Author Topic: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?  (Read 89647 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline essgeeskee

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 494
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Karma: +1,000,000/-223
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #29 on: May 28, 2009, 06:05:33 AM »
I've come to the conclusion that anyone who believes in the resurrection, virgin births or Jesus walking on water can not be argued with.

These people have a rational/delusional switch that they flip on and off when they choose to. For the most part, these people are completely rational and do want proof or evidence on almost everything they deal with in life.

They can't see the story what it really is though; a story. I mean, a body was in a tomb, now it's gone so he must have vanished into thin air is a silly conclusion to come up with.

These people want to believe in something higher and this story gives them that fuel to keep the fire burning.

To me, even if the story was well documented, it still wouldn't hold up. Seriously, when is the last time any Christian saw someone be dead for 3 days and then resurrect into thin air? They've never seen anything like this happen. Maybe in a dream. This is why you can't argue with these people. When religion is being discussed, they flip their rational switch off and turn the fairy tail like delusional switch on. The only thing is that they have no room for the delusional switch in their everyday lives. They eat, sleep and live day to day just like everyone else.
Quote
"Follow your intuition!"

Offline Inactive_1

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 2242
  • Darwins +10/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #30 on: May 28, 2009, 06:39:49 AM »

To me, even if the story was well documented, it still wouldn't hold up.


OK, so it sounds like no amount of historical text alone would convince the members (if any member disagreees please chime in) that a miraculous or unreasonable claim from the past actually happened, as I was asking below -

"We need to determine if historical text is enough for any claim of a historical event. For example, claiming that a certain person was a leader of a tribe or nation is not unusual or unreasonable, because we know that humans elect or have leaders in the normal course of history, even today, and it doesn't involve forces or actions that can't be duplicated.

But if a claim that a spaceship landed from another planet and helped humans, so long ago that we have no physical evidence, would we still accept the same type of historical documentation? This type of claim is unreasonable given any experience we know of now, so do we just accept it the same way as a claim that a person was the head of a nation? That is what we need to nail down."


So we need to see what Fran's response is to this rejection of historical accounts only for miraculous events and unreasonable claims, the types of events that can't be duplicated or explained rationally. Historical accounts of people electing leaders or conquering other tribes or nations, normal things humans do, seem to be acceptable evidence from historical text only.

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #31 on: May 28, 2009, 07:10:25 AM »
I predict that Fran will once again fail to substantiate his claims adequately, and when pressed on this matter, will resort to pleading technical problems, a family emergency or some other such guff that will keep him away from the forums for weeks in the hope that people will suffer collective amnesia by the time he gets around to repeating the same claims. This is, after all, the pattern that has been followed every single time Fran has made such claims in the past. Anyone in doubt need only review the past posts and threads on this subject in which Fran has participated.

Such behaviour is blatant intellectual dishonesty; as such, people are wasting their time discussing with him. I would further surmise that such behaviour is symptomatic of some sort of psychological disorder.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2009, 07:14:14 AM by Deus ex Machina »
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline Fran

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #32 on: May 28, 2009, 07:54:50 AM »
I do require evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.  The bible demands that we test and prove everything.

Then where is this evidence? Will you please stop wasting time and get to this main point already?

Quote
I trust in God and the general reliability of the Bible as an historical document based on evidence and logic and common sense.

But somehow I think this is all we can expect to get from you as far as "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" goes.

1)... the evidence is the Resurrection of Jesus... and this thread was started by Admin 1 for this very purpose.  To discuss whether it can be reasonably ascertained that Jesus' Resurrection occurred, thereby furnishing good evidence that God exists since only God can raise the dead.

2)...Tell me why you you dispute the general reliability of the NT as historical documents... ESPECIALLY in light of how other ancient documents are ascertained to be general reliable?
« Last Edit: May 28, 2009, 08:06:56 AM by Fran »

Offline Fran

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #33 on: May 28, 2009, 07:58:40 AM »
Folks:

I'll tell you how this conversation will go, since I had this same conversation with Fran back in January.  Fran will tell you he can't prove God exists by presenting physical evidence.  But what Fran will tell you is that the resurrection of Jesus is reliably true, as discerned by the historical method, and that Jesus' resurrection thus supported is ample proof that God exists.  You'll challenge him to demonstrate how the historical method supports truth claims about Jesus' resurrection, and that's where Fran will exit the conversation (without the courtesy of letting you know he's leaving), though he might beat around the bush for a while before jumping out.

