Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?

[Fran]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 don't undertand your post.  The historical facts are the evidence. 

take care

[Ambassador Pony]

there are four historical facts ...

1)... Jesus’ burial

ya, someone named jesus that died must have had a burial of some sort. Even if they just threw his useless corps in a garbage heap, you could consider it a burial of sorts, as other useless garbage would eventually bury the corps.  

That's a mundane claim, and does not require much extraordinary evidence to believe.

People who die, get disposed of somehow.

2)... the discovery of his empty tomb

More evidence for Vespasian's miraculous healings of the blind.

3)... his post-mortem appearances

Bullshit.

There's more evidence for Vespasian's miraculous healings of the blind.

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

The origin of his supposed followers' claims that they believed in his resurection

There's more evidence of Vespasian's healing of the blind.

Not many facts here. Care to substantiate any of these?

[Fran]

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

I admire you very much, and always have.  Jump in whenever you like.

take care

[Fran]

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.

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.

Maybe this will help you.

According to the vast majority of scholars... (even those who do not believe that Jesus performed any miracles or that there was a Resurrection) Jesus was buried.  That is a historical fact agreed upon by the vast majority of Biblical Scholars... from intensely liberal to intensely conservative.  And you can't have a burial if He did not exist.

No where, anywhere in history, whenever the Christian church was debated and talked about... is there any written disputes to His burial.  Either from his enemies or his friends.  Even the Sanhedrin, or the Jewish authorities, never disputed, anytime in history, Jesus' burial even though a member of the Sanhedrin is named as being a party to the burial of Jesus.  

No where does the Sanhedrin even dispute the empty tomb, even though it would have been to their distinct advantage and prestige to dispute Jesus' existence if no person existed... especially since they are SPECIFICALLY named as the people who unfairly put Jesus on trial and cried for his Crucificion.  If Jesus was not a real person, the Sanhedrin... the Jewish authorities would have HOWLED and PROTESTED vigoursly against such "lies"... if they were lies in the first place.

Anyway.. your dispute is with the vast majority of historians who disagree with you.

Take care.

[superfly]

Maybe this will help you.

According to the vast majority of scholars... (even those who do not believe that Jesus performed any miracles or that there was a Resurrection) Jesus was buried.  That is a historical fact agreed upon by the vast majority of Biblical Scholars... from intensely liberal to intensely conservative.  And you can't have a burial if He did not exist.

No where, anywhere in history, whenever the Christian church was debated and talked about... is there any written disputes to His burial.  Either from his enemies or his friends.  Even the Sanhedrin, or the Jewish authorities, never disputed, anytime in history, Jesus' burial even though a member of the Sanhedrin is named as being a party to the burial of Jesus.  

No where does the Sanhedrin even dispute the empty tomb, even though it would have been to their distinct advantage and prestige to dispute Jesus' existence if no person existed... especially since they are SPECIFICALLY named as the people who unfairly put Jesus on trial and cried for his Crucificion.  If Jesus was not a real person, the Sanhedrin... the Jewish authorities would have HOWLED and PROTESTED vigoursly against such "lies"... if they were lies in the first place.

Anyway.. your dispute is with the vast majority of historians who disagree with you.

Take care.

nope, my dispute is with you. and you still haven't shown me anything.

you posted: "I think it can be demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the Resurrection of Christ actually occured in history."

we're waiting.


edit-hit the wrong button.

[wheels5894]

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?

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?

For No 2 I have this to say.

Scholars have argued for years over the historicalness or other wise of the NT nd with datings as late as maybe 90CE for John, it looks tricky. Paul especially never really has anything to do with and earthly Jesus and thus early eye witness evidence is missing. It is also clear that some stories match a later time than Jesus such as the Christians being thrown out of the Synagogues which took place in the late 70s and the knocking down of the temple by the Romans in 70 CE. of course, if we doubt the eyewitness things we may also doubt the other things in the text too.

Enter Richard Bauckham a now retired professor from St Andrews In Scotland. His book "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospel As Eyewitness Testimony (Eerdmans, 2006)" tries to link the named people in the Gospels with those who gave their stories to the Gospel writers. It is not perfect and does not cover everything though the Birth narratives are usually accepted as being later and not eyewitness. Now if Bauckham is right, we have a set of eyewitness accounts - well 2 anyway - for the death and Resurrection of Jesus. There are some problems though.

Bauckham claims that as these documents were written in the lifetimes of those who witnesses the events, anything in error would be commented on and the text would be disgraced. I sort of went along with that until I came across the book "The Daughter of Time" by Josephine Tey. Written in 1951 it referrer to the Riot of Tonypandy that the welsh, at that time, considered was an attach by the army on striking miners in 1910. The point made in the book is that the real event involved only polic offices without any weapons yet no one then or later corrected the legend of the army attaching. This takes away my belief that Bauckham has that people would have argued with a text that did not match the events.

