Resurrection Evidence

[cvanwey]

Thank you for your response!

I would think those of us who perceive that Christianity has more going for it than do the competing World Religions do so because we've found some epistemic nuance(s) within the structure of Christianity which differ in nature from those which we [may] find within the other religions, and we find those nuances in Christianity more meaningful and thereby more plausible to fitting into the structure of Reality that we all attempt to wrestle with on a daily basis. One such nuance would be the fact that the New Testament writings, unlike many foundational writings of other World Religions, seems to be grounded in a historical context.

For instance, just read the Mahabharata--as interesting and as inspirational as it is as a religious or philosophical narrative, there is basically little within that narrative that could ever contextually ground it as being some 'where' or some 'when' that is identifiable by those of us who now read it. The same goes for the Qu'ran or the Tao Te Ching, among other writings from other non-Jewish religions. But when we read the New Testament, or even the Old for that matter, we find the ideas being written about within their dusty, archaic pages to be AT LEAST placed within what reads as a real world setting, one mostly appropriate to the times in which we think the writings were created. This one difference alone in the literary nuance between Christianity's books and those of other religions is, of course, not the whole kit-and-kaboodle in why Christians find the Bible and/or Christianity on the whole compelling, it's just one nuance. No, thre are other nuances which we've all been talking about here for years.

I don't feel we need to go this 'deep'. Please let me explain. A lot of this was addressed in my first response to @Resha Caner (i.e.)

Please see the top of my response, in post #3.

Furthermore, one could even associate the 'true' recreated events, as told by the writer/director of a movie. You know the spiel... "based on true and/or actual events"

The question becomes really.... What do we determine as fact verses fiction? Personally, from a 'historical' perspective, I have no choice but to make my own personal determination. And in doing so, I provided a rough/crude set of criteria, outlined in post #303.

At the end of it all, I find the assertions and claims for a resurrection lacking. Why do you disagree?

However

, despite all of what I've just said above, I have to bring up an epistemic issue. As I read your OP, it's not clear to me whether you're wanting Christians to provide an account of 'why' they individually find Christianity compelling, or you're instead wanting Christians to explain in what ways you, too, should find compelling what they find to be compelling about their own religious view.

You and @Resha Caner baffle me, quite frankly. A Christian CANNOT be a Christian without believing Jesus rose from His tomb.

I'm saying I don't believe you. Is anyone here equipped to present a convincing case FOR the claim? You know, only arguably the biggest claim/assertion in existence?

I'm aware every individual has their own methods. If [you] should happen to respond, I want to hear [your] reasons.

Case/point... I might take an evolutionary biology class, and not understand the concept. Before hand, I am indifferent to the claims/assertions that evolution, as asserted by the scientific community, is true. I then take the class. At the end, I'm either convinced it's true, remain undecided, or reject the claims/evidence. Millions have studied this field. All come to their conclusions, likely with differing evidence, and/or the interpretation there-of...

So, what'za got?

 

[muichimotsu]

I have no idea what the definition of atheism has to do with whether the early Christians were looking at matters in a fashion that would be considered reasonable in the 1st century context.

Am I claiming I know what's reasonable in a 1st century context? We're not engaging in historian's fallacy, that's faulty thinking to suggest we need to think purely based on what they thought was reasonable and ignore demonstrable problems in their thinking

This is more an assertion than a problem, and seems to be based on your own prejudices rather than the text. I see little in the way of significant differences between Paul and the Gospels.

You would, if you're ignoring that scholarship isn't even certain Paul wrote all the epistles attributed to him, while we really don't know the authors of the gospels at all, it's placeholder names from tradition

You're welcome to believe whatever you'd like, but the state of modern scholarship isn't dependent upon how many historical facts you're personally willing to accept. If someone is going to go against the consensus, they usually attempt to substantiate that difference of opinion with actual arguments and evidence, not just dogmatic hyper-skepticism.

