Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Easy Guns]

So the stories of pagan gods impregnating women so that their seed could rule on Earth is really just your god being a perv?

I did not say that all the stories are true. I said that some [legitimate] miracles may have occurred because God desires all men to come to know him.

If "stories" were simply made up "God of the gaps" fashion, that would not be action on God's part, now would it?

And herein lies the problem. You will only accept stories as fact or credible if they align with your preconceptions for how things should be according to your gospel.

Anything that doesn't coincide with what you believe (without evidence) can be dismissed as fictitious at your discretion.

That is called bias. That is also why Christian scholars studying and attempting to prove the validity of the Bible aren't taken seriously.

And let's not forget, your dismissal of stories that don't align with your beliefs allows me the same luxury to just as easily dismiss all of your so-called facts that you posted in the OP as just stories that were invented strictly for the sake of telling a good story.

Edit: ^ This is what all of that back and forth was leading up to. But you didn't get to find that out because you attacked me on a separate train of thought before you continued the conversation. Nice try, Randy, but no dice.

---

The classic theist response.  "My god is real and yours is not".  Same evidence, same stories, just a matter of preference.  As it has been said, once you truly understand why you reject all those other gods, you will understand why we reject yours.

The idea that Jesus is no different than the 2,000+ gods of ancient history who have been largely forgotten may make it easier for you to discount Christianity (without actually thinking), but it's not a legitimate argument. The alleged parallels between Jesus and other so-called gods lack any real substance.

Regardless of the "alleged parallels" (which CAN be argued quite coherently, but that doesn't actually matter for the sake of this topic), you can not deny the teachings of another religion if you're going to assert that your god exists and all the proof you need is that somebody wrote it down thousands of years ago.

With that I'll reiterate IATIA point (which you so eloquently overlooked), the very reason you reject all other gods in human history is the same reason we reject yours. There is no subjective evidence to support their stories and the stories aren't credible.

---

I suppose murdering everyone who didn't follow the Christian Faith had nothing to do with that.

All that ping-pong back and forth just to build up to that zinger?

I'm underwhelmed.

You're trying to assert that popular opinion = fact. An underwhelming statement generates an underwhelming response. (Let's face it, the Vikings aren't around anymore because England had bigger armies. War doesn't determine who is right and who is wrong, only who is left)

I hope you can do better than that, Randy.

[pocaracas]

So, modern science can tell us why that happened to a crucified body...
Could the person relating that detail be drawing from one of the multiple such crucifixions he witnessed?
The killing of a criminal was seen as a sort of a sport, so everyone would go out to see it.... This practice went on until the 1700's, or even 1800's, in Europe.

John was a youth...a teenager. Why would you automatically assume that John saw lots of crucifixions?

Because they happened... Maybe not daily, maybe not weekly, maybe not monthly... but every so often, there was one poor sod that got the death penalty by crucifixion.

But more importantly, Jesus' crucifixion was unique. It was more common for the Romans to break the legs so that the person could not raise and lower himself to breathe if they wanted to speed things along. In the absence of this (which was a mercy), crucifixions lasted for days. And that was what made crucifixion such a powerful motivational punishment. But death was by asphyxiation...not by a lance wound.

Jesus was beaten so badly prior to crucifixion (because Pilate did not expect Barrabas to be released), that he was already in very bad shape before reaching Calvary. He died quickly, his legs were not broken, but his side WAS pierced.

Why would John have ever seen this before?

My bold.
"more common"... would you claim that Jesus was the only figure to have been flogged prior to being hung up?
Living in a metropolis such as Jerusalem, how would John NOT have seen such a thing before writing it down so vividly about his object of adoration?

The point is that the way some possible historical jesus was crucified has no bearing on the veracity of any story about a resurrection.
Tons of people got crucified - even if there was no historical Jesus, such an account could be produced and corroborated by science.... because it could be repeated and investigated.

---

So, I can take Homer's word that Hercules was truly the son of Zeus and a very beautiful mortal woman?
Or maybe I should only accept the part where Hercules was invincible?
Or maybe I should focus on Achilles?

If you wish to, you can.

However, before you begin, you might ask yourself whether any of the professionals who have tenured positions at the major universities around the globe are asking these same questions in the way that they're asking questions about the historical Jesus.

If not, I think you will have the field all to yourself.

How many of those professionals are believers in the greek mythology? How many attend the temple of Athena?
Let me guess... none!

How many believe in the christ mythology? How many attend a christian church?
Let me guess... most!

Can you spot the bias?


