Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead - Thread #2 Commentary Thread?

[Inactive_1]

Post all comments for this debate here please.

[Ambassador Pony]

bm

[HAL]

Peanut gallery present and accounted for! 

[Fran]

Hi Kcrady... I've never done this before in a forum like this.  How do you want to start?

[Operator_A25]

Hi Fran, welcome back.

[Deus ex Machina]

Cool. Who's going to moderate this? I would, but (a) it wouldn't be fair to Fran; (b) my broadband connection has been a bit flaky lately; and (c) I recently bought Mass Effect so I'm a bit... distracted at the moment.

[velkyn]

bookmark

[Operator_A25]

Moderation might have to be a team effort.

[Dragnet]

< checks preconceptions at the door, takes a seat >

[HAL]

Will this debate be 48 pages too?

[Ambassador Pony]

Yes, HAL. Yes it will. Just have a look at Fran's latest post in the ressurrection thread. It's pathetic.

[HAL]

Yes, HAL. Yes it will. Just have a look at Fran's latest post in the ressurrection thread. It's pathetic.

Bwahahahahaha! I'm still laughing! I commented on it over there.

 

[Emily]

These debates are better then sex.

[Dragnet]

^^ Then yer doin it wrong

[knot]

These debates are better then sex.

You need a new partner or maybe get one!

BM

[Anfauglir]

These debates are better then sex.

Um.....spare a thought for the participants in the debates when you say things like that.  I'm sure Fran is a lovely guy, but....!!!!!!  

[velkyn]

Rejecting a hypothesis IS demonstrating AN opinion.

I love how Fran has no concept of what these words mean. 

[GetMeThere]

jesus! I'm sick of this debate ALREADY--and it hasn't even started.

It IS good to see Fran explicitly acknowledge that he's UNWILLING to even DEBATE the "four facts." They've been validated by (hehe) "the vast majority of historians" so there's nothing to debate.

[HAL]

Fran,

Can a group of scholars be wrong?

Has every group of scholars in the history of this planet that have decided to agree on a set of "facts" always been right 100% of the time, and in the history of this planet, have groups of scholars agreeing NEVER been proven to be wrong, ever?

Are groups of scholars immune to being disagreed and proven wrong with by people who aren't scholars? Does the title of "Scholar" make them immune to criticism?

That's the problem you have with your group of scholars, you assume they are absolutely right, and you tell us we can't disagree with them because we aren't scholars. Sorry, but you and they don't get a pass on that. I can disagree with their assertions if I want to, after applying critical thinking to what they assert, and if it shows them to be incorrect, then that's too bad for the scholars. It's very possible for groups of scholars to be incorrect Fran, and if you don't think so, then you are delusional about more than just your religion.

[HAL]

But remember this, you can't ask of me something that you are not going to apply to yourself.  For ANY NATURAL explanation you put forth,  then you must support it WITH FACTS.. and not wishful thinking.  At the very least,  bring to the table as much as I do... which is written material  written around the same time period as the written material I use.  In fact, the earlier the better.

Fran,

We've told you a million times now it seems like -

WRITTEN MATERIAL CAN NEVER BE EVIDENCE OR LEAD TO CONCLUSIONS THAT SUPERNATURAL RESURRECTIONS CAN BE A SOLUTION TO YOUR SCENARIO

Fran, prove that a god exists and can resurrect rotting corpses, then and only then can you use it as an explanation.

You've been told this over and over and over and over ... and you can't or won't understand it to this day. You always put the cart (a resurrection) before the horse (proving a god exists that can do such things). You have it

TOTALLY BACKWARDS

It won't work Fran, and I hope kcrady sets you straight on this once and for all.

edited for clarity

[jedweber]

bookmark

[Anfauglir]

Reading Kcrady's latest posts, it looks as if the debates have been divided as follows:

Room 2: Anfauglir's extra-normal solution (aliens) vs. Fran's extra-normal solution (resurrection).
Room 3: Kcrady's normal solution vs. Fran's extra-normal solution, plus examination of the facts themselves.

Fran should, it seems, have an easier job against me, surely?  We're both arguing "extra-normal" solutions, AND I'm giving him a complete "bye" that:
Jesus really and completely died on the cross.
That his body was placed in a tomb, which was later found empty.
That his disciples, and others, became completely convinced that Jesus had returned from the dead as a result of their experiences post-crucifiction with a being claiming to be Jesus.

