Total Posts:172|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evidence That Jesus Rose From The Dead

Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 7:45:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago


Rosen uses the same type of arguments I hear on DDO a lot.. anyone still have Rosen's view after watching this?
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 8:45:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
1. Which exact tomb was Jesus buried in? How could we conclude it's empty if we don't which tomb it is? All we have to go by is the Gospels

2. Again. The only evidence we have is from the Gospels, We have a book that says there's 500 eyewitnesses.

3. And again, we have a book that says the disciples converted. None of the Gospels were written by the disciples, they're just anonymous accounts.

If I told you my friend rose from the dead, would you believe me? If I said all his family believes he rose from the dead, his grave was empty, but I don't know where his grave is and 500 people saw him after he died. But all we have is 1 persons account that 500 people saw him. Would you believe it?

You can't assume the Gospel's accuracy to prove the Gospel's accuracy.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 9:12:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 8:45:14 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
1. Which exact tomb was Jesus buried in? How could we conclude it's empty if we don't which tomb it is? All we have to go by is the Gospels

2. Again. The only evidence we have is from the Gospels, We have a book that says there's 500 eyewitnesses.

3. And again, we have a book that says the disciples converted. None of the Gospels were written by the disciples, they're just anonymous accounts.

If I told you my friend rose from the dead, would you believe me? If I said all his family believes he rose from the dead, his grave was empty, but I don't know where his grave is and 500 people saw him after he died. But all we have is 1 persons account that 500 people saw him. Would you believe it?

You can't assume the Gospel's accuracy to prove the Gospel's accuracy.

But the Gospel is counted by historians as a credible historical document, one of the most credible actually when you compare them to other documents from the time period.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 9:22:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 8:45:14 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
1. Which exact tomb was Jesus buried in? How could we conclude it's empty if we don't which tomb it is? All we have to go by is the Gospels

1.1, Why think the gospels, as taken as historical documents rather than religious text, are unreliable?

1.2, The first Jewish polemic against Christianity presupposed an empty tomb... they said the Jews came and stole the body, but if there were no empty tomb, the authorities could've simply pointed to a dead messiah in the tomb. Thus we don't really need to know NOW which exact tomb that Christ was buried in in order to know where his tomb was. All that matters is that it's historical fact that there indeed was an empty tomb.


2. Again. The only evidence we have is from the Gospels, We have a book that says there's 500 eyewitnesses.

2.1, this isn't even true, we also have Q, and the material philo wrote along with Roman reports... But I only reference Mark.. but again, why consider Mark as unreliable as opposed to, say, what Aristotle wrote concerning Socrates? Why the bias historical skepticism?


3. And again, we have a book that says the disciples converted. None of the Gospels were written by the disciples, they're just anonymous accounts.

3.1, Mathew, Mark Luke and John were all disciples and Paul knew them. The disciples were colloquially referred to as "the twelve" even though Judas killed himself. There were 11. James, the brother of Jesus, wrote a letter as well. These are all first hand early independent attestation of a risen Lord. Pretty much as perfect a historical account as one can get.


If I told you my friend rose from the dead, would you believe me?

No, what was the religio-context? What was the multiple independant attestation? Where was the Isaiac-prophecy? Where is the evidence for his death and his post-mortem appearances and empty grave? Where is the origin of an entire changed world despite every predisposition to the contrary?

If I said all his family believes he rose from the dead, his grave was empty, but I don't know where his grave is and 500 people saw him after he died. But all we have is 1 persons account that 500 people saw him. Would you believe it?

You can't assume the Gospel's accuracy to prove the Gospel's accuracy.

You can't assume the gospel's inaccuracy to disprove the gospels accuracy.
Founder
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 9:26:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 8:45:14 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
1. Which exact tomb was Jesus buried in? How could we conclude it's empty if we don't which tomb it is? All we have to go by is the Gospels

2. Again. The only evidence we have is from the Gospels, We have a book that says there's 500 eyewitnesses.

3. And again, we have a book that says the disciples converted. None of the Gospels were written by the disciples, they're just anonymous accounts.

If I told you my friend rose from the dead, would you believe me? If I said all his family believes he rose from the dead, his grave was empty, but I don't know where his grave is and 500 people saw him after he died. But all we have is 1 persons account that 500 people saw him. Would you believe it?

You can't assume the Gospel's accuracy to prove the Gospel's accuracy.

Tim Chaffey examines the evidences http://www.answersingenesis.org...
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 9:32:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 9:26:50 PM, Founder wrote:
At 4/1/2013 8:45:14 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
1. Which exact tomb was Jesus buried in? How could we conclude it's empty if we don't which tomb it is? All we have to go by is the Gospels

2. Again. The only evidence we have is from the Gospels, We have a book that says there's 500 eyewitnesses.

3. And again, we have a book that says the disciples converted. None of the Gospels were written by the disciples, they're just anonymous accounts.

If I told you my friend rose from the dead, would you believe me? If I said all his family believes he rose from the dead, his grave was empty, but I don't know where his grave is and 500 people saw him after he died. But all we have is 1 persons account that 500 people saw him. Would you believe it?

You can't assume the Gospel's accuracy to prove the Gospel's accuracy.

Tim Chaffey examines the evidences

How dare you throw a creationist site on my thread... we're trying to have an intellectual conversation here.
Founder
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 9:44:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 9:32:57 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/1/2013 9:26:50 PM, Founder wrote:
At 4/1/2013 8:45:14 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
1. Which exact tomb was Jesus buried in? How could we conclude it's empty if we don't which tomb it is? All we have to go by is the Gospels

2. Again. The only evidence we have is from the Gospels, We have a book that says there's 500 eyewitnesses.

3. And again, we have a book that says the disciples converted. None of the Gospels were written by the disciples, they're just anonymous accounts.