He didn't support his claim with me back then, and he won't do it with you now.  He'll tell you he has evidence, but he won't actually present the evidence.  Or, he'll present something he says is evidence, but we'll pick it apart, and Fran will be left with nothing but hollow claims.

Good luck to all of you who engage with Fran on this topic.   Or maybe I should offer good luck to Fran; he needs it more than anyone else.

Good luck Fran. ;D

Jazzman

I agree with you Jazzman. My brother would do the same thing, but he has yet to come on any rational thinking site to present the evidence he says there is for Jesus' resurrection (the bible is his only evidence). It also doesn't sit well with a Christian's "Statement of Faith" to question what the bible says, because it's "gods" inerrant word.

Eddie


But I have already said what my outline of evidence will be because it has already been used in many debates with highly intelligent nonbelievers, and still has not be refuted.  And that is the line of reasoning used by William Lane Craig.

And so to give you a heads up... that is the line of reasoning will be using.  I have already explained all this before... so it is completely vacuous to say that I have not supplied any evidence.  What I'm hoping to do in this thread is to go over any challenges to Craig's logic, and see if it will hold up under your challenge.

Offline superfly

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 686
  • Darwins +4/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • go ride a bicycle
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #34 on: May 28, 2009, 07:59:21 AM »
I think it can be demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the Resurrection of Christ actually occured in history.  And I think William Lane Craig shows this to be true in his numerous debates with highly intelligent atheists and non-believers.

before we get to the resurrection of jesus, i'd like to see some evidence that he actually existed. of course, you can't use the bible or bible references to prove his existence. (i don't go around telling everyone that Billy Pilgrim is a real person because i read Slaughterhouse-5).
Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile!
Kurt Vonnegut

Offline Fran

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #35 on: May 28, 2009, 08:01:45 AM »
I predict that Fran will once again fail to substantiate his claims adequately, and when pressed on this matter, will resort to pleading technical problems, a family emergency or some other such guff that will keep him away from the forums for weeks in the hope that people will suffer collective amnesia by the time he gets around to repeating the same claims. This is, after all, the pattern that has been followed every single time Fran has made such claims in the past. Anyone in doubt need only review the past posts and threads on this subject in which Fran has participated.

Such behaviour is blatant intellectual dishonesty; as such, people are wasting their time discussing with him. I would further surmise that such behaviour is symptomatic of some sort of psychological disorder.

Press me

Offline Fran

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #36 on: May 28, 2009, 08:05:56 AM »
I think it can be demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the Resurrection of Christ actually occured in history.  And I think William Lane Craig shows this to be true in his numerous debates with highly intelligent atheists and non-believers.

before we get to the resurrection of jesus, i'd like to see some evidence that he actually existed. of course, you can't use the bible or bible references to prove his existence. (i don't go around telling everyone that Billy Pilgrim is a real person because i read Slaughterhouse-5).


No good historian disputes the existence of Jesus.  And if you can find one somewhere... they would be in the vast minority of such skeptics.   As for me, I'm willing to go with what the vast majority of historians (those that have spent many years studying the issue seriously) have concluded.

In case you haven't noticed... this is what IS ALWAYS DONE with all of ancient history.. .because there is no other alternative to that process.   There are no videos or audio or pictures of the ancient past.  All any historian has at their disposal are ancient documents.

Offline Fran

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #37 on: May 28, 2009, 08:09:10 AM »
Guess I'm ignored.:'(  Should be use to it by now. 

Well... it didn't appear that you were writing to me.  But William Lane Craig's line of reasoning employed in his debates with highly intelligent nonbelievers takes care of your particular objections.   It is his line of reasoning I am using.

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #38 on: May 28, 2009, 08:12:41 AM »
WLC makes sense to people already pre-disposed, or pre-conditioned, like you.

How would your life be without your beliefs? Can you conceive it as something positive?  

