For Skeptics Only: Would you ever accept the burden of proof for atheism?

[Mark Quayle]

I like the way you worded that, Mark. It might come in handy.

You make it sound unusual? Isn't it obvious that the Bible makes claims?

 

[Bradskii]

I didn't say that. A tiny-tiny minimal set of facts from the Bible is accepted by secular (non-believing) historians is accepted. But that's still enough to stitch together the truth of the Resurrection. Then it's all downhill from there.

This is what you said: "It's the one miracle that proves all the rest, including the inerrancy of Scripture."

You said that the bible is incapable of being wrong. Because the resurrection is true. And we know that it's true because...it's in the bible. Therefore, the resurrection proves '...the innerancy of the bible'. That has the smallest radius of any circular argument I have ever seen.

Your 'proof' that Jesus actually said what He is reported to have said is that 'it's in the bible'. If that is the case, then there's not much to discuss regarding proof. 'Objective facts' are simply anything found in scripture.

End of discussion, I guess. Unless there's anything else..?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Good grief. I've never seen the argument written out before so blatantly. We all make reference to it now and then. But only when someone has alluded to it. But you've actually just said that everything that the bible says must be true because the story of the resurrection is true. And we know that the resurrection is true because the bible tells us.

Please tell me this is satire.

You don't understand propositional logic? I think he is saying that if the resurrection is true, then we can know the rest of it is true. He, for one, (and I too) believes the resurrection happened.

If I didn't know better, I'd think you reject the Bible as reliable, because, uh well, because it is the Bible, which is unreliable. Tell me this isn't a joke.

 

[Paulomycin]

This is what you said: "It's the one miracle that proves all the rest, including the inerrancy of Scripture."

Yes. All we need is to prove one miracle to prove the Bible is incapable of being wrong. Yeah.

You said that the bible is incapable of being wrong. Because the resurrection is true. And we know that it's true because...it's in the bible. Therefore, the resurrection proves '...the innerancy of the bible'. That has the smallest radius of any circular argument I have ever seen.

No. Secular unbelieving scholars do not claim the Bible is inerrent. They rate the minimal facts of the resurrection based on rigorous historical criteria.

Your 'proof' that Jesus actually said what He is reported to have said is that 'it's in the bible'. If that is the case, then there's not much to discuss regarding proof. 'Objective facts' are simply anything found in scripture.

End of discussion, I guess. Unless there's anything else..?

You're only proving that your priority of doubt is twisting the step-by-step process I'm discussing. I'm getting too close for your comfort and you're not able to tolerate any further.

 

[Paulomycin]

Make this a reasonable discussion and it might be fun.

We having fun yet?

 

[Bradskii]

You don't understand propositional logic? I think he is saying that if the resurrection is true, then we can know the rest of it is true. He, for one, (and I too) believes the resurrection happened. He said the proof of the resurrection is proof that the rest is true. He had not yet shown the proof of the resurrection, (unless I didn't see a post where he did).

If I didn't know better, I'd think you reject the Bible as reliable, because, uh well, because it is the Bible, which is unreliable. Tell me this isn't a joke.

C'mon, Mark.
1. The bible tells us that the resurrection is true.
2. The resurrection tells us that the bible is innerant.

Ipso facto, that proves that everything that Jesus said is verbatum.

That is literally the worst argument I have seen in my short time on this forum. Bar none.

 

[Paulomycin]

C'mon, Mark.
1. The bible tells us that the resurrection is true.
2. The resurrection tells us that the bible is innerant.

Ipso facto, that proves that everything that Jesus said is verbatum.

That is literally the worst argument I have seen in my short time on this forum. Bar none.

I'm switching criteria from total inerrancy to highly selective historical scholarship. Please be fair and recognize that.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes. All we need is to prove one miracle to prove the Bible is incapable of being wrong. Yeah.

So nothing else..?

 

[Bradskii]

I'm switching criteria from total inerrancy to highly selective historical scholarship. Please be fair and recognize that.

I don't know what you mean. Can you please expand on that.

 

[Paulomycin]

So nothing else..?

I don't know what you mean. Can you please expand on that.

It's called the "Minimal Facts Argument" for the Resurrection. Do you wanna look it up, or do you want to read my summary of it so you can twist it some more?

 

[Bradskii]

You make it sound unusual? Isn't it obvious that the Bible makes claims?

Indeed it does. But there is a difference between what is stated as an objective fact and what is claimed to be so.

 

[Bradskii]

It's called the "Minimal Facts Argument" for the Resurrection. Do you wanna look it up, or do you want to read my summary of it so you can twist it some more?

I haven't twisted anything as yet as I don't know what you mean by it in relation to the innerancy of the bible. Can you please expand on it?

 

[Paulomycin]

Indeed it does. But there is a difference between what is stated as an objective fact and what is claimed to be so.

And that's what historians are trained to do. Historians do not accept a historical testimony at face value. A Historian will not accept what the Quran says just because the Quran says it. It's cute to believe it if you’re Muslim, but if you are not – if you are objective – you will have to go to where the evidence points you.