If I told you my friend rose from the dead, would you believe me? If I said all his family believes he rose from the dead, his grave was empty, but I don't know where his grave is and 500 people saw him after he died. But all we have is 1 persons account that 500 people saw him. Would you believe it?

You can't assume the Gospel's accuracy to prove the Gospel's accuracy.

Tim Chaffey examines the evidences

How dare you throw a creationist site on my thread... we're trying to have an intellectual conversation here.

How dare you, as a professed Christian, criticize another Christian for examining the proofs of the resurrection, and that stands on the authority of God's word.

"So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God" (1 Corinthians 10:31).
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 9:50:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 9:44:40 PM, Founder wrote:
At 4/1/2013 9:32:57 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/1/2013 9:26:50 PM, Founder wrote:
At 4/1/2013 8:45:14 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
1. Which exact tomb was Jesus buried in? How could we conclude it's empty if we don't which tomb it is? All we have to go by is the Gospels

2. Again. The only evidence we have is from the Gospels, We have a book that says there's 500 eyewitnesses.

3. And again, we have a book that says the disciples converted. None of the Gospels were written by the disciples, they're just anonymous accounts.

If I told you my friend rose from the dead, would you believe me? If I said all his family believes he rose from the dead, his grave was empty, but I don't know where his grave is and 500 people saw him after he died. But all we have is 1 persons account that 500 people saw him. Would you believe it?

You can't assume the Gospel's accuracy to prove the Gospel's accuracy.

Tim Chaffey examines the evidences

How dare you throw a creationist site on my thread... we're trying to have an intellectual conversation here.

How dare you, as a professed Christian, criticize another Christian for examining the proofs of the resurrection, and that stands on the authority of God's word.

"So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God" (1 Corinthians 10:31).

Student, if your interpretations aren't open to criticism, then I don't think you're ready for debating.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 9:50:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 9:46:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
If this sh1t convinced you the Bible alone should of sufficed.

... so then, any sound argument or just more sneering?
Typhlochactas
Posts: 38
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 9:54:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 9:46:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
If this sh1t convinced you the Bible alone should of sufficed.

*should have
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 9:58:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 9:54:48 PM, Typhlochactas wrote:
At 4/1/2013 9:46:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
If this sh1t convinced you the Bible alone should of sufficed.

*should have

Thanks.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 10:17:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 9:12:37 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/1/2013 8:45:14 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
1. Which exact tomb was Jesus buried in? How could we conclude it's empty if we don't which tomb it is? All we have to go by is the Gospels

2. Again. The only evidence we have is from the Gospels, We have a book that says there's 500 eyewitnesses.

3. And again, we have a book that says the disciples converted. None of the Gospels were written by the disciples, they're just anonymous accounts.

If I told you my friend rose from the dead, would you believe me? If I said all his family believes he rose from the dead, his grave was empty, but I don't know where his grave is and 500 people saw him after he died. But all we have is 1 persons account that 500 people saw him. Would you believe it?

You can't assume the Gospel's accuracy to prove the Gospel's accuracy.

But the Gospel is counted by historians as a credible historical document, one of the most credible actually when you compare them to other documents from the time period.

The Fool: The Gospal. LOL!!!!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 10:24:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 10:17:51 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/1/2013 9:12:37 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/1/2013 8:45:14 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
1. Which exact tomb was Jesus buried in? How could we conclude it's empty if we don't which tomb it is? All we have to go by is the Gospels

2. Again. The only evidence we have is from the Gospels, We have a book that says there's 500 eyewitnesses.

3. And again, we have a book that says the disciples converted. None of the Gospels were written by the disciples, they're just anonymous accounts.

If I told you my friend rose from the dead, would you believe me? If I said all his family believes he rose from the dead, his grave was empty, but I don't know where his grave is and 500 people saw him after he died. But all we have is 1 persons account that 500 people saw him. Would you believe it?

You can't assume the Gospel's accuracy to prove the Gospel's accuracy.

But the Gospel is counted by historians as a credible historical document, one of the most credible actually when you compare them to other documents from the time period.

The Fool: The Gospal. LOL!!!!

ya know, you don't need to type, "the fool" before everything you say.. I kinda know what you say when you say it.
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 11:05:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 9:22:56 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/1/2013 8:45:14 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
1. Which exact tomb was Jesus buried in? How could we conclude it's empty if we don't which tomb it is? All we have to go by is the Gospels

1.1, Why think the gospels, as taken as historical documents rather than religious text, are unreliable?

1.2, The first Jewish polemic against Christianity presupposed an empty tomb... they said the Jews came and stole the body, but if there were no empty tomb, the authorities could've simply pointed to a dead messiah in the tomb. Thus we don't really need to know NOW which exact tomb that Christ was buried in in order to know where his tomb was. All that matters is that it's historical fact that there indeed was an empty tomb.


1.1 I'm not sure what you're saying. What do you mean?

1.2 If I say "My wallet is empty, so my money must've vanished", someone could say "No, you spent it all." They're assuming my wallet exists and money was in there for argument sake. This doesn't mean the person knows if I have a wallet or now. DId the jews know where his tomb was? Why should your argument hold any weight if the Jews didn't even know where it was?

2. Again. The only evidence we have is from the Gospels, We have a book that says there's 500 eyewitnesses.

2.1, this isn't even true, we also have Q, and the material philo wrote along with Roman reports... But I only reference Mark.. but again, why consider Mark as unreliable as opposed to, say, what Aristotle wrote concerning Socrates? Why the bias historical skepticism?