----

Emperor Vespasian's healing of the blind is cross-referenced, historical fact.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2009, 08:21:56 AM by Ambassador Pony »
You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline superfly

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 686
  • Darwins +4/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • go ride a bicycle
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #39 on: May 28, 2009, 08:17:18 AM »

No good historian disputes the existence of Jesus.  And if you can find one somewhere... they would be in the vast minority of such skeptics.   As for me, I'm willing to go with what the vast majority of historians (those that have spent many years studying the issue seriously) have concluded.

In case you haven't noticed... this is what IS ALWAYS DONE with all of ancient history.. .because there is no other alternative to that process.   There are no videos or audio or pictures of the ancient past.  All any historian has at their disposal are ancient documents.

most people assume he was born/crucified.  just like most people used to assume the universe revolved around our little rock. 
Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile!
Kurt Vonnegut

Offline Inactive_1

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 2242
  • Darwins +10/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #40 on: May 28, 2009, 08:19:50 AM »
before we get to the resurrection of jesus, i'd like to see some evidence that he actually existed.

For this debate we'll assume he existed. We're trying to find out what kinds of historical documents and writings will convince a skeptical mind, a critical thinker, that a man named Jesus was dead (need technical definition still) and then re-animated his life functions again. Try to keep the side arguments out of this thread.

Thanks.

Offline subtleinspiration

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2600
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #41 on: May 28, 2009, 08:39:02 AM »
For this debate we'll assume he existed. We're trying to find out what kinds of historical documents and writings will convince a skeptical mind, a critical thinker, that a man named Jesus was dead (need technical definition still) and then re-animated his life functions again. Try to keep the side arguments out of this thread.

Hell, if there were just a few collaborating documents referencing the strange occurrence of dead people infesting Jerusalem (after the graves were opened), I'd consider that quite a strong indication that something happened along the lines of what the NT reports.
"As a God fearing Christian,  you should never ever date an Atheist. One night alone with an atheist is enough for you to lose your faith and to be converted into one of the spiritually dead."

Offline superfly

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 686
  • Darwins +4/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • go ride a bicycle
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #42 on: May 28, 2009, 08:47:45 AM »
For this debate we'll assume he existed.

sorry Admin 1, i didn't mean to derail the thread. i'll assume he existed.

ok FRAN, let's see your evidence that he was resurrected. from what i've seen, Dr. William Lane Craig is an eloquent speaker, but i haven't seen any evidence.

evidence isn't a feeling or an idea. you can't use hearsay/second hand evidence . we've covered the inconsistencies of the resurrection as told by the gospel writers several times on this forum.

edit for horrific semantics.

« Last Edit: May 28, 2009, 08:51:17 AM by superfly »
Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile!
Kurt Vonnegut

Offline alan1978

Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #43 on: May 28, 2009, 09:43:28 AM »
But if God exists, then it wouldn't be a very difficult thing for a God to raise a dead person.  If you can't concede such an obvious point, then how can we logically go forward?

How do you know what a GOD can and cannot do?.... Did he tell you what he is capable of?

Offline jazzman

  • www.jazz24.org
  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 797
  • Darwins +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't get no respect
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #44 on: May 28, 2009, 11:20:39 AM »
But I have already said what my outline of evidence will be because it has already been used in many debates with highly intelligent nonbelievers, and still has not be refuted.  And that is the line of reasoning used by William Lane Craig.

And so to give you a heads up... that is the line of reasoning will be using.  I have already explained all this before... so it is completely vacuous to say that I have not supplied any evidence.  What I'm hoping to do in this thread is to go over any challenges to Craig's logic, and see if it will hold up under your challenge.
Fran: We're not debating WL Craig.  We're debating YOU.  YOU present your argument.  YOU present YOUR evidence.  Until YOU present YOUR evidence, there isn't anything to talk about.

Jazzman
"Things you don't see: An old man having a Twix." -- Karl Pilkington

Offline superfly

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 686
  • Darwins +4/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • go ride a bicycle
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #45 on: May 28, 2009, 11:52:03 AM »
I think it can be demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the Resurrection of Christ actually occured in history.  And I think William Lane Craig shows this to be true in his numerous debates with highly intelligent atheists and non-believers.

okey dokey. where is your evidence?
Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile!
Kurt Vonnegut

Offline Fran

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #46 on: May 28, 2009, 12:25:08 PM »
before we get to the resurrection of jesus, i'd like to see some evidence that he actually existed.

