Is faith a reliable path to reality?

[Angry Ukulele Girl]

Hi there!

This is my first post
This is according to Hebrews 11:1
How exactly can “confidence in what we hope for”
and an “assurance about what we do not see”
be a reliable path to reality?
For example,
Would it be advisable to approach my bank account balance in such a way?

Thanks!

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #65]

My arguments are legitimate because they are legitimate, not because I was a Christian.

My friend, none of your arguments are legitimate. All of your arguments are things which one should have thought about long, long ago. As an example, when you bring in other religions into the equation. Do you really imagine you are the only one who has thought of such a thing? I can go on to tell you that it does not take a whole lot of thinking at all to come to the conclusion that the fact that there are other religions, and that they cannot all be correct, has no bearing at all upon whether we have facts and evidence concerning the resurrection. It is an extremely lame argument which I find it hard to imagine anyone would attempt to make.

Me previously being a Christian is something that YOU continue to bring up, not myself.

How in the world could I have possibly known you were at one time a Christian, if you were not the one who brought it into the conversation? Not only that, but you continue to share by telling us you were a "drunk in the holy ghost Christian". You are the one who has shared this with us, and you did so because you believe it to be relevant, and it is. It is relevant, and when I see that it is relevant I will use exactly what you have said about yourself. You know, like when one tells us they were a convinced Christian for some 2 decades but there are no facts and evidence to support what they were once convinced of. That is "good stuff" one can use because it demonstrates one who can be convinced of something there would be no facts and evidence to support. This goes on to demonstrate one who can be convinced without the use of the mind, and simply because the mind has changed, does not in any way demonstrate the thinking has changed. Moreover, you go on to tell us you were a "drunk in the holy ghost Christian" which is relevant in that the Bible nowhere has a thing to say about such a thing, and somehow you freely admit to traveling the globe behaving in such a way.

I was a better Christian than you will ever be and you are just deceived by Satan.

What in the world this would have to do with the point I was making is beyond me? I am demonstrating that the Bible nowhere talks about one traveling the globe "drunk in the holy ghost". This demonstrates one who ensures us they were a Christian at one time, but the behavior they are describing is not talked about at all by those who were responsible for the claims of a resurrection. So then, is it any wonder why one may believe they are rejecting Christianity, but they really are not, since the behavior they are rejecting is nowhere taught in the Bible?

It is you that continues to make this about me and my previous beliefs. I'm asking legitimate questions about how humans formed god beliefs and you don't want to discuss such a thing, but boy are you infatuated with my former beliefs for some reason.

My friend, your former beliefs, and behavior which you have shared are indeed relevant to the debate, in that you demonstrate one who claims to have been a convinced Christian, but you exhibited behavior which is nowhere taught by Christianity. As far as "god beliefs" are concerned, I have demonstrated that Christianity did not begin with a "god belief". It can be demonstrated that Christianity began with a claimed resurrection.

I am more Christlike after having lost my religious beliefs, not because I matured. It's as if you are not reading my post. Please try to do better.

So then, what you are saying is, you were not very "Christlike" while you were a Christian, but because you are no longer a Christian, this has led you to be more "Christlike"?

I agree with this statement. Me now being more Christlike is not an argument against anything. Either is my Biblical knowledge you keep attempting to make this about. It's how you dodge debating.

Your former life which you have shared is part of the debate. I mean, at one time you seem to proudly admit these things as if they were somehow relevant, but for some strange reason you no longer want me to bring them up. I do not see that happening because it may explain a lot.

I agree, it really isn't the beautiful thing that most people try to make it out to be. On this, we agree.

Right! And if I were to wager, I would bet on the fact that when you were at one time a Christian you not only thought Christianity to be beautiful, but also attempted to persuade others of this as well. Again, this demonstrates one who did not know a whole lot about what they were convinced of, or what they rejected.

Then you are far too easily convinced.

