Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[IATIA]

That would be a refreshing change since no one has made any efforts to interact with or refute the material.

You have yet to present any facts worthy of refutation. Basically all you have presented is opinion, yours and others.

FACT; The bible is no more legitimate or factual than the the stories of Gilgamesh or others. Your god is no more real than Zeus or others. Your only defense is, "NOT". Strictly opinion. No more and no less. Prove to me that Zeus is not real. Even your bible makes reference to Zeus, Therefore Zeus is real. Why do you not believe in Zeus?

[Longhorn]

My questions are, why is god silent (compared to the OT at least) and why don't OT revelations interfere with human free will like you claim they would?

And to answer your question, there is no difference. They are all unsupported claims, events that have natural explanations and are all equally invalid as evidence for god; however, for the sake of argument, let's pretend that god exists. Why doesn't he interfere like he used to? how did his interferences not violate free will?

if you're saying that ndes are the way god reveals himself now, how does that not violate our free will?

N-

Are you actually saying on the one hand that God needs to reveal himself or you won't believe but on the other hand if he does reveal himself he's violating your free will?

Dude. You were the one to say that. Don't put words in my mouth.

I'm asking, if god revealing himself would be a violation of free will, why did he do that in the past?

[Randy Carson]

Since I'm not a 'Jesus Myther', I don't really care about your argument to this point.  I concede the likelihood of an actual person at the bottom of these stories, but since the historical personage that may have inspired such tales is inextricably bound up with obvious legend and myth-making I don't think there is much that can be said about him.  Your five alleged facts don't get you one step closer to demonstrating the resurrection, without which your faith is pointless, as Paul himself wrote.  Continuing to cite the Biblical claims in lieu of compelling evidence is unimpressive and boring.

So you're not a myther. Great! They aren't a terribly bright lot, apparently.

I'll be pulling things together after my final point on the empty tomb and asking for theories from the audience.

Doooooooooon't miss it! Beeee theeeeere!

[Randy Carson]

That would be a refreshing change since no one has made any efforts to interact with or refute the material.

You have yet to present any facts worthy of refutation.  Basically all you have presented is opinion, yours and others.

FACT;  The bible is no more legitimate or factual than the the stories of Gilgamesh or others.  Your god is no more real than Zeus or others.  Your only defense is, "NOT".  Strictly opinion. No more and no less.  Prove to me that Zeus is not real.  Even your bible makes reference to Zeus, Therefore Zeus is real.  Why do you not believe in Zeus?

I've made a mental note to address this question. It's not one that scholars take seriously, but this crowd seems to think it's a big deal, so I will eventually get around to it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The fact is that proving the existence of Jesus the man says nothing at all about the deity. This entire argument is based on a non sequitur.

[Longhorn]

The fact is that proving the existence of Jesus the man says nothing at all about the deity. This entire argument is based on a non sequitur.

NOTHING Randy is trying to prove here does anything for his deity. Fuck, Jesus could've existed, performed miracles AND risen from the dead for all I care, and that still wouldn't prove any fucker named Yahweh to exist.

[Randy Carson]

N-

Are you actually saying on the one hand that God needs to reveal himself or you won't believe but on the other hand if he does reveal himself he's violating your free will?

Dude. You were the one to say that. Don't put words in my mouth.

I'm asking, if god revealing himself would be a violation of free will, why did he do that in the past?

First, let's be clear that you and others are ROUTINELY clamoring for God to prove that He exists in some dramatically undeniable fashion and whooping like wild Injuns that His failure to do so PROVES that He doesn't exist (conveniently forgetting that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).

Second, you seem to be saying that IF God were to reveal Himself in some dramatically undeniable fashion, this would be a violation of our free will.

That sort of covers all the bases, doesn't it? You have an argument either way.

However, my position (if anyone should be interested) is that God HAS revealed Himself dramatically to some people AND they still had free will and the ability to choose how they would respond. Moses could have seen the burning bush, and run the other way. Mary could have said, "No." God covenanted Himself with the people of Israel, and this covenant was renewed periodically. In one famous passage, Joshua even challenges the people:

Joshua 24
14 “Now fear the Lord and serve him with all faithfulness. Throw away the gods your ancestors worshiped beyond the Euphrates River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. 15 But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.”

16 Then the people answered, “Far be it from us to forsake the Lord to serve other gods! 17 It was the Lord our God himself who brought us and our parents up out of Egypt, from that land of slavery, and performed those great signs before our eyes. He protected us on our entire journey and among all the nations through which we traveled. 18 And the Lord drove out before us all the nations, including the Amorites, who lived in the land. We too will serve the Lord, because he is our God.”

19 Joshua said to the people, “You are not able to serve the Lord. He is a holy God; he is a jealous God. He will not forgive your rebellion and your sins. 20 If you forsake the Lord and serve foreign gods, he will turn and bring disaster on you and make an end of you, after he has been good to you.”

21 But the people said to Joshua, “No! We will serve the Lord.”

22 Then Joshua said, “You are witnesses against yourselves that you have chosen to serve the Lord.”

“Yes, we are witnesses,” they replied.

So the people chose freely to serve the Lord God and Him alone.

[Crossless2.0]

Since I'm not a 'Jesus Myther', I don't really care about your argument to this point.  I concede the likelihood of an actual person at the bottom of these stories, but since the historical personage that may have inspired such tales is inextricably bound up with obvious legend and myth-making I don't think there is much that can be said about him.  Your five alleged facts don't get you one step closer to demonstrating the resurrection, without which your faith is pointless, as Paul himself wrote.  Continuing to cite the Biblical claims in lieu of compelling evidence is unimpressive and boring.

So you're not a myther. Great! They aren't a terribly bright lot, apparently.

I'll be pulling things together after my final point on the empty tomb and asking for theories from the audience.

Doooooooooon't miss it! Beeee theeeeere!

There are Jesus Mythers and there are those who believe the Christ myth.  Care to guess which group I find brighter?

[Longhorn]

First, let's be clear that you and others are ROUTINELY clamoring for God to prove that He exists in some dramatically undeniable fashion and that His failure to do so PROVES that He doesn't exist (conveniently forgetting that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).

Don't put words in my mouth Randy.

Show me the exact quote where I said anything of the above or shut up.

I have never claimed to be able to prove that god doesn't exist, because I can't. Stop with the fucking strawmen. It's pissing me off.

Second, you seem to be saying that IF God were to reveal Himself in some dramatically undeniable fashion, this would be a violation of our free will.

That sort of covers all the bases, doesn't it? You have an argument either way.

No, baby. That's what YOU seem to be saying.

If God were to make a more overt gesture of His existence, He would interfere with our free will.

It's just that simple.

However, my position (if anyone should ask) is that God HAS revealed Himself dramatically to some people AND they still had free will and the ability to choose how they would respond. Moses could have seen the burning bush, and run the other way. Mary could have said, "No."

You're a fucking liar.

[Pizza]

The fact is that proving the existence of Jesus the man says nothing at all about the deity. This entire argument is based on a non sequitur.

NOTHING Randy is trying to prove here does anything for his deity. Fuck, Jesus could've existed, performed miracles AND risen from the dead for all I care, and that still wouldn't prove any fucker named Yahweh to exist.

Seriously, if he wants us to put science on the ignore list and consider unscientific views why not Jesus was an alien, a wizard-false prophet, or any other unscientific conjure we can cook up? He gives us nothing. He's setting up the false dilemma of, "naturalism or the Christian view."