Not all historical "Facts" are equal, that's the problem in how you're seemingly approaching this. The claim about Jesus existing is WAY different than a claim that he did miracles or resurrected, or are they somehow equally valid merely because of the historical records?

No, the question was whether God's methods demonstate incompetence.

Using fallible human language and just "inspiring" them, while expecting them to all agree in any reasonable sense is not only incompetent but idiotic, I'd say

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thank you for your response!



I don't feel we need to go this 'deep'. Please let me explain. A lot of this was addressed in my first response to @Resha Caner (i.e.)

Please see the top of my response, in post #3.

Furthermore, one could even associate the 'true' recreated events, as told by the writer/director of a movie. You know the spiel... "based on true and/or actual events"

The question becomes really.... What do we determine as fact verses fiction? Personally, from a 'historical' perspective, I have no choice but to make my own personal determination. And in doing so, I provided a rough/crude set of criteria, outlined in post #303.

At the end of it all, I find the assertions and claims for a resurrection lacking. Why do you disagree?



You and @Resha Caner baffle me, quite frankly. A Christian CANNOT be a Christian without believing Jesus rose from His tomb.

I'm saying I don't believe you. Is anyone here equipped to present a convincing case FOR the claim? You know, only arguably the biggest claim/assertion in existence?

I'm aware every individual has their own methods. If [you] should happen to respond, I want to hear [your] reasons.

Case/point... I might take an evolutionary biology class, and not understand the concept. Before hand, I am indifferent to the claims/assertions that evolution, as asserted by the scientific community, is true. I then take the class. At the end, I'm either convinced it's true, remain undecided, or reject the claims/evidence. Millions have studied this field. All come to their conclusions, likely with differing evidence, and/or the interpretation there-of...

So, what'za got?

I've got a bookcase of potential discussion material regarding the Resurrection of Christ, but I think engaging most of it is a moot point or will simply fall upon deaf ears if any of the following 4 conditions exists between one interlocutor and the other:

1) They each have a different understanding about how epistemology is involved within the Christian faith. [This would involve the field of 'Biblical Epistemology'].

2) They each have a different understanding about what Justification 'is' and by which approach or framework of epistemology, if any, is the appropriate one to apply to reach a personal acceptance of some form of attempted justification for any epistemic endeavor. (It could be that some dummy, like myself, actually thinks that at least some of the process of 'justification' is and essentially has to be recognized as different in nature between the way anyone epistemically engages science and/or logic than it is when they may engage Christianity. [This involves the field of Formal Epistemology ... of various kinds ... ]

3) One person is receptive to God's Spirit and the other, honestly, isn't for various personal reasons.

4) Both interlocutors realize that much of what they'd potentially talk about is either material that one of them thinks is utterly irrelevant (i.e. you) or has already been run over multiple times and can only have about as much remaining depth as would a poor ol' skunk lying long deceased on the road (i.e. me).

 

[Silmarien]

Am I claiming I know what's reasonable in a 1st century context? We're not engaging in historian's fallacy, that's faulty thinking to suggest we need to think purely based on what they thought was reasonable and ignore demonstrable problems in their thinking

I don't even know what you're claiming. You seem to simultaneously think that we have access to the reasoning processes of the earliest Christians and yet that all writings about that community are completely unreliable. Doesn't really make much sense in conjunction.

You would, if you're ignoring that scholarship isn't even certain Paul wrote all the epistles attributed to him, while we really don't know the authors of the gospels at all, it's placeholder names from tradition

I would see differences between Paul and the Gospels if I ignored scholarship on Paul? I suppose I agree with that claim--ignoring scholarship is a good way to misinterpret things.

Not all historical "Facts" are equal, that's the problem in how you're seemingly approaching this. The claim about Jesus existing is WAY different than a claim that he did miracles or resurrected, or are they somehow equally valid merely because of the historical records?

Please quote where I said that the claim that Jesus existed is the same as the claim that he performed miracles or was resurrected. If you can't engage in a conversation without fabricating caricatures out of thin air, I don't really see what the point is.