Thus I consider whilst there may have been a Jesus crucified, (the Romans quite like crucifixion - a general Crassus had 350 miles of crosses of defeated people made on his way back to Rome!) that does not make the story of the rising on the third day also true. In fact a lot of 'gods' had been dead for three days before rising in the past so would provide valuable story lines for imaginative writers.

So, that's why I am not happy to accept the idea of using just the Gospels to prove the resurrection. Of course, such a major vent like that, (they don't happen every day) might have been expected to evince more writings from other but none not connected with the new sect ever have appeared and the Roman historians have nothing to do with it. I can't wait to see a proof.

[PinkMilk]

I don't undertand your post.  The historical facts are the evidence. 

take care

Please state them then for clarification.  I have a feeling that something you may consider to be a "fact", I may feel differently about.  I think that once we can agree on what we both consider facts then we can take the subject in the way you were describing.  I just think that for clarification now, it is best to put all the facts out on the table and make sure everyone agrees with them.  Other wise you can at a later point in time decide to change what you chose to present as facts.  Let's make sure everyone is on the same page first. 
Allow me to start by presenting a fact.  The Bible will not fly as a historical document or as means of providing "facts" for the purpose of this argument.  I think everyone here can agree with that. 

[wheels5894]

According to the vast majority of scholars... (even those who do not believe that Jesus performed any miracles or that there was a Resurrection) Jesus was buried.  That is a historical fact agreed upon by the vast majority of Biblical Scholars... from intensely liberal to intensely conservative.  And you can't have a burial if He did not exist.

This odd unanimity of scholars is based on what - just the biblical account?  (the things you are liable to read in the bible - they ain't necessarily so!)

[Ambassador Pony]

I don't undertand your post.  The historical facts are the evidence. 

take care

Please state them then for clarification.  I have a feeling that something you may consider to be a "fact", I may feel differently about. 
 

You're right. he did state some "facts" essential to his argument, and, mostly, they are not facts at all. They are wishful thinking and / or the product of a time tested system of indoctrination. If you give me five to twenty years of your time, I can get you to see things from Fran's perspective.

You can also opt to sit back, relax, and, like me, enjoy a beautiful example of the ridiculous things that you can condition a human being to believe. It's truly awe-inspiring. 

[Inactive_1]

We need to see the evidence, but also we need to decide if any type of miraculous claim or unreasonable claim can be trusted to be valid using only written historical accounts of people without remaining physical evidence. At what point do written historical accounts fail to reliably justify a belief in the claims they support, i.e. UFOs, rising from the dead, demons, dragons and so forth. This is an important part of the debate.

Pet peeve - please don't re-quote those large blocks of text that are already part of the record, there is no need to have it all there again cluttering up the thread. Only quote and respond to the individual parts.

[wheels5894]

OK, well I'll jump in. I would accept historical documents if: -

1. There were several, written by people not involved in the event described. Obviously, Christians would not be seen as neutral on the Resurrection of Jesus for example.

2. There was some sense that the texts were written from eyewitness accounts and written close to the event described.

3. That the accounts were indepent of each other and broadly agreed with the facts with each other.

Whether that is enough for a one-off event I don't know but we would be on the way with these.

[subtleinspiration]

Fran, instead of touting generalities as your "evidence" (i.e. "buttloads of scholars say that Jesus was a real person!) can you begin providing specifics? Such specifics as, say, other sources of documentation outside the bible that show evidence of your claims? Any at all?

Remember, Fran, specifics. I'm not looking for "Well, there are plenty of outside sources that a lot of scholars agree with." I want to see names and links.

Thank you for your cooperation.

[Count Iblis]

Hi Fran,

I asked for a single eyewitness account and said that it would be enough. You haven't provided one so you are either unwilling or unable. So I guess we'll have to move on...

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

1)... Jesus’ burial

Please provide evidence that Jesus was buried.

2)... the discovery of his empty tomb

Please provide evidence that the empty tomb was dicovered.

3)... his post-mortem appearances

Please provide evidence that there were post-mortem appearances.

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

Please provide evidence that his disciples existed and that they believed in his resurrection

[Fran]

I don't undertand your post.  The historical facts are the evidence.  

take care

Please state them then for clarification.  I have a feeling that something you may consider to be a "fact", I may feel differently about.  I think that once we can agree on what we both consider facts then we can take the subject in the way you were describing.  I just think that for clarification now, it is best to put all the facts out on the table and make sure everyone agrees with them.  Other wise you can at a later point in time decide to change what you chose to present as facts.  Let's make sure everyone is on the same page first.  
Allow me to start by presenting a fact.  The Bible will not fly as a historical document or as means of providing "facts" for the purpose of this argument.  I think everyone here can agree with that.  

