Challenge to prove resurrection. I fire a challenge back.

RationalRespons...
Moderator
RationalResponseSquad's picture
Posts: 556
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
Challenge to prove resurrection. I fire a challenge back.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------
From: <paulmcd@hotmail.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 8:01 AM
To: <sapient@rationalresponders.com>
Subject: [General Question] A Challenge for you.

> Paul sent a message using the contact form at
> http://www.rationalresponders.com/contact.
>
> Hi, according to the Christians, Jesus was God in human form and rose from
> the dead. If you want to debunk Christianity, why don't you go for where
> it is going to hurt the most, the roots, the ressurection of Jesus Christ.
> You see if you can debunk that, you will debunk Christianity. However I
> challenge you to come up with some evidence that will stand up in a court
> of law that disproves the ressurection. Are you up to the challenge? Do
> you think you can do it? I Challenge your whole team do to put it to the
> test and see what you come up with. A rational response to the
> ressurection what will you find - the truth?
> I look forward to your response
> Paul

 

I challenge you to prove Jesus Christ existed. 

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Aside from the obvious

Aside from the obvious drivel, this person clearly does not know how the court of law works (He would have to prove his position in a court of law).  But, in any event, he is confusing 'court of law' with 'scientific testing', which is really what would have to be done.  He would have to prove that resurrections occur; and that these people can eat fish. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:However I> challenge

Quote:
However I
> challenge you to come up with some evidence that will stand up in a court
> of law that disproves the ressurection.

First, courts are not where science is decided.  Second, there is no good evidence that there was ever a man named Jesus that even remotely resembles the biblical account.  Third, you don't disprove things.  You prove them.  It does not matter to us that Christians don't understand that they are responsible for proving their claim.

Christianity disproves itself.  It doesn't need our help.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


chazmuze
Theist
chazmuze's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2008-04-19
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins has just stated

Rook_Hawkins has just stated that the resurrection must be proven in a court of law and by the scientific method.  I doubt that much history is proven by the scientific methodology, which is a demarcation criterion.  History, archaeology, forensics, SETI, etc., are all within the realm of science and are approached as abductive inference.  They are not directly testable by an empirical method.  Alleged 'facts' are always constrained within one's worldview or basic presuppositions.  If one restricts epistemology or knowledge to only allowing material explanations apriori, then the resurrection can never be proven within those parameters.  My question to you is this; can you use the scientific method to prove the claim or proposition that only the scientific method is a valid form of knowledge?  This would require the use of circular reasoning to some extent or begging the question. 

One way that he has contradicted himself is that the scientific method he wants to use is often in conflict with accepted evidence in a law court.  Law courts accept circumstantial evidence, whereas the tenets of the scientific method often do not.

Regards,

Chazmuze

 

Chazmuze


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Actually, history does in

Actually, history does in fact utilize the scientific method.  Perhaps you need to review literature on the historical method and inductive/deductive reasoning, hypotheses, and anthropology. 

Additionally your case is flawed, as you say courts generally accept circumstantial evidence.  This is true, however the evidence is generally inadmissible if the link between the defendant and the evidence is too weak.  I would say that suggesting a man rose from the dead without any scientific, or credible evidence that is more substantial is definitely too weak to be admitted into evidence to prove a case.

Although your post was something of an epic fail, we appreciate you playing. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
chazmuze wrote:Rook_Hawkins

chazmuze wrote:

Rook_Hawkins has just stated that the resurrection must be proven in a court of law and by the scientific method.  I doubt that much history is proven by the scientific methodology, which is a demarcation criterion.  History, archaeology, forensics, SETI, etc., are all within the realm of science and are approached as abductive inference.  They are not directly testable by an empirical method.  Alleged 'facts' are always constrained within one's worldview or basic presuppositions.  If one restricts epistemology or knowledge to only allowing material explanations apriori, then the resurrection can never be proven within those parameters.  My question to you is this; can you use the scientific method to prove the claim or proposition that only the scientific method is a valid form of knowledge?  This would require the use of circular reasoning to some extent or begging the question. 

One way that he has contradicted himself is that the scientific method he wants to use is often in conflict with accepted evidence in a law court.  Law courts accept circumstantial evidence, whereas the tenets of the scientific method often do not.

Regards,

Chazmuze

 

I'm certainly glad you don't teach in public schools.

I could see it now. You get hired by a believer, that believer is the principle. The principle was hired by another believer, who was hired by the school board, full of believers, who were ellected by a county full of believers who have a governor who is a believer.

You'd make a great teacher in an Islamic school if you were Muslim, you certainly show the same mentality.

Scientific method, unlike deity belief doesn't work like a court of law, nor is is done by proxy of popular belief. Scientific method is universal and the same methods can be taught to a Jew, a Christian, a Muslim and and atheist, REGARDLESS OF PERSONAL BELIEF.

Get back to us when you can pony up with some "Godsperm" and show us in a lab the mechinisms of HOW a ghost knocks up a girl. Get back to us when you can replicate a cadaver surviving rigor mortis and explain the mechinisms of HOW such an event happened.

Otherwise, your naked assertions deserve the same attention as "Thor makes lighting".

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


chazmuze
Theist
chazmuze's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2008-04-19
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins has stated that

Rook_Hawkins has stated that all evidence must be proven by the scientific methodology or demarcation criterion.  If this is the case, then you have just wiped out your accepted evidence for SETI research, some aspects of Darwinism, some forensic reasoning, the inductive/deductive reasoning you suggested, and the use of any abstract realities.  You still didn't prove, using the same method, that only this method is the main criterion for truth.  Since you mention a few components of logical law, please show how the scientific method justifies them.  One can empically demonstrate a few of them, but cannot justify them.  The tired example of Shroeder's cat does not disprove any of the laws either.  Particles are in both states due to the expermenter's inquiry. The resurrection will not be within your stacked-deck of presupposing naturalism apriori.  A court of law is not an absolute unto truth.  There are numerous cases that are debatable and later found incorrect.  If one's ultimate axioms and presuppositions reject anything beyond the material realm, then how can you justify using abstract laws of logic, transfinite math, symbolism, propositions, conceptual universals, ad infinitum?  Finally, rejecting exceptions to the normative laws of nature is an inductive fallacy.  Your ideology cannot account for uniformity of nature.  Just because natural laws have been generally uniform, does not mean there can never be isolated exceptions.  To be dogmatic with your view, you would have to have examined all the workings of natural law at all times and in all places. 

