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.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Thanks Rook - I'll look into

Thanks Rook - I'll look into those books. Man, if I tried to actually read all of the stuff I want to read and need to read I'd well be reading for several years after death.

"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


BrainFromArous
BrainFromArous's picture
Posts: 98
Joined: 2008-04-24
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Thanks Rook -

jcgadfly wrote:

Thanks Rook - I'll look into those books. Man, if I tried to actually read all of the stuff I want to read and need to read I'd well be reading for several years after death.

There are worse things you could do after death... like spawn a religion.

Boards don't hit back. (Bruce Lee)


Conor Wilson
Posts: 451
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly...

...you reminded me of an old Chinese proverb.  As I (vaguely) remember it, the rendition of it into English went something like this:

 

"Live, reach old, study, reach old, still have three-fourths study not reached."

 

None of us ever get done.

 

Conor


Jerud1711
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-05-24
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins wrote: You

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

 

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

You have no evidence there wasn't , without relying on arguments from silence. Again, minimal fact # 1 is considered by experts (those who specialize on this subject, whether theologically liberal or conservative, believe (based on normal historical method) that Christ was crucified. This is minimal fact # 1. You have violated this fact. Again, only resurrection comports with the minimal facts. All other theories violate one or more of these facts. We see this everytime.

 

 

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
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.

Now you are violating minimal fact # 5. Carrier and Price are obviously among the 25% who reject the empty tomb. But this should be expected since they are atheists.  75% [the majority] of scholars accept the empty tomb.  99.9% accept the other minimal facts. And you are also arguing from silence. And all four Gospels speak of the resurrection.  And you are wrong anyway. See Mark 16:6-20; Luke 24; John 20. You have yet to deal with all the minimal facts.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
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.

fly obviously is not up on this field of study. And he has engaged in an ad hominem. He is attacking the SOURCE of the argument instead of the argument itself. Most experts in this field, conservative AND LIBERAL have agreed to these minimal facts.

Gary Habermas has read every single book on this subject written from 1975 to the present; in English, French and German. The minimal facts are what they all agree upon. When you add the minimal facts together, resurrection is the only possibility. All other explanations do not comport with all minimal facts.


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

BrainFromArous 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...

 

 

"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!"

You must first prove that the Scriptures of other religions are exactly the same to show that the Christian Theist is using the fallacy of special pleading.  By the way, no one addressed whether their worldview could justify absolutes in the area of logical fallacies, laws, etc.  If you have in mind a particular religious book, use that as an example.  I know of none that have the coherence and propose a Being that is a viable foundation for the major tenets of epistemology, ethics or science/uniformity.  Only an absolute/personal Being can be the foundation of abstracts that have binding universals and particulars.  The Islamic god certainly does not meet this criterion.  Most eastern religions are mysticism with no particular or personal deity.  They primarily hold to unitarianism in an abstract, mystic manner. 

Regarding skepticism and holding Jesus as an axiomatic starting point or apriori.  Everyone has a worldview that has ultimate starting point or axioms that themselves are not proven by prior assumptions.  For instance, the naturalist will reference all knowledge back to his ultiamte starting point of naturalism.  It is an ultimate starting point that is axiomatic for him.  If there are axioms or starting points that require 'proof', then one is caught in an infinite regress conundrum and will never reach a starting point for truth claims. 

I'm not sure I understand your last paragraph.  The resurrection is a part of the entire Bible, which is a coherent whole.  The Gospels have an immediate context that has inferences and implications deduced from larger contexts from all other parts of Scripture.  Similarly, the book of Hebrews alludes to the old testament rituals and their symbolism of Christ's work, i.e. snake on a pole for healing of the Hebrews, Jacob's dream of the ladder with angels in mobility, etc.  Hermeneutics deals with hyperbole, symbolism, type, allegory, history, metaphor, etc. 

Cheers

 


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.

As I stated today, the Gospels are in context within the larger context of hermeneutics of interpretation.  The resurrection is tied to or deduced from primary principles and references, deduced thereby. 

