Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: June 6, 2025, 9:23 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 7 Vote(s) - 1.57 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
(July 14, 2015 at 6:32 am)pocaracas Wrote:
(July 13, 2015 at 7:12 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Why do you believe that supernatural miracles do not occur?

If they do occur, why should I have to "believe" that they do occur? Why Am I restricted to "believing"?
Why are they so secret that people must become aware of them through writings or tales by other people?

You're not restricted to "believing". You can experience God's presence in your life, and then you would "know".

Quote:AS others have told you in the past: put aside your moldy miracles and bring forth some new ones.
(pro tip - cures for as-yet not fully understood conditions, like cancer, do not count; but human limb regrowth without any exterior aid does count)

There are examples of miraculous things that have occurred more recently, but you discount them. And here's the thing: you're operating from a hermeneutic of suspicion which seeks to find a way to eliminate any proposed miracle. Now, I agree that others are too quick to believe everything is a miracle, but the correct approach is to find a neutral ground from which the data can be evaluated more objectively.

I'm not sure you could actually do that, frankly.

Quote:
(July 13, 2015 at 7:15 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: So, I can put you down as being in the Conspiracy Theory Camp?

The disciples made up the whole thing and conspired to spread what they knew to be a lie. That's your view?

I don't think that's an accurate representation of what I wrote.
Luke was not a disciple, nor was Paul.
Concerning "Luke's" contribution to the NT, the wiki says something interesting:
Quote:The majority view is that Luke the Evangelist, the companion of Paul, was not the author of Luke-Acts.[5] The anonymous author took for his sources the gospel of Mark, the sayings collection called the Q source, and a collection of material called the L (for Luke) source;[6] the most probable date is around 80-100 CE, and there is evidence that it was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.

Whoever wrote this "Luke" did, most likely, lie or was induced into lying by the content on which he(or they) was based.

The disciples... could be extras on the story, for all we know.
The very existence of a Jesus that was crucified is barely supported... the existence of that person's disciples, on the other hand, seem to be assumed by you. Why?
Well, someone did perpetuate the tale; someone did spread it as far as modern-day-Turkey and turned into a cult... You can call whoever did that a disciple... but was that accomplished by the people in the tale? Or someone else? Someone unnamed, nameless, unknown, missing... Someone whose relation to the original Jesus is unknown. Someone who may have carried a part of a previous tale with him, so as to make it easier to memorize... the tale of a teacher, perhaps?
Ultimately, it's unknown.

Luke was written earlier than you claim and it was based in part upon Luke's personal investigation as well as his reliance on OLDER written materials (Q, Mark and L as you noted). 80-100? No. This is not the date range of most scholars.

ALL of the four gospels were completed within the lifetime of the last living Apostle, John.

So, I ask again, what is your theory that explains the five facts I have posted in this thread? It sound to me like you are uncertain as to whether Jesus himself ever existed and that consequently, there probably weren't any first century disciples. Is that a fair summary of your view?

Quote:Still, for the relevance it supposedly has, Id' expect a good, caring, powerful god to show people that it's there.
People of every generation (throughout the ages) and every geographical location should be made equally aware of this god.
Unfortunately, reality paints a picture of a very localized (both in time and space) deity. A great hint that it is far from divine, and closer to man-made.

Why is equality of knowledge of God a requirement? God judges people based on what they know of him; we are not accountable for what we do not know. So, South American jungle tribes have less knowledge of God - but not NO knowledge - while Muslims and Jews know more, etc.

Why is this a problem?
Reply



Messages In This Thread
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach - by Randy Carson - July 14, 2015 at 9:24 pm

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Proving evolution? LinuxGal 24 4484 March 19, 2023 at 10:36 pm
Last Post: Ferrocyanide
  What will win the god wars? Faith, Fantasy, Facts, or God? Greatest I am 98 12268 December 28, 2020 at 12:01 pm
Last Post: Greatest I am
  In what way is the Resurrection the best explanation? GrandizerII 159 25295 November 25, 2019 at 6:46 am
Last Post: Abaddon_ire
  Travis Walton versus The Resurrection. Jehanne 61 19654 November 29, 2017 at 8:21 pm
Last Post: Angrboda
  Why do Christians believe in the Resurrection of Jesus but not alien abductions? Jehanne 72 14936 June 27, 2016 at 1:54 am
Last Post: Redbeard The Pink
  We can be certain of NO resurrection - A Response Randy Carson 136 45579 October 2, 2015 at 4:10 am
Last Post: Aractus
  Disproving The Resurrection By The Maximal Facts Approach BrianSoddingBoru4 160 33710 July 5, 2015 at 6:35 pm
Last Post: Jenny A
  Obama and the simulated resurrection professor 116 22783 April 25, 2015 at 10:39 pm
Last Post: Wyrd of Gawd
  MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2) His_Majesty 1617 452025 January 12, 2015 at 5:58 pm
Last Post: dyresand
  The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part Ad Neuseum) YahwehIsTheWay 32 8441 December 11, 2014 at 4:58 pm
Last Post: robvalue



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)