Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 09-13-2006, 03:44 PM

By the way, you might want to check out Peter Kirby's Review of Gary Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ His conclusion: "This book by Habermas is riddled with errors and fallacies. The arguments attempted for the resurrection of Jesus are determined to be failures. If the book is judged by the stated purpose of providing a convincing apologetic for the resurrection, this book is a failure. When this general failure is joined with the fact of the many inaccuracies, there is little of redeeming value in this book."

09-13-2006, 03:47 PM

Greetings,

Quote:

Yet, if what is recorded about Jesus is true, he was not just some ordinary guy, like you and I.

There are NO records of Jesus - just later religious legends.

Quote:

Furthermore, some quite extraordinary things happened to those who otherwise thought that Jesus was less than extraordinary, starting with his family members.

Just later legends. We have no evidence from any family members of the alleged Jesus.

Quote:

What I can say is that within just a couple of years after the resurrection we do have the apostle Paul's account,

False.
About 20 years later we have a comment that OTHERS saw a vision of Jesus like Paul did.

Quote:

along with the testimony of others than seem beyond repute, that Jesus was resurrected.

What? Beyond repute?
You must be joking.

What we have is conflicting anonymous accounts based on the OT and pagan literature.

Iasion

09-13-2006, 03:52 PM

Greetings,

Quote:

Actually, while the former is true, the latter is not true. Paul most likely not only had the "vision" that you describe, but was actually taught by Jesus when he went away into the Arabian desert for three years.

Wow.
Now you are just making things up.
Do you have ANY evidence for that?

Quote:

Furthermore, even though Paul may not have been at the resurrection event itself, given what he wrote to the Corinthians, he made first-hand contact with those who were at the crucifixion and were around after Jesus was resurrected.

Paul ignored them for years. He specifically says he as good an apostle as them. He claims he got his Gospel from "NO MAN". He criticise Peter etc. This shows he did NOT get any details from anyone.

Quote:

So, despite efforts to denounce Paul's integrity on the matter, when the evidence is examined, Paul's testimony is a valid source for what took place in reference to Jesus and the resurrection. It is not the only source, but a valid one.

Source for what?
Paul talks about a spiritual Jesus.

Paul mentions no historical details - no names, places, dates etc. There is no mention in Paul of Jesus' teaching, or miracles etc. No empty tomb !

Paul had a vision of Christ, like the others did. There is no historical Jesus in Paul.

Iasion

09-13-2006, 03:54 PM

Greetings,

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZX432

Again, what was written down by Paul was not written decades after the fact. Instead, what Paul wrote to the Corinthians was most likely written within a couple of years of the resurrection,

Rubbish.
It was TWENTY years or so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZX432

Hence, there was no time for corruption to creep in, nor a nefarious legend to be started.

How come Paul's list of visions does NOT match the later Gospel stories? Hmm?

Iasion

09-13-2006, 04:04 PM

Greetings,

Quote:

Actually Koy, Jesus' brother, James, was not as you suggest. He was a skeptic, and a hardened one at that.

What is the evidence for that?

Quote:

And as for the generational comment, while wild stories can be dreamed up on the spot, the details surrounding the person of Jesus and the resurrection would have had to had many, many years to take shape,

They did take many years to take shape. From the legends of Paul to the widespread acceptance of the Gospels is over a CENTURY. We can clearly see the story growing in details from 1st to 2nd century.

Quote:

and would have been easily rebutted by the religious antagonists of Christianity at that time, and subsequently.

In a world awash with religions and myths - WHY WOULD THEY? All sorts of people believed all sorts of nonsense without being rebutted - no-one cared what other cults believed (until they took power that is.)

No-one ever rebutted the Golden Ass - therefore according to your argument it is TRUE.

Quote:

But, nothing of the kind has ever taken place, and it only seems that the same kinds of hardened skeptics,

Nonsense.
Many sceptics DID criticise Christianity -

* Celsus called the Gospels FICTION based on MYTH.
* Porphyry claimed the evangelists were INVENTORS not historians
* Julian claimed it was made up.
* various early Christians did NOT believe Jesus came in the flesh

Mate -
I suggest you study some scholars, not just faithful believers.

