“We have the facts�

[Zzyzx]

.
“We have the facts�

In a current thread someone said:

But again, here is the fact of the matter. We have facts, and evidence surrounding the claims in the NT.

Correction: You have unverified TALES in a book and try to use the tales as 'facts' to support themselves or each other – OR claim that the tales must be true because many believe.

In reasoned discussion or debate one does NOT even attempt to use a source to verify itself. It makes no sense to say, 'The book is true because it says it is (or because I believe it is)' or 'Chapter one is true because chapter two tells a similar story'. It is also irrational to say, 'Many believed so it must be true' (Argumentum ad populum)

Test:
1) List Bible verses that deal with the 'resurrection'. Those are the tales to be supported.
2) List supporting facts and evidence supporting each (Not just repeating the tales or saying that many believed)


Example: Mark 16:6 Don’t be alarmed,� he [young man dressed in white robe] said “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him.

What FACTS support “He has risen� (without using tales from the NT to support tales from the NT)?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 10 by Zzyzx]

All you are doing is to continue to make the same old tired, and worn out arguments, which have been demonstrated to be faulty.

Yup, some people evidently told / wrote tales long ago and far away. Their writings are not available.

This is a statement made as if it were a fact, which cannot be demonstrated to be a fact. But hey, this is not shocking at all.

Centuries later the tales were recorded and copies of copies of copies were made by hand.

This statement does nothing whatsoever to demonstrate that the reports we now have would not be accurate.

You have not set the NT aside but are waving it around as though it verified itself.

I have never said a thing about setting the NT aside, but have rather demonstrated that what we have in the NT would be different authors reporting much the same thing, and it is very legitimate to compare what they have to say, to understand if they align together, such as when the author of the letters to Theophilus ends his letter with Paul being under arrest, and comparing this with a letter attributed to Paul which would have clearly been written while Paul would have been under arrest. As I have stated elsewhere there are those opposed who clearly understand this sort of thing to be evidence, and would be the reason why they are forced to cast doubt upon whether Paul would have actually wrote the letter, otherwise it would not matter who wrote the letter.

“Here are the tales, prove them false� is classical argument from ignorance.

My friend, no one can deny we have the claims. I do not make the claim the reports can be demonstrated to be true, and you do not seem to insist they can be demonstrated to be false. However, it is you who seems to believe that it is a legitimate argument to insist that I must demonstrate the claims to be true, and I am simply demonstrating that this argument is extremely weak, seeing as how you cannot demonstrate the claims to be false. In other words, asking you to demonstrate the claims to be false, is no different at all than you asking me to demonstrate them to be true, and since I understand this to be a weak argument, I do not ask the question, until you seem to be under the impression that my inability to demonstrate the claims is somehow a point, when it is not.

We have no means to determine if the tales are true or not, accurate or not.

Exactly my point, which demonstrates that it is useless to bring up the fact that neither of us can demonstrate the claims one way, or the other. One of us understands this, and only brings this up, in order to demonstrate to the other, there is no point to be made.

Shall we believe them and base life decisions on the gamble that they are true and accurate? If so, why?

Shall we dismiss them and base life decisions on the gamble that they are false and inaccurate? If so, why?

Personally, I am fine with those who may do this sort of thing, but there seem to be those who have some sort of problem with the decision I have made? I wonder why?

Take that up with those who 'maintain the reports would be false'.

Exactly! Just as you need to save some of your arguments for those who maintain the reports must be true.

Since we cannot determine truth and accuracy, the most rational position is “I don't know�.

Or, I cannot demonstrate the claims would be true, but based on the facts, and evidence, I am convinced they are true.

If we don't know if something is true and accurate, we would be very foolish to base life decisions on the assumption that it was true and accurate.

This would be no different than not knowing if something would be false, but going on to base life decisions on the assumption that it would be false. Again, I have no problem with those who do such things, but there seem to be those who have a problem with the opposing side of this equation. Moreover, I will point out that if one goes on the facts, and evidence involved, not matter what side of the equation they are on, it would not simply be based upon, assumption, but rather upon the facts, and evidence.

Correction: reports and claims that ARE the tale cannot rationally be used to verify themselves.

Sure they can, and I have demonstrated this on another thread, and I am not going through it all again. However, as an example, we have certain evidence that the author of the letters to Theophilus would have traveled with Paul, and as we compare these letters, with the letters of Paul, we can see how this could have very well been the case. So then while we cannot compare the fact that these writers report much the same thing as evidence the claims would be true, we can indeed compare what they have to say in order to see if they may contradict each other. In other words, if the author to Theophilus were to report Paul being under arrest, while the letters of Paul were to report that Paul would have never been under arrest. As you can see, what you say is completely false, and the only reason I can think of for one to say such a thing, is in an attempt to defend what one would rather believe.

