Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[robvalue]

Does he think we're so stupid we'll suddenly not notice this obvious tactic? Or that we'll submit after hearing it 1,000 times? He must be used to brow beating people into agreement.

I'm amazing how hard it is to "convince" people of religious stuff when you have no hold over them, such as social acceptance held hostage.

[Randy Carson]

You've also been conflating historical and magic jesus since the minute you signed up, and you're still doing it despite everyone pointing this out.

What else can he do (aside from being honest about the nature of his source material)? If he were to stop conflating the two, he'd have little choice but to recognize that there is no sensible foundation to his religion. Christianity depends on this conflation and True Believers like Randy will fight tooth and nail to avoid facing up to that. The Gospels must depict history; it can't be otherwise for them.  It's not a conclusion he arrived at rationally, despite his smokescreen of alleged "facts".  It's his starting point.

"[The gospel writers] were historical persons giving reports of things they had heard, using historically situated modes of rhetoric and presentation. The fact that their books later became documents of faith has no bearing on the question of whether the books can still be used for historical purposes. To dismiss the Gospels from the historical record is neither fair nor scholarly." (Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 73)

[Randy Carson]

I'll be checking the thread periodically from now on, but unless something substantive is posted, there won't be any further need for me to respond.

Thank you all for your non-participation. It has been most instructive.

Oh, and when you go to bed tonight (and you don't forget to NOT say your prayers to a non-existent God), while you're lying there in the dark, just remember that you have no rebuttals for these five facts which point to the resurrection of Jesus.

Sweet dreams.

Do you even read the posts?  Or are you so delusional that you can't understand them?

Yes. No.

[Randy Carson]

Quick sidenote: The way apologists talk you'd think historical sources are close to infallible.

The way atheists talk, you'd think there are no historical sources.

[abaris]

The way atheists talk, you'd think there are no historical sources.

Yeah, well. Which undisputed ones are there?

[Randy Carson]

Now all you need to do is open some books, learn a few ancient languages, spend 20 years studying the texts...and then, maybe, you will be in a position to even attempt to refute Ehrman & Co.

But you don't have 20 years, do you?

Now you might just explain why your beating Ehrman like the literal dead horse. Is it because he claims to be an atheist and think that may earn him some brownie points among us unbelievers? Or is it because he's about the only one actually fitting your narrative? He's still a theologian, not a historian, and it shows in his work.

Nope. He is a historian.

http://religion.unc.edu/_people/full-tim...ty/ehrman/

[Randy Carson]

The way atheists talk, you'd think there are no historical sources.

Yeah, well. Which undisputed ones are there?

You would benefit from logging off and reading some books.

[abaris]

You would benefit from logging off and reading some books.

OK, genius. I may repeat, what undisputed historical facts are there? Emphasis on undisputed, since otherwise they aren't facts.

Btw, what in the world gives you the impression of Ehrman being a historian. His got masters of divinity and a bachelor of arts. His interests aren't his degrees.

[robvalue]

What else can he do (aside from being honest about the nature of his source material)? If he were to stop conflating the two, he'd have little choice but to recognize that there is no sensible foundation to his religion. Christianity depends on this conflation and True Believers like Randy will fight tooth and nail to avoid facing up to that. The Gospels must depict history; it can't be otherwise for them.  It's not a conclusion he arrived at rationally, despite his smokescreen of alleged "facts".  It's his starting point.

"[The gospel writers] were historical persons giving reports of things they had heard, using historically situated modes of rhetoric and presentation. The fact that their books later became documents of faith has no bearing on the question of whether the books can still be used for historical purposes. To dismiss the Gospels from the historical record is neither fair nor scholarly." (Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 73)

So you respond to the accusation that you're conflating historical and magic Jesus by doing the exact same thing again and adding an appeal to authority fallacy. Historians are not an authority on supernatural events. No one is. That is the problem.

You just don't care about integrity at all, do you?

You know damn well Ehrman does not believe in the ressurection for one second, so even your intended fallacy is dishonest. Do you have any idea what you are doing?

[Randy Carson]

"[The gospel writers] were historical persons giving reports of things they had heard, using historically situated modes of rhetoric and presentation. The fact that their books later became documents of faith has no bearing on the question of whether the books can still be used for historical purposes. To dismiss the Gospels from the historical record is neither fair nor scholarly." (Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 73)

So you respond to the accusation that you're conflating historical and magic Jesus by doing the exact same thing again and adding an appeal to authority fallacy. Historians are not an authority on supernatural events. No one is. That is the problem.

You just don't care about integrity at all, do you?

That's crap and you know it.

NO ONE and I mean NO ONE has posted more sourced material than I have. The majority of the posts in this thread have come from empty-headed individuals such as yourself simply popping off anything and everything that comes to mind on the spur of the moment. You are easily among the worst offenders in this regard.

Your posts are emotional and not rational.

You know damn well Ehrman does not believe in the ressurection for one second, so even your intended fallacy is dishonest. Do you have any idea what you are doing?

More poorly reasoned crap from you. Duh, of course I know what Ehrman's position on the resurrection is...that's what makes him such an outstanding source for me to quote. He's a hostile witness, rob...ever heard of the concept? Despite his views on the divinity of Jesus, he is invaluable as a witness to the historical existence of Jesus and the gospels as historical sources.

And since you have never read a book on the subject, you are flummoxed as to how to put together a coherent argument to refute Ehrman.

My response to Crossless1 shows that REAL scholars (as opposed to idiots on the Internet and this forum especially) agree that Jesus really existed.

This directly refutes Crossless1's allegations that Jesus was a myth.