Still waiting for the explanation of how you would use the law courts to prove the above said examples (SETI, abstract math, Darwinism's extrapolation, laws of logic, propositional truths, etc.).

Cheers...

Chazmuze


chazmuze
Theist
chazmuze's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2008-04-19
User is offlineOffline
Interesting...state or

Interesting...state or public schools are not allegedly neutral.  Humanism or statism has filled the vacuum left by early US education.  Darwinism is the new science, relataivism the new ethics and empiricism for epistemology. 

You didn't deal with the elements I mentioned in my post which do not involve the scientific method.  Please explain how you would prove or justify the use of those using the scientific method. 

I don't believe I mentioned God, you are creating a straw man thus far. 

Cheers....

Chazmuze


chazmuze
Theist
chazmuze's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2008-04-19
User is offlineOffline
...just one other comment; I

...just one other comment; I am trying to see what constitutes evidence for the resurrection.  I am just showing you that your presuppositions will not allow anything other than material or natural explanations.  If you reject historical testimony, then you have to reject most all historical documents from the first few centuries.  We can discuss the historical written accounts, but first I would like for you to justify or account for why your axioms disallow anything other than a mechanistic/material or natural explanation.  If you cannot, then your ultimate axioms are incoherent, as you appeal to abstract laws of logic, propositions, transfinite entities, and symbolic concepts.  Please show me how those things can exist in an atheist and/or materialist ontology.

 

cheers....

Chazmuze


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
chazmuze wrote:...just one

chazmuze wrote:

...just one other comment; I am trying to see what constitutes evidence for the resurrection.  I am just showing you that your presuppositions will not allow anything other than material or natural explanations.  If you reject historical testimony, then you have to reject most all historical documents from the first few centuries.  We can discuss the historical written accounts, but first I would like for you to justify or account for why your axioms disallow anything other than a mechanistic/material or natural explanation.  If you cannot, then your ultimate axioms are incoherent, as you appeal to abstract laws of logic, propositions, transfinite entities, and symbolic concepts.  Please show me how those things can exist in an atheist and/or materialist ontology.

 

cheers....

What historical testimony do you have? The gospels don't qualify as the writers weren't witnesses. Paul's visions don't qualify either. So there is no evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.

Resurrection stories of other gods don't count in the historical testimony department either for the same reasons.

What do you actually have?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
chazmuze wrote:...just one

chazmuze wrote:

...just one other comment; I am trying to see what constitutes evidence for the resurrection.  I am just showing you that your presuppositions will not allow anything other than material or natural explanations.  If you reject historical testimony, then you have to reject most all historical documents from the first few centuries.  We can discuss the historical written accounts, but first I would like for you to justify or account for why your axioms disallow anything other than a mechanistic/material or natural explanation.  If you cannot, then your ultimate axioms are incoherent, as you appeal to abstract laws of logic, propositions, transfinite entities, and symbolic concepts.  Please show me how those things can exist in an atheist and/or materialist ontology.

 

cheers....

Ok, let me see if I can dumb it down for you.

I hope you have thrown out the claim of Thor making lighting and put it in the trash can of ideas where it belongs. If you haven't you need help.

NO ONE, and I repeat, NO ONE here is trying to claim that humans should behave like robots with no emotions. WHAT we are saying is that a debunked idea is a debunked idea and dwelling on it WILL NOT help humanity solve life's problems.

"Deity, entity, supernatural/God/ universal conciousness/" are all versions of the same thing.  Nothing more than gap arguments and an utterance from ignorance.

These are nebulous words with limitless meanings to suit the person postulating them. We have in human history discarded countless claims before and I see no reason why claims made today are any more credible when they are not testable, repeatable or falsifiable.

If you know of a better tool than that of the universal tool of scientific method that can be TAUGHT to anyone, regardless of personal whims, we are all ears.

What makes you think any  current claim of the super natural is any less rooted in superstition than any claim made in the past? What would you suggest to determine the truth so that it would be something that could be universally taught and understood?

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


chazmuze
Theist
chazmuze's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2008-04-19
User is offlineOffline
Brian37,A condescending

Brian37,

A condescending attitude does not help determine truth.  The issue isn't one of intellectual capacity, but of coherence within a worldview.  You didn't read my post very well.  I said that I would get to any evidences as such 'after' Rook_Hawkins offers an account for his ultimate presuppositions regarding epistemology, ethics or science.   If his or your worldview is incoherent, then your acceptance/rejection will also be structured faulty. 

Regarding so-called 'gap-arguments', Darwinism is also a gap type argument.  One must merely attributes anything to time, natural selection and mutation.  By the way, Darwinism and/or atheism is abductive inference and not direct empirical testing.  I'll pose my unanswered question to you: can you use those criteria to prove that only those criteria are the ultimate form of epistemology?  I have yet to get an answer to this.  If not, then you must use another form of 'testing' to validate your position. 

There are many Theists and scientists that have not discarded the subject at hand.  You are leaving this out.  Arguments by majorities (argumentum ad populum) does not determine truth.  This is a major fallacy. 

Lastly, please show how you prove any writtings or testimonies of historical persons with those criteria. 

good day!

 

Chazmuze


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Any talk of 'proving' the

Any talk of 'proving' the resurrection occurred is misconceived. Even with much more than the hearsay 'evidence' recorded in the Bible it is questionable whether one could establish a totally water-tight case.

All we have is various, not even consistent, reports of meetings with the allegedly resurrected Jesus, where I think even some of the people present were not sure about the identity of the individual. Since even these reports are just stories written down well after the alleged event, subject to re-transcription and translation, we hardly have enough evidence to build even a prima facie case, especially for something as extraordinary as bodily resurrection, let alone even legal proof.

Added of course to the FACT that we do not even have PROOF of the existence of Jesus himself.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


chazmuze
Theist
chazmuze's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2008-04-19
User is offlineOffline
If you reject the

If you reject the supernatural or immaterial entities such that I had mentioned in several posts, then your worldview needs examination.  You have excluded the above mentioned, useful tools and entities for truth; i.e. laws of logic, propositions, etc. 

Regarding historical documents, the Bible has had thousands of more handed down manuscripts, whereas Roman historians, i.e. Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, etc., have had very little in comparison, yet are accepted without question.  It is a matter of what your worldview will allow.  Apparently, you and all on this thread have one that will only allow material entities, therefore, alleged 'facts' will be interpreted accordingly. 