One thing I find interesting about this web site; too many people try to 'gang-up'  on one respondent at the same time.  How can one have time to respond to every argument?  I am an engineer, father of teenagers, musician, etc.  Please, let one or two persons respond so I can have time to do so.  I only have a few minutes in the morning, as I teach at nights and have a few hours on Saturday afternoons to read these things and do web searches. 

Anyway, regarding ecumenical theology:  This is the attempt at pluralism or an attempt to combine all theological precepts into one body of truth.  This violates the law of contradiction.  Christian Theism has entirely different presuppositions than all other known, major religions with ecumenical digests. 

Saying that, 'I had my tail handed to me...' is merely a subjective proposition.  I can merely say that it wasn't. 

cheers.

___________________________________________________________________

'but the natural man does not receive the things of God and neither can he know them, as they are spiritually appraised' (1 Cor. 2:14).

 


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

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

drhowardbetz wrote:

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

Do you also accept the resurrections of Inanna & Romulus? 

Romulus is even referred to as mythology.

Rook wrote:
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?

False.  The resurrection of Romulus does not include theological concepts such as personal justification, sanctification and glorification which the resurrection accomplishes.  You are appealing to the universal benefit of a temporal, social benefit which is a category mistake. 

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

Rook wrote:
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.[/uote]

How do you know there is no need?  Apparently you haven't studied the historical doctrine of the Fall.  Try Louis Berkhoff, John Calvin or any numerous good Theology texts. 

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.

Rook wrote:
Your ignorance has blinded you from its relevancy.

See above.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1264
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
You are NOT prepared for this debate

Jerud1711 wrote:

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

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

You have no evidence there wasn't , without relying on arguments from silence.

It is not our task to prove that there wasn't, any more than it's your task to prove that there wasn't a romulus, or that mohammed didn't receive the final revelation, etc.  You are making the positive claim, you provide the evidence for said claim.

Actually, the argument of silence is perfectly reasonable.  god came down to earth by means of a virgin birth (prompting a massacre of first-born males), performed several miracles and drew large crowds, was officially tried and executed by the state, rose from the dead, and nobody decided to record any of this while it was happening.  The silence is indeed deafening.

Jerud1711 wrote:

Again, minimal fact # 1 is considered by experts (those who specialize on this subject, whether theologically liberal or conservative, believe (based on normal historical method) that Christ was crucified. This is minimal fact # 1. You have violated this fact. Again, only resurrection comports with the minimal facts. All other theories violate one or more of these facts. We see this everytime.

First of all, "minimal fact #1" is not a fact just because you say:

Quote:

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.

You cite what "99.9% jesus scholars" agree upon, without providing a verifiable source.  This is a violation of scholarship.  I could just as easily say "132.27% of atheist scholars agree that there was no jesus".  Yet my integrity prevents me from doing such.

Furthermore, to lean upon this "99.9%" figure without giving the reasons why they hold to this view (such as, actual evidence, if you're familiar with the term) is nothing but ad populum, a logical violation.

Without having done your due diligence, cease from referring to your makeshift list as "facts", and thereupon accusing us of violating said "facts".

Jerud1711 wrote:


Saying that, 'I had my tail handed to me...' is merely a subjective proposition.  I can merely say that it wasn't. 

Saying that "jesus existed" is merely a subjective proposition.  I can merely say he didn't.

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


BrainFromArous
BrainFromArous's picture
Posts: 98
Joined: 2008-04-24
User is offlineOffline
"Special" Pleading... and Zombies!

Quote:
I know of none that have the coherence and propose a Being that is a viable foundation for the major tenets of epistemology, ethics or science/uniformity

Neither do I... and that includes Christian Theism.

I can understand a believer holding Christian Theism to be different in kind, not just degree or specifics, from other theologies. I'm sure that's just how it looks from the inside.

This goes right back to my Special Pleading point about how Christians are happy to view other religions through the critical lenses of sociology, literary theory, mass psychology, philosophy, historicism and so on. Obviously, since those are not the One True Faith, there must be other explanations as to why people believe(d) them. But Christianity itself? Well, you see, that's different. That's special.

But the more you learn about religious history and ideology the more striking the similarities become and the more apparent the androgenic nature of any one belief system becomes, most definitely including Christianity.

 

Zarathustra sprach...