Using fallible human language and just "inspiring" them, while expecting them to all agree in any reasonable sense is not only incompetent but idiotic, I'd say

Again, that's an assertion, not a demonstration.

 

[cvanwey]

I've got a bookcase of potential discussion material potential regarding the Resurrection of Christ, but I think engaging any of it is a moot point or will simply fall on deaf ears if any of the following 4 conditions exists between one interlocutor and the other:

1) They each have a different understanding about how epistemology is involved within the Christian faith. [This would involve the field of 'Biblical Epistemology'].

2) They each have a different understanding about what Justification 'is' and by which approach or framework of epistemology, if any, is the appropriate one to apply to reach a personal acceptance of some form of attempted justification for any epistemic endeavor. (It could be that some idiot, like myself, actually thinks that at least some of the process of 'justification' is and essentially has to be recognized as different in nature between the way anyone epistemically engages science and/or logic than it is when they may engage Christianity. [This involves the field of Formal Epistemology ... of various kinds ... ]

3) One person is receptive to God's Spirit and the other, honestly, isn't for various personal reasons.

4) Both interlocutors realize that much of what they'd potentially talk about is either material that one of them thinks is utterly irrelevant (i.e. you) or has already been run over multiple times and can only have about as much remaining depth as would a poor ol' skunk lying long deceased on the road (i.e. me).

I can't help but to wonder...

Would a teacher of history say this to their student, as a pre-qualifier, prior to teaching them? Again, the fundamental Christian claim is that Jesus rose from His tomb. If He existed, He either did or He didn't. Pretty simple stuff here.

How do [you] know He rose from the dead? What evidence convinced you, which may also be intriguing for me as well? Are you afraid that the conclusion that you have drawn, may fall under scrutiny?

Let me lay it out for you before-hand... I will accept that He was born, preached, and was crucified. What evidence lends to the 'fact' He rose from the dead?

Let's also imagine you are the history teacher, tell the story of Jesus, I then raise my hand, and ask why [you] believe the assertion to be true?

Again, when watching a movie, 'based on actual events', how do we determine embellishment verses fact verse fictional additions? Again, thus far, I have no choice but to conclude such assertions in history, using my crude criteria in post #303.

 

[muichimotsu]

I don't even know what you're claiming. You seem to simultaneously think that we have access to the reasoning processes of the earliest Christians and yet that all writings about that community are completely unreliable. Doesn't really make much sense in conjunction.

I said neither: we can deduce some aspects of their reasoning processes, but I never claimed absolute unreliability, only in regards to their miraculous claims

I would see differences between Paul and the Gospels if I ignored scholarship on Paul? I suppose I agree with that claim--ignoring scholarship is a good way to misinterpret things.

Some similarities hardly means they're remotely the same in essence. Did Paul directly experience Jesus? No, which already renders it vastly different in particular qualities

Please quote where I said that the claim that Jesus existed is the same as the claim that he performed miracles or was resurrected. If you can't engage in a conversation without fabricating caricatures out of thin air, I don't really see what the point is.

I said seemingly, first off, and I didn't necessarily attribute those claims to you, but merely what it appeared to be. If you don't believe that, just say so, you don't have to assume I'm caricaturing when I add qualifiers into a sentence implying a provisional assessment

Again, that's an assertion, not a demonstration.

If my standards are so insufficient, what are yours as to whether a deity is actually incompetent in spreading their message?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I can't help but to wonder...

Would a teacher of history say this to their student, as a pre-qualifier, prior to teaching them?

Actually, these days, a teacher of History just might say at least a few things along the lines of what I've been saying, especially if she has a degree in Social Science Education and is philosophically inclined (or also educated in that field as well), as well as attuned to Diversity issues among people groups, all of which includes a familiarity with the sub-field of Multi-Cultural studies which, then too, includes recognizing diverse modes of epistemology. Not that the West doesn't already have its share of diversity within the field of Epistemology ... all of which then feed into the process of going round and round and round through the Hermeneutic Circle which is part and parcel of doing just about anything that deals with the pesky area of "human thought and interpretation."