It was fun...

 

 

Chazmuze


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Silly theist, imaginary

Silly theist, imaginary friends are for kids. SETI is utter bullshit - laws of logic don't support anything supernatural - there is no evidence for anything supernatural. Read more on this site - the burden of evidence is always on the one who claims something exists.

 

 

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
chazmuze wrote:If you reject

chazmuze wrote:

If you reject the supernatural or immaterial entities such that I had mentioned in several posts, then your worldview needs examination.  You have excluded the above mentioned, useful tools and entities for truth; i.e. laws of logic, propositions, etc. 

Regarding historical documents, the Bible has had thousands of more handed down manuscripts, whereas Roman historians, i.e. Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, etc., have had very little in comparison, yet are accepted without question.  It is a matter of what your worldview will allow.  Apparently, you and all on this thread have one that will only allow material entities, therefore, alleged 'facts' will be interpreted accordingly. 

It was fun...

 

 

Hi,

What's supernatural about the laws of logic? Or are you saying atheists only believe in the tangible? If the latter, you'd be lying (but you may already know that).

It's funny that you mention Pliny the Younger and Tacitus. they were living when your Jesus supposedly was. If Jesus made as much of an impression as the Bible claims, you'd think they'd have noticed it enough to write it down. One of them may have made a mention of Chrestus and "chrestoi" - not the same thing inless you stretch things to fit your beliefs.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Why it's silly to say

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Disprove the Trojan Horse...

Eye witnesses...

How many of these witnesses even RECOGNIZED the man proported to be Jesus? Even after spending years in close proximity, sleeping under bridges and the like, the man who claimed to be the resurected Jesus was largely unrecognizable...

That is assuming, without any historical backing, that these 'eyewitnesses' existed.

Now, to the physical evidence...

After three days in a moderately warm climate, the human body would go through the normal stages of decay. Rigor Mortis would have been entered within 8 hours or so, and the blood would have pooled at the lowest resting points of the body.

After a day, the bacteria that inhabit our systems normally would have kicked into overdrive, and some fairly noxious fluids would begin to be expelled from all orafices as gas builds up in the digestive system. After 2 days, the skin will take on a 'marbled' greyish blue appearance, and there would be a inescapable noxious odor about the body. Bloating of the abdomin would be pronounced.

By the third day, the skin would in some parts of the body blister and slough off if handled, the face would be scarcely recognizable, swollen and a blackish blue. The eyes would be disicated, dried and shrunken, the brain would be a pile of greyish blue goop. The rest of the organs would have a blackish tinge and be noticably putrid. The body cavities would be filled with a yellowish oily fluid. Did I mention the maggots?

At this point, I'd say in my expert opinion, he ain't coming back.

 

LC >;-}>

 

 

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


drhowardbetz
Posts: 16
Joined: 2008-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Greetings folks,I find it

Greetings folks,

I find it interesting that most atheists hold to empiricism as the main form of knowledge.  Empiricism only gives us how things are at a given moment, not how they should be at all times.  To discredit the resurrection based upon natural laws is a fallacy.  Forms of probability are always open in empirical studies.  I'm sure you've heard of Hume's skepticism of induction, etc.  One can never have 100% certainty using the scientific method, empirical studies, rationalism, etc.  There is always a probability factor in these forms of knowledge.  That leaves a 'probability' to a resurrection open.  Dogmatism is foolish since one cannot know how nature has, does, or will operate at all times and in all places.  To say that the future will be like the past, based upon the past is circular and question begging. 

 

 

 


drhowardbetz
Posts: 16
Joined: 2008-05-13
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:chazmuze

jcgadfly wrote:

chazmuze wrote:

If you reject the supernatural or immaterial entities such that I had mentioned in several posts, then your worldview needs examination.  You have excluded the above mentioned, useful tools and entities for truth; i.e. laws of logic, propositions, etc. 

Regarding historical documents, the Bible has had thousands of more handed down manuscripts, whereas Roman historians, i.e. Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, etc., have had very little in comparison, yet are accepted without question.  It is a matter of what your worldview will allow.  Apparently, you and all on this thread have one that will only allow material entities, therefore, alleged 'facts' will be interpreted accordingly. 

It was fun...

 

 

Hi,

What's supernatural about the laws of logic? Or are you saying atheists only believe in the tangible? If the latter, you'd be lying (but you may already know that).

 

 

Laws of logic are not material in essence or substance.  How can a propositional law be material?  They can't be a product of 'brains', as the brain could not even construct concepts without the laws of logic being apriori.  Laws of logic are binding upon all brains and rationality is related to objective morality.  It is an absolute moral obligation to be rational.  Why is this organization even called 'Rational Response Squad' if rationality is not important?  If laws of logic are material in nature or a mere construct by humans, can you demonstrate how they were constructed without the use the very same laws being constructed?  That is; one requires the laws of identity, excluded middle and contradiction to even begin such a task.  Dr. Greg Bahnsen showed this in the online debate with Dr. Gordon Stein.  Is this video referenced on this site?  Ummm...


drhowardbetz
Posts: 16
Joined: 2008-05-13
User is offlineOffline
drhowardbetz wrote:jcgadfly

drhowardbetz wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

chazmuze wrote:

If you reject the supernatural or immaterial entities such that I had mentioned in several posts, then your worldview needs examination.  You have excluded the above mentioned, useful tools and entities for truth; i.e. laws of logic, propositions, etc. 

Regarding historical documents, the Bible has had thousands of more handed down manuscripts, whereas Roman historians, i.e. Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, etc., have had very little in comparison, yet are accepted without question.  It is a matter of what your worldview will allow.  Apparently, you and all on this thread have one that will only allow material entities, therefore, alleged 'facts' will be interpreted accordingly. 

It was fun...

 

 

Hi,

What's supernatural about the laws of logic? Or are you saying atheists only believe in the tangible? If the latter, you'd be lying (but you may already know that).

 

 

Laws of logic are not material in essence or substance.  How can a propositional law be material?  They can't be a product of 'brains', as the brain could not even construct concepts without the laws of logic being apriori.  Laws of logic are binding upon all brains and rationality is related to objective morality.  It is an absolute moral obligation to be rational.  Why is this organization even called 'Rational Response Squad' if rationality is not important?  If laws of logic are material in nature or a mere construct by humans, can you demonstrate how they were constructed without the use the very same laws being constructed?  That is; one requires the laws of identity, excluded middle and contradiction to even begin such a task.  Dr. Greg Bahnsen showed this in the online debate with Dr. Gordon Stein.  Is this video referenced on this site?  Ummm...

