It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A position is demonstrated, when the reasons for accepting it significantly outweigh the reasons for not accepting it... A finding of historicity is essentially a default position, meaning that we have no other reasonable way to account for the presence of a story in the text.
The accuser can meet the burden of proof by offering a certain quantum of evidence, which varies depending upon the nature of the accusation, for example-in the context of legal disputes-proof beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal charges or, for civil charges, proof that makes the truth of an accusation more probable than not.
If the scope and strength of an explanation are very great, so that it explains a large number and variety of facts, many more than any competing explanation, then it is likely to be true.
Third, evidence must always be affirmative. Negative evidence is a contradiction in terms--it is no evidence at all. The nonexistence of an object is established not by nonexistent evidence but by affirmative evidence of the fact that it did not, or could not exist.
Originally posted by bibledefender
reply to post by mkmasn
I think my opponent didn't even bother to read my opening statement. If what I have presented (my 5 facts) are indeed historical facts.
1.Jesus was indeed crucified and buried. This is attested to not only in the Gospels, but also by Paul and extra-biblical sources. And is admitted to as fact by almost all scholars.
2. Jesus' disciples believed that He rose from the dead and appeared to them. This is attested to by the fact that they willingly suffered for that message. That is accorded to in Acts, as well as extra-biblical sources and is also accepted as historical fact by nearly all scholars.
3. Paul, who was an enemy of the church suddenly changed. This is stated by Paul himself in a number of N.T. texts and have claimed to have seen the risen Christ. Usually people will convert on the word of someone else, that is a secondary source. But Paul's conversion is due to something that he himself experienced. That is a primary source. Again, almost all scholars accept this as fact.
4. James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, suddenly changed. This is attested to in the Bible, and extra-biblical source reports that he was a strict Jew. The Bible also testifies that after the Resurrection, James became a leader of the church.
5. The tomb was found empty. This is accepted by the majority of scholars also (Gary Habermas did a study on the state of scholarship to date. He reports that 75% of scholars agree that the tomb was indeed found empty).
If these are indeed historical facts (indeed my opponent concedes the first) then one, according to the guidelines of histiography must come up with a theory that explains the facts. And as stated in my opening statement, according to historians, the theory that best explains the facts is what probably happened. The Resurrection does exactly that, better than naturalistic theories. Indeed, my opponent didn't even bother to address ANYTHING that I had wrote. So, since the resurrection is the only theory that best explains the facts, it is, according to the agreed guidelines, is what probably happened. If that is true, then it is reasonable to believe that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead to vindicate his claims as well as establish the truth of Christianity.
Originally posted by mkmasn
Originally posted by bibledefender
reply to post by mkmasn
I think my opponent didn't even bother to read my opening statement. If what I have presented (my 5 facts) are indeed historical facts.
1.Jesus was indeed crucified and buried. This is attested to not only in the Gospels, but also by Paul and extra-biblical sources. And is admitted to as fact by almost all scholars.
2. Jesus' disciples believed that He rose from the dead and appeared to them. This is attested to by the fact that they willingly suffered for that message. That is accorded to in Acts, as well as extra-biblical sources and is also accepted as historical fact by nearly all scholars.
3. Paul, who was an enemy of the church suddenly changed. This is stated by Paul himself in a number of N.T. texts and have claimed to have seen the risen Christ. Usually people will convert on the word of someone else, that is a secondary source. But Paul's conversion is due to something that he himself experienced. That is a primary source. Again, almost all scholars accept this as fact.
4. James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, suddenly changed. This is attested to in the Bible, and extra-biblical source reports that he was a strict Jew. The Bible also testifies that after the Resurrection, James became a leader of the church.
5. The tomb was found empty. This is accepted by the majority of scholars also (Gary Habermas did a study on the state of scholarship to date. He reports that 75% of scholars agree that the tomb was indeed found empty).
If these are indeed historical facts (indeed my opponent concedes the first) then one, according to the guidelines of histiography must come up with a theory that explains the facts. And as stated in my opening statement, according to historians, the theory that best explains the facts is what probably happened. The Resurrection does exactly that, better than naturalistic theories. Indeed, my opponent didn't even bother to address ANYTHING that I had wrote. So, since the resurrection is the only theory that best explains the facts, it is, according to the agreed guidelines, is what probably happened. If that is true, then it is reasonable to believe that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead to vindicate his claims as well as establish the truth of Christianity.
Is that your turn 2? Let me use my second turn to sum up my theory, argument and facts:
Prove it.
A position is demonstrated, when the reasons for accepting it significantly outweigh the reasons for not accepting it... A finding of historicity is essentially a default position, meaning that we have no other reasonable way to account for the presence of a story in the text.
1.Jesus was indeed crucified and buried. This is attested to not only in the Gospels, but also by Paul and extra-biblical sources. And is admitted to as fact by almost all scholars.
2. Jesus' disciples believed that He rose from the dead and appeared to them. This is attested to by the fact that they willingly suffered for that message. That is accorded to in Acts, as well as extra-biblical sources and is also accepted as historical fact by nearly all scholars.
3. Paul, who was an enemy of the church suddenly changed. This is stated by Paul himself in a number of N.T. texts and have claimed to have seen the risen Christ. Usually people will convert on the word of someone else, that is a secondary source. But Paul's conversion is due to something that he himself experienced. That is a primary source. Again, almost all scholars accept this as fact.
5. The tomb was found empty. This is accepted by the majority of scholars also (*1) (Gary Habermas did a study on the state of scholarship to date. He reports that 75% of scholars agree that the tomb was indeed found empty). (*2)
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by mkmasn
Sorry, but I actually lol'd at this. Too funny.
Carry on.
Originally posted by mkmasn
(I want to go to bed)
Turn 3, 4: Prove it.
Turn 5: I move to have this debate thrown out, based on the fact 4 of the 5 arguments presented by my opponent are logical fallacies.
Appeal to Popularity, Ad Populum
The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.
5. The tomb was found empty. This is accepted by the majority of scholars also (*1) (Gary Habermas did a study on the state of scholarship to date. He reports that 75% of scholars agree that the tomb was indeed found empty). (*2)
*1 Appeal to Popularity, Ad Populum
*2 Biased Sample, Biased Statistics, Loaded Sample, Prejudiced Statistics, Prejudiced Sample, Loaded Statistics, Biased Induction, Biased Generalization
This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is biased or prejudiced in some manner.
Gary Robert Habermas (born 1950) is an American evangelical Christian apologist, historian, and philosopher of religion.edit on 16-8-2012 by mkmasn because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by bibledefender
reply to post by mkmasn
Sir, you never once challnged me on any of the five facts I have provided. I repeatedly gave reasons for those five facts, one of which you concede!
Jesus crucifixion - attested to in 4 gospels, Paul and extra biblical records.
The disciples sincerity- This is attested to by the fact that they willingly suffered for that message. That is accorded to in Acts, as well as extra-biblical sources.
Paul- by Paul himself in a number of N.T. texts and have claimed to have seen the risen Christ.
James- This is attested to in the Bible, and extra-biblical source reports that he was a strict Jew. The Bible also testifies that after the Resurrection, James became a leader of the church.
And I gave 6 reasons for the empty tomb! NEVER did I say that they are facts BECAUSE a majority of people believe it! Please point to where I said this. Second, concerning circumstantial evidence, people are sent to prison because of circumstantial evidence. Just because something might be circumstantial, doesn't mean it is unreliable.
So, I must say that it was a disappointment of a debate. I started this in good faith, believing that you actually did do research. However, you have shown this not to be the case in both instances.