Again, the fundamental Christian claim is that Jesus rose from His tomb. If He existed, He either did or He didn't. Pretty simple stuff here.

The recognition about the fact is simple; the actual praxis (i.e. theory and practice) by which we might come to realize that Jesus either did or did not rise form the dead most definitely ISN'T simple. It's as simple as that.

How do [you] know He rose from the dead? What evidence convinced you, which may also be intriguing for me as well? Are you afraid that the conclusion that you have drawn, may fall under scrutiny?

I don't "know" that He did; and neither do you know that He didn't. We're both in the same epistemic and time worn situation here, cvanwey, one that requires more discernment than what the typical skeptic these days is willing to promote. If we're willing--and some folks aren't willing--we have to discern the difference between Christian Epistemology from that of either the kind of epistemology we might use in ascertaining historical 'facts' of the past, or that which can be involved in a variety of scientific inquiries and technological fabrication.

Let me lay it out for you before-hand... I will accept that He was born, preached, and was crucified. What evidence lends to the 'fact' He rose from the dead?

I don't know about other Christians, but when I think about the Resurrection of Christ, I'm 'believing it' not just through beholding, alone, conceptually, the idea of Jesus popping out of an Empty Tomb, as if I was merely holding a Empty Tomb snow-globe in my hand, pondering the supposed magic of it all. NO, it's more of an aesthetic response that I have as I journey through a myriad of different conceptual points, all of which, through time, have come to form in my mind something like a consolidated, semi-coherent picture. But there is no clear foundation; there is no clear process. It more like coming to terms with the Mona-Lisa than it is with jumping out of an airplane and contemplating whether or not I'm going to deploy my parachute.

Let's also imagine you are the history teacher, tell the story of Jesus, I then raise my hand, and ask why [you] believe the assertion to be true?

"What epistemology do you subscribe to?", I would ask the student? And why?

Again, when watching a movie, 'based on actual events', how do we determine embellishment verses fact verse fictional additions? Again, thus far, I have no choice but to conclude such assertions in history, using my crude criteria in post #303.

I just got done reading a nice book in the Philosophy of History and historical historiography ...

 

[muichimotsu]

The recognition about the fact is simple; the actual praxis (i.e. theory and practice) by which we might come to realize that Jesus either did or did not rise form the dead most definitely ISN'T simple. It's as simple as that.

Teh fact is not so easily recognized necessarily, that's the problem fundamentally. And the lack of substantive facts to back up the claim that Jesus' resurrection is even the best explanation given the general framework for the story seems to suggest not concluding it is true.

I don't "know" that He did; and neither do you know that He didn't. We're both in the same epistemic and time worn situation here, cvanwey, one that requires more discernment than what the typical skeptic these days is willing to promote. If we're willing--and some folks aren't willing--we have to discern the difference between Christian Epistemology from that of either the kind of epistemology we might use in ascertaining historical 'facts' of the past, or that which can be involved in a variety of scientific inquiries and technological fabrication.

Not being convinced of the claims made by Christians is not the same as making the opposite claim in terms of being absolutely certain of the contrary

I'm not claiming Jesus didn't resurrect, and I'm pretty sure cvanwey isn't either, we're not convinced by the claims made by those who have the burden of proof epistemologically to support it with evidence

I don't know about other Christians, but when I think about the Resurrection of Christ, I'm 'believing it' not just through beholding, alone, conceptually, the idea of Jesus popping out of an Empty Tomb, as if I was merely holding a Empty Tomb snow-globe in my hand, pondering the supposed magic of it all. NO, it's more of an aesthetic response that I have as I journey through a myriad of different conceptual points, all of which, through time, have come to form in my mind something like a consolidated, semi-coherent picture. But there is not clear foundation; there is no clear process. It more like coming to terms with the Mona-Lisa than it is with jumping out of an airplane and contemplating whether or not I'm going to deploy my parachute.