Iasion

09-13-2006, 04:08 PM

Greetings,

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZX432

Actually, may I encourage you to re-check the actual dates, because even most liberal scholars agree that the resurrection creed that he repeated in 1 Cor. 15:3-4 was written within a couple of years of the resurrection itself.

Please list the scholars that do so.

Quote:

Plus, if one takes into account that Paul checked and re-checked his source information with the other apostles, just to make sure his story was straight, then all of the opportunity that you mention for the story to be corrupted evaporates.

So,
IF you believe the story,
that proves the story true?

It appears you have never really thought this through at all.

Your only proof for your faithful legends is more of your faithful legends.

This approach can "prove" just about anything true.

Iasion

Godless Dave · 09-13-2006, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZX432

But, in the case of the resurrection we're not dealing with testimony that is as far removed from the event as you suggest. For most scholars are now of the impression that what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15 was written with a couple of years of Jesus' death, meaning that Paul received a first hand account of what took place.

Only if by "most" you mean "very few". And regardless, Paul was not a witness to the resurrection, and had never met Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZX432

And I'm pretty sure that eyewitness accounts of just about anything would hold up in any court of law, would you not agree?

Absolutely not, and for very good reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZX432

And as for the generational comment, while wild stories can be dreamed up on the spot, the details surrounding the person of Jesus and the resurrection would have had to had many, many years to take shape, and would have been easily rebutted by the religious antagonists of Christianity at that time, and subsequently.

Why would they have had to have taken many years to shape? And how could they have been easily rebutted by the antagonists of Christianity? There was no electronic communication then, no videorecording. Even if Jesus's own mother heard of Christianity and started telling people "No, I never saw his spirit after his death, and the door to the tomb was still closed when I visited it last Thursday", there's no guarantee the resurrection believers would have even heard of her protestations. And even if they did, they could easily still go on believing. Even in this modern age, with worldwide instant communication, many people go on believing things that have been proven false. 50% of Americans still believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction in early 2003, even though our own government has reported that he did not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZX432

As for the mystics and David Blaine, I think the evidence speaks for itself, but not until a careful examination has been done first. We know that much of what the Indian mystics is nothing more than trickery, and we also know that the demonic world is able of empowering people to perform what appears to be the miraculous.

No, we certainly do not know that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZX432

No, I don't get your drift, sorry.

The poster provided several other examples of alleged miracles based on eyewitness accounts. He's asking you why you reject those stories. It's the same question you asked in your original post.

FatherMithras · 09-13-2006, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Indeed, the resurrection is extraordinary. It I as Koy mentioned earlier: dead men don't resurrect. Yet, if what is recorded about Jesus is true, he was not just some ordinary guy, like you and I. Furthermore, some quite extraordinary things happened to those who otherwise thought that Jesus was less than extraordinary, starting with his family members. Do you not think that those things should be considered when evaluating the resurrection event?

As none of these events have any support, why should anyone take them seriously? These stories are from decades after the fact and not supported by any contemporary sources whatsoever, which would be astonishing if the stories were true. no on writing about a massive following, miracles, and resurrection?

Quote:

Actually, while the former is true, the latter is not true. Paul most likely not only had the "vision" that you describe, but was actually taught by Jesus when he went away into the Arabian desert for three years. Furthermore, even though Paul may not have been at the resurrection event itself, given what he wrote to the Corinthians, he made first-hand contact with those who were at the crucifixion and were around after Jesus was resurrected. So, despite efforts to denounce Paul's integrity on the matter, when the evidence is examined, Paul's testimony is a valid source for what took place in reference to Jesus and the resurrection. It is not the only source, but a valid one.

Not at all. please supply any evidence Paul was ever in contact with Jesus, or that tere were sources for Paul to examine as you describe. This entire post is not supported by anyting in known history and I don't see how you can label it with "probably".

Quote:

Second, while the "gods" may not exist, there are some very good arguments for the existence of God which seem to rebut the idea that we're all just here by accident. And if God does exist, then why would it not be possible that because of his approval of what Jesus came to accomplish on earth, that he went ahead and resurrected him, as an example of what could be expected for others who placed their faith in him?

As there are no claims of God's existence that have held up to scrutiny, i don't see why you'd say this. IF god exists it's possible, but since there's as much evidence for that as there is for leprechauns, whys hould we take it seriously? Regardless, we have no evidence anything told about Jesus ever actually happened.

Quote:

Dave, I agree with you that heresay evidence from second and third party sources is probably not the best way to prove anything. There are simply too many possibilities that the story could be corrupted somewhere along the way. But, in the case of the resurrection we're not dealing with testimony that is as far removed from the event as you suggest. For most scholars are now of the impression that what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15 was written with a couple of years of Jesus' death, meaning that Paul received a first hand account of what took place. And I'm pretty sure that eyewitness accounts of just about anything would hold up in any court of law, would you not agree?

Paul never actually encountered jesus and "a few years" after his death isn't accurate. Come up with some numbers and your arguments for them so they can be weighed, if you could.

Quote:

David, I agree with you that there are all kinds of claims done in the name of whatever, including religon. But, if there was enough objective evidence to support the resurrection event, would you not find it possible that the event did indeed occur, and that Jesus came forth from the tomb as recorded in the Bible?

You'd have to provide evidence of contemporary sources he existed, walked around as you say and could defy natural laws that nothing in history has ever done. If you could show this, of course people would accept it. Though i don't see it happening.

Quote:

Well, as far as I know, despite the skeptical claims I've read, I haven't come across a credible one which denounced Jesus' resurrection as an "error or fraud." Instead, I've read several "alternatives," to put it Wedderburn's way, that tried to mitigate the evidence and show that Jesus' resurrection was not literal. Do I assume that you take a similar stance?

Really? The fact that not a single source confirms or even mentions the resurrection isn't a credible skepticle complaint? The fact that likewise, no sources outside the Bible, written after the fact by people who never even met Jesus, confirm any of it isn't either?

Quote:

Again, although there may be similarities, does that necessarily mean that borrowing took place? Furthermore, what about the major differences, given that I am unware of anyone singing the praises of Mithras during the holiday season?

Funny you'd mention that, since the celebration of the birth of Mithras was December 25th.

Quote:

Plus, if one takes into account that Paul checked and re-checked his source information with the other apostles, just to make sure his story was straight, then all of the opportunity that you mention for the story to be corrupted evaporates.

Please support he actually did this.

Quote:

I'm sorry, Koy, but I don't think you understand what the "minimal facts" are. For they don't have anything to do with Mark's narratives, but those minimal facts that most scholars, whether liberal, conservative, or otherwise, are willing to grant as true in respect to the resurrection event. Those facts would include:

Okay, this is about to be followed with information showing you haven't researched what you claim you have. The below ar ein plenty of dispute.

Quote:

Jesus died by Roman crucifixion.

Nothing outside the Bible supports this in the least. there are mentions of this claim 7 decades after the fact by historians, but they simply record the claims that Christians made. To pretend this is a well established fact is to ignore a total lack of evidence.

Quote:

The disciples had experiences that they thought were actual appearances of the risen Jesus.

Nothing outside the bible supports this.

Quote:

The disciples were thoroughly transformed, even being willing to die for this belief.

Unsupported by anyting other than the bible and religious tradition. once again, where are you getting information on their lives? The only place is the bible, which is unreliable for above reasons.

Quote:

The apostolic proclamation of the resurrection began very early, when the church was in its infancy.

Arguable. I'm willing to give this, since Paul and all early Christian sources indicate a resurrection occured. Though whether it was literal, metaphorical, or took place on earth is in question.

Quote:

James, the brother of Jesus and a former skeptic, became a Christian due to an experience that he believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus.

Another non supported statement. The existend of this figure and the apostles isn't supported by anything contemporary. Though Paul's epistles make them arguable.

Quote:

Saul (Paul), the church persecutor, became a Christian due to an experience that he believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus.

Yup, you got this one.

Almost all of the above are not viewed as undeniable facts. Most aren't even supportable assertions.

FatherMithras · 09-13-2006, 05:10 PM

Quote:

As for the mystics and David Blaine, I think the evidence speaks for itself, but not until a careful examination has been done first.

A careful examination shows less evidence for Jesus doing magic than for Blaine doing it, as no eyewitnesses ever reported it and nothing contemporary supports it.

Quote:

We know that much of what the Indian mystics is nothing more than trickery, and we also know that the demonic world is able of empowering people to perform what appears to be the miraculous.

Boldfaced, illogical assertion counter to everything known about the natural world. Demonic world? What on earth are you talking about?

Quote:

The same applies to David Blaine. Yet, those are not the same things as what apparently took place with the resurrection of Jesus.

You're right. What took place according to the Christians was a dead body, which would have been given to the Jackals to be eaten and never allowed a tomb resurrected, wit no one in the entire area thinking it was importan enough to mention along with all these miracles that were apparently being performed.

Quote:

And to my recollection, I do not know of anyone that the mystics or DB have resurrected, or have been resurrected, in the same manner as Jesus. Otherwise, I can assure you that it would not escape the attention of anyone, and people would be flocking to them, like they did Jesus, to have their friends and family members resurrected immediately.

There is no evidence Jesus resurrected, and absolutely nothing that points to people flocking to see a resurrected figure. It is entirely absent from contemporary literature and history despite the fact something so incredible would have made a huge uproar. Fact checking is important in these matters my friend, and you've done little of it.

Sparrow · 09-13-2006, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZX432

That's depends on the rest of the circumstances in your story. For if you were standing on the moon, that I would probably have to say "Yes." The point is, one must examine the evidence before rendering any kind of verdict.

I'm pretty sure it would fall on my foot, even on the moon. But you could be right, after all, gravity is 'just a theory'. If a god can resurrect dead bodies I suppose it could suspend gravity if it wanted. I've seen David Blaine levitate on TV. Do you suppose he's a prophet?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZX432

First, I agree. Dead bodies do not currently come back to life, but does that necessarily mean that that applies to the person of Jesus, when all of the details are examined? I don't think so. Second, to answer your question, the reason why it was reported in Jesus' case was because there were those present at the time that it happened, and hence thought it was of importance to be reported. To the believer, who was not present, it gives hope for a future that is otherwise hopeless. And as far as it not being reported today, if the Bible is true, timing is the issue. In other words, just because people are not being bodily resurrected today does not mean that it will not happen in the future, as is predicted. Moreover, when one takes into account that Jesus predicted his own resurrection, which given the evidence did occur, I'm not so sure it is a foregone conclusion that it cannot happen again.

But we don't have anything at all written by anyone who was there at the alleged execution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZX432

So, eyewitness accounts of the resurrected Jesus are not credible evidence? May I ask, just what would constitute that which is "credible" in a case like this?

What eyewitness documents? The gospels are not eyewitness documents. Perhaps you should read the work of some scholars instead of apologists. Here's a hint: Lee Strobel is not a scholar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZX432

Well, after studying Mormonism for approximately 25 years, I can rest assure you that Joseph Smith and his "golden bible" pales by comparison when it comes to the credibility of the resurrection. Yet, I will agree with you, the Mormon story is "made up."

Yet the identities of the witnesses to the plates is corroborated by external documents. They were real people. Mormonism is on much more solid ground than Christianity in this regard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZX432

Actually, may I encourage you to re-check the actual dates, because even most liberal scholars agree that the resurrection creed that he repeated in 1 Cor. 15:3-4 was written within a couple of years of the resurrection itself. That would mean that the creed itself was in existence at or around 33-35 A.D. Plus, if one takes into account that Paul checked and re-checked his source information with the other apostles, just to make sure his story was straight, then all of the opportunity that you mention for the story to be corrupted evaporates.

And how do you know what the text contained in 33-35 since you have no extant mss that can be dated to that time? And that's assuming you can support that the text to which you refer is actually from that time. I don't think you can.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZX432

Given the intensity of the situation, and the adamancy of those who wanted Jesus to just "go away," I think that possibility of "shenanigans" was nil. Otherwise, why has anyone, Jew or Roman alike, been able to produce Jesus' body to squelch that which was spoken of earlier, and would later be included in Paul's letter to the Corinthians?

Maybe you can direct me to Noah's grave then? Do you actually believe - Oh nevermind, you probably do.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-13-2006, 03:44 PM	#41
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	By the way, you might want to check out Peter Kirby's Review of Gary Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ His conclusion: "This book by Habermas is riddled with errors and fallacies. The arguments attempted for the resurrection of Jesus are determined to be failures. If the book is judged by the stated purpose of providing a convincing apologetic for the resurrection, this book is a failure. When this general failure is joined with the fact of the many inaccuracies, there is little of redeeming value in this book."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.