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

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

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".

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

'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.

Your pants are on fire.

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.

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/