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: July 1, 2024, 7:43 am

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 11, 2015 at 11:20 am)pocaracas Wrote: There you go with your biased scholarship... it only became less biased within the last few decades and this was too late.

Nope. This ain't the way professional historians...the ones with REAL degrees drawing paychecks from REAL universities...see it, poca.

Bart Ehrman is a professor at UNC-Chapel Hill and a world-renowned NT scholar. He writes:

"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. [emphasis added]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 [emphasis added]. 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 [emphasis added]” (Ehrman, Bart, Did Jesus Exist?, 5-6.).

Now, after reading that, poca, can you honestly say that there is "bias" among the professional scholars who accept the existence of Jesus as a fact of history?
Reply
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
(July 11, 2015 at 11:25 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: A gift for you, Randy.

Look up false equivocation. Attacking the head spin argument from that angle is probably your best bet. Good luck. If you need some help...ask someone else.

[Image: ani_tiphat.gif]
Reply
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
A historical Jesus is necessary for the existence of magic Jesus, but it is absolutely and utterly not sufficient.

This conflation is tiresome. None of us give a fuck if there was a real Jesus, it makes no difference.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
It would give one "pause" if they had any actual evidence instead of merely a deep-seated desire to think that their fairy tales were true...based on nothing but those fairy tales themselves.

That is the rub.
Reply
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
(July 11, 2015 at 11:36 am)robvalue Wrote: A historical Jesus is necessary for the existence of magic Jesus, but it is absolutely and utterly not sufficient.

This conflation is tiresome. None of us give a fuck if there was a real Jesus, it makes no difference.

Ooooooh yes, you do. Maybe not you personally, but you atheists, in general.

You want to be able to simply write Jesus off as a legend, a figment of someone's imagination, a conspiracy of delusional fools because that is the easiest way to respond to Jesus.

Otherwise, you have to think.
Reply
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
I've never heard one atheist ever who actually cares. Where are you getting this data from?
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
Randy,
bart Wrote: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

As in "he may have been the teacher of righteousness".
What things can bart tell us about Jesus that we can't tell about the teacher?
Reply
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
Quote:Otherwise, you have to think.

Whereas you fucking morons wave your fairy tales around and don't ever have to think.

You're an asshole, Randy.  Beyond hope.
Reply
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
Is there a single atheist on this forum who feels it is really important to them to deny the possibility Jesus was a historical figure, further than simply debating it as an interesting point?

Is there one anywhere?

"You atheists" is a strong accusation so I want names, figures, dates, figs, almonds, apples, bananas and all the irrelevant documentation.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
(July 11, 2015 at 11:40 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Otherwise, you have to think.

If your god could survive scrutiny, there'd be no such thing as atheism.

Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Proving evolution? LinuxGal 24 3003 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 7138 December 28, 2020 at 12:01 pm
Last Post: Greatest I am
  In what way is the Resurrection the best explanation? GrandizerII 159 16908 November 25, 2019 at 6:46 am
Last Post: Abaddon_ire
  Travis Walton versus The Resurrection. Jehanne 61 16150 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 12216 June 27, 2016 at 1:54 am
Last Post: Redbeard The Pink
  We can be certain of NO resurrection - A Response Randy Carson 136 38978 October 2, 2015 at 4:10 am
Last Post: Aractus
  Disproving The Resurrection By The Maximal Facts Approach BrianSoddingBoru4 160 26210 July 5, 2015 at 6:35 pm
Last Post: Jenny A
  Obama and the simulated resurrection professor 116 18783 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 346403 January 12, 2015 at 5:58 pm
Last Post: dyresand
  The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part Ad Neuseum) YahwehIsTheWay 32 7401 December 11, 2014 at 4:58 pm
Last Post: robvalue



Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)