Quote:
Actually, the argument of silence is perfectly reasonable.  god came down to earth by means of a virgin birth (prompting a massacre of first-born males), performed several miracles and drew large crowds, was officially tried and executed by the state, rose from the dead, and nobody decided to record any of this while it was happening.  The silence is indeed deafening.

Don't forget Zombie Day (Matthew 27:52-53)!

The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.

It beggars belief that such an occurrence would go entirely unremarked in any known, extra-Biblical historical records. One might as well claim that an alien spacecraft landed at the Diet of Worms to get Luther's autograph or the Royal Atlantean Squid Riders once laid siege to Shanghai - but oh shucks, nobody else there thought to write anything down, make any drawings, etc.

Boards don't hit back. (Bruce Lee)


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

'special pleading'.  is that the only logical fallacy that anyone on this thread is familiar with?  I believe three different people have stated this like a mantra.  The usage of it was misapplied in every case by begging the question. 

Most atheists I've conversed with over the years claim that laws of logic are mere human constructs.  If that be the case, how can an atheist apply a contingent, subjective construct in a universally binding manner?   Just because they are 'agreed upon' like they say, why must anyone believe they are aplicapable in all cases?  If they are indeed, objective, universal, absolute, transcendent, and personal; then I think they are universally binding upon all minds.  Can atheism justify the source of such?  They are not simply observations of the world, since they are true irrespective of observation.  Observations only demonstrate them.  Observations only give us what is the case at a given moment, not what ought to be the case.  I have never seen anyone demonstrate the law of non-contradiction.  I have not seen a tree exist and not exist at the same time...

I believe this topic is just about run its course.  I may now check out a different topic. 

See you folks later,

Howard

 

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Howard , no you won't, you

Howard , no you won't, you can't .... what is not god ?  ....  what are you looking for ? The answer, the "theory of everything" ?  Good luck , Keep me up to date , I would like to know your findings .....       Did I say fuck religion, well my atheistic story Jesus/Buddha friends did .....  

ALL IS ONE !  What is separate ???????????????????????????????????????   

   Sorry if I didn't correctly understand your drift, and if so,  you understand  ....  I care .... and admit, I AM dumb.  Dang me.   Me is  G 'A W E' D  ..... Hey, how do I work?    

 


BrainFromArous
BrainFromArous's picture
Posts: 98
Joined: 2008-04-24
User is offlineOffline
drhowardbetz wrote:'special

drhowardbetz wrote:

'special pleading'.  is that the only logical fallacy that anyone on this thread is familiar with?  I believe three different people have stated this like a mantra.  The usage of it was misapplied in every case by begging the question. 

Most atheists I've conversed with over the years claim that laws of logic are mere human constructs.  If that be the case, how can an atheist apply a contingent, subjective construct in a universally binding manner?   Just because they are 'agreed upon' like they say, why must anyone believe they are aplicapable in all cases?  If they are indeed, objective, universal, absolute, transcendent, and personal; then I think they are universally binding upon all minds.  Can atheism justify the source of such?  They are not simply observations of the world, since they are true irrespective of observation.  Observations only demonstrate them.  Observations only give us what is the case at a given moment, not what ought to be the case.  I have never seen anyone demonstrate the law of non-contradiction.  I have not seen a tree exist and not exist at the same time...

I believe this topic is just about run its course.  I may now check out a different topic. 

See you folks later,

Howard

 

None of this, though, goes one step towards proving the existence of any "god."

Also, Howard, you are confusing ends and means regarding naturalism.

Ciao.

Boards don't hit back. (Bruce Lee)


Incognito
Posts: 36
Joined: 2008-04-15
User is offlineOffline
 Rook, Jesus' crucifiction

 

Rook, Jesus' crucifiction is minimal fact number 1. Meaning all scholars wether liberal or conservative believe he was crucified. This is true of all scholars writing from 1975 to the present in French, German and English in over 1200 volumes.

 

Crossan, co-founder of the LIBERAL Jesus Seminar stated

"That he (Jesus) was crucified, is as certain as anything in history could ever be." [Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, p. 149].

 

In addition to the primary sources we have of Christ coming out of the first century (the NEW TESTAMENT), there are 12 other sources that speak of his death by crucifiction in all sorts of detail. [see Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels].