For this debate we'll assume he existed. We're trying to find out what kinds of historical documents and writings will convince a skeptical mind, a critical thinker, that a man named Jesus was dead (need technical definition still) and then re-animated his life functions again. Try to keep the side arguments out of this thread.

Thanks.

I'll use whatever definition for death that you want to use, especially a defintion that will be in your favor.

Offline Fran

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #47 on: May 28, 2009, 12:28:51 PM »

No good historian disputes the existence of Jesus.  And if you can find one somewhere... they would be in the vast minority of such skeptics.   As for me, I'm willing to go with what the vast majority of historians (those that have spent many years studying the issue seriously) have concluded.

In case you haven't noticed... this is what IS ALWAYS DONE with all of ancient history.. .because there is no other alternative to that process.   There are no videos or audio or pictures of the ancient past.  All any historian has at their disposal are ancient documents.

most people assume he was born/crucified.  just like most people used to assume the universe revolved around our little rock. 

The best evidence for the existence of Jesus is what is called "hostile witnesses" in a court of law.  His mortal enemies (many of the Jewish faith, then and now) never dispute His existence... but instead have an intense hatred for Jesus and call Him a deceiver... an apostate... a blasphemer... a scorcer... in league with the devil himself.

Offline Fran

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #48 on: May 28, 2009, 12:30:28 PM »
But if God exists, then it wouldn't be a very difficult thing for a God to raise a dead person.  If you can't concede such an obvious point, then how can we logically go forward?

How do you know what a GOD can and cannot do?.... Did he tell you what he is capable of?

Im refering to the God in question... the God that raised Jesus from the dead... the God of the Bible... Jesus-God Incarnate.

Offline PinkMilk

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1780
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #49 on: May 28, 2009, 12:37:24 PM »
No good historian disputes the existence of Jesus.  And if you can find one somewhere... they would be in the vast minority of such skeptics.   As for me, I'm willing to go with what the vast majority of historians (those that have spent many years studying the issue seriously) have concluded.
The vast minority believe that he never existed as a person and was just a fictional character.  As far as those who acknowledge his existence, that does not mean that they acknowledge him as the son of God.  Most historians who do believe in God will argue that he was, historians of other religions or nonbelievers will argue that he existed but was not the son of God.  This provides no evidence to your argument to say that most historians believe he existed as a person as it does not show that the vast majority of historians believe he was the son of God or that anything from the Bible was factual.
Quote
In case you haven't noticed... this is what IS ALWAYS DONE with all of ancient history.. .because there is no other alternative to that process.   There are no videos or audio or pictures of the ancient past.  All any historian has at their disposal are ancient documents.
Other historical events are well documented. There was no photographs or videos of the American Revolution, but there are many documents.  We also have other evidence that shows this to be true, such as the fact that the United States exists as a result of the colonies they developed during that time.  Historians debate over historical accuracy of more than just the Bible.  Arguing what Historians debate over and stating that you will always agree with the majority of them is fine.  That suggests to us that you will be likely to deny any rebuttals to your argument that may be in the minority of historians viewpoints.  However I don't really foresee this as being a problem. 
Quote
most people assume he was born/crucified.  just like most people used to assume the universe revolved around our little rock. 
Aristarchus of Samos was a greek philosopher and an astronomer who first suggested a heliocentric solar system and he went ignored. People believed Ptolemy and Aristotle's geocentric solar system because it made more sense to them and they had no evidence of a heliocentric solar system.  1800 years after Aristarchus proposed this, Copernicus readdressed and published works in favor of a heliocentric solar system.  Galileo supported and continued the idea and was prosecuted by the Roman Churches' Inquisition till he died.  I say all this to make a point, the reason that no one believed it when Aristarchus of Samos was because there was a lack of evidence that showed it to be true, so people picked what they liked.  People wanted the earth to be the center of everything.  Once evidence was found to support a heliocentric solar system and after many years of prosecution from the church, we now know that Aristarchus of Samos' heliocentric solar system is correct. 