One other comment...since you implied that an atheist is open to the existence of non-material entities, how can you justify the existence of such?  What do they eminate from or how do they exist as transcendent entities in the atheist worldview?  If they evolved as mere brain constructs, please explain the transitional forms if you will.

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3659
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
drhowardbetz wrote:  That

drhowardbetz wrote:

  That leaves a 'probability' to a resurrection open.  Dogmatism is foolish since one cannot know how nature has, does, or will operate at all times and in all places.  To say that the future will be like the past, based upon the past is circular and question begging. 

 

 

 

Jesus rose from the dead based upon forces of nature ?  

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


drhowardbetz
Posts: 16
Joined: 2008-05-13
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

drhowardbetz wrote:

  That leaves a 'probability' to a resurrection open.  Dogmatism is foolish since one cannot know how nature has, does, or will operate at all times and in all places.  To say that the future will be like the past, based upon the past is circular and question begging. 

 

 

 

Jesus rose from the dead based upon forces of nature ?  

I didn't say that for certain.  God may have superseded the laws of nature on a temporal basis and/or used them as a means.  The Christian Bible does not say what means was used.  My point was against a strict empiricist / naturalist who will only allow those means or criteria for all truth. 

 


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Do you also accept the

Do you also accept the resurrections of Inanna & Romulus? 


drhowardbetz
Posts: 16
Joined: 2008-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins wrote:Do you

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

Do you also accept the resurrections of Inanna & Romulus? 

A Sumerian goddess that was not absolute in her nature is not a foundation for the major tenets of reality; epistemology, ethics and science.  Romulus was one of many gods that was a mere deification of man, another contingent entity and not the foundation for a coherent worldview.  Romulus is even referred to as mythology. The religions of both were works-based and there would be no need for a resurrection.  Christ's resurrection accomplished justification for God's elect.  Your question is therefore irrelevant to the topic of this thread.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1230
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
drhowardbetz

drhowardbetz wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Jesus rose from the dead based upon forces of nature ? 

I didn't say that for certain.

You should perhaps refrain from making extraordinary claims (e.g., resurrection) until such time as you are certain.

drhowardbetz wrote:

God may have superseded the laws of nature on a temporal basis and/or used them as a means.

Or superstitious 1st century humans may have produced a mediocre myth which certain 21st century humans are finding unduly difficult to let go of.

drhowardbetz wrote:


Rook_Hawkins wrote:


Do you also accept the resurrections of Inanna & Romulus?



A Sumerian goddess that was not absolute in her nature is not a foundation for the major tenets of reality; epistemology, ethics and science. 

Precisely what are the criteria for being "absolute in (one's) nature"? 

Are there any other pertinent requirements for a "foundation for the major tenets of reality" you'd care to mention,  or are you just going to make them up as you go?

drhowardbetz wrote:
Romulus was one of many gods that was a mere deification of man...

Likewise jesus.

drhowardbetz wrote:
...another contingent entity and not the foundation for a coherent worldview.

"contingent entity"?  Precisely what are the criteria that make romulus "a contingent entity", to the exclusion of jesus? 

Are there any other disqualifying factors for being "the foundation for a coherent worldview" you'd care to mention, or are you just going to make them up as you go?

drhowardbetz wrote:
Romulus is even referred to as mythology.

Likewise jesus.

drhowardbetz wrote:

The religions of both were works-based and there would be no need for a resurrection.

On what authority do you make that claim?  I can likewise baldly assert that there was no need for jesus to be resurrected, can I not? (I can.  Read on: )

drhowardbetz wrote:
  Christ's resurrection accomplished justification for God's elect.

The christian god is allegedly all-powerful, so "justification for god's 'elect'" could have been accomplished in any desired manner.   Therefore, christ's resurrection was not actually necessary. QED

drhowardbetz wrote:

  Your question is therefore irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

You argument is special pleading, and therefore irrelevant to the major tenets of reality.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


drhowardbetz
Posts: 16
Joined: 2008-05-13
User is offlineOffline
.

.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
drhowardbetz

drhowardbetz wrote:

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

Do you also accept the resurrections of Inanna & Romulus? 

Romulus is even referred to as mythology.

But amazingly the resurrection story of Romulus which predates Jesus is almost identical to the resurrection and ascension account in Luke, with a small part of the account having been taken from Homer's Odyssey.  But you didn't know that did you?

Quote:
The religions of both were works-based and there would be no need for a resurrection.

There isn't a need for Jesus' resurrection either, except for a literary purpose that Mark wanted to have fulfilled in his very creative plot, which included myth-making.  No no, do not skip the previous point when you respond.

Quote:
Christ's resurrection accomplished justification for God's elect.

And Romulus' resurrection did also, including the establishment of the Roman Empire, and he himself became the god Quirinus. 

"While the Romans were yet in doubt whether divine providence or human treachery had been the cause of his disappearance, a certain man, named Julius, descended from Ascanius, who was a husbandman and of such a blameless life that he would never have told an untruth for his private advantage, arrived in the Forum and said that, as he was coming in from the country, he saw Romulus departing from the city fully armed and that, as he drew near to him, he heard him say these words: "Julius, announce to the Romans from me, that the genius to whom I was allotted at my birth is conducting me to the gods, now that I have finished my mortal life, and that I am Quirinus." (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 2.63)

 

Emmaus, anyone?

Quote:
  Your question is therefore irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

Your ignorance has blinded you from its relevancy.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


drhowardbetz
Posts: 16
Joined: 2008-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Just curious...where do we

Just curious...where do we find numerous churches, altars, etc., that worship Romulus and where does Romulus tie in a continuous, progressive appeal?  If Romulus' resurrection was the same as Christ's, one would think that sin would still need atonement.  Did the god(s) that Romulus submitted to not have the inherent attributes of holiness or justice?  Why is there no continuation or succession of any covenants related to Romulus?  Was Romulus a God/man to be a perfect intercessor and mediator between common man and god(s)?  Not at all.  The indiscernibility of identicals theory require that both scenarios (Christ and Romulus) be identical in every aspect, otherwise they are not the same.  Romulus' nature is finite and contingent, being an offspring of Mars.  Christ was a 'Son' as a covenant head, not a physical offspring of God.  He existed co-eternally with all the members of the Godhead.  Trinitarian membership is the basis for all rational thought; i.e. universals and particulars existing as equally ultimate.  The Christian Trinitarian doctrine is the ultimate foundation for thought and laws of logic that also have abstract categories with particulars existing as equally ultimate.  Romulus, therefore, fails in these regards.


eh-theist
Posts: 1
Joined: 2008-05-27
User is offlineOffline
Whoa!

