(July 7, 2015 at 1:17 pm)Pizza Wrote:(July 7, 2015 at 9:33 am)Randy Carson Wrote: You're right. They don't NORMALLY resurrect. Here's what we know:
Jesus died by crucifixion.
The women who went to the tomb found it empty.
The disciples believed that they saw Jesus alive after the crucifixion and were willing to suffer rather than recant.
Paul, an sworn enemy of the Church, was suddenly converted.
James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, was suddenly converted.
What theory do you have that account for these facts BETTER than the resurrection of Jesus?
I get the feeling you're not listening to me and I'm getting tired of repeating myself. Why are we to hold the explanation that there was a bodily resurrection more likely than other explanations of the gospel writings?
Because the resurrection of Jesus is actually the best of the available explanations. The others fail for various reasons.
Quote:The simplest, and most consistent with the facts about dead bodies is that the resurrection narrative is (1) disciples lied and died for it because recanting wasn't a live option for them (ex. the Romans didn't care and would kill them regardless of recanting, and it would be better to die a heroic martyr than as a lying con-man),
Fail #1: The apostles weren't all martyred by Romans. Thomas was martyred in India, but not because the Romans would have killed him "regardless".
Quote:(2) outright folklore like urban legends we have today which given that historians don't know who actually wrote the gospel accounts this is very likely.
Wait...I thought the apostles simply made everything up. Now, you're switching to the legend theory. These are two different things. Are you not sure what really happened?
Fail #2: The proto-creed contained in 1 Co. 15 dates to within about five years of the resurrection. Not much time for legend to have sprung up...especially since people who were familiar with the events of Jesus' very public ministry and execution were still alive. Skeptics and believers both, btw.
Fail #3: Yes, we do have a pretty good idea that the gospels were written by the authors whose names they bear. See my "Historical Reliability of the NT" thread for full details.
Quote:There, I named two explanations that have the explanatory virtues of simplicity, not ad hoc and consistent with and supported by biology and commonsense folk psychology. My explanations are even consistent with a god existing and natural theology. What do you actually have?
A better explanation.
Oh, and clear reasons why your theories don't hold water.
Quote: If you assume Christian views on god and metaphysics you beg the question against me.
How so? In this thread, all I have done is present non-biblical evidence that points to a conclusion.
Quote:So, if you want to get me to Christianity you need to back up and defend those claims. We need common ground here and I'm just not seeing it. If it's okay to argue in a circle in the bigger web of arguments then I see no reason why rivals to Christianity like other religions, irreligious theism, and strong atheism can't argue the same way.
They could argue the same way. And we would demand evidence of them just as you are demanding it of me. Problem is, they don't have any.