Tales of gods and godmen dying and coming back to life are fairly common in ancient literature. If unfamiliar, Google search for 'gods and godmen dying and coming back to life' yields abundant results including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying-and-rising_deity

How would this go about demonstrating the reports in the NT would be false? This is no different than attempting to make the argument that we know that all religions cannot be true, therefore they must all be false.

The Christian claim of 'resurrection' is not unique. “Take a number and stand in line. Others were here ahead of you.�

OH? I see now? So then, it must, and has to be false because of this? Or, is it that it makes it more likely?

[marco]

Another point here would be, since you have quoted me, then it would seem best to stick with the comments the one you have quoted may have made, instead of making it seem as though, the one you have quoted, would have insisted the reports, or claims, would be true.

Nothing matters more than this statement of acceptance that by facts you mean we possess books and stories and have names of people. You accept the stories may be untrue, so they are NOT facts. Nobody is ever debating whether Paul is Pauline or Jesus is Geronimo. We accept we have a group of names. When we come to examine the stories these names give us, we can raise an eyebrow.

Three kings came to visit baby Jesus, accepting he was perhaps a divinity. Three kings vanish never to be heard of again. So why did they appear? Did they stop believing? And of course angels sang at that time too. Was it "Amazing Grace?"

Jesus wanders across a lake and Peter wanders out of a boat to meet him, then sinks, for that's what humans do. We can believe he sank.

Some women visit a tomb and see an angel sitting there with no great purpose to his existence other than to say dead Jesus has gone nakedly into town. And many holy corpses just got up and walked to the city as well, presumably to buy clothes.

You may regard all this as powerful evidence. Some regard it as rubbish. I wonder who is right.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 11 by marco]

Nothing matters more than this statement of acceptance that by facts you mean we possess books and stories and have names of people.

My friend, you can call these things anything you like, but the fact of the matter is, it is a fact we have the claims in the NT. It would also be a fact that there is a reason we have these claims. Now, I am sure you hold the opinion that the claims would be false, but the problem is, your opinion has not been demonstrated to be a fact.

You accept the stories may be untrue, so they are NOT facts.

How could one forced their fingers to type such a sentence? It is a FACT we have the reports. Whether what is reported would be FACT, has not been determined. In other words, no one can rightly say, "the stories are not FACT" unless one can demonstrate they would not be FACT. So then, we cannot say, "the stories would be fact", but we also cannot rightly say, "the stories are not fact".

When we come to examine the stories these names give us, we can raise an eyebrow.

You certainly can, but it does not demonstrate the reports to be false. What in the world does that mean?

Three kings came to visit baby Jesus, accepting he was perhaps a divinity. Three kings vanish never to be heard of again.

I am not sure what "Three kings" you are referring to, which sort of demonstrates you are not getting your information from what is contained in the NT.

Three kings vanish never to be heard of again. So why did they appear? Did they stop believing? And of course angels sang at that time too. Was it "Amazing Grace?"

And this somehow demonstrates.......... What?

Jesus wanders across a lake and Peter wanders out of a boat to meet him, then sinks, for that's what humans do. We can believe he sank.

Some women visit a tomb and see an angel sitting there with no great purpose to his existence other than to say dead Jesus has gone nakedly into town. And many holy corpses just got up and walked to the city as well, presumably to buy clothes.

You may regard all this as powerful evidence. Some regard it as rubbish. I wonder who is right.

This is nothing but rambling words, because no one that I know of has mentioned any of these things as evidence? GOOD GRIEF! Who are you debating?

[Zzyzx]

.

My friend, you can call these things anything you like, but the fact of the matter is, it is a fact we have the claims in the NT.

We have claims in many books. So what?

Shall we believe all of them, some of them? Which ones and why?

It would also be a fact that there is a reason we have these claims.

Of course we have claims. The tellers / writers of stories made those claims. So what?

Now, I am sure you hold the opinion that the claims would be false,

I hold the opinion that claims and stories that cannot / have not been substantiated with verifiable evidence are questionable at best. I would certainly not present them as true and accurate – and would not base life decisions on the assumption they are true.

but the problem is, your opinion has not been demonstrated to be a fact.

“I don't believe your god tales� needs no demonstration of fact.

There is no basis in reason to compel or expect me to prove false the tales presented. It is the burden of the teller to prove true their tales.

[marco]

My friend, you can call these things anything you like, but the fact of the matter is, it is a fact we have the claims in the NT.

In your arguments about "facts" you correctly say that it is a fact we have stories and names of people. I believe you are confusing this useless piece of information with something along the lines of "we have important facts" that lead us to make certain rational conclusions. That we do not have and that is all we need argue over. We have tales of King Arthur and Robin Hood. This is a fact. But it is not the sort of fact that we can present as the beginning of belief in these characters. That is your mistake.

Now, I am sure you hold the opinion that the claims would be false, but the problem is, your opinion has not been demonstrated to be a fact.

Nor has yours. We are left with the problem of whether to accept walking corpses and a man walking on water and making water wine OR disbelieving these claims. For you it seems a 50:50 choice. For Reason, there is no choice - we reject the absurd.

You accept the stories may be untrue, so they are NOT facts.

How could one force their fingers to type such a sentence? It is a FACT we have the reports. Whether what is reported would be FACT, has not been determined. In other words, no one can rightly say, "the stories are not FACT" unless one can demonstrate they would not be FACT. So then, we cannot say, "the stories would be fact", but we also cannot rightly say, "the stories are not fact".

Well you have now demonstrated your misunderstanding. My fingers were able to type what I wrote because what I wrote is absolutely true. What you have written is wrong. Here is why: a fact is something over which there is no debate about its being true or false. When there is dubiety, we no longer have a fact. It is a fact we have stories; it is NOT a fact they are true. You think (wrongly) that because we cannot declare them true or false, then we cannot say they are not facts. That's just wrong: we can call them open statements but we cannot call them facts. It's just a matter of semantics.

Jesus wanders across a lake and Peter wanders out of a boat to meet him, then sinks, for that's what humans do. We can believe he sank.

Some women visit a tomb and see an angel sitting there with no great purpose to his existence other than to say dead Jesus has gone nakedly into town. And many holy corpses just got up and walked to the city as well, presumably to buy clothes.

You may regard all this as powerful evidence. Some regard it as rubbish. I wonder who is right.

This is nothing but rambling words, because no one that I know of has mentioned any of these things as evidence? GOOD GRIEF! Who are you debating?

You may call them "rambling words" if you so choose. They are examples of biblical reports NOT in support of the theory that the bible offers truth but they are indications the bible sometimes presents us with nonsense. I can understand that "no one you know has mentioned any of these things as evidence." That is because they give evidence in the opposite direction.

Perhaps it is time to move away from the nebulous but factual Theophilus, the typical God lover addressed by the nebulous but factual Luke.
Fact: we have a book of stories. That's as far as fact takes us.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 14 by marco]



It is really useless to debate with one who cannot determine the difference between those things which can be demonstrated to be fact, as opposed to those things which have not been demonstrated to be fact.

In your arguments about "facts" you correctly say that it is a fact we have stories and names of people. I believe you are confusing this useless piece of information with something along the lines of "we have important facts" that lead us to make certain rational conclusions.

There are many conclusions we can draw, as we examine the facts, and evidence we have. However, the only conclusion I am referring to above that we can draw is, it is a fact that we have the reports which are contained in the NT, and it is a fact that these reports have not been demonstrated to be either true, or false. Some folks acknowledge and accept this, while other folks continue to refer to things which have not been demonstrated, as if it were demonstrable fact.

We have tales of King Arthur and Robin Hood. This is a fact. But it is not the sort of fact that we can present as the beginning of belief in these characters. That is your mistake.

It is absolutely useless to compare these things, unless you can demonstrate how they would compare, and this is your mistake. In other words, you are not demonstrating that all these writings would be the same, simply by putting them in the same sentence.

I said,

Now, I am sure you hold the opinion that the claims would be false, but the problem is, your opinion has not been demonstrated to be a fact.

To which you reply,

Nor has yours.

This has been my whole argument. The problem is, I do not make claims which I cannot demonstrate to be fact, while you continue to demonstrate a confusion between your opinion, as opposed to what can be demonstrated to be fact.

We are left with the problem of whether to accept walking corpses and a man walking on water and making water wine OR disbelieving these claims.

Here is an example, because this is not all we are left with in the least. Of course, I have no problem with those who think that it is just that simple, and choose to hold the opinion these things would be false, but opinions, do not demonstrate anything.

For you it seems a 50:50 choice.

No, because I understand that probabilities would have nothing to do with it.

For Reason, there is no choice - we reject the absurd.

Here is another example. You make the statement these things would be absurd, as if this would demonstrate they would be easily determined to be false, when the fact of the matter would be, these things have been debated for thousands of years now, with very well educated, and intelligent folks on both sides of the equations, who have written book volumes concerning the facts, and evidence we have, with none of these folks being able to demonstrate their case. I will assure you that these folks understand clearly that they cannot rest their case on simply referring to these things, as absurd.

a fact is something over which there is no debate about its being true or false.

Exactly! And it is a fact, that we have the reports. It is a fact that there is a reason we have the reports. It is a fact that we have those who have debated the reasons we have these reports for thousands of years. And it is a fact that the reports have not been demonstrated to be either true, or false.

When there is dubiety, we no longer have a fact.

My friend, I can demonstrate that I do not make claims which I cannot demonstrate to be fact. I can also demonstrate where you continue to make statements as if they would be fact, which you cannot demonstrate to be fact.

It is a fact we have stories; it is NOT a fact they are true.

Here is an example. The first part of your statement would be correct in that it would be a fact that we have the reports. However, it has not been determined as of yet, that the reports would not be fact. In other words, it may be a fact the reports would be fact, but this has not been demonstrated. Simply because something has not been demonstrated to be a fact, does not cause it not to be a fact, because a fact, would be a fact, whether it has been demonstrated to be a fact, or not.

Allow me to attempt to explain this in terms you may understand better. It may be a fact, that the reports in the NT are false. However, this has not been demonstrated to be a fact. If, and when it is demonstrated to be a fact, that the reports are indeed false, it would have been a fact that the reports were false all along.

So then, to correct your statement, "It is a fact we have stories, the stories may be fact, or they may be false, but they have not been demonstrated to be either fact, or false.

You may call them "rambling words" if you so choose. They are examples of biblical reports NOT in support of the theory that the bible offers truth but they are indications the bible sometimes presents us with nonsense.

First, you have not in any way demonstrated that what you refer to would be, "nonsense". However, even if you could demonstrate it to be "nonsense" it would not demonstrate in any way that the whole would be "nonsense" and does not even cause it to be likely. Again, you continue to throw your opinion out there, as if it would be some kind of proof?

I can understand that "no one you know has mentioned any of these things as evidence." That is because they give evidence in the opposite direction.

No! Rather, it would be because the things you refer to, would have nothing to do with the truth of the matter, unless they were demonstrated to be nonsense, which has not happened, but even then it would not demonstrate that the whole would be nonsense, because we all know that even liars report the truth at times. But again, the main point here is, you continue to refer to things as being fact, which you cannot demonstrate to be fact, while I never make claims which I cannot demonstrate to be fact.

Perhaps it is time to move away from the nebulous but factual Theophilus, the typical God lover addressed by the nebulous but factual Luke.
Fact: we have a book of stories. That's as far as fact takes us.

Right, and I have no problem with those who would like to stop right there. Of course, we do not have the time, and space to investigate all that would need to be investigated, but let's go just a little further.

It is a fact that those opposed clearly understand there are very good facts, and evidence in support of the claims in the NT, which does not bode very well for their case, which is exactly why they attempt to explain away these facts, and evidence we have.

As an example, those opposed clearly understand that we have very good facts, and evidence which would suggest that the author of the letters to Theophilus would have traveled with Paul. This evidence would include the fact that the author begins his second letter describing the actions of the Apostles in Jerusalem, only to begin to focus solely on the actions of Paul when the journeys of Paul begin, and does not mention the Apostles in Jerusalem until, or unless Paul comes back in contact with them again.

It would also include the fact that the author of the letters to Theophilus, ends his second letter with Paul being under arrest for some 2 years, and we have letters from Paul which would have been written while he would have been under arrest. It would also be a fact, that in one of the letters attributed to Paul, the author just so happens to mention that, all his other companions had left him, and "only Luke is with me". And of course, we have the fact that the author of the letters to Theophilus actually begins to use the words "we", and "us" when describing the events of the travels of Paul, as if he is there to witness the events.

Of course, those opposed understand very well, that this is not very good for their case, and so they are forced to attempt to explain away this evidence. One of the things they do in an attempt to explain away this evidence, is to refer to an ancient literary device which was used, and suggest that this author may have used this device, and had no intentions of being understood as traveling with Paul.

But you see, while this MAY explain the authors use of the words, "we", and "us", it has not been demonstrated that this would have been the case, and it does not explain the other evidence we have. So then, while those opposed cannot explain away all the evidence we have, another thing they do, is to question as to whether Paul would have actually been the author of all the letters which bear his name, and can you imagine one of the letters they choose to question? Well, of course you can, because it would just so happen to be the one in which the author just so happens to mention, "only Luke is with me". Imagine my surprise! Of course, they cannot demonstrate that Paul would not have been the author, but it is clear why they would have to question it.

But you see, we are not done yet. Because you see, with all this evidence suggesting the author may have traveled with Paul, those opposed also understand they have another problem, and it is the fact that the author of the letters to Theophilus addresses only one individual. This is not good, because if this author would have traveled with Paul, this would mean that after decades of traveling with Paul who ends under arrest, this author sits down to write, not one, but two long, and detailed letters to one individual, who would have already been a believer, demonstrating that the author would not have been motivated to write these letters in order to convince unbelievers, but rather would be evidence as the author actually says, that he was writing out of concern for this one individual.

Therefore, with this being the case, those opposed are forced to refer to the meaning of the name Theophilus, in order to suggest, (not demonstrate) that the author would have been addressing a wider audience. The problem here is, this cannot be demonstrated to be the case, and even if this would have been the intention, this still leaves with the fact that these letters, along with the overwhelming majority of what is contained in the NT, can be demonstrated as being addressed to particular audiences at the time, who would have already been believers.

All of the above clearly demonstrates, those opposed understand full well there are facts, and evidence in support of the claims, otherwise, why would any of this even matter? In other words, if these reports are so obviously false, then why would it matter if this author traveled with Paul, or addressed only one individual? I can tell you, it does in fact matter, and the fact that those opposed attempt to come up with alternative explanations demonstrates how much it matters.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]


Your post here seems to demonstrate one who has very little understanding of what we actually have contained in the NT.

But wait. "We" needs to refer to everyone, not just a selected faction of believers who have twisted things around to satisfy their personal desires.

Everyone already knows that there is nothing convincing or compelling in the NT. Even theists themselves cannot agree on what is contained in the NT or what it is supposedly about.

Which faction of Christendom do you speak for Realworldjack?

You can't be speaking for them all because they reject each others dogma. They do not agree among themselves what the NT even has to say.

The fact is that the NT doesn't contain anything compelling as supernatural facts. It certainly doesn't contain anything that has convinced historians.

Zzyzx is asking about claim of a resurrection of a supposed Son of God. Where are the facts behind that. Any honest person will tell you that there are none whatsoever. Period. Even the vast majority of Christian factions will agree to this and they hold that it's a matter of faith to believe it.

If you belong to a faction of Christianity that claims that there are facts to back up the resurrection of Jesus, then you belong to a very minor extremist group of theists.

There aren't even any fact to show that this Jesus fellow that is described in the NT ever even lived. Perhaps there may have been a historical person who gave ruse to the rumors we see in the NT, but there are certainly no facts that this person ever did or said everything the NT claims he said or did. In fact, the authors of the NT have Jesus contradicting himself. Which is highly unlike if this character actually existed.

There are no facts that this man Jesus ever died. Never mind rising from the dead.

Moreover, the rumors that claim he rose from the dead have him walking around still scared with the wounds of his crucifixion. This is strong evidence that a man survived a crucifixion, not that he was miraculously risen from the dead by a supernatural God.

In fact, what kind of a God would have rose Jesus from the dead and not have bothered to heal his physical wounds at the same time? The mere fact that the rumors have Jesus retaining his wounds strongly suggests that he had survived the ordeal and had never actually died in the first place.

Sorry Realworldjack, but you have no facts. All you can possibly have is speculation and wishful thinking on your part.

If there were any facts to backup the NT stories they would be both historic and scientific facts. But they are neither. Therefore there are no facts to back up these tales.

The fact of the matter is that you are necessarily accepting religious dogma yourself that must only be accepted on pure faith. Yet you have either been convinced by others, or by yourself that it's based on facts.

Where are the facts Realworldjack?

1. Please show me the facts that show that this Jesus character ever actually died in the first place?

If you claim that such facts exist, let's see them.

2. Please show me the facts that show that this Jesus character ever actually said or did any of the things reported in the NT?

If you claim that such facts exist, let's see them.

We all know that no such facts exist. Even the vast majority of Christian theists know this. This is why they preach that a person must have faith that these stories are true. They cannot be shown to be true by facts, because no facts exist to back them up.

In fact, some factions of Christian theology even hold that God purposefully make it so that there could be no facts precisely for the reason of demanding that we believe on pure faith.

So many Christian theists of demoninations and sects of Christianity would even claim that the NT itself demands that your claim to have facts must necessarily be false.

So there are many forms of Christianity who would deny your claim as a matter of principle.

So who do you speak for Realworldjack?

You clearly don't speak for the vast majority of Christendom.

You clearly don't speak for the authors of the NT. Are you even aware that Jesus own disciples weren't convinced that Jesus was the Son of God until after the supposed resurrection, and even after God had to speak from the clouds proclaiming Jesus to be his son.

Think about it Realworldjack, even the God in the NT didn't expect anyone to believe Jesus was his son, he had to proclaim it from the clouds.

Where are your facts? If you have any facts let's see them.

You have nothing. All you have are empty arguments proclaiming that you have facts that you apparently cannot even produce.

If you could produce them then what are you waiting for?

Clearly they don't exist.

If someone taught you that there are facts to back up the NT, then ask them to provide you with these facts so we can also see them.

What's the hold up?

If you're going to claim to have facts you need to produce them.

But wait. "We" needs to refer to everyone, not just a selected faction of believers who have twisted things around to satisfy their personal desires.

I am afraid not my friend. I am referring to things we can all agree on, because they can be demonstrated to be facts. In other words, things like, the authors could not have possibly known about any sort of Bible their writings would have been contained in, hundreds of years later. So then, when I say "we", and am referring to things you would be forced to agree with, because they can be demonstrated to be facts.

Everyone already knows that there is nothing convincing or compelling in the NT.

Right! Which is why we have many well educated, and intelligent folk who were completely opposed to Christianity, who were out to demonstrate Christianity to be false, who became convinced it would be true, while studying the facts, and evidence involved in order to demonstrate it to be false.

It would also be the reason there are those opposed who understand very well that there are indeed very good reasons to believe the claims, which is why they are forced to come up with alternative explanations, in an attempt to explain away the facts, and evidence we have.

I guess it would also be the reason this debate has been raging for thousands of years now, with those on both sides of the equations writing book volumes, with neither side being able to demonstrate their case. Yeah, but, "everyone knows", right?

Which faction of Christendom do you speak for Realworldjack?

That would be none at all.

You can't be speaking for them all because they reject each others dogma. They do not agree among themselves what the NT even has to say.

Again, I do not speak for any of them, and can demonstrate this to be a fact. Whether Christians agree, would have nothing whatsoever to do with whether what is contained in the NT would be true, or false.

The fact is that the NT doesn't contain anything compelling as supernatural facts. It certainly doesn't contain anything that has convinced historians.

My friend, it convinces the historians enough to understand that they cannot simply dismiss the claims, which is exactly why they must, and have to come up with alternative explanations in order to explain away the facts, and evidence we have. I will assure you that the historians not being convinced, is not any sort of evidence that the reports would be false. At any rate, how would referring to the historians, being any different than the weak minded Christians simply referring to what the Bible says. Both simply seem to be, taking the word of others?

Zzyzx is asking about claim of a resurrection of a supposed Son of God. Where are the facts behind that. Any honest person will tell you that there are none whatsoever. Period. Even the vast majority of Christian factions will agree to this and they hold that it's a matter of faith to believe it.

Again, which is why there are many who were completely opposed to Christianity who were out to demonstrate it to be false, who come away convinced, and if there were no reasons to believe, then the historians, and others who were opposed would have no facts, and evidence to attempt to explain away.

If you belong to a faction of Christianity that claims that there are facts to back up the resurrection of Jesus, then you belong to a very minor extremist group of theists.

I belong to none of the "factions of Christianity" you are referring to. Moreover, attempting to refer to what a majority would believe, would have nothing to do with demonstrating the truth of the matter.

There aren't even any fact to show that this Jesus fellow that is described in the NT ever even lived.

Seems sort of strange for one to spend so much time debating one, there would be no evidence to even suggest they would have been a real historical figure. Moreover, it is absolutely amazing that this figure which we have no evidence that he even existed has become the most influential figure, in all of history according to many modern day magazines.

So then, either there is evidence that Jesus did in fact exist. Or, somehow, some way, this figure that never existed becomes the most influential figure in the history of the world.

There are no facts that this man Jesus ever died.

Oh really? So........? Could he still be alive?

Never mind rising from the dead.

Well, there are indeed facts, which would be evidence that he rose form the dead, and that would be the fact that we have the reports. Of course these reports have not been demonstrated to be true, but they certainly have not been demonstrated to be false.

Moreover, the rumors that claim he rose from the dead have him walking around still scared with the wounds of his crucifixion. This is strong evidence that a man survived a crucifixion, not that he was miraculously risen from the dead by a supernatural God.

Okay, this is certainly a possibility, but I think it would be a stretch to say it would be "strong evidence". At any rate, what would be the facts, and evidence we have which would suggest that he may have survived to crucifixion? I can tell you this, this alternative explanation certainly demonstrates one who understands there are indeed facts, and evidence to support the resurrection, otherwise there would be no need in suggesting these other possible explanations.

In fact, what kind of a God would have rose Jesus from the dead and not have bothered to heal his physical wounds at the same time? The mere fact that the rumors have Jesus retaining his wounds strongly suggests that he had survived the ordeal and had never actually died in the first place.

All you are doing here is to transpose your idea of what a god should do on to said god, which demonstrates nothing at all. However, as already stated, what you alternative explanation does demonstrate is one who clearly understands there are facts, and evidence which needs to be explained, otherwise there would be no need in bringing up these other possible explanations.

Sorry Realworldjack, but you have no facts. All you can possibly have is speculation and wishful thinking on your part.

I am afraid there are a pile of facts, and evidence involved, which we do not have the time, or space to cover. Allow me to give you a scant few.

It is a fact that we have evidence to suggest the author of the letters to Theophilus would have traveled with Paul. It is a fact that this would mean we have evidence that this author would have been alive at the time of Jesus, and would have known the original Apostles, along with the claims they were making from their very lips. It is a fact that this author ends his second letter with Paul being under arrest. It is a fact that we have letters which bear the name of Paul as the author, which would have clearly been written while the author is under arrest. It is a fact that in 3 of the letters which bear the name of Paul, the author mentions one by the name of Luke, being there with him, and these letters would be letters which would have been written while the author would have been under arrest. It is a fact that the author of the letters to Theophilus sits down to write, not one, but two long and detailed letters to Theophilus, claiming it to be out of concern for Theophilus knowing the exact truth.

I could continue on, and on, but all of the things listed above would be facts, which can be demonstrated to be facts. Of course, there may be those who have different explanations of these facts, but this would not negate the fact, that these things would be facts, which need to have some sort of explanation.