When I first started reading this thread, I thought Mr. Betz (ie. gambles on whether there is an afterlife) had some intelligent points to make.  That quickly crumbled.

drhowardbetz wrote:

Just curious...where do we find numerous churches, altars, etc., that worship Romulus and where does Romulus tie in a continuous, progressive appeal?

 

I had no idea that having buildings for the purpose of worshipping something makes it true.  I guess I now believe in jesus (and every professional sports team).

And "continuous, progressive" surely can't mean that the belief in jesus has been continuous for the definition of "jesus" changes every day with every new interpretation or with every new debunking.  Progressive may be accurate as they continually move the yardstick.  Or progressive as it relates to lenses - the focal length is changing, the views are blurred and you're left to try to make out the shapes with little (no) information.

drhowardbetz wrote:

If Romulus' resurrection was the same as Christ's, one would think that sin would still need atonement.  Did the god(s) that Romulus submitted to not have the inherent attributes of holiness or justice?  Why is there no continuation or succession of any covenants related to Romulus? 

 

Marketing.  Not all pyramid schemes make the people at the top as rich as other marketing schemes.  Christianity hired a good marketing firm.

The idea that the jesus myth was copied from an earlier myth is not simply debunked because they aren't exactly the same.  You, as they did, have to make the new myth better/different than the old one while keeping similar themes.  Let's call it Romulus 2: jesus (I love sequels - you have a basic understanding of the story but they throw in some new/exciting twists).

Dog on!


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1230
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
On May 26, 2008 - 11:00pm

On May 26, 2008 - 11:00pm drhowardbetz wrote:
.

 Very minimalist response.  Did you use a logic filter this time?

drhowardbetz wrote:

Just curious...where do we find numerous churches, altars, etc., that worship Romulus and where does Romulus tie in a continuous, progressive appeal? 

If Romulus' resurrection was the same as Christ's, one would think that sin would still need atonement.  Did the god(s) that Romulus submitted to not have the inherent attributes of holiness or justice?  

 Just curious...did you bother to familiarize yourself with the special pleading fallacy I alerted you to before responding again?  Apparently not.  Previously when presented by Rook with other resurrection stories, you brought up such meaningless phrases as "absolute in her nature" and "contingent entity" (if they are in fact not meaningless, you ought to have defined them, as I clearly requested), in order to retrofit your preferred resurrection story true to the exclusion of others.  And here you are at it again.  So...will you lay out your criteria for a credible resurrection story once and for all before proceeding -- or are you going to make them up as you go?

  • All of a sudden, numerous places of worship and "continuous progressive appeal" are criteria for credibility?  I presume you're not permitting those criteria to be applied to islame and hinduism, although they amply qualify.  Perhaps you mean to say numerous places of worship can only be cited for the truthfulness of a resurrection, so islam et al. don't apply. 
  • All of a sudden, a resurrection story is only truthful if it "atones for sin"?
  • All of a sudden, a resurrection story is only truthful if the resurrectee submitted to god(s)  with the inherent attributes (fill in the blank)?

This would be a good time to  look up special pleading.

 

drhowardbetz wrote:

 Why is there no continuation or succession of any covenants related to Romulus? 

Actually there is.  Aeneas had to leave Troy as it was being conquered and reach the shores of Italy so that Rome could be built.  By Romulus and Remus building the city, thus was the covenant between Venus and pious Aeneas fulfilled.  When rising into the heavens, Romulus is reported to have said "My Rome shall be capital of the world."  The rise of the Roman empire confirms this claim -- whereas as jesus' claim ("This Generation Shall Not Pass, Till All These Things be Fulfilled" ) is obviously spurious, since that generation did pass, with nothing fulfilled.

 

drhowardbetz wrote:
Was Romulus a God/man to be a perfect intercessor and mediator between common man and god(s)?  Not at all. 

All of a sudden, a resurrection story is only truthful if the resurrectee is a "perfect intercessor blah blah blah"?

drhowardbetz wrote:

The indiscernibility of identicals theory require that both scenarios (Christ and Romulus) be identical in every aspect, otherwise they are not the same.

So if I draw up a scenario identical to that of christ in every aspect, I will have pulled a true resurrection story out of thin air?

drhowardbetz wrote:

  Romulus' nature is finite and contingent, being an offspring of Mars. 

jesus was an offspring of yahweh, who was himself borrowed from an existing polytheistic pantheon of gods.

drhowardbetz wrote:
 Trinitarian membership is the basis for all rational thought; i.e. universals and particulars existing as equally ultimate.  The Christian Trinitarian doctrine is the ultimate foundation for thought and laws of logic that also have abstract categories with particulars existing as equally ultimate. 

Can you actually say that with a straight face?  It's off topic, so if you think you can logically defend trinitarianism, meet me here

In the end, all you've done is demonstrate that you want to believe in the jesus story, and will invent any number of reasons to continue believing it.  None of these reasons serve as historical confirmation of jesus (let alone jesus' resurrection), which is what this thread was about, if I'm not mistaken.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
drhowardbetz wrote:Just

drhowardbetz wrote:

Just curious...where do we find numerous churches, altars, etc., that worship Romulus

Unfortunately,. Christians burnt them down, forced conversion from Pagans, and replaced whatever they didn't destroy with their churches.  So none are left.  However many churches throughout Italy were once temples to Pagan Gods, so they still exist but the worship in them has changed. 

Do you normally dodge important points by shifting goal posts?

Quote:
  If Romulus' resurrection was the same as Christ's, one would think that sin would still need atonement.

The sin was Rome's inadequate leadership and corruption, which Romulus' apparition ordered to stop if Rome would ever reach its glory.  But this is irrelevant, even if there was no "sin" as the story does not have to be equal to be similar. 

Quote:
Did the god(s) that Romulus submitted to not have the inherent attributes of holiness or justice?

No.  Neither did the God that Jesus submitted to.  But that didn't stop the lie that they did, somehow, have those traits.