2.1 Give me the actual sources where it talks about Jesus actually being seen back from the dead. Why the historical skepticism? If you found a paper dated back to 100 A.D. that said "Jeff rose from the dead" you wouldn't believe it. Extraordinary claims like these need extraordinary proof. Somethings you can't just accept because it says so. Also the Gospel of Mark also has things like Palestinian geography and customs all messed up.

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net...


3. And again, we have a book that says the disciples converted. None of the Gospels were written by the disciples, they're just anonymous accounts.

3.1, Mathew, Mark Luke and John were all disciples and Paul knew them. The disciples were colloquially referred to as "the twelve" even though Judas killed himself. There were 11. James, the brother of Jesus, wrote a letter as well. These are all first hand early independent attestation of a risen Lord. Pretty much as perfect a historical account as one can get.

3.1 Yes the guys themselves were supposedly the disciples. That's not what I was arguing. Also Paul doesn't seem to be aware of a lot of information about Jesus that he would've known if he knew the twelve.

If I told you my friend rose from the dead, would you believe me?

No, what was the religio-context? What was the multiple independant attestation? Where was the Isaiac-prophecy? Where is the evidence for his death and his post-mortem appearances and empty grave? Where is the origin of an entire changed world despite every predisposition to the contrary?

I already gave that information. Yes there was post mortem and an empty grave. I gave the empty grave argument to someone and they said that I probably stole his body. See they assumed the grave was empty! Changing the world doesn't make something true. That's an argumentum ad populum fallacy. And yes there was prophecy. I found a piece of paper that said he was going to rise again. You believe it now? Probably not. But if I wrote it down in a language you couldn't read and buried it for 2000 years, would you?

If I said all his family believes he rose from the dead, his grave was empty, but I don't know where his grave is and 500 people saw him after he died. But all we have is 1 persons account that 500 people saw him. Would you believe it?

You can't assume the Gospel's accuracy to prove the Gospel's accuracy.

You can't assume the gospel's inaccuracy to disprove the gospels accuracy.

First, even if I was doing this, you're committing a tu quoque fallacy. Second, I'm just asking for more historical evidence and clarification. Not assuming its inaccuracy.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 11:09:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 9:12:37 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 4/1/2013 8:45:14 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
1. Which exact tomb was Jesus buried in? How could we conclude it's empty if we don't which tomb it is? All we have to go by is the Gospels

2. Again. The only evidence we have is from the Gospels, We have a book that says there's 500 eyewitnesses.

3. And again, we have a book that says the disciples converted. None of the Gospels were written by the disciples, they're just anonymous accounts.

If I told you my friend rose from the dead, would you believe me? If I said all his family believes he rose from the dead, his grave was empty, but I don't know where his grave is and 500 people saw him after he died. But all we have is 1 persons account that 500 people saw him. Would you believe it?

You can't assume the Gospel's accuracy to prove the Gospel's accuracy.

But the Gospel is counted by historians as a credible historical document, one of the most credible actually when you compare them to other documents from the time period.

Yes, from Christians. There's no consensus and the historical authenticity is disputed.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 11:10:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
3.1 Yes the guys themselves were supposedly the disciples. That's not what I was arguing. Also Paul doesn't seem to be aware of a lot of information about Jesus that he would've known if he knew the twelve.

Forgot to give this link

http://www.patheos.com...
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 11:39:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 11:05:11 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 4/1/2013 9:22:56 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/1/2013 8:45:14 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
1. Which exact tomb was Jesus buried in? How could we conclude it's empty if we don't which tomb it is? All we have to go by is the Gospels

1.1, Why think the gospels, as taken as historical documents rather than religious text, are unreliable?

1.2, The first Jewish polemic against Christianity presupposed an empty tomb... they said the Jews came and stole the body, but if there were no empty tomb, the authorities could've simply pointed to a dead messiah in the tomb. Thus we don't really need to know NOW which exact tomb that Christ was buried in in order to know where his tomb was. All that matters is that it's historical fact that there indeed was an empty tomb.


1.1 I'm not sure what you're saying. What do you mean?

Your message implies the gospels aren't to be trusted, I'd like to know why and on what grounds? Do you think they're a conspiracy? That these guys were bored and just wanted to kinda die horrific deaths for a cool story?

1.2 If I say "My wallet is empty, so my money must've vanished", someone could say "No, you spent it all." They're assuming my wallet exists and money was in there for argument sake. This doesn't mean the person knows if I have a wallet or now. DId the jews know where his tomb was? Why should your argument hold any weight if the Jews didn't even know where it was?

You're missing the point of the earliest polemic against the resurrection presuposing an empty tomb. They couldn't presuppose that the disciples stole the body from X tomb if they didn't know where in the world X tomb was... it's just silly to think otherwise.

2. Again. The only evidence we have is from the Gospels, We have a book that says there's 500 eyewitnesses.

2.1, this isn't even true, we also have Q, and the material philo wrote along with Roman reports... But I only reference Mark.. but again, why consider Mark as unreliable as opposed to, say, what Aristotle wrote concerning Socrates? Why the bias historical skepticism?

2.1 Give me the actual sources where it talks about Jesus actually being seen back from the dead. Why the historical skepticism? If you found a paper dated back to 100 A.D. that said "Jeff rose from the dead" you wouldn't believe it. Extraordinary claims like these need extraordinary proof. Somethings you can't just accept because it says so. Also the Gospel of Mark also has things like Palestinian geography and customs all messed up.

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net...

I'm not sure what these supposed mistakes are to prove, but I'd like to hear you deal with WLC's argument above concerning Christ rather than these multiple irrelevant parodies you're coming up with.