Sounds to me that it's more an emotionally satisfying scenario rather than anything you'd actually have reason to believe happened concretely, which is like me finding it comforting that rebirth is the reality, but I'm realistically not convinced that such a thing is the case anymore than heaven/hell as described in Christianity or Islam

 

[Silmarien]

I said neither: we can deduce some aspects of their reasoning processes, but I never claimed absolute unreliability, only in regards to their miraculous claims

You were flirting with fullblown Mythicism several posts ago, so your backpedaling is not exactly convincing.

Some similarities hardly means they're remotely the same in essence. Did Paul directly experience Jesus? No, which already renders it vastly different in particular qualities

How so? Unless you believe that eyewitnesses wrote the Gospels (which you all but denied in the last post), the fact that Paul was not there either doesn't render it different in any quality whatsoever.

I said seemingly, first off, and I didn't necessarily attribute those claims to you, but merely what it appeared to be. If you don't believe that, just say so, you don't have to assume I'm caricaturing when I add qualifiers into a sentence implying a provisional assessment

Yes, you attributed those claims to me, despite there being no evidence whatsoever that I had made them. Your "provisional assessment" is based on absolutely nothing.

If my standards are so insufficient, what are yours as to whether a deity is actually incompetent in spreading their message?

You're the one making a claim, not me. Defend it or retract it.

 

[muichimotsu]

You were flirting with fullblown Mythicism several posts ago, so your backpedaling is not exactly convincing.

So positing it as a possibility is suddenly being convinced that it's true in any certain terms now?

How so? Unless you believe that eyewitnesses wrote the Gospels (which you all but denied in the last post), the fact that Paul was not there either doesn't render it different in any quality whatsoever.

The quality therein means they're less reliable, to say nothing of lack of corroborating independent sources for the events they claim. Merely agreeing that there were historical locations and people referenced only gives them so much credence in terms of general things that happened rather than specific miracles

Yes, you attributed those claims to me, despite there being no evidence whatsoever that I had made them. Your "provisional assessment" is based on absolutely nothing.

Then qualify whether you acknowledge that all historical events are equally valid in being reported or not

You're the one making a claim, not me. Defend it or retract it.

If you believe in God, it's your burden to make claims regarding whether it actually conveys a message properly (or if it even really matters). I'm not making claims about God as if it's reality, only as people have described it, big difference

 

[Resha Caner]

You and @Resha Caner baffle me, quite frankly.

What do you plan to do about that?

I just got done reading a nice book in the Philosophy of History and historical historiography ...

Do tell.

 

[Silmarien]

So positing it as a possibility is suddenly being convinced that it's true in any certain terms now?

That isn't what "flirting" means. Even positing it as a possibility, however, precludes you from later backpedaling and insisting that you only consider miraculous claims unreliable.

The quality therein means they're less reliable, to say nothing of lack of corroborating independent sources for the events they claim. Merely agreeing that there were historical locations and people referenced only gives them so much credence in terms of general things that happened rather than specific miracles

Who cares? The question was whether Paul was behaving in a reasonable fashion, not whether the Gospels are reliable. Assuming that you're even talking about the Gospels at all, since it's not exactly clear.

Then qualify whether you acknowledge that all historical events are equally valid in being reported or not

I think you mean that historical claims are not equally valid, but I shouldn't need to qualify something as basic as that. You don't get to act atrociously, make stupid assumptions based on no evidence, and then say that it's my fault for not specifically stating what anyone with a lick of common sense would take for granted.

If you believe in God, it's your burden to make claims regarding whether it actually conveys a message properly (or if it even really matters). I'm not making claims about God as if it's reality, only as people have described it, big difference

No, I have no burden to make any claim whatsoever. The burden of proof only assigns after someone has already made a claim, which is what you have done. It doesn't matter that you don't believe that God exists--after all, if someone were to make a claim about characterization in Paradise Lost or Dante's Inferno, they would need to defend it also.