Quote:
Why is there no continuation or succession of any covenants related to Romulus?

How do you know there wasn't?  Have you read every ancient document every written?  I doubt you have; in fact I know you haven't.

Quote:
Was Romulus a God/man to be a perfect intercessor and mediator between common man and god(s)?

This is irrelevant.  It is irrelevant because you are applying theological principles to a story which has none--Luke.   Luke did not suggest that Jesus was mediator between man and God.  It was his divinity that was important to Luke.  In the story of Romulus, this is also true.  Perhaps you need to go back and reread Luke?

 

Quote:
Not at all.

Actually, Romulus did become perfect when he became a God.  As did all immortals, men who were given God status, in antiquity. 

Quote:
The indiscernibility of identicals theory require that both scenarios (Christ and Romulus) be identical in every aspect,

No they don't.  Stop making up criteria, especially if you do not comprehend the use of literary models and literary criticism on the Gospel accounts.

Quote:
otherwise they are not the same.

I never said they were the same.  You are making an ad hoc argument.

Quote:
Romulus' nature is finite and contingent, being an offspring of Mars.

Romulus' nature became infinite the second he became a God.

Quote:
Christ was a 'Son' as a covenant head, not a physical offspring of God.

According to your brand of Christianity, not to everyones.

Quote:
He existed co-eternally with all the members of the Godhead.

Based on your interpretation, but not what the early Christians thought, and not in what Luke wrote.  You are reciting something that was decided in a ecumenical council, not the Gospels.

You are grossly unprepared for this conversation.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


BrainFromArous
BrainFromArous's picture
Posts: 98
Joined: 2008-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Special Pleading

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

Do you also accept the resurrections of Inanna & Romulus? 

This, to me, is an oft-overlooked and essential point.

Isn't it striking how selectively theists decry "naturalism," "materialism" and what have you as being reductionist?

These objections only seem to surface when their own scriptures and beliefs are coming under scrutiny.

Christian apologists, for example, often object to people reading the Gospels with "a priori" skepticism towards the Resurrection or the historicity of Jesus. Yet they dismiss the equivalent claims of other religions out of hand. They accord the most generous (confirming) interpretation to such evidence as may exist for Jesus/Christ, even indirect or peripheral,  but wouldn't dream of extending such consideration to Siddhartha/Buddha. 

They will happily employ the entire armamentarium of historical and literary criticism against, say, the Bhagavad Gita, to show that it's "just a story." Should you put the Bible under the same microscope, however, they circle the wagons and promptly level accusations of intellectual dishonesty or  prejudice.

Boards don't hit back. (Bruce Lee)


drhowardbetz
Posts: 16
Joined: 2008-05-13
User is offlineOffline
The entire point of

The entire point of mentioning the Trinity is that it is very relevant to rationality and the resurrection.  Jesus' nature is a part of an absolute essence, yet a distinct particular.  This answers the problem of the one and the many and is the only worldview that offers a justification for laws of logic.  You appeal to the 'special pleading' fallacy and I asked what absolute law of logic did you derive this from.  You still did not answer how a worldview with Romulus, et al. can account for or justify the existence of these laws that are absolute and universally binding.  Romulus nor any Roman/Greek god(s) were described as absolute.  The loss of the absoluteness of those deities destroys universally binding ethics also.  Without an absolute attribute of omnipotence, these deities fail to justify the uniformity of nature necessary for predictable science. 

I'd be more than happy to discuss the problem of the one and the many (Trinity) with anyone as time arises.  No pagan philosopher, including Kant, ever nailed it. 

Cheers...

 


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
drhowardbetz wrote:The

drhowardbetz wrote:

The entire point of mentioning the Trinity is that it is very relevant to rationality and the resurrection.  Jesus' nature is a part of an absolute essence, yet a distinct particular.  This answers the problem of the one and the many and is the only worldview that offers a justification for laws of logic.  You appeal to the 'special pleading' fallacy and I asked what absolute law of logic did you derive this from.  You still did not answer how a worldview with Romulus, et al. can account for or justify the existence of these laws that are absolute and universally binding.  Romulus nor any Roman/Greek god(s) were described as absolute.  The loss of the absoluteness of those deities destroys universally binding ethics also.  Without an absolute attribute of omnipotence, these deities fail to justify the uniformity of nature necessary for predictable science. 

I'd be more than happy to discuss the problem of the one and the many (Trinity) with anyone as time arises.  No pagan philosopher, including Kant, ever nailed it. 

Cheers...

 

None of this comes from the Gospels.  It comes from ecumenical theology.  You're shifting goalposts trying to change your original point because you had your tail handed to you three posts ago.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


BrainFromArous
BrainFromArous's picture
Posts: 98
Joined: 2008-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Penalty Flag

drhowardbetz wrote:

The entire point of mentioning the Trinity is that it is very relevant to rationality and the resurrection.  Jesus' nature is a part of an absolute essence, yet a distinct particular.  This answers the problem of the one and the many and is the only worldview that offers a justification for laws of logic.  You appeal to the 'special pleading' fallacy and I asked what absolute law of logic did you derive this from.  You still did not answer how a worldview with Romulus, et al. can account for or justify the existence of these laws that are absolute and universally binding.  Romulus nor any Roman/Greek god(s) were described as absolute.  The loss of the absoluteness of those deities destroys universally binding ethics also.  Without an absolute attribute of omnipotence, these deities fail to justify the uniformity of nature necessary for predictable science. 

I'd be more than happy to discuss the problem of the one and the many (Trinity) with anyone as time arises.  No pagan philosopher, including Kant, ever nailed it. 

Cheers...

 

"Doc," whom are you addressing? I made the Special Pleading comment and I wasn't engaging your whole "logic" schtick.

My point about Special Pleading was (is) that much of Christian apologetics is shot through with it. It is nicely demonstrated by Christians accusing skeptics of invalid "naturalist" presupposition for approaching the Gospels as androgenic, literary texts and then doing exactly the same thing themselves when regarding the scriptures of other religions.

You cannot hold skepticism against, well, skeptics. You cannot accuse people of bad faith (pardon the expression) for not accepting a priori the historicity of Jesus as man or messiah when that is the very matter under scrutiny.

And, as Rook so well points out, you cannot retro-date later theological dogma to the time of Jesus and his disciples and then claim, "Look! They were saying it all along!"

Boards don't hit back. (Bruce Lee)


BrainFromArous
BrainFromArous's picture
Posts: 98
Joined: 2008-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Come Again?