3. And again, we have a book that says the disciples converted. None of the Gospels were written by the disciples, they're just anonymous accounts.

3.1, Mathew, Mark Luke and John were all disciples and Paul knew them. The disciples were colloquially referred to as "the twelve" even though Judas killed himself. There were 11. James, the brother of Jesus, wrote a letter as well. These are all first hand early independent attestation of a risen Lord. Pretty much as perfect a historical account as one can get.

3.1 Yes the guys themselves were supposedly the disciples. That's not what I was arguing. Also Paul doesn't seem to be aware of a lot of information about Jesus that he would've known if he knew the twelve.

Is that information relevant to the resurrection? If so, how so?


If I told you my friend rose from the dead, would you believe me?

No, what was the religio-context? What was the multiple independant attestation? Where was the Isaiac-prophecy? Where is the evidence for his death and his post-mortem appearances and empty grave? Where is the origin of an entire changed world despite every predisposition to the contrary?

I already gave that information. Yes there was post mortem and an empty grave. I gave the empty grave argument to someone and they said that I probably stole his body. See they assumed the grave was empty! Changing the world doesn't make something true. That's an argumentum ad populum fallacy. And yes there was prophecy. I found a piece of paper that said he was going to rise again. You believe it now? Probably not. But if I wrote it down in a language you couldn't read and buried it for 2000 years, would you?

The origin of Christianity despite every predisposition to the contrary cries out for explanation, and it seems the best explanation is the hypothesis that God raised Christ from the dead. That's not an argument from populace friend. It's an inference to the best explanation.

Your whole parody here is a fallacious argument from analogy, it leaves out all the relevant bits (discussed in the video more or less) and attempts to invalidate a position with rote similarities. Nothing earth-shattering to Christendom there.


If I said all his family believes he rose from the dead, his grave was empty, but I don't know where his grave is and 500 people saw him after he died. But all we have is 1 persons account that 500 people saw him. Would you believe it?

You can't assume the Gospel's accuracy to prove the Gospel's accuracy.

You can't assume the gospel's inaccuracy to disprove the gospels accuracy.

First, even if I was doing this, you're committing a tu quoque fallacy. Second, I'm just asking for more historical evidence and clarification. Not assuming its inaccuracy.

No tu quoque fallacy here. You were clearly assuming the inaccuracy of the gospels, and I'd like to know why? ... Just like personal testimony is prima facie justified in the court of law, so written testimony is is in the absence of any positive reason for thinking the author was either lying, deluded, or both. So... I'll ask again, why and on what grounds do we have for assuming the inaccuracy of the gospels? Particularly with Mark and the pre-marken passion known as Q?

Now if you wanted to know why the relevant testimony is accurate, you should've communicated that, see here,

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 12:47:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 11:39:08 PM, Apeiron wrote:

1.1, Why think the gospels, as taken as historical documents rather than religious text, are unreliable?

Because they are?

What about the "census", and the conflicting genealogies? There is obvious inaccuracy in the gospels as written. And Q has no extant copy, so appealing to it seems unfair. It could say anything.

It should be noted, of course, that the Trojan War happened, but we don't rely on the Iliad for faith in the divinity of Zeus. In fact, for a long time there was debate whether the war actually happened, though now there seems enough evidence to at least tentatively assert that it was based on something. Yet we don't believe any of the supernatural claims in the Iliad. Why should we do so with the Bible (specifically NT)?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 12:57:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
7. God best explanation of Jesus.

The evidence here is that he has a lot of authority when he talks and the Bible says miracles occur... how grand. Now if only miracles were recorded anywhere other than the book written by the most fanatical followers of someone claiming to have David Koresh-like divine status.

Come on man, this is begging the question realllllly badly.

Historical facts: Sunday after cruxification, tomb found empty by woman followers.

Where is this recorded other than the Bible? Do historians have anything other than second-hand stories from cult worshippers?

There are quite a few deities and historical figures who claimed are were claimed to have performed miracles, many similar to Jesus' resurrection. Only the tales of the followers and books written by the historical figure remain as evidence.

So what is being suggested other than the Bible itself?

"Disciples believed in Jesus"

Just like people killed themselves in Jonestown and Waco. Yawn.

"There is no plausible explanation for the facts."

Yes, because these facts are only mentioned in the Bible.

THERE WERE NO CITED FACTS HERE. He just claimed miracles happened. He didn't cite Josephus or Tacitus. No one. He just said a miracle happened.

He equates to Scientology, Islam, and Mormons as the competitors with Christianity for plausibility..

He once again claims like some sort of wind up doll that we need to accept whatever is in the Bible and there is no need to cite a source outside the Bible in order to establish that Jesus was actually seen by a group but Mohammed was not.

6:30 and I am done with this intellectual manure.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 12:58:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is DDO. The LEAST I would hope for is that an argument cites some sort of facts or has some sort of substance other than presupposing the Bible is true and claiming the Bible is all the evidence needed to reject Islam, Hinduism, etc as prima facie wrong.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 9:33:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 12:47:02 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/1/2013 11:39:08 PM, Apeiron wrote:

1.1, Why think the gospels, as taken as historical documents rather than religious text, are unreliable?


Because they are?

What about the "census", and the conflicting genealogies? There is obvious inaccuracy in the gospels as written. And Q has no extant copy, so appealing to it seems unfair. It could say anything.

It should be noted, of course, that the Trojan War happened, but we don't rely on the Iliad for faith in the divinity of Zeus. In fact, for a long time there was debate whether the war actually happened, though now there seems enough evidence to at least tentatively assert that it was based on something. Yet we don't believe any of the supernatural claims in the Iliad. Why should we do so with the Bible (specifically NT)?