Surely easier to defeat me, one would have thought.....?   

[GetMeThere]

Update: Fran replies!!!!!!!!!!

Summary:

1) Penalty to kcrady: ungentlemanly conduct. 10 yards.

2) Penalty to Fran: Out of bounds--claims disciples wrote the gospels: free kick

3) Fran wins by attrition: Sticking to the Experts Claim defense without letup!!! Nice play Fran!!

4) Commentator note: I thought it was rude to read all 315 posts that Fran has just made. I settled for only the first one.

[GetMeThere]

I'd just like to report, after reading a bit further, that it can be seen now that Fran has utterly BULLDOZED OVER the point many of us tried to help him understand--and clearly FAILED to make him understand.

He is now stating OUTRIGHT, as his fact #3: It is a FACT that the disciples saw, communicated with, whatever, jesus after his death. I've noticed Habermas AND WLC do this same thing as it suits them. When pressed, they will admit that the "historical fact" is that the disciples REPORTED seeing jesus after his death...but when no one is looking, they return to the "fact" being the disciples SAW jesus after his death.

It's VERY telling that Fran simply WILL NOT ALLOW THIS DISTINCTION TO EVEN ENTER HIS MIND. In his latest series of posts he acts as if the issue had never been raised, and that the historical fact is that "the disciples saw jesus after his death."

This is why this debate can never proceed: Fran has REFUSED to even ACKNOWLEDGE the points of others. He takes as a last resort that he's simply unable to understand the point. He has done this with Fact #3, and the result is he is now claiming something FAR BEYOND the actual "Fact #3" (for which he can't be blamed too much, because Habermas HIMSELF makes the unwarranted expansion of the fact whenever he can).

[HAL]

It's VERY telling that Fran simply WILL NOT ALLOW THIS DISTINCTION TO EVEN ENTER HIS MIND. In his latest series of posts he acts as if the issue had never been raised, and that the historical fact is that "the disciples saw jesus after his death."

Yep. Welcome to our world. We've been fighting this since way last year.

[Azdgari]

The fact that Fran regularly makes ~8-page responses rather than concise ones, making progress nigh-impossible, indicates, to me, that he values the existence of the debate more than a resolution to the debate.  Keeping the debate going without conclusion is his ultimate goal.  It is an exercise in trolling.

[GetMeThere]

It's VERY telling that Fran simply WILL NOT ALLOW THIS DISTINCTION TO EVEN ENTER HIS MIND. In his latest series of posts he acts as if the issue had never been raised, and that the historical fact is that "the disciples saw jesus after his death."

Yep. Welcome to our world. We've been fighting this since way last year.

That's why I've always pushed for "micro debates" that concentrate on very SPECIFIC issues, and that can progress with SHORT posts, and a clear back and forth on sticking points. This debate can't proceed in any kind of realistic manner with the Fact #3 disparity floating through it--yet, we ALL ganged up on him over this issue for PAGES, and simply couldn't break through. It's DEEPLY ENTRENCHED cognitive dissonance that's as strong as iron--which is why, ultimately, it's pointless to have these kinds of debates with believers. Highly FOCUSED debates can work, because these sticking points are hit EASILY, focused on, and either broken through or seen to be intractable--ending the debate. There' so much crap floating in the air over this debate that it's impossible to get anywhere.

[Gnu Ordure]

It's ridiculous. A waste of time and space.

[HAL]

Fran said this in his word-wall post -

History deals in probabilities.

That one small snippet is all I need, out of that massive dump.

Yes Fran, it does, and that's all we need to dismiss the claims of an actual resurrection. That's it. Simple. That's why we don't dismiss claims of ancient wars or leaders or journeys or ships or cities or ... - because WE KNOW THESE THINGS CAN HAPPEN AND ARE POSSIBLE.

A resurrection? The probability of it actually happening is so low as to be near Zero, and you know damn well why. There is NO corroborating evidence of such a thing EVER happening, and NO evidence of the force that enables such an event. NONE - ZERO - NADA.

Case closed dear.

kcrady, I feel sorry that you have to wade through that muck, but I wish you the best of luck.