This is really funny coming from one who freely admits to being convinced of something there would be no facts and evidence to support. I can tell you this. Most folks who know me well, accuse me of being critical to a fault.

Your facts and evidence is a claim that other people believed a thing 2,000 years ago.

I'm afraid not. It is not that they "believed a thing". Rather, it is that they claimed to have witnessed, and there are scholars now who do not believe the resurrection who are convinced these folks were truly convinced they had encountered the risen Christ. Now, how do you believe such scholars have come to such a conclusion? That would be based upon the facts and evidence we have. Of course, you may not believe the scholars to be correct, but we are then left with those who made the claim knowing it to be a lie. It is a matter of sitting down in order to determine what all would have to be involved in order for the reports to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false, and I can assure you that there are no easy answers. In other words, it is not as easy as some Christians make it out to be when they say things like, "the Bible says it and I believe it", but it is also not as simple as saying, "the whole thing was made up". It is far more complicated than that, and for one to think otherwise, is for one to be in a dream world.

This is why I encourage you not to learn about Mormonism.

Learning about Mormonism is not going to change the fact that we have very good evidence that the early followers of Jesus were indeed convinced they had encountered the risen Christ. Now, let us compare this to the evidence that there were some golden tablets that only one person could interpret, who claimed the tablets were a message from God. Can you see the difference? One is based upon a claimed historical event, which does not involve God communicating any sort of rules or laws for us to follow.

When I couldn't think that your facts and evidence couldn't get any worse, you provide us with this.
I find your reasoning to be extremely faulty.
1) Some people 2,000 years ago are claimed to have believed a thing.

This is addressed above in that these folks did not simply "believe a thing", but rather were convinced they had witnessed Jesus alive after death.

2) Folks now days give alternative explanations.

Read more carefully. The above is not evidence of the resurrection. Rather, the above demonstrates there are facts, and evidence concerning the resurrection which you want to deny. If there were no facts and evidence concerning the resurrection, then there would be no need in the alternative explanations.

Allow me to attempt to explain it this way. There are some folks who were Christians at one time, and they believed it to be all so simple. In other words, the Bible says it, I believed it, and that settled it". However, when they come to reject Christianity, they are still under the impression that it is all so simple. I am attempting to explain to you that it ain't that simple. For one to be under the impression that it is as simple as "the Bible says it" or that the whole thing was made up, is for one to be in a dream world.

You're spreading more falsehoods. Do you come to deceive?
You asked me about a verse. I supplied my understanding. You disagreed, which I note is very common in your religion, up to having over 40,000 denominations (which is a joke). You didn't like my understanding and claimed I was wrong. I in fact found support for my initial claim. Now you don't like either of our explanations. I care not as it has NOTHING to do with this debate.

You can continue to say the above if you wish. The one thing I know you will not do is to actually deal with the text, because it would be impossible for you to make it anything other than a warning to the Corinthians, and it does not matter how many folks you appeal to, nor does it matter how many denominations there are in Christianity. The only thing which matters is the fact that it would be impossible for you to attempt to make the passage be about Paul telling us to guard our thoughts. That is a fact, which is why you will not attempt to deal with the text.

Get this readers! Realworldjack pretends that he addressed mechanism for how and why humans created god concepts by admitting they have no idea about such things.
In reality, Realworldjack doesn't know how humans invented the gods. Doesn't even have any idea even though explanations have been offered here.
Realworldjack, I agree that you don't have any idea about how humans invented the gods. You not wanting to discuss such a thing is just a defense mechanism at play to protect the one believe you do know about.

My friend, it is dealing with an issue head on to admit you have no idea. However, it is relevant to this conversation to bring up the fact that it can be demonstrated that Christianity did not begin with a "god concept". In other words, even if we were to somehow demonstrate how these other "god concepts" originated, this would not explain Christianity since Christianity did not begin with a "god concept".

Now you are at war with the English language.
con·cept
/ˈkänˌsept/
noun
an abstract idea; a general notion.

EXACTLY! And Christianity did not start upon such a thing, but was rather based upon a claimed resurrection. In other words, Christianity was not started with an "idea or notion" rather it was started with an historical event.

Some of the names this god concept was known by over the years were/are:
Abba
Adonai
El Shaddai
Jehovah
Elohim
Yahweh

None of these have a thing at all to do with a claimed historical event, nor does it have a thing in the world to do with the facts and evidence surrounding the event.

Christianity is based upon a claim. Not any claim, but a claim that a dead and decomposing body reanimated to life. I provided a few names for the god concept behind this claim. You can now amend your thinking, or continue to war with language.

You are making my case. The list you supply has nothing to do with the claim of a resurrection, along with the facts and evidence you are attempting to explain away.

Pride comes before a fall comes to mind.

How does this contribute to the debate?

Holy monkies! This doesn't address my questions in any way shape or form. Again, I know why you want to debate my previously held beliefs in place of having a discussion about how and why humans invented god concepts.

It did not address your question concerning "god concepts". It did however address the fact that you were attempting to suggest that anyone who believes in these things must operate upon faith. I was simply demonstrating that faith is not required in order to believe the resurrection took place.

You can continue to try, but you will not be able to hurt me with your words.

The thing is, they are not my words, rather they are your own words.

They are nothing but a distraction and a dodge away from discussing how humans created gods and how faith is then required to believe in such things.

Okay? Let us determine if you believe this to be a dodge? I do not know how all these "god concepts" came into being. What I do know is, Christianity did not start upon a "god concept". Rather, Christianity began upon what is claimed to be a historical event. Moreover, there are facts and evidence surrounding the claims of the resurrection, and therefore, one does not have to employ faith in order to believe the resurrection took place since there are facts and evidence to place one's belief upon. I do not see how this is a "dodge"?

You are not being honorable.

And I suppose you are?

I'm asking legitimate questions and you respond with ad hominem attacks on my character.

Again, repeating what another has said about themselves almost word for word is not an attack.

You will know them by their fruits.

Where did that come from? The Bible? Well, we know it not to be reliable, right?

Have you come up with any idea about how ancient Americans (North and South) for example came up with their god concepts?
Perhaps they were believing oral tradition.

Perhaps it was "oral tradition"? What we can demonstrate beyond doubt is the fact that those who started Christianity were not depending upon "oral tradition, but were rather claiming to have witnessed Christ alive after death.

It would seem that their belief would be exactly as justified as yours if that were the case (that unknown people believed something in the past).

As we have just demonstrated, this can be demonstrated beyond doubt not to be the case.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #66]

You have alluded to the idea that unknown people 2,000 years ago believed a claim.

Let's get this straight this time. I have not "alluded" to anything. Rather, I have stated as a fact. It was not an "idea". Moreover, it is not "unknown people". Finally, it was not that they simply "believed a claim". Can you get all that? Let us put it this way. It is fact which can be demonstrated that we have facts and evidence in support of the early followers of Jesus, Peter, James, John, Matthew, Paul, and so on, were convinced they witnessed Jesus alive after the crucifixion. This is a tremendous difference than those who "believed a claim".

It is a fact that people believed such a thing, but this isn't unique to Christianity.

Correct! But again, we are not talking about those who "believed a claim" others were making. Rather, we are talking about those who were making the claim, with very strong evidence that they actually believed they had witnessed what they were claiming. This means we are left with the fact that they did indeed believe they had witnessed Jesus alive after death, or they were making the claim but knew this not to be the case.

Your reasoning can be used to justify competing religions, which makes your argument very poor.

What other religion are we talking about in which we have those who were making a claim of a resurrection with very strong evidence these folks were truly convinced they had witnessed such a thing, and if they were not convinced of this, we are left with them making a claim they knew to be false? What other religion compares? Would you like to make a case for any of these other religions?

So logically, according to you, I'm justified to believe that Muhammed flew on a winged horse, if I can find unreliable material that early unknown followers believed in, according to scholars. Have I steel manned your argument correctly?

Allow me to demonstrate the difference here. If you can demonstrate those who claimed to have witnessed Muhammed's flight, along with strong evidence these folks were convinced they had witnessed such an event, then you would have a case. So then, the comparison is, Muhammed makes the claim and there are those who simply believe the claim, as opposed to those who make the claim to have witnessed Jesus alive after death, with very strong evidence they believed they had indeed witnessed such an event. The point is, it is not hard to believe that there are folks who believe something they were told by others, (as some folks former lives demonstrate) as opposed to having folks convinced, they had indeed witnessed an event.

Right, now if you witnessed a resurrection or Muhammed flying on a winged horse, that would be something. Me pointing out that people a long time ago believed that Muhammed flew on a winged horse would mean little to you, but that is what you offer us here.

NO! What I am offering is the fact that we have a number of folks who claimed to have witnessed Jesus alive after death, with strong evidence they believed this to be the case, which has nothing whatsoever to do with those who may simply believe claims others were making.

This is to assume facts that are not in evidence. Again, see Joseph Smith and his golden plates and magic glasses. I can even provide names of the claimed eyewitnesses. You can only pretend that your 'evidence' is better, but it isn't.

What in the world did they witness? I'm thinking that would be golden plates. If there were golden plates, what was on these golden plates? Well, we would have to take the word of one who claimed to be the only one who had the ability to interpret the plates. How in the world does this compare to a good number of folks claiming to have witnessed Jesus alive after death, with the evidence they believed this to be the case? Eventually, you are going to have to attempt to make the argument that we cannot know if they were convinced of this at all, which is going to leave us with the fact they made the whole thing up. When you see how difficult that is going to be, you may be left with attempting to deny that we can know anything at all, which is what is called, intellectual suicide. The main thing here however is, you are doing yourself no favors by pointing to these other religions.

Is it more likely that Joseph Smith had golden plates and magic glasses or that humans were deceiving other humans?

I tend to stay away from the odds and stick to the facts and evidence. It is not difficult to imagine one who claims golden tablets that only he can interpret who goes on to convince others. What is hard to imagine, is how we have those who were claiming to have witnessed Jesus alive after death, with the evidence which suggest they truly believed this to be the case, with very strong evidence they continued to make such claims well into their old age, in the face of those whom we know would have had every reason to stop the claims.

Humans being deceived is ordinary, not extraordinary.

Correct! And we can look at the former life of one here to demonstrate this to be the case. As far as Christianity is concerned, who was deceived? Was it the early followers of Jesus who were convinced they had seen Jesus alive after death? Or did they know Jesus did not rise, and they were the ones doing the deceiving? I can assure you, either way you go here, you are left with the extraordinary.

I'm sorry, but which folks are you alluding to? Can you provide names for these eyewitnesses like I can for Joseph Smith?

Sure, Peter, James, John, Matthew, Paul, and all the rest of the apostles, along with others.

Are you starting to get it now as to why I'm asking you to consider competing religions and how they pulled of convincing others?

You are not getting it. There is a tremendous difference between the main character of a religion who is making a claim to have heard from God in some sort of way, who then goes out in order to convince others this would be the case, telling these others how God would have us behave, as opposed to the main character of Christianity who does not leave a single word, who is crucified, and it is a whole group of others who claimed to have seen this same character alive after the crucifixion, with very strong evidence these folks truly believed they had seen this character alive after death.

My friend, there is a whole lot more which can be added, but the point is, it is not very hard to imagine a main character of a religion being able to convince folks they hear from God and obtaining a large following. What is extremely hard to imagine is a whole group of everyday common fishermen, who have followed a certain man for some 3 years, who watch as this man is crucified, and these folks all are somehow convinced they saw this man alive after the crucifixion, with very strong evidence these men continued to proclaim this resurrection well into their old age. What would be even more difficult to believe, is the idea that these everyday common fishermen, who had just watched their leader crucified, in a matter of weeks were able to put some sort of story together, knowing it to be a lie, going out and attempting to convince others of this extraordinary event, in the face of those who would have had every reason to put a stop to it, and all these events, no matter the explanation, becomes one of the most, if not the most significant events in the history of the world.