The historian’s job is much like that of a detective. A detective assesses a crime scene. In doing so, the detective looks for eyewitnesses. One person may have seen the crime from one area. Another may have seen the crime from another angle. The more eyewitnesses, the more certain the detective can be that the event took place in a particular fashion. The same is true for the historian.

As it relates to Jesus, one must ask whether there are multiple independent testimonies relating Jesus. The answer is yes.

 

[Mark Quayle]

C'mon, Mark.
1. The bible tells us that the resurrection is true.
2. The resurrection tells us that the bible is innerant.

Ipso facto, that proves that everything that Jesus said is verbatum.

That is literally the worst argument I have seen in my short time on this forum. Bar none.

That was not his whole argument. He did, or does, not rely on the witness of the Bible alone, concerning the resurrection.

 

[Paulomycin]

I haven't twisted anything as yet as I don't know what you mean by it in relation to the innerancy of the bible. Can you please expand on it?

First skeptical historians,
then you stitch the facts together.

If, on that basis alone Jesus is raised, then everything He said about Himself is true, including His claims of orthodox Judaism, a literal Noah, Cain and Abel, etc. The whole bit.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Indeed it does. But there is a difference between what is stated as an objective fact and what is claimed to be so.

Yes ...so?

 

[Bradskii]

That was not his whole argument. He did, or does, not rely on the witness of the Bible alone, concerning the resurrection.

Even then it becomes self fullfilling. If the resurrection, then bible innerancy. So we can then use the bible to prove the resurrection. And even more incredible, we must then accept as verbatum all the quotes attributed to Jesus.

 

[Paulomycin]

I haven't twisted anything as yet as I don't know what you mean by it in relation to the innerancy of the bible. Can you please expand on it?

For secular historians, the earliest primary sources come from 1 Corinthians 15 and Galatians 1 and 2. These books of the biblical canon are granted by a majority of critical scholars in the relevant fields and across the religious spectrum as written by Paul.

Within 1 Corinthians specifically, it contains what is referred to as an Apostle creed (1 Cor. 15:3-8). Written by Paul approximately 55 AD or +25 years after the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ which can be assigned the date of 30 AD. This is considered by scholars to be one of the smallest chronological gaps from the writings of a historical event to the actual event itself when compared to other ancient literature. Rarely is the development of doctrine able to be traced so close to the actual day of formulation.

Scholars (liberal and conservative) generally admit that Paul received the creed around 35 AD, just +5 or five years after 30 AD. There is also widespread agreement that the actual formation of the teachings about the creed go back even earlier formulated within as little as a year to a few months after the resurrection.

The Pauline resurrection appearances creed outlined in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 describes Jesus' resurrection appearances. Listing Cephas and the twelve, including Peter and James, Jesus also appeared to groups of people and lastly Paul.

(continued. . .)

 

[Bradskii]

First skeptical historians,
then you stitch the facts together.

If, on that basis alone Jesus is raised, then everything He said about Himself is true, including His claims of orthodox Judaism, a literal Noah, Cain and Abel, etc. The whole bit.

So you are again saying that if the resurrection is true then the bible is inerrant. And so everything that Jesus is reported to have said we must accept as verbatum.

That's your proof that 'Jesus said X'? A simple yeah or nay here will suffice.

 

[Paulomycin]

Can you please expand on it?

Continued. . .

Proper historiography of the resurrection of Christ is critical in forming a valid hypothesis. The chief (if not the only) historical data that can be utilized from exegesis according to the minimal facts method are those that pass two critical tests:

1. The multiple attestation or multiple evidences criteria. Each historical fact or data must be multiply attested to by normal means, such as authenticity for example, preferably from more than one angle.
2. Consensus of scholarship criteria. The majority of critical biblical and specifically New Testament scholars (Atheist, Agnostic, Christian and Jew) concede the probability of the particular historical saying or event being considered.[7]

Through exegesis and two tests historical facts are determined surrounding the resurrection of Christ. Dr. Gary Habermas has concluded that six core historical facts emerge after applying this rigorous academic methodology.

1. Jesus died by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate.
2. Jesus' tomb was empty.
3. Jesus' disciples believed what they saw was the risen Jesus.
4. The skeptic and persecutor of Christians, Paul, was converted to Christianity.
5. The skeptic James was converted to Christianity.
6. Early Christian belief and proclamation of the resurrection of Christ showing its centrality to Christianity.[8]

Fact (2) regarding the empty tomb, is accepted by approximately 75% of scholars. The minimal facts satisfy the multiple attestation criteria fully, and the consensus criteria ranges from 75% to as high as 95% agreement. The list may also be presented in a different form, that is usually;

1. Jesus died by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate.
2. Jesus' disciples believed what they saw was the risen Jesus.
3. The skeptic and persecutor of Christians, Paul, was converted to Christianity.

In either presentation of the minimal facts they are considered historical bedrock which a strong resurrection hypothesis can be built upon. During this conclusive process the hypothesis articulated (what can be called historiography) must comply with the elements of a historical method of investigating past events better and fuller than other competing hypotheses.