So then, to insist there would be no facts, is demonstrably false.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 6 by Divine Insight]

But wait. "We" needs to refer to everyone, not just a selected faction of believers who have twisted things around to satisfy their personal desires.

I am afraid not my friend. I am referring to things we can all agree on, because they can be demonstrated to be facts. In other words, things like, the authors could not have possibly known about any sort of Bible their writings would have been contained in, hundreds of years later. So then, when I say "we", and am referring to things you would be forced to agree with, because they can be demonstrated to be facts.

Everyone already knows that there is nothing convincing or compelling in the NT.

Right! Which is why we have many well educated, and intelligent folk who were completely opposed to Christianity, who were out to demonstrate Christianity to be false, who became convinced it would be true, while studying the facts, and evidence involved in order to demonstrate it to be false.

It would also be the reason there are those opposed who understand very well that there are indeed very good reasons to believe the claims, which is why they are forced to come up with alternative explanations, in an attempt to explain away the facts, and evidence we have.

I guess it would also be the reason this debate has been raging for thousands of years now, with those on both sides of the equations writing book volumes, with neither side being able to demonstrate their case. Yeah, but, "everyone knows", right?

Which faction of Christendom do you speak for Realworldjack?

That would be none at all.

You can't be speaking for them all because they reject each others dogma. They do not agree among themselves what the NT even has to say.

Again, I do not speak for any of them, and can demonstrate this to be a fact. Whether Christians agree, would have nothing whatsoever to do with whether what is contained in the NT would be true, or false.

The fact is that the NT doesn't contain anything compelling as supernatural facts. It certainly doesn't contain anything that has convinced historians.

My friend, it convinces the historians enough to understand that they cannot simply dismiss the claims, which is exactly why they must, and have to come up with alternative explanations in order to explain away the facts, and evidence we have. I will assure you that the historians not being convinced, is not any sort of evidence that the reports would be false. At any rate, how would referring to the historians, be any different than the weak minded Christians simply referring to what the Bible says. Both simply seem to be, taking the word of others?

Zzyzx is asking about claim of a resurrection of a supposed Son of God. Where are the facts behind that. Any honest person will tell you that there are none whatsoever. Period. Even the vast majority of Christian factions will agree to this and they hold that it's a matter of faith to believe it.

Again, which is why there are many who were completely opposed to Christianity who were out to demonstrate it to be false, who come away convinced, and if there were no reasons to believe, then the historians, and others who were opposed would have no facts, and evidence to attempt to explain away.

If you belong to a faction of Christianity that claims that there are facts to back up the resurrection of Jesus, then you belong to a very minor extremist group of theists.

I belong to none of the "factions of Christianity" you are referring to. Moreover, attempting to refer to what a majority would believe, would have nothing to do with demonstrating the truth of the matter.

There aren't even any fact to show that this Jesus fellow that is described in the NT ever even lived.

Seems sort of strange for one to spend so much time debating one, there would be no evidence to even suggest they would have been a real historical figure. Moreover, it is absolutely amazing that this figure which we have no evidence that he even existed has become the most influential figure, in all of history according to many modern day magazines.

So then, either there is evidence that Jesus did in fact exist. Or, somehow, some way, this figure that never existed becomes the most influential figure in the history of the world.

There are no facts that this man Jesus ever died.

Oh really? So........? Could he still be alive?

Never mind rising from the dead.

Well, there are indeed facts, which would be evidence that he rose form the dead, and that would be the fact that we have the reports. Of course these reports have not been demonstrated to be true, but they certainly have not been demonstrated to be false.

Moreover, the rumors that claim he rose from the dead have him walking around still scared with the wounds of his crucifixion. This is strong evidence that a man survived a crucifixion, not that he was miraculously risen from the dead by a supernatural God.

Okay, this is certainly a possibility, but I think it would be a stretch to say it would be "strong evidence". At any rate, what would be the facts, and evidence we have which would suggest that he may have survived to crucifixion? I can tell you this, this alternative explanation certainly demonstrates one who understands there are indeed facts, and evidence to support the resurrection, otherwise there would be no need in suggesting these other possible explanations.

In fact, what kind of a God would have rose Jesus from the dead and not have bothered to heal his physical wounds at the same time? The mere fact that the rumors have Jesus retaining his wounds strongly suggests that he had survived the ordeal and had never actually died in the first place.

All you are doing here is to transpose your idea of what a god should do on to said god, which demonstrates nothing at all. However, as already stated, what your alternative explanation does demonstrate, is one who clearly understands there are facts, and evidence which needs to be explained, otherwise there would be no need in bringing up these other possible explanations.

Sorry Realworldjack, but you have no facts. All you can possibly have is speculation and wishful thinking on your part.

I am afraid there are a pile of facts, and evidence involved, which we do not have the time, or space to cover. Allow me to give you a scant few.