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3730
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
 Incognito wrote:Rook,

 

Incognito wrote:
Rook, Jesus' crucifiction is minimal fact number 1. Meaning all scholars wether liberal or conservative believe he was crucified. This is true of all scholars writing from 1975 to the present in French, German and English in over 1200 volumes.

Your pants are on fire.

Incognito wrote:
In addition to the primary sources we have of Christ coming out of the first century (the NEW TESTAMENT)

I would like to refer to two primary sources called science and logic, which claims that virgin births are impossible, you can't heal diseases by touching the inflicted individuals, and that a human can't rise from the grave three days after brain death.

Incognito wrote:
there are 12 other sources that speak of his death by crucifiction in all sorts of detail. [see Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels].

Interesting, I have not read Dr. Craig Blomberg's book, (maybe I will) but here is a post from his blog.

"Years ago, dear Christian friends of my wife and me explained why they had gotten divorced by writing, "We exhausted our spiritual resources." It was one of the strangest explanations I had ever heard, especially from two Ph.D.'s and Christian educators who knew very well that God's spiritual resources are inexhaustible. Apparently, they were unwilling to admit what had really happened and to say, "We quit trying."

More recently, another close Christian friend, a Ph.D. in New Testament studies no less, and a long-time educator, left his wife for another woman, who herself was seminary trained and a pastor, by saying to his wife, "I haven't loved you for the last seven years." What he meant, of course, was that he didn't have the same kind of feelings he once had for her. But in the Bible love is primarily a commitment, obedience to God's commands, rather than an emotion.

Just this fall, a former student and long-time pastor told me about how had "made a mistake" and cheated on his wife. In fact, he used the expression several times in our conversation. Never once did I hear the word "sin," however.

I guess in a world in which politicians "misspeak" when they lie, in which athletes "make bad choices" when they commit crimes, and prostitutes are called "sex workers," I shouldn't be so surprised.

But how about the innocuous and even heart-warming, "I fell in love"? As sweet as it sounds, it's not a biblical expression. And if you can claim you've fallen in love, then you can say you've fallen out of love, as lots of people do. In a country in which even many Christians think the pursuit of happiness is an inalienable right (no, just because the American Constitution declares it so doesn't make it true), is it any wonder that people justify leaving their spouses because they just don't feel good any more?

Paul, in his famous love chapter, writes in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7: "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres." Notice the use of "always" a few times? And the adjectives and verbs used to characterize love don't have that much to do with emotion, except perhaps when they refer to keeping it under control.

Twice in my life, I've had friends who were in the process of divorcing their spouses who looked me straight in the face, and admitted, "I know, I'm reneging on my wedding vows." At least they were honest. So were Bill McCartney and company when they challenged us to be promise-keepers. That's what it's really all about--promise keeping.

If I can't trust someone to remain true to their word when they have made the most solemn pledge of their entire lives before God, spouse, and a Christian congregation, why should I trust them for anything else?

Now, of course, God is a God of amazing grace, wonderful forgiveness and countless fresh starts. And I have dear friends who sinned miserably with their first spouses and are having godly, inspiring second marriages.

But they repented. They called sin sin. They confessed to God and fellow humans. They prayed for forgiveness. They received godly counsel and, often, counseling. Their lives genuinely changed. The words we use for labeling concepts do matter.

Most countries and cultures in the history of the world that have practiced arranged marriages have had extremely low divorce rates. At least those couples recognized that it wasn't feelings or emotions that made or unmade marriages. They were also less likely to define love as a feeling or an emotion in the first place.

1 Corinthians 13 ends with the famous verse 13: "And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love." If love is eternal and love is the greatest of the attributes we will share throughout eternity, maybe we'd better start paying more attention in this life to what it truly involves. Richard Walker, a former pastor of mine and founder of AMOR Ministries, working with Brazilians in the Upper Amazon basin, put it well, "Love is the giving of the very best you have on behalf of another regardless of response."--even when it's thrown back in your face. Isn't that what Jesus did with and for us?"

http://www.denverseminary.edu/craig-blombergs-blog-new-testament-musings/

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare