The Resurrection of Jesus is historically probable

reply to post by mkmasn


That I did, repeatedly.

reply to post by bibledefender


Well, there's this one:
"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."

And this one:
"Well, I think I got the jist of what my opponent is doing. I seriously doubt he was ever interested in a serious debate. So far he has not even disproved one of the historical facts I have presented. Let alone produce a theory to explain the facts (which is one of the rules of the debate he agreed to). He stated that he read the bible, did all kinds of research. And yet, what is his refutation? Silence. "

And again, you had the burden of proof.

Actually sir, I think you should quit while you are ahead and stop embarrassing yourself. It is starting to sound like you are whinning.

reply to post by bibledefender


And this one in my thread:
"Poor first post on your side. It was a waste of a post. I think it would be incumbent upon you to provide E V I D E N C E. "

reply to post by bibledefender


And, just to show how nice I am, here's what you already said in the other thread:

Originally posted by bibledefender
I do agree that in the end it is a matter of faith. But it should be a reasonable faith, based upon evidence. I say faith because historical investigation, like criminal investigation, and even scientific investigation is based upon probability. Not absolute certainty.

Originally posted by mkmasn
reply to post by bibledefender

 

Well, there's this one:
"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."

And this one:
"Well, I think I got the jist of what my opponent is doing. I seriously doubt he was ever interested in a serious debate. So far he has not even disproved one of the historical facts I have presented. Let alone produce a theory to explain the facts (which is one of the rules of the debate he agreed to). He stated that he read the bible, did all kinds of research. And yet, what is his refutation? Silence. "

And again, you had the burden of proof.

edit on 16-8-2012 by mkmasn because: (no reason given)

Those are not attacks but simple observations! Really, how old are you that you cannot distinguish that from a genuine ad hominem? And I gave my reasons (my evidence) and the methodology (even quoting historians). repeatedly. I repeatedly gave the reasons for those facts. With no refutation from you.

Originally posted by mkmasn
reply to post by bibledefender

 

And, just to show how nice I am, here's what you already said in the other thread:

Originally posted by bibledefender
I do agree that in the end it is a matter of faith. But it should be a reasonable faith, based upon evidence. I say faith because historical investigation, like criminal investigation, and even scientific investigation is based upon probability. Not absolute certainty.

And? I even stated that in my opening statement!!!! Again, this is why I seriously doubt that you even read anything I have said. That you were not interested in a debate (even though you agreed, and agreed upon the rules of the debate). That is why I believe you are being intellectually dishonest. Poor form sir.

reply to post by bibledefender


Faith is not about believing what you have read or heard.
Faith is knowing that God is doing everything and all is well.

reply to post by bibledefender


I agreed to have a debate in the other thread., not in this one.

But that's beside the point. And frankly, I'm getting tired of this. It was funny at first, but it's just annoying now. You came into a thread about Buddhism and pushed a debate on me and another member, and then won't admit to your fallacies.

Just remember, there was only a 1/3 chance Jesus was resurrected:

1) Jesus existed and was resurrected
2) Jesus existed and wasn't resurrected
3) Jesus never existed

And with that ladies and gentlemen I guess our "debate" is concluded

So, now it's an open thread, and the community can comment.

In fairness, the "Five Facts" strategy is William Lane Craig's set piece, although you have adapted it a bit and so arguably have made it your own. However, you have the same problems that Craig has, and you will notice that for all the YouTube videos of debates where Craig has trotted this thing out, the question remains open.

That's because there are problems with the strategy. Broadly, these problems fall into three categories:

The five facts themselves are disputable.

There are lively competing theories to explain them even if they are true.

Your choices among criteria by which credibility is assessed are disputable, even within historiograpnic scholarship.

The latter is especially urgent, since your recital of accepted criteria omits a foundational element of modern evidentiary interpretation: whether the events relied upon in the proposed explanation are credible in themselves. A truly dead man returned to life is not especially credible in itself.

Of the competing theories, the one I think is strongest is the real-life ghost story. We have nearly contemporary Hellenistic stories of ghosts, so the genre exists at the time in question. As such, the genre can either shape the survivors' interpretation of their grief- and guilt-ridden experience, or even easier, simply provide an additional tale of Jesus to be appended onto antholoiges of other Jesus stories compiled about two generations after his death.

And, finally, there are the five kind-of facts.

The crucifixion and burial are widely believed, but even the simplest detail of this specific execution, like what year, is disputed.

There is no contemporary evidence, none, that reports so much as a single person who met Jesus in the flesh being killed after refusing an offer to recant belief in Jesus' resurrection.

Paul's supposed "conversion" consists of an epiphany that the views of those whom he was persecuting fit perfectly with what Paul, a Pharisee, already believed about the end of days and a possible role that righteous Gentiles might play in that.

The majority of Christians disbelive that James was Jesus' brother. That aside, one brother taking over a brutally martyred brother's movement is not evidence that the dead brother is no longer dead.

Finally, the tomb isn't quite empty, is it? There seem to be one or two unidentified men (or angels - but angels don't loom so large in historical explanations) hanging around in the wee hours of the morning giving helpful advice to whoever might stop by with questions.

So, not to put too fine a point on it, but imagine you go to your best friend's tomb. It is desecrated, but there's a guy there, whom you've never met before, who tells you not to worry, because your friend decided overnight to get up and leave. And that's good enough for you.