Anyway, there are stories from any mythology told as if they were witnessed by real people who then relayed it to the story-teller who wrote it down.
The most blatant example of this (and in which you don't believe) are the muslim hadiths.... Heck, even different muslim sects fails to acknowledge certain hadiths held as absolute truth by some other sect.
And the hadiths carry the names of those who relayed the tale, all the way to the original who heard or saw the prophet Muhammad saying or doing whatever is in that particular hadith.
And the Qur'an is supposedly the direct account as told by the prophet himself to some scribe.
Why don't you believe what is claimed within that book?
There's far more evidence for it than Jesus' resurrection.

[Randy Carson]

No. Which post #? Sorry.

Can't see post numbers on mobile. Here

---

Lol. When did you get all stingy preachy?


Nope. You're trying to provide historical facts as evidence for a biological phenomenon that could not have possibly taken place. I cannot accept that as evidence. There has not been one documented case of a human being dying and then coming back to life after three days.

What you have is an old book full of hearsay. That is nowhere near enough to accept the virtually impossible as truth.


You want to get mathematical, Randy?

There are 21 major religious groups in existence today, with the smallest one of the size of 500,000 people.

Christianity is only one of them, covering 1/3 of the population.

It has 44,000 denominations, mosty of them excluding all others as heretics.

Source: religions by adherents

They cannot possibly all be right, but it is entirely possible that they are all wrong.

If indoctrination of children were to stop, religious population would drastically drop. Ot already is in the US-the comforting statistics of christianity being on the rise come from third world developing countries.

All that aside, argument from popularity, really? That's low. Like, really low.


I don't suffer from cognitive dissonance. I fully understand the roots and origins of religion and why people believe. I'm not holding my breath waiting for them to change their mind. I don't care. I'm here to discuss, and to be a part of a community. I don't know a single atheist IRL so it's nice to talk to some like minded people. But my lack of faith doesn't depend on being here.

What's gotten into you? Bad day?

---

There's nothing here to respond to.

I'm not making an argument from numbers as a means to "prove" Christianity. Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists have big numbers, too.

I'm simply pointing out that out of a sample size that large, it is unreasonable to believe that ALL Christians are the stupid idiots that atheists in this forum like to claim. So, once you set aside the false sense of intellectual superiority, you have one less reason to believe that atheist are right and Christians are wrong.

"We're smart, and Christians aren't" is not valid reason for atheists to deny Christianity.

[Longhorn]

There's nothing here to respond to.

I'm not making an argument from numbers as a means to "prove" Christianity. Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists have big numbers, too.

I'm simply pointing out that out of a sample size that large, it is unreasonable to believe that ALL Christians are the stupid idiots that atheists in this forum like to claim.

Uh. Hello, mr. Strawman, pleased to make your acquaintance. Who says that? did I say that? When? Was I drunk?

So, once you set aside the false sense of intellectual superiority, you have one less reason to believe that atheist are right and Christians are wrong.

Hello again, mr. Strawman! First off, when and where did I proclaim myself to be intellectually superior to all christians? Because I don't believe that to be the case, and certainly not the reason I'm not a christian. I'm not a christian because I evaluated the claims made by christianity and found no evidence to support them. I most certainly did not follow the line of reasoning you accuse me of.

"We're smart, and Christians aren't" is not valid reason for atheists to deny Christianity.

that's why it isn't! The reason for most atheists' lack of belief is lack of evidence, not the intelligence of the believers! Again, who says that?

[Randy Carson]

I did not say that all the stories are true. I said that some [legitimate] miracles may have occurred because God desires all men to come to know him.

If "stories" were simply made up "God of the gaps" fashion, that would not be action on God's part, now would it?

And herein lies the problem. You will only accept stories as fact or credible if they align with your preconceptions for how things should be according to your gospel.

Anything that doesn't coincide with what you believe (without evidence) can be dismissed as fictitious at your discretion.

That is called bias. That is also why Christian scholars studying and attempting to prove the validity of the Bible aren't taken seriously.

And let's not forget, your dismissal of stories that don't align with your beliefs allows me the same luxury to just as easily dismiss all of your so-called facts that you posted in the OP as just stories that were invented strictly for the sake of telling a good story.

Edit: ^ This is what all of that back and forth was leading up to. But you didn't get to find that out because you attacked me on a separate train of thought before you continued the conversation. Nice try, Randy, but no dice.

Is Bart Ehrman, professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a respected NT scholar?

Does he say that Jesus existed as a real person?

The idea that Jesus is no different than the 2,000+ gods of ancient history who have been largely forgotten may make it easier for you to discount Christianity (without actually thinking), but it's not a legitimate argument. The alleged parallels between Jesus and other so-called gods lack any real substance.

