is just for starters. Expertise requires years of patiently examining ancient texts and a thorough grounding in the history and culture of Greek and Roman antiquity, the religions of the ancient Mediterranean world, both pagan and Jewish, knowledge of the history of the Christian church and the development of its social life and theology, and, well, lots of other things. It is striking that virtually everyone who has spent all the years needed to attain these qualifications is convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure. Again, this is not a piece of evidence, but if nothing else, it should give one pause. In the field of biology, evolution may be “just” a theory (as some politicians painfully point out), but it is the theory subscribed to, for good reason, by every real scientist in every established university in the Western world.

“Still, as is clear from the avalanche of sometimes outraged postings on all the relevant Internet sites, there is simply no way to convince conspiracy theorists that the evidence of their position is too thin to be convincing and that the evidence for the traditional view is thoroughly persuasive. Anyone who chooses to believe something contrary to evidence that an overwhelming majority of people find overwhelmingly convincing—whether it involves the fact of the Holocaust, the landing on the moon, the assassination of Presidents, or even a presidential place of birth—will not be convinced. Simply will [emphasis original] not be convinced.

“And so…I do not expect to convince anyone in that boat. What I do hope is to convince genuine seekers who really want to know how we know that Jesus did exist, as virtually every scholar of antiquity, of biblical studies, of classics, and of Christian origins in this country and, in the Western world agrees. Many of these scholars have no vested interest in the matter. As it turns out, I myself do not either. I am not a Christian, and I have no interest in promoting a Christian cause or a Christian agenda. I am an agnostic with atheist leanings, and my life and views of the world would be approximately the same whether or not Jesus existed. My beliefs would vary little. The answer to the question of Jesus’ historical existence will not make me more or less happy, content, hopeful, likable, rich, famous, or immortal.

“But as a historian, I think evidence matters. And the past matters. And for anyone to whom both evidence and the past matter, a dispassionate consideration of the case makes it quite plain: Jesus did exist. He may not have been the Jesus that you mother believes in or the Jesus of the stain-glass window or the Jesus of your least favorite televangelist or the Jesus proclaimed by the Vatican, the Southern Baptist Convention, the local megachurch, or the California Gnostic. But he did exist, and we can say a few things, with relative certainty about him.” (Ehrman, Bart, Did Jesus Exist?, 5-6.)

---

I'm not so mucha mod as I am a forum mascot, really. They keep me around cuz I'm a cute little bunneh. So don't worry about it  
I'll look into Mr. Bart Ehrman and his book and reply accordingly; however you did fail to show a relevant clip of why and what proof Bart has to believe in a historical Jesus. Is the Jesus he claims to exist the same Jesus you worship? I'm on vacation for medical reasons--some of which prevent me from being able to read a book due to the medications I'm on. I'd appreciate your understanding on this matter and just keep it simple (quoting relevant-to-your-point texts from the book rather than tasking me with reading the whole book). Is this supposed historian the only historian out there that concludes the existence of Jesus? 

Pocaracas! Hey man I missed you too! :thank you for the links, that will be very helpful in catching up. God knows I can't resist the chance "ask a bone-afide Catholic!" 

Randy there are a few cool things you can do with the code to make your posts more tidy and relevant. For instance you can put [ h i d e] and [/ hide] (no spaces) before and after long blocks of text while quoting other peoples or your own posts. Also on the upper right hand of every post is a post # that you can right click and hit 'copy link'. Then to quote it, just hit the insert link button and fill out the HTML with the link.

[Randy Carson]

Randy Carson


Presumably, like Lazarus, they eventually died again. Is this something I need to research for you?

You're the one that started a thread called "Ask a Catholic".

Why, yes...yes I am.

Is this something that I need to research for you?