BTW, my personal "challenge" vis-a-vis the Resurrection is simply this:

Why?

God sacrificed part of himself to himself to atone on my behalf for something I never did in the first place but which he blamed me for, thus necessitating the sacrifice?

God, being God, cannot be diminished so there was no actual sacrifice. God, being God, created this whole situation and could have resolved it in any way... yet he still had to go through with this macabre bit of theurgical performance art?

Right... that makes perfect sense.

Boards don't hit back. (Bruce Lee)


Jerud1711
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-05-24
User is offlineOffline
 Here's my basic argument

 

Here's my basic argument for Jesus' resurrection in a nutt shell.

There are 4+ 1 minimal facts agreed upon by 99.9% of comtemporary Jesus scholars and historians. This is true whether they are theologically conservative or liberal . We find that these facts can best be accounted for by the resurrection of Christ. All other alternate theories violate one or more of the established facts.

 

 The minimal facts are as follows:

1. Jesus died by crucifiction.

2. Jesus' discipled BELIEVED He rose from the dead.

3. The Church persecutor Paul was suddenly changed.

4. The skeptic James, brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed.

[the above 4 are agreed upon by 99.9% of the scholars who write on this subject today].

5. Jesus' tomb was found empty. [this last fact is agreed upon by 75% of the scholars. But I submit that 25% reject it not because it is not true, but because they reject resurrection due to a commitment to naturalism].

These 4+1 minimal facts are agreed upon by the vast majority of scholars today.

So, any alternate theory must account for ALL of these minimal facts.

One might suggest the disciples stole the body. But this does not comport with 2, 3 and 4.

One might suggest the disciples hallucinated. But this violates 3 and 5.

I can go on , but  I'm confident you got the point.

And notice that minimal fact # 1 [that Jesus died by crucifiction], establishes His historicity. I know some atheists want to deny His existence. But contemporary scholarship does not agree with the mythers.

The full argument with documentation can be found in

THE CASE FOR THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS, by Gary Habermas and Mike Licona.

 


Jerud1711
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-05-24
User is offlineOffline
 Hawkins Stated Above: But

 

Hawkins Stated Above: But amazingly the resurrection story of Romulus which predates Jesus is almost identical to the resurrection and ascension account in Luke, with a small part of the account having been taken from Homer's Odyssey.  But you didn't know that did you?

Rebuttal: Romulus was not said to be killed and resurrected. And the skeptic must deal with Jesus' minimal facts.

 


Jerud1711
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-05-24
User is offlineOffline
RationalResponseSquad

RationalResponseSquad wrote:

 

 

 

I challenge you to prove Jesus Christ existed. 

 

 

I challenge you to ptove Jesus Christ DID NOT exist. (see minimal fact # 1).

He could hardly have died by crucifiction if He didn't exist.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Hi , it's me Jesus, believe

Hi , it's me Jesus, believe and I .... me god's gift,  will grant you your wishes. Just have faith.  <<< See me , that is my picture , me Jesus .... Just have faith , why would I lie?  


Jerud1711
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-05-24
User is offlineOffline
You have engaged in

You have engaged in the poisoning the well fallacy, and you are a narcisist [ a self-worshipper].


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
I AM everything, what AM I

I AM everything, what AM I not ?


drhowardbetz
Posts: 16
Joined: 2008-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

drhowardbetz wrote:

The entire point of mentioning the Trinity is that it is very relevant to rationality and the resurrection.  Jesus' nature is a part of an absolute essence, yet a distinct particular.  This answers the problem of the one and the many and is the only worldview that offers a justification for laws of logic.  You appeal to the 'special pleading' fallacy and I asked what absolute law of logic did you derive this from.  You still did not answer how a worldview with Romulus, et al. can account for or justify the existence of these laws that are absolute and universally binding.  Romulus nor any Roman/Greek god(s) were described as absolute.  The loss of the absoluteness of those deities destroys universally binding ethics also.  Without an absolute attribute of omnipotence, these deities fail to justify the uniformity of nature necessary for predictable science. 

I'd be more than happy to discuss the problem of the one and the many (Trinity) with anyone as time arises.  No pagan philosopher, including Kant, ever nailed it. 

Cheers...

 

None of this comes from the Gospels.  It comes from ecumenical theology.  You're shifting goalposts trying to change your original point because you had your tail handed to you three posts ago.

 

Sorry, but it is either explicit/implicit in the Bible and/or logically deduced from major premises.  Have you ever heard of the science of hermeneutics?

Rook, I'd like to see you respond to the charges against you at: http://exposingatheism.blogspot.com and http://triablogue.blogspot.com.  They are taking your view on Paul and Pilate and other views to task, my friend.  I just came across those sites recently.  I'd be interested in your rebuttals.

Cheers.

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jerud1711

Jerud1711 wrote:

RationalResponseSquad wrote:

 

 

 

I challenge you to prove Jesus Christ existed. 

 

 

I challenge you to ptove Jesus Christ DID NOT exist. (see minimal fact # 1).

He could hardly have died by crucifiction if He didn't exist.

My opinion only but...

Authors kill their characters all the time, sometimes gruesomely.

The fact that a character dies in a book does not make that character real.

Otherwise, you get into nonsense like:

Gwen Stacy died in a book so Spider-Man's real.

One of the Robins died in a book so the Batman's real.

Superman was killed in his book - he must have been real.

You however, have no record outside the Bible that Jesus Christ lived or died. There is an argument going on here with a passage from Tacitus - feel free to look at that.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Jerud1711
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-05-24
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: My opinion

jcgadfly wrote:

 

My opinion only but...

Authors kill their characters all the time, sometimes gruesomely.

The fact that a character dies in a book does not make that character real.

Otherwise, you get into nonsense like:

Gwen Stacy died in a book so Spider-Man's real.

One of the Robins died in a book so the Batman's real.

Superman was killed in his book - he must have been real.

You however, have no record outside the Bible that Jesus Christ lived or died. There is an argument going on here with a passage from Tacitus - feel free to look at that.

See minimal fact # 1. The majority of Jesus scholars today believe He was crucified. I'm just telling you where scholarship is today. And you are wrong. Jesus is mentioned in archaeological artifacts from that period [Christograms, etc]. His tomb is located, etc. And he is mentioned in Tacitus [scholars do not dispute the validity of this text], multiple Gnostic sources, Roman letters and pagan authors; and Jewish sources. And there is no reason to reject the Gospel reports. These are Greek documents coming out of the first century. Only bias against Christianity would dismiss these documents.