It's the same with Julius Ceasar. We teach kids the history of him, with regards to wars an what not, but we wouldn't teach kids the supernatural things written about him lol Jesus could have been a great man, but I doubt he could turn water into wine, and heal without medicine. Things like that just aren't consistent with how the world is (people can't just wave their hand over a love one, and heal them). So, it's rational to disregard such stories.
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 10:45:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 11:39:08 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/1/2013 11:05:11 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 4/1/2013 9:22:56 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/1/2013 8:45:14 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
1. Which exact tomb was Jesus buried in? How could we conclude it's empty if we don't which tomb it is? All we have to go by is the Gospels

1.1, Why think the gospels, as taken as historical documents rather than religious text, are unreliable?

1.2, The first Jewish polemic against Christianity presupposed an empty tomb... they said the Jews came and stole the body, but if there were no empty tomb, the authorities could've simply pointed to a dead messiah in the tomb. Thus we don't really need to know NOW which exact tomb that Christ was buried in in order to know where his tomb was. All that matters is that it's historical fact that there indeed was an empty tomb.


1.1 I'm not sure what you're saying. What do you mean?

Your message implies the gospels aren't to be trusted, I'd like to know why and on what grounds? Do you think they're a conspiracy? That these guys were bored and just wanted to kinda die horrific deaths for a cool story?

I'm saying it shouldn't be trusted until it's proven. But the historical alternative I subscribe to is Richard Carrier's. But we don't even need to provide a historical alternative. If somethings unrealistic, no historical alternative is needed.

1.2 If I say "My wallet is empty, so my money must've vanished", someone could say "No, you spent it all." They're assuming my wallet exists and money was in there for argument sake. This doesn't mean the person knows if I have a wallet or now. DId the jews know where his tomb was? Why should your argument hold any weight if the Jews didn't even know where it was?

You're missing the point of the earliest polemic against the resurrection presuposing an empty tomb. They couldn't presuppose that the disciples stole the body from X tomb if they didn't know where in the world X tomb was... it's just silly to think otherwise.

As I said, the polemic didn't need to know where the tomb was to presuppose it's empty. You just assume they knew where it was. It's an unwarranted assumption. Just as it would be an unwarranted assumption to assume my wallet even existed. It would be for arguments sake you've given no reason to support your claim.

2. Again. The only evidence we have is from the Gospels, We have a book that says there's 500 eyewitnesses.

2.1, this isn't even true, we also have Q, and the material philo wrote along with Roman reports... But I only reference Mark.. but again, why consider Mark as unreliable as opposed to, say, what Aristotle wrote concerning Socrates? Why the bias historical skepticism?

2.1 Give me the actual sources where it talks about Jesus actually being seen back from the dead. Why the historical skepticism? If you found a paper dated back to 100 A.D. that said "Jeff rose from the dead" you wouldn't believe it. Extraordinary claims like these need extraordinary proof. Somethings you can't just accept because it says so. Also the Gospel of Mark also has things like Palestinian geography and customs all messed up.

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net...

I'm not sure what these supposed mistakes are to prove, but I'd like to hear you deal with WLC's argument above concerning Christ rather than these multiple irrelevant parodies you're coming up with.

They're suppose to prove that Mark is unreliable. It's not irrelevant, since I was also talking about the 500 witnesses. Which you dropped and didn't respond to my request.


3. And again, we have a book that says the disciples converted. None of the Gospels were written by the disciples, they're just anonymous accounts.

3.1, Mathew, Mark Luke and John were all disciples and Paul knew them. The disciples were colloquially referred to as "the twelve" even though Judas killed himself. There were 11. James, the brother of Jesus, wrote a letter as well. These are all first hand early independent attestation of a risen Lord. Pretty much as perfect a historical account as one can get.

3.1 Yes the guys themselves were supposedly the disciples. That's not what I was arguing. Also Paul doesn't seem to be aware of a lot of information about Jesus that he would've known if he knew the twelve.

Is that information relevant to the resurrection? If so, how so?

Yes. You're the one that made it irrelevant. The argument was that the disciples converted so fast, that Jesus must've rose from the dead


If I told you my friend rose from the dead, would you believe me?

No, what was the religio-context? What was the multiple independant attestation? Where was the Isaiac-prophecy? Where is the evidence for his death and his post-mortem appearances and empty grave? Where is the origin of an entire changed world despite every predisposition to the contrary?

I already gave that information. Yes there was post mortem and an empty grave. I gave the empty grave argument to someone and they said that I probably stole his body. See they assumed the grave was empty! Changing the world doesn't make something true. That's an argumentum ad populum fallacy. And yes there was prophecy. I found a piece of paper that said he was going to rise again. You believe it now? Probably not. But if I wrote it down in a language you couldn't read and buried it for 2000 years, would you?

The origin of Christianity despite every predisposition to the contrary cries out for explanation, and it seems the best explanation is the hypothesis that God raised Christ from the dead. That's not an argument from populace friend. It's an inference to the best explanation.

What do you mean by origin? Do you mean the actual growth of Christianity or how Christianity came to be (meaning by Jesus resurrection).

Your whole parody here is a fallacious argument from analogy, it leaves out all the relevant bits (discussed in the video more or less) and attempts to invalidate a position with rote similarities. Nothing earth-shattering to Christendom there.

You haven't shown that it leaves out relevant bits. It has an empty grave, appearances, and conversions. Someone even presupposed the empty grave. What am I leaving out? Or are you just being skeptical here and not with Christianity?


If I said all his family believes he rose from the dead, his grave was empty, but I don't know where his grave is and 500 people saw him after he died. But all we have is 1 persons account that 500 people saw him. Would you believe it?