Sure it is.

reply to post by bibledefender


It is certainly an interesting discussion to be had. However, for my part, my position is that resurrection is only possible if it was a case of narcolepsy or coma or similar. That would provide medical and scientific fact rather than speculation.

Simply put, dead people don't get up and walk around unless they weren't really dead in the first place.

Originally posted by eight bits

And with that ladies and gentlemen I guess our "debate" is concluded

So, now it's an open thread, and the community can comment.

In fairness, the "Five Facts" strategy is William Lane Craig's set piece, although you have adapted it a bit and so arguably have made it your own. However, you have the same problems that Craig has, and you will notice that for all the YouTube videos of debates where Craig has trotted this thing out, the question remains open.

That's because there are problems with the strategy. Broadly, these problems fall into three categories:

The five facts themselves are disputable.

There are lively competing theories to explain them even if they are true.

Your choices among criteria by which credibility is assessed are disputable, even within historiograpnic scholarship.

The latter is especially urgent, since your recital of accepted criteria omits a foundational element of modern evidentiary interpretation: whether the events relied upon in the proposed explanation are credible in themselves. A truly dead man returned to life is not especially credible in itself.

Of the competing theories, the one I think is strongest is the real-life ghost story. We have nearly contemporary Hellenistic stories of ghosts, so the genre exists at the time in question. As such, the genre can either shape the survivors' interpretation of their grief- and guilt-ridden experience, or even easier, simply provide an additional tale of Jesus to be appended onto antholoiges of other Jesus stories compiled about two generations after his death.

And, finally, there are the five kind-of facts.

The crucifixion and burial are widely believed, but even the simplest detail of this specific execution, like what year, is disputed.

There is no contemporary evidence, none, that reports so much as a single person who met Jesus in the flesh being killed after refusing an offer to recant belief in Jesus' resurrection.

Paul's supposed "conversion" consists of an epiphany that the views of those whom he was persecuting fit perfectly with what Paul, a Pharisee, already believed about the end of days and a possible role that righteous Gentiles might play in that.

The majority of Christians disbelive that James was Jesus' brother. That aside, one brother taking over a brutally martyred brother's movement is not evidence that the dead brother is no longer dead.

Finally, the tomb isn't quite empty, is it? There seem to be one or two unidentified men (or angels - but angels don't loom so large in historical explanations) hanging around in the wee hours of the morning giving helpful advice to whoever might stop by with questions.

So, not to put too fine a point on it, but imagine you go to your best friend's tomb. It is desecrated, but there's a guy there, whom you've never met before, who tells you not to worry, because your friend decided overnight to get up and leave. And that's good enough for you.

Sure it is.

Wow. I don't think I could have said half of that, and I consider myself to be fairly well versed in Christian and Atheist texts.

reply to post by eight bits


Would love to have an actual debate (moderated one at that) with you. But time is limited.

reply to post by mkmasn


R U serious? And you state that you are well read? yikes

Originally posted by mkmasn
reply to post by bibledefender

 

I agreed to have a debate in the other thread., not in this one.

But that's beside the point. And frankly, I'm getting tired of this. It was funny at first, but it's just annoying now. You came into a thread about Buddhism and pushed a debate on me and another member, and then won't admit to your fallacies.

Just remember, there was only a 1/3 chance Jesus was resurrected:

1) Jesus existed and was resurrected
2) Jesus existed and wasn't resurrected
3) Jesus never existed

edit on 16-8-2012 by mkmasn because: (no reason given)

You mean I should just admit to fallacies just because YOU say I committed them? Really?

Second, it was a thread pruporting to show that Buddhism was correct. I proposed a debate to do just that. If Christianity is true, then Buddhism is false and vice versa.

You see, it is kind of sophmoric reasoning that leads me to believe that you are being intellectually dishonest. Really, you took philosophy classes?

So, if I get this one right, according to you logic, the resurrection shouldn't be believed in because it is mathmatically improbable?

Let see in real life. The odds of a royal flush is approx 649,739 : 1. Therefore you should not believe that royal flushes happen.

reply to post by bibledefender


If you believe you are the authority on this subject then all you want is an argument. You want to big yourself up and fight.
If you know you know it all then why bother?

reply to post by eight bits


Actually it is not Craig's argument, it is Mike Licona and Gary Habermas'. I just think it is a great argument and use it.

reply to post by bibledefender


There is nothing great about arguments.
Unless it is the only time you feel life. When the blood is rushing and you feel the heat of life it makes you feel alive.
Some only feel alive when they are in a drama.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by bibledefender

 

If you believe you are the authority on this subject then all you want is an argument. You want to big yourself up and fight.
If you know you know it all then why bother?

I don't believe I am authority, but I do have certain qualifications that apply. I do read up on things etc. And I don't do this for me at all. I do do it however for those who are honestly looking. For those who might read this who are looking for the truth, who are open to other ideas, that they might come to an understanding of the truth of the resurrection and so be saved.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by bibledefender

 

There is nothing great about arguments.
Unless it is the only time you feel life. When the blood is rushing and you feel the heat of life it makes you feel alive.
Some only feel alive when they are in a drama.

edit on 16-8-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

LOL. Last thing I want is drama. My life is filled enough as it is. However there is nothing wrong with debating ideas etc. Which is what I though this was going to be in this "debate". But alas, mkmasn didn't intend to take any of this seriously. Should have known.