I am not going to turn this into an evidence debate. I am going to force the opponents to give me an alternate theory of Jesus' resurrection that comports with the known minimal facts I have stipulated above.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jerud1711 wrote:jcgadfly

Jerud1711 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

 

My opinion only but...

Authors kill their characters all the time, sometimes gruesomely.

The fact that a character dies in a book does not make that character real.

Otherwise, you get into nonsense like:

Gwen Stacy died in a book so Spider-Man's real.

One of the Robins died in a book so the Batman's real.

Superman was killed in his book - he must have been real.

You however, have no record outside the Bible that Jesus Christ lived or died. There is an argument going on here with a passage from Tacitus - feel free to look at that.

See minimal fact # 1. The majority of Jesus scholars today believe He was crucified. I'm just telling you where scholarship is today. And you are wrong. Jesus is mentioned in archaeological artifacts from that period [Christograms, etc]. His tomb is located, etc. And he is mentioned in Tacitus [scholars do not dispute the validity of this text], multiple Gnostic sources, Roman letters and pagan authors; and Jewish sources. And there is no reason to reject the Gospel reports. These are Greek documents coming out of the first century. Only bias against Christianity would dismiss these documents.

I am not going to turn this into an evidence debate. I am going to force the opponents to give me an alternate theory of Jesus' resurrection that comports with the known minimal facts I have stipulated above.

Assuming all that is true, what makes your Yeshua the Son of Yahweh as opposed to just some guy named Yeshua?

The fact that there were people looking for a Messiah doesn't make Jesus that Messiah (let alone the Son of God).

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Jerud1711
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-05-24
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:  Assuming

jcgadfly wrote:

 

 

Assuming all that is true, what makes your Yeshua the Son of Yahweh as opposed to just some guy named Yeshua?

The fact that there were people looking for a Messiah doesn't make Jesus that Messiah (let alone the Son of God).

Jesus' resurrection vindicates His claims. So, give me another explanation that agrees with the five minimal facts I have demonstrated to be the universal consensus of Jesus scholars today. You already violated 1 and 2. Hopefully you will stay with the program.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
  The Messiah has come

  The Messiah has come >>>>  <<<<<  on your knees    


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jerud1711 wrote:jcgadfly

Jerud1711 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

 

 

Assuming all that is true, what makes your Yeshua the Son of Yahweh as opposed to just some guy named Yeshua?

The fact that there were people looking for a Messiah doesn't make Jesus that Messiah (let alone the Son of God).

Jesus' resurrection vindicates His claims. So, give me another explanation that agrees with the five minimal facts I have demonstrated to be the universal consensus of Jesus scholars today. You already violated 1 and 2. Hopefully you will stay with the program.

And only those who wrote the Bible wrote anything down about it - you'd think that the bodily resurrection of a crucified God would have raised some notice among other contemporary writers (historians come to mind).

Or was Yahweh trying to hide it so that only the believers would know?

I'm not trying to explain a thing - I'm just asking questions and giving possibilities to get you to solidify your own thoughts. You came in with the conclusion that Jesus existed and was the resurrected son of God and are trying to find research that fits your belief.

Lets look at your points again.

1. Jesus died by crucifiction.

2. Jesus' discipled BELIEVED He rose from the dead.

3. The Church persecutor Paul was suddenly changed.

4. The skeptic James, brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed.

[the above 4 are agreed upon by 99.9% of the scholars who write on this subject today].

5. Jesus' tomb was found empty. [this last fact is agreed upon by 75% of the scholars. But I submit that 25% reject it not because it is not true, but because they reject resurrection due to a commitment to naturalism].

---

1. You have no proof. A Jesus who claimed to be the messiah died by crucifixion - doesn't mean that this one was the son of God.

2. If they believed, why did they wait until 2 decades after Paul wrote his stuff to write theirs? Reads like they were just trying to expound on the religion Paul built.

3. Only if you buy the story - which doesn't fit with the fact that Paul wrote all his stuff before the gospels were written. It looks more like Paul changed Christ than Christ changed Paul.

4. Don't know enough about that so I won't make assertions like you have.

5. According to the Bible - some folks claim that an ossuary containing Jesus' remains has been found. I'll stay skeptical to both.

As for your scholars - I agree. 99.9 % of all the Christian scholars that write on the subject agree. They're doing like you are - starting with their desired conclusion and tailoring their research to fit.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Lets look at

jcgadfly wrote:

Lets look at your points again.

1. Jesus died by crucifiction.

2. Jesus' discipled BELIEVED He rose from the dead.

3. The Church persecutor Paul was suddenly changed.

4. The skeptic James, brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed.

[the above 4 are agreed upon by 99.9% of the scholars who write on this subject today].

5. Jesus' tomb was found empty. [this last fact is agreed upon by 75% of the scholars. But I submit that 25% reject it not because it is not true, but because they reject resurrection due to a commitment to naturalism].

---

1. You have no proof. A Jesus who claimed to be the messiah died by crucifixion - doesn't mean that this one was the son of God.

You have no evidence for the position that there was even a crucifixion.

Quote:
2. If they believed, why did they wait until 2 decades after Paul wrote his stuff to write theirs? Reads like they were just trying to expound on the religion Paul built.

Sounds about right.  Although I would suggest that Paul built-up the religion, not that it was his.  He converted into it, and there were 'elders' and people like him who he considered disciples. 

Quote:
3. Only if you buy the story - which doesn't fit with the fact that Paul wrote all his stuff before the gospels were written. It looks more like Paul changed Christ than Christ changed Paul.

More like the Gospel authors changed Paul's Christ.

Quote:
5. According to the Bible - some folks claim that an ossuary containing Jesus' remains has been found. I'll stay skeptical to both.

Interestingly only Matthew makes use of the empty tomb story, which Carrier and Price have already shown to be fictions in the book with the same name (The Empty Tomb).  I would also recommend reading Thomas L. Thompson's, The Messiah Myth, which contains a great deal of information on where the allusion is with the part of the story.

Quote:
As for your scholars - I agree. 99.9 % of all the Christian scholars that write on the subject agree. They're doing like you are - starting with their desired conclusion and tailoring their research to fit.

Indeed.  The sad part is, it is not just Christian scholars who do this.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)