Regardless of the "alleged parallels" (which CAN be argued quite coherently, but that doesn't actually matter for the sake of this topic), you can not deny the teachings of another religion if you're going to assert that your god exists and all the proof you need is that somebody wrote it down thousands of years ago.

With that I'll reiterate IATIA point (which you so eloquently overlooked), the very reason you reject all other gods in human history is the same reason we reject yours. There is no subjective evidence to support their stories and the stories aren't credible.

Oh, I have not doubt that the reason is the same. The difference is that one God has the goods and the others don't. And you have failed to make that distinction.

All that ping-pong back and forth just to build up to that zinger?

I'm underwhelmed.

You're trying to assert that popular opinion = fact. An underwhelming statement generates an underwhelming response. (Let's face it, the Vikings aren't around anymore because England had bigger armies. War doesn't determine who is right and who is wrong, only who is left)

I hope you can do better than that, Randy.

If you're referring to my post to Neimenovic some time back where I said that there are approximately 2 billion Christians...then, no, I wasn't appealing to numbers, and this has just been pointed out to Neimenovic in a post made by me moments ago.

If however, you are referring to my claim that professional NT scholars at accredited universities overwhelmingly accept the minimal facts as presented in the OP of this thread, then yes, I am. But not without sufficient reason for doing so.

The tide of opinion among academics has turned in the last 50 years or so, and the atheism that once reigned in the corridors of university philosophy departments is on the wane. This may not have trickled down to the howling masses in the streets, and it may not for other reasons, but it is true nonetheless.

Jesus really existed, and educated people know this to be true.

So, where do you stand?

[Randy Carson]

There's nothing here to respond to.

I'm not making an argument from numbers as a means to "prove" Christianity. Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists have big numbers, too.

I'm simply pointing out that out of a sample size that large, it is unreasonable to believe that ALL Christians are the stupid idiots that atheists in this forum like to claim.

Uh. Hello, mr. Strawman, pleased to make your acquaintance.  Who says that? did I say that? When? Was I drunk?

So, once you set aside the false sense of intellectual superiority, you have one less reason to believe that atheist are right and Christians are wrong.

Hello again, mr. Strawman! First off, when and where did I proclaim myself to be intellectually superior to all christians? Because I don't believe that to be the case, and certainly not the reason I'm not a christian. I'm not a christian because I evaluated the claims made by christianity and found no evidence to support them. I most certainly did not follow the line of reasoning you accuse me of.

"We're smart, and Christians aren't" is not valid reason for atheists to deny Christianity.

that's why it isn't! The reason for most atheists' lack of belief is lack of evidence, not the intelligence of the believers! Again, who says that?

Then what is it that you think I failed to respond to which prompted you to ask if I had missed your question?

[Longhorn]

Then what is it that you think I failed to respond to which prompted you to ask if I had missed your question?

That historical facts are not satisfactory evidence for a biological phenomenon that is virtually impossible. and that a violation of basic laws of nature is never the most plausible explanation.
I still don't understand why you brought up the numbers.

[Randy Carson]

Recently?

Within the last year.

So, I'd like to ask this:

If you were writing a story in order to promote a new God-man, would you:

• Have him die on a cross (which would scandalize your audience, Jews and Gentiles, alike)?
  
• Have the empty tomb found discovered by women (whose testimony was worthless in the eyes of your audience)?
  
• Attribute your play to Matthew (a hated tax collector), Mark (who wasn't even there) or Luke (a Gentile) instead of the more famous players such as Peter, James or John?
  
• Would you have your God-man saying un-Godlike things such as he was less than the Father, that he did not know all things or that he could not do many miracles in his hometown because of the lack of faith of his neighbors?
  
• Would you have your God-man's own brothers and sisters claiming that he was "out of his mind" and not believing in him?
  

Is that how you would conspire with your friends to get a new religion off the ground?

And would you be willing to die rather than admit that you made the whole thing up even though neither you nor anyone in your family would benefit in any way from maintaining the charade?

[Redbeard The Pink]

You get one warning to speak politely and refrain from gratuitous profanity before you go on my ignore list.

This is that warning.

If you want to talk to me, and I don't care whether you do or not, then you will do so like a mature adult.

By the way, I went to Barnes & Noble the other night and bought two books:

Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman and The Case for the Real Jesus by Lee Strobel.

Guess which one I'm going to enjoy quoting most?  

Nobody cares about your ignore list, Randy. Nobody cares about your dramatic warnings. Nobody cares that the big, primitive gears in your head go "GA-JUN...GA-JUN...GAJUN" to make your thinking parts work.


