~M~

Sean says...

Can anyone tell me the point of including this quote? I am not sure but it seems as though it is the genetic fallacy. and, even if the resurrection is generally not a belief based upon 'evidence', does not mean that an evidential basing is insufficient.

I only grazed through the rest but i am happy to say that Sean took my advice about Humean reasoning. If this discussion been decided by the first opening statements, then Sean took an easy win. if PfC wants to win, he needs to upgrade his arguments to something better than what we had just seen from him.

stuart shepherd

Dear ~M~,
I don't speak for Sean. But I think that his point is that Christians do not believe in the resurrection of Jesus based upon an objective analysis and evaluation of the evidence. But they believe through ""fear, desirability, repetition, indoctrination and conditioning, which generally come from family, church, friends, community and country."" In other words, Christians believe because they are brain-washed rather than being convinced by ""personal experience"" or ""apologetic argument"".
I think that Sean goes on to point out that ""A survey (C.E.2000) by the evangelical based Barna Group, discovered that about a third of the leading Christian clergy don't believe in a literal Resurrection. These are the very bastions/lobbyists for belief!"" If the leaders of Christianity, who have presumably studied their religion, don't believe, how can we expect an informed decision on the resurrection from the laity, who are generally ""ignorant of the evidence""?

I think that Sean included his paragraph because he thought it was relevant to demonstrate the average Christian's motive for belief. Brain-washing........ not rational weighing of the evidence.

Stuart Shepherd

stuart shepherd

Sean McHugh wrote...............
Hidden in this simple statement is something very important concerning the supposed post resurrection appearances of Jesus.

Mark is known to be the first gospel written. Mark's Gospel is the template or blueprint for the other gospels. Anyone truly STUDYING the Gospels realizes that the other gospels start with Mark's work and go on to embellish and improve upon Mark in order to make the Jesus story more believable.

So here is the important point concerning the supposed post resurrection appearances of Jesus......the original Mark's gospel, ending at Mark 16:8, does not contain any post resurrection appearances of Jesus.

If you wanted to prove that Jesus rose from the dead, wouldn't you include post resurrection appearances if they really happened? Especially if all the additional evidence you had was an empty tomb?

Stuart Shepherd

~M~

This was my impression too. Yet, even if his point is true, it is irrelevant.The subject is not concerned with why Christians believe what they do, but only with the historical evidence of the resurrection.




Even if true, it is irrelevant.

stuart shepherd

The Gospels are anonymously written.
They are "hearsay".
Yet this is the Christian basis for belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

There are numerous credibility problems with the New Testament writers.
Take a look at this problem with the Gospel writer, Matthew.

Matthew wrote........
Matthew 4:8-9(King James Version)
8Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

9And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

Now back in Jesus' day people might have believed that a very high mountain existed from which you could see all the kingdoms of the world. But we all know for sure absolutely that no such mountain exists. Matthew's statement at Matthew 4:8-9,is just not true.

There is something else to consider. If Jesus and the devil were alone, how did Matthew find out about this incident between Jesus and the Devil?
Did the Devil tell Matthew? If Matthew was getting his information from the Devil, then we know that Matthew is not credible because the Devil is a liar according to Bible lore.

Did Jesus tell Matthew? If Jesus told Matthew about this mythical mountain, then Jesus would be a liar, because there is no mountain from which you can see all the kingdoms of the world.

Did Matthew fabricate this story about the mythical mountain? This seems to be the only logical choice. If Matthew didn't hear this story from the Devil or from Jesus, then he must have made this story up himself because it is an untrue story. If Matthew fabricated this untrue story how can we have confidence in anything else that Matthew wrote? He is just not credible. It only takes one lie to make a liar.

How can we possiby believe the tale that Jesus rose from the dead, as told by the unknown anonymous writer of "hearsay" known as the Gospel according to Matthew?

Stuart Shepherd

stuart shepherd

Perhaps it's irrelevant from your point of view.
But think of it as a negative testimonial advertisement.
""Christians are brain-washed and 33 and 1/3 % of Christian clergymen don't believe in the resurrection of Jesus."" So why should anyone believe?

Stuart Shepherd

stuart shepherd

Paul the Confabulator.

Sean McHugh wrote........
Let's take a closer look at Paul and see if we could trust his honesty.

It seems to me that as Paul told and retold the story of his Damascus road experience, he improved upon the story.
This is what Jesus said to Paul the first time Paul told the story.[bolded portions are Jesus' words]

Acts 9:5-6(King James Version)
5And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
6And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
The first time Paul tells the Damascus road story, Jesus only says two short sentences to Paul (Bolded portions are Jesus' words)

But later in his career, after Paul had told the story many times, Jesus has become much more loquacious concerning what Jesus said on the road to Damascus.

Acts 26:14-18(King James Version)
14And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
15And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
16But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;

17Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,

18To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

Can you see how Paul has inflated this story?

If you are at all familiar with police procedures, they have suspects tell and retell their story several times. A true story is the same every time. But liars will improve their story with every retelling.

You can easily see that Paul is what we here in America would call a BS artist.
It's not hard to conclude that Paul's unnamed, witnesses who don't provide any testimony are just more of Paul's BS artistry.

stuart shepherd

~M~

What's that have to do with the historical evidence of the resurrection?

Toto

You are correct, it has nothing to do directly with the historical evidence for the resurrection. But Christian apologists themselves, including PfC, continually refer to the consensus of historians in favor of certain facts. If the historians' motives for belief are dictated by their faith and not the evidence, it has to be taken into account.

A Stable Flux

It's interesting and important to notice the zero testimony in the gospel of mark to post-resurrection appearances.

Mark 16:8

If they said nothing to no one, Mark couldn't of been informed. This shows the literary nature of the gospel of Mark and the primarily literary and fictitious nature of the other gospels. Agreeably, Matthew, Luke and the later John did blur the distinctive literary nature of their Yeshua narratives, but only in the same way that Orson Welles adapted the War of the Worlds novel to radio with mimicry of a genuine news broadcast. The first and shortest gospel reminds us of the non-historical nature that the Jesus narratives occupied. Yet the dramatisation of a Jesus narrative by Matthew, Luke and John unfortunately threw the minds of the simple-minded and mislead them. In the same way to the War of the Worlds broadcast. As if the gospel writers of the First century who were intellectuals, as all early religious literate people were, were being literal.