Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If you had said disputed, I would agree with you. But there are a large number of "legit" NT historians who find the resurrection probable. Unless, of course, you define "legit" as being those who do not.
When it comes to people rising from the dead, the least likely explanation, is a miracle and all sorts of other (more likely explanations) will be given more weight.I have already agreed with you on this. But no matter how much weight is given to them; if they do not stand up to scrutiny they must be rejected.
God Bless
Jax
When i say legit, i am referring to historians who use the historical method, which is what historians are supposed to do. Historians are tasked wih determining what likely happened in the past and since miracles by nature, are the least probable explanation of events, no historian uses the historical method to verify the ressurrection, they may believe it on faith though.
When i say legit, i am referring to historians who use the historical metho
Historians are tasked wih determining what likely happened in the past and since miracles by nature, are the least probable explanation of events,
no historian uses the historical method to verify the ressurrection, they may believe it on faith though.
So am I.
I have already dealt with this. Could you at least engage with my response rather than just repeating the same mantra?
Nor can they "verify" the deeds of any of the other people I mentioned. which is why I used the word probable.
God Bless
Jax
How does a historian, using the historical method, determine the reserrection was probable.
And when you are talking about 2000 yar old text, with unknown authors, no original texts available,
even the existance of jesus and what he said is definitive, but q historian can determine certain things likely are credible.
Once again. by using the exact same methods they use to determine other ancient events are probable. If those methods lead to a conclusion that you do not care for; that does not invalidate the methods or the results.
The authors are known, your assertion to the contrary.
There are no original copies of the illiad or odyssey either. The earliest manuscript we have of either dates to nearly 900 years after the time Homer wrote them.
Compare that to about a 250 year gap for Jesus.
(I am talking about complete manuscripts. Thru fragments and quotes cited by the earlier church fathers we can go back to the early 2nd century}
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. But historians routinely determine some people and events are credible based on evidence more sparse and circumstantial than the events surrounding the resurrection.
Non-believers engage in a kind of "special pleading" . They say that the methods they deem acceptable to establish pretty much all of ancient history, are insufficient to deal with the resurrection. Why is that? And please, we have already dealt with the "extraordinay claims" thing.
God Bless
Jax
Once again. by using the exact same methods they use to determine other ancient events are probable. If those methods lead to a conclusion that you do not care for; that does not invalidate the methods or the results.
Name me a NT historian, who states, the resurrection is a historical fact.
The authors are known, your assertion to the contrary.
There are no original copies of the illiad or odyssey either. The earliest manuscript we have of either dates to nearly 900 years after the time Homer wrote them.
Compare that to about a 250 year gap for Jesus.
(I am talking about complete manuscripts. Thru fragments and quotes cited by the earlier church fathers we can go back to the early 2nd century}
Who are the authors of the four gospels that discuss Jesus' life?
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. But historians routinely determine some people and events are credible based on evidence more sparse and circumstantial than the events surrounding the resurrection.
Non-believers engage in a kind of "special pleading" . They say that the methods they deem acceptable to establish pretty much all of ancient history, are insufficient to deal with the resurrection. Why is that? And please, we have already dealt with the "extraordinay claims" thing.
God Bless
Jax
I suppose the glib reply would be "it doesn't surprise me that an Athiest would reject evidence of God found in the bible". However that is probably counter productive. Of all the faiths you mentioned only Christianity is based on a publicly viewed historical event. It is not rooted in self-proclaimed visions, philosophies, or mystical experiences. It is independent of what you or I might like to believe. Disprove the event and you disprove the faith. Its that simple.
Jesus rising from the dead cannot be verified either.No. Look at it this way. Islam is based on a vision that Mohammed claimed he had in the absence of any witnesses. Joseph Smith (LDS) made the same claim. Manchi also had a vision. Buddhism and Hinduism are rooted in mystical experience that can not be verified.
The claim of someone conquering lands and exploring seas cannot be compared to a claim of someone rising from the dead.Christianity is anchored to a specific moment in secular history like no other faith. You can not disprove someones claim to a vision. You can not disprove mystical experience. We claim that the resurrection was a historical event. Just like Caesar crossing the Rubicon, Alexander the Great conquering the known world, Homer writing the Iliad and the Odyssey, The existence of Plato ect. Further we claim that the same kinds of historical evidence used to prove these peoples existence can be used to prove the ressurrection to the same degree of probability.