What we care about are facts. You are pretending things are facts when they are not facts. You are ignoring arguments that crush yours into powder. You are appealing to authority, cherry-picking scriptures and books, and attempting to use rhetorical tricks and emotional arguments to bring "facts" into the discussion as presuppositions without having to prove them (even though the presuppositions themselves are mostly wild, unsupported claims). You also can't seem to get your primitive mind to ingest the fact that no matter how you try to twist things around, you cannot use elements of a claim to prove that claim.


Your facts have to be verifiable by something besides the bible, and nothing you have shown us has been convincing evidence to that effect. That is why nobody takes you seriously, and that is why some people (myself, at least) are getting more and more harsh as you continue to offer us the same destroyed arguments as if we didn't just destroy them on the last page. The only explanation I can come up with is that you really don't understand these arguments you're making well enough to see them for what they are. Besides, I haven't exactly been a picture of politeness thus far when addressing you and your broke-down rhetorical failings.

[Easy Guns]

Is Bart Ehrman, professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a respected NT scholar?

Does he say that Jesus existed as a real person?
----------
Oh, I have not doubt that the reason is the same. The difference is that one God has the goods and the others don't. And you have failed to make that distinction.
----------
If you're referring to my post to Neimenovic some time back where I said that there are approximately 2 billion Christians...then, no, I wasn't appealing to numbers, and this has just been pointed out to Neimenovic in a post made by me moments ago.

If however, you are referring to my claim that professional NT scholars at accredited universities overwhelmingly accept the minimal facts as presented in the OP of this thread, then yes, I am. But not without sufficient reason for doing so.

The tide of opinion among academics has turned in the last 50 years or so, and the atheism that once reigned in the corridors of university philosophy departments is on the wane. This may not have trickled down to the howling masses in the streets, and it may not for other reasons, but it is true nonetheless.

Jesus really existed, and educated people know this to be true.

So, where do you stand?

#1 - Randy, whether or not Jesus actually existed as a real person or not isn't what we're debating, is it? What is the title of this topic again? When you make an argument like that pretending to have proved a point when in fact you've deviated from the subject matter altogether, you've only proved that you don't have an argument to make at all. AGAIN, saying that somebody wrote down and believed in the account of some fantastic story is not sufficient evidence to prove such an incident as fact. There are thousands of stories written and BELIEVED by thousands of people regarding all kinds of fantastic things. YOU don't believe any of them unless they're in your bible. Why is that? Your assertions are outlandish.

#2 - YOU have failed to outline the distinction. You have given no reasonable arguments as to why your god is real and everyone else's is fake. Your god doesn't have the "goods". The ONLY argument you've been able to make is that if the Greek gods were real, people would still worship them. That is not sufficient and I've already examined why.

#3 - I was referring to your multiple posts yesterday inferring that other gods are not real because they're not widely worshiped or popular anymore. You made these inferences JUST YESTERDAY. You're playing dodge tactics, Randy. And it's in poor taste. If you want people to continue to discuss this subject matter with you, you should hold yourself to a higher standard of integrity than that. It's despicable. Furthermore, I expect you to address ALL of my points in the future instead of picking out what you like. Everything I'm saying has context.

Nonetheless, to address your final statements:

Please cite the overwhelming number of accredited scholars who accept the resurrection of a man in the desert based on your so-called "facts". They don't exist, Randy. There are certainly crack pots in every field and university who say all sorts of outlandish things. That certainly doesn't mean an overwhelming number of scholars share their opinions.

The thing about the existence of a man named Jesus living and preaching in the Middle East 2000 years ago is, it's not outlandish to think it could possibly be true. The less extraordinary a claim is, the less extraordinary your evidence needs to be to convince people of its truth.

Was there a man named Jesus? Probably. Millions and millions of people have been named Jesus. There is plenty of evidence to support this.

Did a man named Jesus preach Christianity? Probably. Millions and millions of people have preached Christianity. There is plenty of evidence to support this.

Did a man named Jesus perform miracles? Probably not. There is no evidence to support these miracles ever occurred.

Was a man named Jesus born of a virgin mother? Probably not. There is no evidence to suggest conception can occur without insemination.

Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead? Probably not. There is no evidence to suggest that a man can be dead for 3 days and then rise to life again.

Religious scholars come from many nationalities and religious backgrounds. The only ones who don't agree with the above statements are the Christian scholars. I suppose that's just a coincidence? No, that's what we call good old fashioned BIAS.

If all you plan to do is pull facts out of your behind without any citation or evidence to support your claims, then don't bother. Come back when you have something of substance to add.