Now let's address the first part of this comment.  You say most people think Jesus was born and crucified. While I might argue that, let's go with it.  Let's say -EVERYONE- thought he was a real person and he was crucified.  This does not mean that everyone thinks that he was born of a virgin, that he was the son of God, that he performed miracles, that he rose from the dead, etc.  You are not providing evidence for the fantastic parts of the Bible, such as his resurrection.  That's like I can say I have a pet dog who poops gold and then say people believe dogs exist.  Pointing out things like this, does not prove his resurrection.  It is not like the second example you gave because not everyone believes Jesus to be the son of God (rather because they are a different religion, they are atheist, or whatever).  Did everyone always think the world was geocentric? No, but most people did.  That was the entire claim.  That the earth was in the center of the world.  We know how evidence that proves that theory to be wrong.  What we don't have is evidence of Jesus' resurrection or any of the other fantastic claims of the Bible.  You comparing past theories of planetary orbit does not equate to what you are trying to say.  It is just as ridiculous as me trying to equate your claim that Jesus rose from the dead to a dog that poops gold.

Quote
I think it can be demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the Resurrection of Christ actually occured in history.  And I think William Lane Craig shows this to be true in his numerous debates with highly intelligent atheists and non-believers.
As others have said, William Lane Craig is not the one here making arguments, you are.  You provide the arguments that you think prove it occurred and don't just say that others have proved it.  If someone was arguing Evolution, they don't just say that someone else has proven it, the provide the arguments for it.  Let's see you do the same.
Quote
Well... it didn't appear that you were writing to me.  But William Lane Craig's line of reasoning employed in his debates with highly intelligent nonbelievers takes care of your particular objections.   It is his line of reasoning I am using.
Again, you state the line of reasoning that you believe answers objections.  Debates do not work in the sense that someone makes a claim, someone opposes that claim, then the person making the claim expects those who oppose it to go do the work for them.  Everyone brings their material to the table so it can be discussed.  So stop just mentioning others you feel who have made the argument for you, unless you are going to actually provide what it is they said. 
I can see where your coming from but on the other hand i dont want my kid to learn about evolution or see homosexualisom talked about in a scince classs ethier. <-- From Youguysarepathetic

At least I have a mother. Have you? (serious question) <---From Skylark889

Offline Frank

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2363
  • Darwins +38/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • You're doin' my head in!!
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #50 on: May 28, 2009, 12:43:11 PM »
Can you prove the Resurrection of Jesus Christ actually occurred? It seems to me that if a man came back from the dead that there would be more than one book about it.  I mean, seriously, he came back from the dead and the only book about it is the Bible? 


I think it can be demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the Resurrection of Christ actually occurred in history.  And I think William Lane Craig shows this to be true in his numerous debates with highly intelligent atheists and non-believers.

No you can't.
"Atheism is not a mission to convert the world. It only seems that way because when other religions fall away, atheism is what is left behind".

Offline Fran

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #51 on: May 28, 2009, 12:44:02 PM »
But I have already said what my outline of evidence will be because it has already been used in many debates with highly intelligent nonbelievers, and still has not be refuted.  And that is the line of reasoning used by William Lane Craig.

And so to give you a heads up... that is the line of reasoning will be using.  I have already explained all this before... so it is completely vacuous to say that I have not supplied any evidence.  What I'm hoping to do in this thread is to go over any challenges to Craig's logic, and see if it will hold up under your challenge.
Fran: We're not debating WL Craig.  We're debating YOU.  YOU present your argument.  YOU present YOUR evidence.  Until YOU present YOUR evidence, there isn't anything to talk about.

Jazzman

Hello jazzman...

I'll begin with this:

In putting together a case for Jesus’ resurrection, I think it’s vitally important that we distinguish between the "evidence" and "the best explanation of that evidence". For me, this distinction is important because in this case the evidence is relatively uncontroversial. And in fact, it’s agreed to by most scholars who have spent many years studying the issue. On the otherhand, and this is a very important distinction, it is the EXPLANATION of that evidence which is controversial.

Call it what you will, but me for this is called "Inference to the best explaination".

That the resurrection is the best explanation is a matter of controversy. I agree.  And that is where the debate always comes down when scholars and intelligent people debate this issue.