It is a fact that we have evidence to suggest the author of the letters to Theophilus would have traveled with Paul. It is a fact that this would mean we have evidence that this author would have been alive at the time of Jesus, and would have known the original Apostles, along with the claims they were making from their very lips. It is a fact that this author ends his second letter with Paul being under arrest. It is a fact that we have letters which bear the name of Paul as the author, which would have clearly been written while the author is under arrest. It is a fact that in 3 of the letters which bear the name of Paul, the author mentions one by the name of Luke, being there with him, and these letters would be letters which would have been written while the author would have been under arrest. It is a fact that the author of the letters to Theophilus sits down to write, not one, but two long and detailed letters to Theophilus, claiming it to be out of concern for Theophilus knowing the exact truth.

I could continue on, and on, but all of the things listed above would be facts, which can be demonstrated to be facts. Of course, there may be those who have different explanations of these facts, but this would not negate the fact, that these things would be facts, which need to have some sort of explanation.

So then, to insist there would be no facts, is demonstrably false.

If there were any facts to backup the NT stories they would be both historic and scientific facts. But they are neither. Therefore there are no facts to back up these tales.

My friend, neither history, nor science have demonstrated the claims in the NT to be false. Do you really want to talk about, "wishful thinking"?

The fact of the matter is that you are necessarily accepting religious dogma yourself that must only be accepted on pure faith. Yet you have either been convinced by others, or by yourself that it's based on facts.

I do not need a ounce of faith in order to believe the claims in the NT, because there are facts, and evidence to support these things, which you demonstrate by attempting to come up with alternate explanations, in order to explain away these facts, and evidence. Faith is required for those things for which there would be no facts, and evidence to weigh.

1. Please show me the facts that show that this Jesus character ever actually died in the first place?

It is a fact that we have the reports. Of course these reports do not demonstrate, (show) that Jesus actually died from the crucifixion, but it certainly has not been demonstrated the reports would be false. However, your question certainly demonstrates one who understands we have evidence, to support the idea that Jesus was indeed crucified, and was seen alive after the crucifixion, otherwise there would be no reason to come up with this other possibility. So then, again, what evidence do we have which may suggest that Jesus survived the crucifixion?

2. Please show me the facts that show that this Jesus character ever actually said or did any of the things reported in the NT?

The fact of the matter is, we have the reports. It would be a fact that there is a reason we have the reports. The fact that we have the reports, does not demonstrate the reports would be true, but they certainly are not evidence they would be false. In the end, we are in the same boat. We both have opinions concerning the facts, and evidence we have as far as the reports in the NT is concerned, but neither of us can demonstrate our opinion would be fact. One of us understands this, and accepts it, while the other seems to be convinced their opinion would equal fact.

We all know that no such facts exist. Even the vast majority of Christian theists know this. This is why they preach that a person must have faith that these stories are true. They cannot be shown to be true by facts, because no facts exist to back them up.

As already stated, I do not belong to any of the sects you refer to, and referring to what they preach, and, or believe demonstrates noting at all.

As far as the rest of what you say, you are simply repeating the same old things which I have already refuted, on top of the fact that it is simply filled with opinions, and I would far rather deal with the facts which can be demonstrated to be facts.

[marco]

Simply because something has not been demonstrated to be a fact, does not cause it not to be a fact, because a fact, would be a fact, whether it has been demonstrated to be a fact, or not...……………………………….

You are wrong. If something has not been demonstrated to be true, it is not a fact. Fermat's last theorem was thought to be true but until fairly recently it was never demonstrated to be true and so it was not a fact. It was right in the seventies to say that the theorem was NOT a fact.

Allow me to attempt to explain this in terms you may understand better.

That is uncommonly kind to appreciate I might have problems deciphering what you are trying to say. Allow me to point out the error in your "attempt to explain."

The report cannot be said to be true or false.
Therefore it is NOT a fact, by definition.
If new information comes a hundred years from now then the report with this new information will be THEN declared FACT at that future time. At present it is NOT a fact. There is a limited number of ways I can say this.

When you mention that "learned people" have discussed the tales for centuries you are using an argument to authority. Theologians make mistakes. And Tertullian believed "because it was absurd" which was an absurd reason to believe. Faith not reason was almost always the deciding factor in those "learned" discussions.

[Purple Knight]

In reasoned discussion or debate it is not my burden to prove claims false. It is the burden of the claimant to prove them true.

That's true, but at the same time it doesn't mean what the claimant says is false. It just means you have no obligation to accept it.

The further into the past you go, the less concrete evidence there will be, and the more you will simply have tales.

Honestly the only reason I don't believe the Bible's tales is the magic, and since I have no evidence magic is possible, I have to doubt. It has nothing to do with verifiable evidence or lack thereof. I'm aware that that far back in the past, I'd be a fool to ask for any.