 

[muichimotsu]

That isn't what "flirting" means. Even positing it as a possibility, however, precludes you from later backpedaling and insisting that you only consider miraculous claims unreliable.

Forgive me for not committing to one hypothesis in regards to someone who's only influential because of zealous people being convinced he was great because he did stuff that supposedly was never done before (except resurrection narratives long predate Xianity)

Who cares? The question was whether Paul was behaving in a reasonable fashion, not whether the Gospels are reliable. Assuming that you're even talking about the Gospels at all, since it's not exactly clear.

We could talk about either and the problem remains that they're not written with historical accuracy in mind so much as conveying the narrative (because we have demonstrable contradictions even if we're just talking historical aspects of it, like the emperor at the time as well as supposedly where Jesus' hometown and a few other points). Paul was perhaps more systematic by contrast, but that's because it was him writing the letters rather than people talking after the fact about this miraculous guy Jesus and all the stuff he did, like Luke and Mark supposedly did by design (taking accounts and compiling them into a cogent story of sorts)

I think you mean that historical claims are not equally valid, but I shouldn't need to qualify something as basic as that. You don't get to act atrociously, make stupid assumptions based on no evidence, and then say that it's my fault for not specifically stating what anyone with a lick of common sense would take for granted.

If the nature of the claims matters, then why would anyone take the resurrection claims seriously and try to fit things to make it more compelling rather than considering that people dying for this belief doesn't make it more likely (one of the most common appeals to say the resurrection must have happened)

No, I have no burden to make any claim whatsoever. The burden of proof only assigns after someone has already made a claim, which is what you have done. It doesn't matter that you don't believe that God exists--after all, if someone were to make a claim about characterization in Paradise Lost or Dante's Inferno, they would need to defend it also.

Except your 2 examples are demonstrably literature, while the resurrection is spoken of as if it's not a literary structure, but historical fact

 

[Silmarien]

Forgive me for not committing to one hypothesis in regards to someone who's only influential because of zealous people being convinced he was great because he did stuff that supposedly was never done before (except resurrection narratives long predate Xianity)

"Zealous people?" Don't you think that's more than a little derogatory?

We could talk about either and the problem remains that they're not written with historical accuracy in mind so much as conveying the narrative (because we have demonstrable contradictions even if we're just talking historical aspects of it, like the emperor at the time as well as supposedly where Jesus' hometown and a few other points). Paul was perhaps more systematic by contrast, but that's because it was him writing the letters rather than people talking after the fact about this miraculous guy Jesus and all the stuff he did, like Luke and Mark supposedly did by design (taking accounts and compiling them into a cogent story of sorts)

What demonstrable contradiction about the emperor at the time? Augustus is mentioned in connection to the nativity story, Tiberius in connection to John the Baptist, and Claudius in Acts. The dates are correct for all three of these.

If the nature of the claims matters, then why would anyone take the resurrection claims seriously and try to fit things to make it more compelling rather than considering that people dying for this belief doesn't make it more likely (one of the most common appeals to say the resurrection must have happened)

There are several different questions there. I would say that the evidence for the Resurrection checks out insofar as there's nothing in the historical record that would indicate that it's a false claim. Obviously if you don't think this sort of thing is possible to begin with, that would be a reason to discount it, but you can accept it without having to twist the historical evidence.

I don't think it must have happened for the history to make sense, though.

Except your 2 examples are demonstrably literature, while the resurrection is spoken of as if it's not a literary structure, but historical fact

We weren't talking about the Resurrection. We were talking about your claim that God is incompetent. There are tons of fictional characters I think are incompetent, and the fact that they're fictional doesn't mean I wouldn't have to substantiate the claim that they were incompetent if I saw the need to get into an argument over it.

 

[muichimotsu]

"Zealous people?" Don't you think that's more than a little derogatory?

Should I just go with martyrs? Generally how they're characterized in terms of making the resurrection seem compelling by association

What demonstrable contradiction about the emperor at the time? Augustus is mentioned in connection to the nativity story, Tiberius in connection to John the Baptist, and Claudius in Acts. The dates are correct for all three of these.

I'm referring to the census of Qurinius in Luke, contradictory to historical evidence of Herod's time of rule also referenced in those events

There are several different questions there. I would say that the evidence for the Resurrection checks out insofar as there's nothing in the historical record that would indicate that it's a false claim. Obviously if you don't think this sort of thing is possible to begin with, that would be a reason to discount it, but you can accept it without having to twist the historical evidence.

I don't think it must have happened for the history to make sense, though.

I'm not claiming they were lying, I'm arguing it's more likely they were mistaken and that it's not reasonable to conclude they were just right. The possibility being there still doesn't grant credence to the explanation given in the gospels as to the origin of it (Jesus being God). I'm a fantasy fan in general, I could imagine some paranormal but nonetheless scientific explanation of how someone could come back from the dead; heck, I'd sooner believe aliens.

Of course it doesn't have to have happened for the history to make sense, because what little history we have just suggests Jesus was an itinerant apocalyptic rabbi and was crucified, those are unremarkable claims

We weren't talking about the Resurrection. We were talking about your claim that God is incompetent. There are tons of fictional characters I think are incompetent, and the fact that they're fictional doesn't mean I wouldn't have to substantiate the claim that they were incompetent if I saw the need to get into an argument over it.

In context of the stories, you can demonstrate the incompetence: God is effectively defined in such a way by believers and the Bible's own text that it's basically immune to genuine scrutiny, that's my problem in terms of what I'd argue supports theological noncognitivism and related positions as valid

 

[Silmarien]

Should I just go with martyrs? Generally how they're characterized in terms of making the resurrection seem compelling by association

Only martyrs are convinced that Jesus is great? How do you figure that?

I'm referring to the census of Qurinius in Luke, contradictory to historical evidence of Herod's time of rule also referenced in those events

Quirinius was not an emperor. I suggest you at least research your contradictions before stating them, because it is simply false that the Gospels were incorrect concerning who was emperor at the time. This is incredibly irresponsible.

I'm not claiming they were lying, I'm arguing it's more likely they were mistaken and that it's not reasonable to conclude they were just right. The possibility being there still doesn't grant credence to the explanation given in the gospels as to the origin of it (Jesus being God). I'm a fantasy fan in general, I could imagine some paranormal but nonetheless scientific explanation of how someone could come back from the dead; heck, I'd sooner believe aliens.

You're welcome to believe that the apostles were mistaken. If you make the claim that it is unreasonable for anyone to conclude that they were correct, however, you are making an assertion and must assume a burden of proof. You can't simply declare that whatever you believe is reasonable and whatever anyone else believes is unreasonable. That's irrational.

In context of the stories, you can demonstrate the incompetence: God is effectively defined in such a way by believers and the Bible's own text that it's basically immune to genuine scrutiny, that's my problem in terms of what I'd argue supports theological noncognitivism and related positions as valid

How is that demonstrating incompetence? You're just begging the question now and saying that God is defined in the Bible as incompetent. I might as well say that Voldemort is incompetent in Harry Potter because that's just the way J.K. Rowling wrote it. That's not an explanation.

 

[muichimotsu]

Only martyrs are convinced that Jesus is great? How do you figure that?

Not remotely what I said: the martyrdom of early believers is used to justify the idea that the resurrection is more likely to have happened than not

Quirinius was not an emperor. I suggest you at least research your contradictions before stating them, because it is simply false that the Gospels were incorrect concerning who was emperor at the time. This is incredibly irresponsible.

I didn't say Quirinius was an emperor, you're insinuating that from a prior context which I didn't reference Quirinius as an emperor in the first place, I'm aware he was a lower level official relatively speaking.

The contradiction is there in regards the rulers that are historically demonstrated by other sources, do you deny this?

You're welcome to believe that the apostles were mistaken. If you make the claim that it is unreasonable for anyone to conclude that they were correct, however, you are making an assertion and must assume a burden of proof. You can't simply declare that whatever you believe is reasonable and whatever anyone else believes is unreasonable. That's irrational.

I'm not asserting that, I'm holding them to strict standards I'd apply to myself and be intellectually honest about it. I'm not going to just assume or even conclude someone is correct when they're affirming things that require more than just testimonial evidence to be taken seriously in the first place. Someone saying they have a pet dog is pretty mundane, but someone saying aliens abducted them or they had some mystical experience with a cucumber god is pretty different and requires more than just their saying it happened. Or are you going to take them at their word too?

How is that demonstrating incompetence? You're just begging the question now and saying that God is defined in the Bible as incompetent. I might as well say that Voldemort is incompetent in Harry Potter because that's just the way J.K. Rowling wrote it. That's not an explanation.

No, I'm saying God as defined in the Bible is contradictory, the incompetence is resultant from people claiming otherwise and selectively ignoring the contradictions in God's behavior (never changes for one glaring example that's pretty much wrong as early as Genesis)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do tell.

... for you, what with your having a degree in Historical Research and all, there isn't much to tell!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Teh fact is not so easily recognized necessarily, that's the problem fundamentally. And the lack of substantive facts to back up the claim that Jesus' resurrection is even the best explanation given the general framework for the story seems to suggest not concluding it is true.

So, you're not agnostic about it, then?

Not being convinced of the claims made by Christians is not the same as making the opposite claim in terms of being absolutely certain of the contrary

Yes, I know that.

I'm not claiming Jesus didn't resurrect, and I'm pretty sure cvanwey isn't either, we're not convinced by the claims made by those who have the burden of proof epistemologically to support it with evidence

Ok. And so? You're not convinced by various Christian arguments. I get that. And I'm not convinced that I have some kind of epistemological 'burden of proof' to demonstrate otherwise to concerned skeptics and atheists, especially NOT where any kind of social or political obligation is being imputed upon me by other individuals. So, being that you guys [i.e. you skeptics] aren't convinced, what is it that you'd like for us Christians to realize about this state of the matter, such as it stands in various social contexts in this new decade? Surely, all of this constant badgering of Christians doesn't come by some kind of commitment to a New-Skeptical ideological warfare against Christianity, right? It's just that you like to discuss this "Christianity stuff" and what you think are it's shortcomings, right?

Sounds to me that it's more an emotionally satisfying scenario rather than anything you'd actually have reason to believe happened concretely, which is like me finding it comforting that rebirth is the reality, but I'm realistically not convinced that such a thing is the case anymore than heaven/hell as described in Christianity or Islam

It would only be an "emotionally satisfying scenario" if it were actually an emotionally satisfying scenario for me, in some very full sense of satisfaction [but it's not ...] (despite whatever you think being satisfied is and as to what it might mean for you in all of this), and if I perceived my Christian faith to be 'merely' an aesthetic response. However, I've never claimed that I think my faith is 'merely' an aesthetic response, even though I've already acknowledged elsewhere that such a response does play some significant part in my own cognitive processes pertaining to how I appropriate and support of my Christian faith ... but it isn't the whole ball of wax. [Such as in the link below to one of my older threads ...]

Aesthetic Arguments of Beauty and the Appeal of Christianity

I don't expect you to understand this, especially since I can't help how you perceive the way in which I may perceive and thereby conceive of the nature of my own faith. You may not like the way I do it; of course, this isn't to say that you've actually, at any time, genuinely engaged my point of view.

 

[Resha Caner]

... for you, what with your having a degree in Historical Research and all, there isn't much to tell!

That's no fun. There's always more for me to learn - that's what keeps it from getting boring.