My friend, no matter the explanation you have for these events some 2000 years ago, you are left with the extraordinary. If Jesus was not raised from the dead but these folks were somehow convinced that He had, and go on to make this claim one of the most significant events known to man, that is extraordinary. If Jesus was not raised from the dead, and these folks knew this to be the case, and were somehow able to hold the story together, in the face of those who would have had every reason to stop it, and this event goes on to have one of the most significant events known to man, that would be extraordinary. It seems to me you are simply exchanging one extraordinary tale for another, and going with the one you believe to be the least extraordinary.

Holy monkeys! So Islam is true because of the crusades! Your reasoning can be applied to justify far too many religions. Can't you see this?

Let's attempt to stay on the same page. It is not extraordinary for folks to be convinced of something they were told by others, who are willing to fight and die for what it is they believe. What would be extraordinary is for a whole group of folks to claim to have witnessed an event which they knew to be a lie. In other words, you may get me to suffer for something you deceive me into believing. However, I highly doubt I would be willing to suffer for something I know to be a lie.

Allow me to give you an example. It is extremely difficult for me to imagine that we had the technology in the 1960's to travel to the moon. However, you know what convinces me that we did? That would be what all would have to be involved in order for it to be false, including the number of folks who would have had to be in the know, who would have had to hold it all together. Again, there is a tremendous difference between a main character claiming to hear from God and going on to deceive others, as opposed to a main character who leaves nothing in writing himself, who was put to death, and it is those after his death who are able to hold together the tale that he had rose from the dead in the face of those who would have had every reason to stop the claim.

Yup, the facts and evidence show that people believed the initial claims, just like how you argue for believing in Christianity. I am pointing out your special pleading, I did not expect you to become a mormon.

Allow me to point something else out here. I do not have to know a thing about any other religion, in order to determine if there are facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the resurrection. Special pleading would be for me to ask that Christianity be held to a different standard, and I have not done such a thing. What I am doing is to demonstrate that there is a difference between a character claiming to hear from God, who goes on to deceive folks this is the case, as opposed to a whole group of folks claiming to have witnessed a resurrection, with evidence they truly believed this to be the case, holding this story together to the end of their lives. How is this "special pleading".

Do you believe that Mormonism is true or false? People believed the claims after all.

If all we had was people believing a claim, then that would not be evidence in the least. However, as I am demonstrating we have far more involved than that as far as Christianity is concerned.

I in fact acknowledge that people believed both claims. You for some reason are only concerned with those that believed your preferred claims about a resurrected corpse.

You continue to say the same thing over, and over simply changing the wording.

Any thoughts as to how religions formed in the ancient Americas for example (everywhere to be honest)?
Do you think that humans wanted answers to unknowns and that the gods supplied such answers? Is it possible that the gods are humans invented answers to address these unknowns, or do only the Muslims have it right possibly?

You may well be correct in that man has created gods. However, we both know for a fact that Christianity did not begin with a "god concept".

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #67]

Kind of like how the inclusion of Luke/Acts in the Bible does not in any way demonstrate that the stories are anything other than made up.

Exactly! The fact that "Luke/Acts" is in the Bible does not demonstrate in any way the material is trustworthy. However, we both know that a natural reading of this material would lead one to believe that this author sat down to write, not one but two long and detailed letters addressed to one individual, out of concern for this individual "knowing the exact truth", with very strong evidence this author was a traveling companion of Paul, which would go on to tell us that this author would have known and spent time with the apostles hearing the claims they were making. In order to read this material any differently, one would have to go through all sorts of mental gymnastics.

Of course, there are those who understand what is said above, and they understand that if the above is the case, then these letters would be extremely strong evidence to be considered, and therefore, we cannot read this material in the natural way, but have to twist the mind in order to jump through the hoops.

First, we surely cannot have this author sit down to write not one, but two long and detailed letters to one individual, out of concern for this individual "knowing the exact truth". NO! We can have none of this, because we need this author to be appealing to the masses. Therefore, we must leave the natural reading of the text in order to believe this author was somehow using the meaning of the name Theophilus to appeal to a wider audience. GOOD GRIEF! If one, simply accepts this to be fact, it can only be because this is what they would rather believe. I mean, what would be the evidence this would be the case? I got nothing. What I can tell you is the fact that in the second letter Theophilus is addressed as "most excellent" which is indeed evidence it would be an individual. The bottom line is the fact that this author using the name Theophilus in order to appeal to a wider audience has not been demonstrated in the least, while the natural reading would lead one to believe Theophilus was indeed an individual.

Now we have to move on to the evidence for the author being a traveling companion of Paul. Of course, this would be the "we" and "us" passages in which a natural reading would lead one to believe the author was present with Paul. Again, we can have none of that because this would be very strong evidence this author would have been alive at the time of the events recorded, along with being evidence this author would have known the apostles personally, hearing the claims they were making. However, we must leave the natural reading of the text in order to jump through another hoop, and believe this author was using some sort of literary device. Again, if one simply accepts this to be the case, they are demonstrating one who would rather believe it. What is the evidence this is the case? I got nothing. I can tell you that the idea the author was using a literary device has not been demonstrated in the least.

But allow me to give you another piece of evidence this author traveled with Paul which I have not heard the scholars address. That would be the fact that the author begins his second letter describing the actions of the apostles in Jerusalem. However, for some strange reason, when Paul arrives on the scene, and begins his journeys, we begin to hear nothing of what the apostles in Jerusalem are doing, and only hear of the actions of Paul, with the author using the words, "we" and "us". Now, can you imagine why this would be? Of course you can! That would be because if this author was traveling with Paul he could not have possibly reported on the actions of the apostles in Jerusalem, and could only report upon what Paul was doing, and for some other strange reason we do not hear of the other apostles until, or unless Paul comes in contact with them. My friend, this is exactly what we have, and one is free to jump through all the hoops they wish in order to cast doubt, but one thing one cannot do is to insist we do not have evidence that this author traveled with Paul.

But let us continue on thinking about this. It is a fact that this author ends his second letter with Paul being under arrest for some 2 years. Now, why do you suppose the author ends this letter with Paul being under arrest? Could it be the fact that the author is there with Paul, and there is nothing left to report to Theophilus? Let us go on to think about the fact that in one of the letters in which it is clear that Paul is under arrest, he tells Timothy, "only Luke is left with me". This would tell us Paul is under arrest, with only one person, Luke being there with him. Let us go on to consider the fact that if this author was indeed with Paul during a two-year period of arrest, this would give this author ample time to sit down to write not one, but two long and detailed letters addressed to one individual out of concern for this individual "knowing the exact truth". This would indeed explain the "we" and "us" passages.

I am simply going to end here by saying again, I really do not mind those who want to go through all these mental gymnastics. One is certainly free to twist the mind any way they wish. However, there is no way for one to remain intellectually honest while insisting there would be no facts, evidence, and reasons to believe this author was a traveling companion of Paul, which would mean he would have been alive at the time of the events recorded and would have known and conversed with the apostles knowing the claims they were making. In other words, one can attempt to cast all the doubt they wish, but one cannot remain intellectually honest while insisting we do not have this evidence. The fact there are those who are attempting to give alternative explanations for this evidence, demonstrates the evidence.

[Difflugia]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #67]

You haven't added any new information or justification for any of your assertions. As far as I can tell, you've merely repeated the same unsupported claims. The substance, such as it is, of your argument is:

The fact there are those who are attempting to give alternative explanations for this evidence, demonstrates the evidence.