You can't assume the Gospel's accuracy to prove the Gospel's accuracy.

You can't assume the gospel's inaccuracy to disprove the gospels accuracy.

First, even if I was doing this, you're committing a tu quoque fallacy. Second, I'm just asking for more historical evidence and clarification. Not assuming its inaccuracy.

No tu quoque fallacy here. You were clearly assuming the inaccuracy of the gospels, and I'd like to know why? ... Just like personal testimony is prima facie justified in the court of law, so written testimony is is in the absence of any positive reason for thinking the author was either lying, deluded, or both. So... I'll ask again, why and on what grounds do we have for assuming the inaccuracy of the gospels? Particularly with Mark and the pre-marken passion known as Q?

Now if you wanted to know why the relevant testimony is accurate, you should've communicated that, see here,

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

Yes it is a tu quoque! You accused me of doing the same thing without backing up my argument against you! How isn't that a tu quo
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 10:51:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Obviously Rosenberg is out of his depth here, but I don't think he's a million miles away from a decent critique (at least with some of his points). For example, I do think there is something to be said for using parallel cases (in conjunction with a much broader case) to establish what a reasonable BoP should be (for the affirmative and negative case), if nothing else.

The main problem for Craig's case though is philosophical. The background knowledge against resurrection from the dead would make it improbable, to say the least (even if God did exist). Also, there are problems with invoking the supernatural to explain things.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 11:47:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 12:47:02 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/1/2013 11:39:08 PM, Apeiron wrote:

1.1, Why think the gospels, as taken as historical documents rather than religious text, are unreliable?


Because they are?

What about the "census", and the conflicting genealogies?

We're talking about the Gospels here? ... Namely Mark and the pre-markan passion, Q. The census you'll have to elaborate on, there were many, and conflicting genealogies you'll have to show how its relevant.

There is obvious inaccuracy in the gospels as written. And Q has no extant copy, so appealing to it seems unfair. It could say anything.

I accept that there are inaccuracies, but how are those relevant to the post-mortem appearances, the empty tomb and the origin of the Christian church despite every predisposition to the contrary? How are such inaccuracies not only relevant to this?


It should be noted, of course, that the Trojan War happened, but we don't rely on the Iliad for faith in the divinity of Zeus. In fact, for a long time there was debate whether the war actually happened, though now there seems enough evidence to at least tentatively assert that it was based on something. Yet we don't believe any of the supernatural claims in the Iliad. Why should we do so with the Bible (specifically NT)?

Again, this is a disingenuous parody, we don't consider Zeus as existing because we have positive evidence that it's myth given all the embellishment, etc. By contrast, Mark and Q are remarkably modest and unembellished.

Furthermore, Christ's own self-understanding (both implicit and explicit) does away with any serious skepticism that he knew himself to be the Son of God, a claim for which he was judicially murdered, but if he rose from the dead then such a claim would be vindicated. The question is, which best explains the facts of the empty tomb, postmortem appearances and the origin of the Christian church despite strong predispositions to the contrary.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 12:15:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 11:47:27 AM, Apeiron wrote:

We're talking about the Gospels here? ... Namely Mark and the pre-markan passion, Q.

So we're ONLY talking about Mark, then, since there is no extant copy of Q?

In which case I suppose the genealogies don't conflict. And here I assumed, since Q is inferred from the other gospels, that they were all fair game for discussion, and an obvious conflict (and therefore an obvious inaccuracy of some kind) can call into question other claims.

The census you'll have to elaborate on, there were many, and conflicting genealogies you'll have to show how its relevant.

I think it's obvious which census I'm speaking of: it's the one in Luke, that definitely didn't happen in the manner it was portrayed.


I accept that there are inaccuracies, but how are those relevant to the post-mortem appearances, the empty tomb and the origin of the Christian church despite every predisposition to the contrary? How are such inaccuracies not only relevant to this?

What do you mean by "How are such inaccuracies not only relevant to this?"

I'm saying: you have a book with obvious inaccuracies (and you accept those inaccuracies). You want to use that book to prove that supernatural events have occurred. Since we know there are inaccuracies about PLAUSIBLE, NORMAL events, why should we possibly believe the book's claims about extraordinary, supernatural events?


Again, this is a disingenuous parody, we don't consider Zeus as existing because we have positive evidence that it's myth given all the embellishment, etc. By contrast, Mark and Q are remarkably modest and unembellished.

Q doesn't exist in an extant copy. We have no idea how "modest" or "unembellished" it is. I'm quite unclear how the "embellishment, etc." of the stories of the Trojan War, or the Greek gods in general, is any differant than Mark's claims of miraculous events. Healings, exorcisms, magic food, prophecy; these are only "modest and unembellished" claims if you believe them already.

Furthermore, Christ's own self-understanding (both implicit and explicit) does away with any serious skepticism that he knew himself to be the Son of God, a claim for which he was judicially murdered, but if he rose from the dead then such a claim would be vindicated.

No, it wouldn't. Heck, Lazarus ostensibly rose from the dead; was he the Son of God?

The question is, which best explains the facts of the empty tomb, postmortem appearances and the origin of the Christian church despite strong predispositions to the contrary.

The empty tomb is not a "fact", since it's only accepted within the Gospels (I would think it more plausible if there were a Roman document stating something along the lines of "Dear Commander: that guy we crucified the other day, Yeshua-whatshisname, his tomb's empty"). But a tomb being empty is not, in itself, improbable.

Especially when he had devout followers.