Now right off the bat, what we observe in debates all over the world, and on university campuses everywhere, is that the issue is NOT that there is NO historical evidence for the resurrection... but what is being disputed is that the resurrection as the best explanation... not that there is no evidence.  If there was no evidence, there would be no debate.  In all the debates you see around the world between highly intelligent Christians and nonbelievers, you see them NOT saying that there is no evidence, but they are always disputing whether the resurrection is the best explanation OF THE EVIDENCE.

so to start off, there are four historical facts which must be explained by any adequate historical hypothesis:

1)... Jesus’ burial

2)... the discovery of his empty tomb

3)... his post-mortem appearances

4)... the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection.


I'll end with that for now, because I'm sure I'll receive an avalanche of responses that I must tediously wade thru.

Thanks for showing up Jazzman.

take care

« Last Edit: May 28, 2009, 12:48:28 PM by Fran »

Offline Fran

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #52 on: May 28, 2009, 12:45:20 PM »
Can you prove the Resurrection of Jesus Christ actually occurred? It seems to me that if a man came back from the dead that there would be more than one book about it.  I mean, seriously, he came back from the dead and the only book about it is the Bible? 


I think it can be demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the Resurrection of Christ actually occurred in history.  And I think William Lane Craig shows this to be true in his numerous debates with highly intelligent atheists and non-believers.

No you can't.

I think it can.

take care

Offline Frank

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2363
  • Darwins +38/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • You're doin' my head in!!
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #53 on: May 28, 2009, 12:48:35 PM »
Can you prove the Resurrection of Jesus Christ actually occurred? It seems to me that if a man came back from the dead that there would be more than one book about it.  I mean, seriously, he came back from the dead and the only book about it is the Bible? 


I think it can be demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the Resurrection of Christ actually occurred in history.  And I think William Lane Craig shows this to be true in his numerous debates with highly intelligent atheists and non-believers.

No you can't.

I think it can.

take care

I think you can't. I think there is absolutely no chance whatsoever. You're all talk.
"Atheism is not a mission to convert the world. It only seems that way because when other religions fall away, atheism is what is left behind".

Offline PinkMilk

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1780
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #54 on: May 28, 2009, 12:57:02 PM »
In putting together a case for Jesus’ resurrection, I think it’s vitally important that we distinguish between the "evidence" and "the best explanation of that evidence". For me, this distinction is important because in this case the evidence is relatively uncontroversial. And in fact, it’s agreed to by most scholars who have spent many years studying the issue. On the otherhand, and this is a very important distinction, it is the EXPLANATION of that evidence which is controversial.
I think before you could even begin to debate the explanation of evidence, the evidence must first be presented.  How is someone meant to make any conclusions about evidence you haven't presented?
Quote
Call it what you will, but me for this is called "Inference to the best explaination".
While right now we are dealing with zero evidence, I will accept your terminology (or whoever used that terminology) once we have evidence to work with.
Quote
That the resurrection is the best explanation is a matter of controversy. I agree.  And that is where the debate always comes down when scholars and intelligent people debate this issue.
There is never any debate over evidence? Ever?  That's news to me.  I watch a lot of debates in regards to religious views, and I've never seen one where "evidence" doesn't come into question.
Quote
Now right off the bat, what we observe in debates all over the world, and on university campuses everywhere, is that the issue is NOT that there is NO historical evidence for the resurrection... but what is being disputed is that the resurrection as the best explanation... not that there is no evidence.  If there was no evidence, there would be no debate.  In all the debates you see around the world between highly intelligent Christians and nonbelievers, you see them NOT saying that there is no evidence, but they are always disputing whether the resurrection is the best explanation OF THE EVIDENCE.
Again, without your presentation of evidence, this does not matter.
Quote
so to start off, there are four historical facts which must be explained by any adequate historical hypothesis:

1)... Jesus’ burial

2)... the discovery of his empty tomb

3)... his post-mortem appearances

4)... the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection.

I really wish you wouldn't have stopped here.  You really should have presented some evidence at some point.  Based on what you said, none of this matters because we do not know the evidence you are talking about (and may possibly present) to know if we do or do not agree with it.  The way you are setting this is up is in a manner that implies we will all agree with whatever evidence it is you are hiding in your back pocket. 
I can see where your coming from but on the other hand i dont want my kid to learn about evolution or see homosexualisom talked about in a scince classs ethier. <-- From Youguysarepathetic

At least I have a mother. Have you? (serious question) <---From Skylark889

Offline tperl

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 122
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • The Perl Abides
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #55 on: May 28, 2009, 01:18:18 PM »
I think Fran is now attempting to perform Jedi mind tricks, ala Obi-Wan Kenobi:

"You don't need to see the evidence."