So how does this make your claim any more credible than the others? Just because you can present a scenario where your religion could be proven false doesnt make it any more true!Christianity is based on a falsifiable claim. That a specific event occured at a specific time and place in history. Disproving this one claim would cause our entire faith to collapse. You can not say that of any other faith known to me.
Again; people conquer lands and explore seas all the time! Nobody has ever raised from the dead; only someone who already believes could see these claims as equalFurther we ask people to investigate this claim for themselves without special pleading. We say that the ressurrection meets the same historical criteria used to validate other ancient historical events.
God Bless
Jax
Lol we don't have "evidence more sparse and circumstantial" than the events surrounding the resurrection. We literally have no evidence for it and serious historians don't consider it true. Find me one who does and then get his opinions on the historicity of the events surrounding Buddha under the bodi tree. My guess is that suddenly the weight of evidence falls short.
Jesus rising from the dead cannot be verified either.
The claim of someone conquering lands and exploring seas cannot be compared to a claim of someone rising from the dead.
So how does this make your claim any more credible than the others? Just because you can present a scenario where your religion could be proven false doesnt make it any more true!
Again; people conquer lands and explore seas all the time! Nobody has ever raised from the dead; only someone who already believes could see these claims as equal
Had you bothered to actually read my posts you would know that i have never used the word "true". I admitted quite honestly that I could not "Prove" the resurrection. I do say that using the standard tools of historical research we can establish it as being as probable as any other ancient historical event.
One of us doesn't at least.You're actually way way off here, and my guess is you don't understand historical methods at all.
I am so glad you mentioned that. I thought you might come up with a tough one.Any other ancient historical event? How about Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon?
,Even if we get rid of Caesar's own writings of the event
I assume you mean Cicero here. Again I really must have a citation for this. IE where does Cicero identify himself as an enemy of Caesar? Or from which of his writings can you deduce it?even if we eliminate the writings of his enemies,
What contemporary accounts? There are 4 sources for the Rubicon account. All of them by writers 3 generations removed from the event and all of them based on only one alleged eye witness account, which we no longer have in any form.even if we eliminate any contemporary accounts,
We can if you would like, but that's all you have.even if we eliminate non-contemporary accounts,
No need. I'm perfectly willing to admit it exists.even if we eliminate any other possible physical evidence which may have celebrated the event....
Is that all?we can still be about 99.999% sure it still happened.
I'm dying to know. (well not really. Just trying to build the suspense.)Why is this?
Quite true but so what? We are comparing evidence for the event. Not what impact the event had on future events. (Unless of course you want to. In which case I would point out that the resurrrection had a much larger impact on history in general and even on the Roman empire.)Its almost impossible to explain the rest of Roman history without it
That's true. Caesar crossing the Rubicon is not at all necessary to the resurrectionThe same cannot be said of the resurrection.
.We don't have any of the evidence that we have for the crossing of the Rubicon except for "non contemporary" accounts..
If i were asking you to accept it on faith, you might have a point. But I'm notand those are all from believers, so they already fail the "smell test".
All kinds of reason actually.Furthermore, there's no reason to believe that Christianity couldn't have happened without the resurrection at all,
You really must learn to substantiate your assertionsbecause quite frankly, it did.
Do you ever bother to look at sources contrary to what you want to believe? Because if you had you never make such a foolish statement.It didn't actually spring up until well after anyone who could've witnessed the resurrection was dead.
Yep, you are the very first one. (Again not really, just giving you an egoSorry to be the one to break it to you,
You might be right but it aint happened yet.but sometimes it's better to just rip the band-aid off.
All kinds of reason actually.
Lol I'm not going to link citations to a guy who asks others to "google" for historians who verify his claims. Sorry...you get what you give.
Actually the more I thought about this morning I realized I was wrong about that. The Historical/Physical necessity was that Caesar place an Army in Italy. There were ways He could have done that with out crossing the Rubicon.But at least you see the point that we can't really explain the rest of Roman history without the crossing.
Since you insist there are all sorts of reasons we cannot explain christianity without the resurrection....give me one.
Since you insist there are all sorts of reasons we cannot explain christianity without the resurrection....give me one.
Evidence is a fact or argument that positively asserts the existence of something. In short, what about reality would be different between a god and no god? Does any predictable evidence occur? What about facts that overcome possible contradictions between reality and a god hypothesis? Stuff along that line is evidence.
Which is exactly why there isn't a lack of evidence for God, but that God is incommensurable with evidence.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?