The postmortem appearances are, again, only mentioned in the Gospels by people who were already believes. It seems particularly question-begging for to use believer's belief as proof for what they believe. Again, to find it more plausible I'd expect someone who WASN'T a believer to contemporaneously say something about it. Particularly if he was not immediately recognizable to them; this was a person they were devoted to, and they didn't recognize him immediately? And there's Matthew's account of many other people rising from the dead, and "appearing to many". Yet, no other writings by other folks about it.

Which BEST explains the facts, even if taken as presented? A cult whose leader gets killed by authorities, and then his followers (but no one else) see him a few more times cryptically before he disappears forever and they continue onward, spreading their religion? I would say: that it's a cult with no basis in fact. Kind of like how Charles Manson wasn't really a prophet, despite the fanatacism of his believers, nor was (I presume you think) Joseph Smith, despite the modern strength of his believers. Now, that is not necessarily an argument against the story, but to pretend that the supernatural explanation is BETTER (or simpler) than the alternatives seems silly; the parsimonious explanation can explain all of the facts without reference to the supernatural.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 12:40:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 9:44:40 PM, Founder wrote:
At 4/1/2013 9:32:57 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/1/2013 9:26:50 PM, Founder wrote:
At 4/1/2013 8:45:14 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
1. Which exact tomb was Jesus buried in? How could we conclude it's empty if we don't which tomb it is? All we have to go by is the Gospels

2. Again. The only evidence we have is from the Gospels, We have a book that says there's 500 eyewitnesses.

3. And again, we have a book that says the disciples converted. None of the Gospels were written by the disciples, they're just anonymous accounts.

If I told you my friend rose from the dead, would you believe me? If I said all his family believes he rose from the dead, his grave was empty, but I don't know where his grave is and 500 people saw him after he died. But all we have is 1 persons account that 500 people saw him. Would you believe it?

You can't assume the Gospel's accuracy to prove the Gospel's accuracy.

Tim Chaffey examines the evidences

How dare you throw a creationist site on my thread... we're trying to have an intellectual conversation here.

How dare you, as a professed Christian, criticize another Christian for examining the proofs of the resurrection, and that stands on the authority of God's word.

"So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God" (1 Corinthians 10:31).

~

I must say as a non Christian, that you have been told Aperion...

How can you deny some content of the bible over scientific findings, and accept others.....He makes a good point.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 2:50:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 12:40:56 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/1/2013 9:44:40 PM, Founder wrote:
At 4/1/2013 9:32:57 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/1/2013 9:26:50 PM, Founder wrote:
At 4/1/2013 8:45:14 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
1. Which exact tomb was Jesus buried in? How could we conclude it's empty if we don't which tomb it is? All we have to go by is the Gospels

2. Again. The only evidence we have is from the Gospels, We have a book that says there's 500 eyewitnesses.

3. And again, we have a book that says the disciples converted. None of the Gospels were written by the disciples, they're just anonymous accounts.

If I told you my friend rose from the dead, would you believe me? If I said all his family believes he rose from the dead, his grave was empty, but I don't know where his grave is and 500 people saw him after he died. But all we have is 1 persons account that 500 people saw him. Would you believe it?

You can't assume the Gospel's accuracy to prove the Gospel's accuracy.

Tim Chaffey examines the evidences

How dare you throw a creationist site on my thread... we're trying to have an intellectual conversation here.

How dare you, as a professed Christian, criticize another Christian for examining the proofs of the resurrection, and that stands on the authority of God's word.

"So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God" (1 Corinthians 10:31).

~

I must say as a non Christian, that you have been told Aperion...

haha!

How can you deny some content of the bible over scientific findings, and accept others.....He makes a good point.

No one's been "told" ... early Hebrew scholars (e.g., Philo) and early church fathers (eg., St. Augustine) accepted a non-literalist interpretation of Genesis 1-2 long before modern science came about. In fact if anyone takes a serious look into the history of Young Earth Creationism they'll find it's a pretty recent development. So a non-literalist interpretation is by no means a retreat in the face of science.

What modern science HAS done was to help theologians disconfirm one interpretation over the other. And this is a perfect representation of how science and faith relate, for according to Anselm, ours is a faith which seeks understanding. And according to Francis Bacon, a founding father of science, there are the book of God's word and the book of God's works, and the two relate in the way I've described above using Gen.1-2 as an example.

I'll debate Founder on this in a few weeks if his ELO is up to par.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 3:14:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 12:15:05 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/2/2013 11:47:27 AM, Apeiron wrote:

We're talking about the Gospels here? ... Namely Mark and the pre-markan passion, Q.

So we're ONLY talking about Mark, then, since there is no extant copy of Q?

Yes, Q is a theorized source that both the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke used another, hitherto unknown, source that provided some common material found in them. This ancient, unknown source, referred to by scholars as "Q", supposedly contained sayings of Jesus.

In which case I suppose the genealogies don't conflict. And here I assumed, since Q is inferred from the other gospels, that they were all fair game for discussion, and an obvious conflict (and therefore an obvious inaccuracy of some kind) can call into question other claims.

I don't really know what you're trying to get across here. Q, as such, is a hypothetical source that Mark and Mathew used.


The census you'll have to elaborate on, there were many, and conflicting genealogies you'll have to show how its relevant.

I think it's obvious which census I'm speaking of: it's the one in Luke, that definitely didn't happen in the manner it was portrayed.

Actually, if it was obvious the census you're speaking of, I wouldn't have asked you... lol

But first, how is this relevant to the three historical facts I mentioned concerning the resurrection of Christ?



I accept that there are inaccuracies, but how are those relevant to the post-mortem appearances, the empty tomb and the origin of the Christian church despite every predisposition to the contrary? How are such inaccuracies not only relevant to this?

