Posts: 13122
Threads: 130
Joined: October 18, 2014
Reputation:
55
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
June 25, 2015 at 11:17 am
(June 25, 2015 at 11:14 am)Godschild Wrote: How the same way God gave Adam life and for why, a promise to mankind that we could have eternal life. Without the resurrection there would have been a failed promise.
GC
Methinks you have a problem with the definition of the word fact. Fact is not assumption.
Posts: 8781
Threads: 26
Joined: March 15, 2010
Reputation:
29
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
June 25, 2015 at 11:17 am
(June 25, 2015 at 2:00 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: The Sadducees were there and they didn't believe in angels, demons, spirits, ghosts, or resurrections. If they weren't convinced maybe the events never happened.
You think they were going to give up their good life style, for something that would have destroyed it, look at the track record of the Israelites and you will see they coveted money more than their God most of the time.
GC
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
Posts: 7140
Threads: 12
Joined: March 14, 2013
Reputation:
72
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
June 25, 2015 at 11:19 am
(June 25, 2015 at 11:11 am)Minimalist Wrote: Quote:As I understand it, when studying history we often have little information to go on. We may not be able to prove conclusively that a lot of historical figures actually existed, and some (Socrates?) we may never be sure of. Based on that, we can accept that "historical Jesus" existed, in the sense that the stories we read are based on an actual person.
The problem with that, Tonus, is that you are giving them the proverbial inch. They cannot be given anything on the basis of their assertions or special pleading. If Habermas wants to talk about facts then he should be forced to provide evidence for each of those "facts." They are not "facts" until he does.
I understand that. But because the gap between "the Jesus character in these stories is based on a real guy" and "he is god and did all of these magic things and will return any minute now" is so immense as to be impossible to cross, I'm comfortable with giving that inch and seeing how they try to cover the next hundred light-years.
I suppose I'm just tired of the endless conversation that comes from such a worthless point. There were probably a few guys named Clark Kent who lived in the USA in the 1930s. Imagine spending this much time discussing whether any of them really existed, instead of getting on to the part where they try to prove that any one of them was Superman. Or put another way, we can't ask them to strap on a cape and jump off of a skyscraper until we dispense with the formalities...
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
Posts: 8731
Threads: 425
Joined: October 7, 2014
Reputation:
37
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
June 25, 2015 at 11:24 am
(June 25, 2015 at 11:17 am)Godschild Wrote: (June 25, 2015 at 2:00 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: The Sadducees were there and they didn't believe in angels, demons, spirits, ghosts, or resurrections. If they weren't convinced maybe the events never happened.
You think they were going to give up their good life style, for something that would have destroyed it, look at the track record of the Israelites and you will see they coveted money more than their God most of the time.
GC Does this seem like a good being to you?
.
Atheism is a non-prophet organization join today.
Code: <iframe width="100%" height="450" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/255506953&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true"></iframe>
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
June 25, 2015 at 11:24 am
I get it. I'm in the "Fuck You and Your Fairy Tales....Grow The Fuck Up", school. They've got shit and they know it and try to make it smell like roses.
Posts: 7140
Threads: 12
Joined: March 14, 2013
Reputation:
72
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
June 25, 2015 at 11:25 am
(June 25, 2015 at 11:17 am)Godschild Wrote: You think they were going to give up their good life style, for something that would have destroyed it, look at the track record of the Israelites and you will see they coveted money more than their God most of the time.
But it makes you wonder what god was offering them. I cannot imagine that this is what happened:
GOD: Here is the choice: eternal life in heaven, or eternal torment in hell.
Person: Well, that seems like a pretty easy choice to make, so I'll...
Devil: Hey, not so fast! I have MONEY!
GOD: LOL, that's a pretty weak offer to ma--
Person: GIMME MONEY OMG MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY!!!
GOD: Wait, what... how???
Devil: *tosses another soul on the barbie*
There really is no emotion that would favor the devil's offer. Even stuff that isn't practical would favor taking god's offer. Any story where so few people make such a clear and obvious choice has to be suspect. It goes against everything we know about ourselves as a species and as individuals.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
Posts: 5492
Threads: 53
Joined: September 4, 2014
Reputation:
55
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
June 25, 2015 at 11:25 am
(This post was last modified: June 25, 2015 at 11:26 am by Exian.)
(June 25, 2015 at 11:14 am)Godschild Wrote: How the same way God gave Adam life and for why, a promise to mankind that we could have eternal life. Without the resurrection there would have been a failed promise.
GC My bolding.
Well, good thing some one caught that and threw it in the Jesus story then!
Posts: 7568
Threads: 20
Joined: July 26, 2013
Reputation:
54
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
June 25, 2015 at 11:27 am
(June 25, 2015 at 11:17 am)Godschild Wrote: (June 25, 2015 at 2:00 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: The Sadducees were there and they didn't believe in angels, demons, spirits, ghosts, or resurrections. If they weren't convinced maybe the events never happened.
You think they were going to give up their good life style, for something that would have destroyed it, look at the track record of the Israelites and you will see they coveted money more than their God most of the time.
GC
So do you think it's more likely that the resurrected Jesus did not bother to make an appearance to those religious leaders who had denied his claims and who allegedly set in motion the events leading to his death and resurrection, or that he did make such an appearance to them and they refused to believe their own eyes just to preserve their gig? Neither strikes me as plausible, even in terms of fictional literature.
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
June 25, 2015 at 11:45 am
So clowns like Habermas...and his doppelganger Randy, insist that "scholars" agree on their horseshit but what about all the muslims scholars? They too accept "jesus" as a prophet but:
http://www.islam-guide.com/ch3-10.htm
Quote:Muslims believe that Jesus was not crucified. It was the plan of Jesus’ enemies to crucify him, but God saved him and raised him up to Him. And the likeness of Jesus was put over another man. Jesus’ enemies took this man and crucified him, thinking that he was Jesus.
How very docetist of them. Kind of brings to mind the observations of Spencer that heretical xtians were driven out of the Roman Empire by crazed xtian thugs and settled in marginal areas, like Arabia.
There are literally shitloads of muslim "scholars" who would thus call Habermas an asswipe.
Posts: 7140
Threads: 12
Joined: March 14, 2013
Reputation:
72
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
June 25, 2015 at 11:48 am
I have to admit, I get a chuckle out of the idea that Yahweh's master plan involved duping some poor schmuck who looked like him. How many buckets of popcorn did they go through in heaven as they watched the Romans flay and crucify the wrong guy?
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
|