Hello Pink Milk...

I explained everything carefully in Reply #51.  I don't understand what the hang up is.

take care

[Fran]

Maybe this will help you.

According to the vast majority of scholars... (even those who do not believe that Jesus performed any miracles or that there was a Resurrection) Jesus was buried.  That is a historical fact agreed upon by the vast majority of Biblical Scholars... from intensely liberal to intensely conservative.  And you can't have a burial if He did not exist.

No where, anywhere in history, whenever the Christian church was debated and talked about... is there any written disputes to His burial.  Either from his enemies or his friends.  Even the Sanhedrin, or the Jewish authorities, never disputed, anytime in history, Jesus' burial even though a member of the Sanhedrin is named as being a party to the burial of Jesus.  

No where does the Sanhedrin even dispute the empty tomb, even though it would have been to their distinct advantage and prestige to dispute Jesus' existence if no person existed... especially since they are SPECIFICALLY named as the people who unfairly put Jesus on trial and cried for his Crucificion.  If Jesus was not a real person, the Sanhedrin... the Jewish authorities would have HOWLED and PROTESTED vigoursly against such "lies"... if they were lies in the first place.

Anyway.. your dispute is with the vast majority of historians who disagree with you.

Take care.

nope, my dispute is with you. and you still haven't shown me anything.

you posted: "I think it can be demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the Resurrection of Christ actually occured in history."

we're waiting.


edit-hit the wrong button.

Hello Superfly...

I simply have no idea what you are saying here.   Before I could even begin presenting my case (which I subsequently have done so in REPLY #51)... you were questioning the existence of Jesus.  Then when I attempt to give you an answer, you write "we're waiting" to hear my case for the Ressurection!!  Isn't this just a switch and bait?  You ask me one thing, and when I attempt to answer it, you change the question on me.

Please... help me here to understand what you are doing, because I can't make heads nor tails out of it.

And BTW, you dispute IS with the historians, not me.  I'm only the messenger in what they've concluded in regards to Jesus' existence.  I'm not making this up or come up with it on my own.  So as far as Christ's existence is concerned, your dispute IS with the historians.

Take care

[Airyaman]

I explained everything carefully in Reply #51.  I don't understand what the hang up is.

Truly? Let's see...

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.

What unbiased scholars believe the resurrection of Jesus is historical? There are historians who believe that Jesus existed, but no (credible) ones believed he rose from the dead.

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

I call it "special pleading".

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.

What intelligent people?

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.

There is NO...NONE...ZERO...ZILCH...evidence that the historical Jesus came back to life.

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.

These are not "facts" at all. You have done NOTHING to establish them as such. Nothing.

[Fran]

Hi Fran,

I asked for a single eyewitness account and said that it would be enough. You haven't provided one so you are either unwilling or unable. So I guess we'll have to move on...

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

1)... Jesus’ burial

Please provide evidence that Jesus was buried.

2)... the discovery of his empty tomb

Please provide evidence that the empty tomb was dicovered.

3)... his post-mortem appearances

Please provide evidence that there were post-mortem appearances.

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

Please provide evidence that his disciples existed and that they believed in his resurrection

Hello Count Iblis...

So let me get this straight.  Are you disputing that the 4 historical facts I've presented are not historical?  That these 4 historical facts are not agreed upon as historical facts by the vast majority of Biblical Scholars and Historians?  That you dispute them contrary to the acceptance of these historical facts by all the highly intelligent nonbelievers and atheists in their debates around the country?

I just want to be clear on this.  I'm willing to go over them, but I just want to understand the depth of your unwillingness to even accept what scholars have already concluded and agreed upon.

Take care

[superfly]

i re-read post #51. i still do not see any sherd of evidence. not a thing.

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.

where. is. the. evidence?

i'll assume jesus existed. (as i stated in reply #42)

where is the evidence that he was resurrected?

[Airyaman]

So let me get this straight.  Are you disputing that the 4 historical facts I've presented are not historical?  That these 4 historical facts are not agreed upon as historical facts by the vast majority of Biblical Scholars and Historians?  That you dispute them contrary to the acceptance of these historical facts by all the highly intelligent nonbelievers and atheists in their debates around the country?

What "four historical facts"? The four gospels? Tell me, how many of the writers indicated themselves by name?

[Fran]

C'mon Superfly...

I've already explained that we are going one point at a time.  I"m not just having this discusion with you alone.   Now...I've laid out the 4 historical facts from which I maintian that the Resurrection is the best explanation of.

If you have better explanation of these historical facts, then let me hear what it is.  But I maintain that only the Resurrection can best explain all 4 of these historical facts together... I have not found any explanation posited by nonbelievers which have been able to take into account all 4 of these historical facts.  One.  Two.  And maybe 3.  But never all four.