What do you mean by "How are such inaccuracies not only relevant to this?"

I think it's obvious what I mean by that ;-)

... I of course mean that you mention inaccuracies, but I want to know how these inaccuracies somehow undercut the evidence supporting the three facts to be explained, of which Craig proposes the best explanation being God raised Jesus from the dead. How are such facts as a partially mistaken census relevant to, say, the empty tomb?


I'm saying: you have a book with obvious inaccuracies (and you accept those inaccuracies). You want to use that book to prove that supernatural events have occurred. Since we know there are inaccuracies about PLAUSIBLE, NORMAL events, why should we possibly believe the book's claims about extraordinary, supernatural events?

Again, I want to know how the specific inaccuracies (common really in any historical document), count as for or against those three facts?


Again, this is a disingenuous parody, we don't consider Zeus as existing because we have positive evidence that it's myth given all the embellishment, etc. By contrast, Mark and Q are remarkably modest and unembellished.


Q doesn't exist in an extant copy.

Ya, you keep saying that, I know it's hypothetical.

We have no idea how "modest" or "unembellished" it is. I'm quite unclear how the "embellishment, etc." of the stories of the Trojan War, or the Greek gods in general, is any differant than Mark's claims of miraculous events. Healings, exorcisms, magic food, prophecy; these are only "modest and unembellished" claims if you believe them already.

Or they're only un-modest and embellished if you hold to a naturalist view already, but I see no reason to hold to such a view and not let the evidence speak for itself.


Furthermore, Christ's own self-understanding (both implicit and explicit) does away with any serious skepticism that he knew himself to be the Son of God, a claim for which he was judicially murdered, but if he rose from the dead then such a claim would be vindicated.

No, it wouldn't. Heck, Lazarus ostensibly rose from the dead; was he the Son of God?

No Lazarus was resuscitated from the dead. He presumably died again. Jesus on the other hand resurrected. There's a difference btn resuscitation and resurrection.


The question is, which best explains the facts of the empty tomb, postmortem appearances and the origin of the Christian church despite strong predispositions to the contrary.

The empty tomb is not a "fact", since it's only accepted within the Gospels (I would think it more plausible if there were a Roman document stating something along the lines of "Dear Commander: that guy we crucified the other day, Yeshua-whatshisname, his tomb's empty"). But a tomb being empty is not, in itself, improbable.

It's far more improbable that the tomb was empty than not. Why for example would the first polemic against Christ's rise from the dead presuppose an empty tomb?
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 3:18:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 10:45:12 AM, Magic8000 wrote:

1.1
Your message implies the gospels aren't to be trusted, I'd like to know why and on what grounds? Do you think they're a conspiracy? That these guys were bored and just wanted to kinda die horrific deaths for a cool story?

I'm saying it shouldn't be trusted until it's proven. But the historical alternative I subscribe to is Richard Carrier's. But we don't even need to provide a historical alternative. If somethings unrealistic, no historical alternative is needed.

Why shouldn't written testimony be trusted until proven? And by what standards to you mean prove?

Also, you're presupposing naturalism in order to claim the resurrection as unrealistic, of course it's unrealistic given such circularity, that's hardly surprising! But in order to convince us of it's unrealism, you're to give an alternative explanation, otherwise, I think one is rational in affirming a miracle that raised Christ from the dead thereby vindicating his claims.... the problem is, all naturalistic explanations are themselves unrealistic! At best you would have us believe therefore that the post-mortem appearances of Christ, his empty tomb and the origin of the Christian church despite strong predisposition are inexplicable... which, I'm sorry, but that just takes way more faith than I have.


1.2
You're missing the point of the earliest polemic against the resurrection presuposing an empty tomb. They couldn't presuppose that the disciples stole the body from X tomb if they didn't know where in the world X tomb was... it's just silly to think otherwise.

As I said, the polemic didn't need to know where the tomb was to presuppose it's empty.

How is that even coherent? If I say there is no sandwich in my mouth, I'm supposing I know where my mouth is...

You just assume they knew where it was. It's an unwarranted assumption. Just as it would be an unwarranted assumption to assume my wallet even existed. It would be for arguments sake you've given no reason to support your claim.

I really don't think you've thought about this hard enough lol... I say do a thought experiment wherein you're a first century Jew, in the middle of the resurrection debate in Jerusalem that's part of that community.


2
2.1
I'm not sure what these supposed mistakes are to prove, but I'd like to hear you deal with WLC's argument above concerning Christ rather than these multiple irrelevant parodies you're coming up with.

They're suppose to prove that Mark is unreliable. It's not irrelevant, since I was also talking about the 500 witnesses. Which you dropped and didn't respond to my request.

Unreliable in what way? And when did I say anything about the 500?


3
3.1
Is that information relevant to the resurrection? If so, how so?

Yes. You're the one that made it irrelevant. The argument was that the disciples converted so fast, that Jesus must've rose from the dead

What are you talking about? How did I make something irrelevant if I didn't know whether or not it was relevant in the first place?

And that's not the argument, that the disciples converted so fast, that Jesus must've rose from the dead.. There are established historical facts to be explained and any inductive argument will, by all standards, attempt to explain those facts better than another explanation. THAT'S that formed argument here.


The origin of Christianity despite every predisposition to the contrary cries out for explanation, and it seems the best explanation is the hypothesis that God raised Christ from the dead. That's not an argument from populace friend. It's an inference to the best explanation.

What do you mean by origin? Do you mean the actual growth of Christianity or how Christianity came to be (meaning by Jesus resurrection).

I mean the origin, the beginning of the Christian faith despite there being every predisposition to the contrary.