"These aren't the historical documents you're looking for"

"You can go about your business debating something else."

"Move along."
« Last Edit: May 28, 2009, 01:38:30 PM by tperl »
"Nobody f**ks with Da Jesus" - Jesus Quintana

Offline superfly

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 686
  • Darwins +4/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • go ride a bicycle
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #56 on: May 28, 2009, 01:52:10 PM »
His mortal enemies (many of the Jewish faith, then and now) never dispute His existence... but instead have an intense hatred for Jesus

"intense hatred for Jesus"...his existence is a moot point for most Jews. i'm sure if Jews had been slaughtered and persecuted over a few centuries for not believing in the Magic 8 Ball, there would be few, if any Magic 8 Balls given as Hanukkah gifts.


Quote from: fran
and call Him a deceiver... an apostate... a blasphemer... a scorcer... in league with the devil himself.

point me in the direction of the Jewish texts describing Jesus as a deceiver/apostate/blasphemer/sorcerer/in league with the devil himself. please don't tell me about texts that were written long after his death, when the Jews were being persecuted for:
1. not believing that jesus was THE messiah
2. killing the god (i thought he came here to die for our sins, so why did/do christians call Jews "Christ Killers"?)

 
whatcha got that was written during his life?  surely someone as big a deal as TEH JESUS, would have had a few things written about him during his time on Earth. after all he was here to die for all of our sins, so that whom ever should believe in him should not perish but instead have everlasting life, right?
so we should have a few notices, or fliers, or eyewitness accounts, right?
they did have a written language then, correct? so where are all of the contemporary texts?

i'll go grab a beer, light a cigar, and play my ukulele while i wait for your reply.

Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile!
Kurt Vonnegut

Offline jazzman

  • www.jazz24.org
  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 797
  • Darwins +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't get no respect
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #57 on: May 28, 2009, 02:15:47 PM »
But I have already said what my outline of evidence will be because it has already been used in many debates with highly intelligent nonbelievers, and still has not be refuted.  And that is the line of reasoning used by William Lane Craig.

And so to give you a heads up... that is the line of reasoning will be using.  I have already explained all this before... so it is completely vacuous to say that I have not supplied any evidence.  What I'm hoping to do in this thread is to go over any challenges to Craig's logic, and see if it will hold up under your challenge.
Fran: We're not debating WL Craig.  We're debating YOU.  YOU present your argument.  YOU present YOUR evidence.  Until YOU present YOUR evidence, there isn't anything to talk about.

Jazzman

Hello jazzman...

I'll begin with this:

In putting together a case for Jesus’ resurrection, I think it’s vitally important that we distinguish between the "evidence" and "the best explanation of that evidence". For me, this distinction is important because in this case the evidence is relatively uncontroversial. And in fact, it’s agreed to by most scholars who have spent many years studying the issue. On the otherhand, and this is a very important distinction, it is the EXPLANATION of that evidence which is controversial.

Call it what you will, but me for this is called "Inference to the best explaination".

That the resurrection is the best explanation is a matter of controversy. I agree.  And that is where the debate always comes down when scholars and intelligent people debate this issue.

Now right off the bat, what we observe in debates all over the world, and on university campuses everywhere, is that the issue is NOT that there is NO historical evidence for the resurrection... but what is being disputed is that the resurrection as the best explanation... not that there is no evidence.  If there was no evidence, there would be no debate.  In all the debates you see around the world between highly intelligent Christians and nonbelievers, you see them NOT saying that there is no evidence, but they are always disputing whether the resurrection is the best explanation OF THE EVIDENCE.

so to start off, there are four historical facts which must be explained by any adequate historical hypothesis:

1)... Jesus’ burial

2)... the discovery of his empty tomb

3)... his post-mortem appearances

4)... the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection.


I'll end with that for now, because I'm sure I'll receive an avalanche of responses that I must tediously wade thru.

Thanks for showing up Jazzman.

take care


I'm here, but I don't know how much I'll engage, as we've already been down this road, to no avail.  I'll wait to see what you have to offer.

Jazzman
"Things you don't see: An old man having a Twix." -- Karl Pilkington