But it seems everyone in here is different in their starting point.  So I'm trying to move everyone to the same starting point so that we can do this together... that way I don't have to keep backtracking and repeating myself.

Take care.

[superfly]

Are you disputing that the 4 historical facts I've presented are not historical?  That these 4 historical facts are not agreed upon as historical facts by the vast majority of Biblical Scholars and Historians?

i'm sure biblical scholars and historians agree on alot of what's in your magic book. that doesn't make it fact.

That you dispute them contrary to the acceptance of these historical facts by all the highly intelligent nonbelievers and atheists in their debates around the country?I just want to be clear on this.  I'm willing to go over them, but I just want to understand the depth of your unwillingness to even accept what scholars have already concluded and agreed upon.

like who, for instance? can you link us to the you tube vids?

[Fran]

So let me get this straight.  Are you disputing that the 4 historical facts I've presented are not historical?  That these 4 historical facts are not agreed upon as historical facts by the vast majority of Biblical Scholars and Historians?  That you dispute them contrary to the acceptance of these historical facts by all the highly intelligent nonbelievers and atheists in their debates around the country?

What "four historical facts"? The four gospels? Tell me, how many of the writers indicated themselves by name?

What four historical facts?!?!?!

I've already listed them in REPLY #51, and if you read other people's responses, you'll see they all have copied and pasted these four historical facts!!!!  In fact, right above the post you wrote to me (and which I"m currently responding to)... you'll see the four historical facts I'm refering to.

so I don't understand what the problem in here is.

[Airyaman]

What four historical facts?!?!?!

I've already listed them in REPLY #51, and if you read other people's responses, you'll see they all have copied and pasted these four historical facts!!!!  In fact, right above the post you wrote to me (and which I"m currently responding to)... you'll see the four historical facts I'm refering to.

so I don't understand what the problem in here is.

These?

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.

The only one that can be close to certainty is (1). Even that is "iffy" because there are some scholars who believe he was tossed onto a heap of bodies, he same heap where all crucified criminals went.

What UNBIASED historians agree on these four "facts"?

[Inactive_1]

What four historical facts?!?!?!

Break, break.

We are trying to determine if a man named Jesus rose from the dead. You presented 4 claims. We are going to judge whether they are actual facts based on a reality that occurred. That's what he thread is for.

So, back up and present your evidence that these claims are facts - and also read my request asking what events can be accepted as facts based only on historical textual accounts (everyone).

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=6776.msg152107#msg152107

[superfly]

i get it....sorry it took me so long.


fran sees the bible as History. so the stuff in the bible is Historical Fact.

i see the bible as fairy tales. so the stuff in there is crap written by goat herders.

[Fran]

Are you disputing that the 4 historical facts I've presented are not historical?  That these 4 historical facts are not agreed upon as historical facts by the vast majority of Biblical Scholars and Historians?

i'm sure biblical scholars and historians agree on alot of what's in your magic book. that doesn't make it fact.

That you dispute them contrary to the acceptance of these historical facts by all the highly intelligent nonbelievers and atheists in their debates around the country?I just want to be clear on this.  I'm willing to go over them, but I just want to understand the depth of your unwillingness to even accept what scholars have already concluded and agreed upon.

like who, for instance? can you link us to the you tube vids?

Hello superfly...

ahhhhh... but you see... THEY DON'T AGREE on many issues.  These scholars however do agree (for scholarly reasons based on many years of research and historical tests) on the these 4 historical facts.  EVEN THOUGH they many of them DON'T THINK that Jesus rose from the dead... and EVEN THOUGH they many of them DON'T THINK Jesus did any miracles... and EVEN THOUGH many of them DON'T THINK Jesus was the promised Messiah... and EVEN THOUGH many of them DON'T BELIEVE in miracles and magic.

Why do they agree on these historical facts?  Because they use the EXACT same methodology that Historians use when trying to ascertain the reliable historicity of ALL ancient documents.

2)... you tube vids?  wow. I don't think you're going to find many scholars presenting their major works on "you tube vids".  How old are you?

But I'll get you the source if you like.  It's at home.

take care

[Eddie Schultz]

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.

Jazzman

Jazzman tried to tell us....and we can see that this is where this discussion is leading.

[voodoo child]

As memory serves, didn’t Fran start this debate with Vynn several months ago, and suddenly Fran’s computer crashed? Is this the same Fran?

[Fran]

As memory serves, didn’t Fran start this debate with Vynn several months ago, and suddenly Fran’s computer crashed? Is this the same Fran?

This is the same Fran.  Life happens.  But at least we've gotten A LOT further in here, inthis thread, than I was able to with Vynn and Jazzman.