In the hopes of adding something to the discussion, I'm going to reproduce an essay from Richard I. Pervo's commentary on Acts from the Hermeneia series of Bible commentary, pp. 392-396. This is longer than most material I reproduce from books with active copyright and even so, I'm leaving out the footnotes that are themselves quite informative. This essay at least touches on most of the points that Realworldjack would like to assert about Acts and its author, so I think it's worth the read.

As a quick aside, when I quote text out of paper books, I use my phone camera and Tesseract OCR software. It supports mixed English and Ancient Greek.

Excursus: "We" in Acts

One of the most vexing problems for the analysis of Acts is the use of “we” in various parts of the narration: 16:10-17; 20:5-16; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16. These passages raise questions of source, form, and narrative intent. One possibility is that the author utilized “we” to mark points at which he was present on the scene. A second is that the “we” represents a source (or sources) utilized by the author. Other proposals refer to formal devices or narrative emphases. Even the straightforward assignment of the first person plural to the presence of the actual author is not without difficulties, for it must explain the sudden entrance arid abrupt departure of this form, as well as other inconsistencies. A. J. M. Wedderburn states the historical problem well. The horns of the dilemma are the apparent claim of authorial presence, which contrasts with evidence, making it difficult to conclude that the author was a companion of Paul. Every solution must therefore include a literary dimension. Susan M. Praeder identified four outstanding narrative questions: anonymity, plurality, restriction of first person to certain sections, and the mixture of first and third persons. Each of these is acute, and no comprehensive solution is likely to receive general approval. Readers reasonably expect that first person speakers will be identified, either as characters within a narrative or as the author (with or without others). Use of “we” rather than “I” intensifies the problem. To these must be added the problem of the text, for the D-Text extends the use and range of “we.” In the tradition the first person is therefore amenable to expansion. This suggests that later editors viewed the “we” as authentication and thought that the author had not provided enough of this useful commodity.

Although the traditional view holds that the first plural shows that the author was a companion of Paul and thus guarantees the authenticity of the account, the evidence of early Christian literature tends to the contrary: “we” is most often a sign of late composition and is rather better attested in fiction than in works of unquestioned accuracy. This value is more or less completely compromised in Acts because the subject of “we” is never specified. Readers must attempt to deduce the memberships of these groups for themselves, and conjectures vary.

In 16:10, for example, “we” appears to embrace Paul, Silas, and Timothy. Timothy is present in chap. 20 (v. 3), but excluded from “we” by v. 5. “We” must therefore include Paul and at least one other. The “we” of 27:1 remains anonymous, apart from Paul, while in 27:34 it includes the entire ship’s company. Research has shown that there are no stylistic grounds for isolating the “we-passages” from the balance of the material. To this must be added the literary observation that the we-narrator can be no less omniscient than the narrator of third person passages. Whatever sources or inspirations the author may have had, the first plural narrator lacks the limitations of ordinary human speakers.

Two general functions of first person are noteworthy. One is αύτοψία (“personal experience”), a claim to have been present on the scene and thus able to authenticate the event or events. Personal experience was one quality of the “good” historian, and claims of this sort are not always to be taken at face value. A major obstacle to comparison with historiography is that historical writings are not anonymous. Readers therefore know who one component of the first plural is. One must therefore question Eckhard Plumacher’s claim: “What initially appears to be an idiosyncrasy of the author has the deeper purpose of demonstrating his role as a historian.” The quest for formal parallels must look to smaller forms, notably the itinerary. That quest has not yielded to a solution.

The first person is certainly a common feature of travel narratives, appearing since the Odyssey in Greek literature. It may be a product of the social psychology of those traveling in a conveyance or party. Although parallels from travel accounts are relevant to the consideration of “we” in Acts, they do not fully explain the phenomenon. “We” does not provide explicit authentication of the book. The authority of the text derives from the reader’s acceptance of the claims of the narrative in general. One would come closer to an accurate description by stating that “we” slips out of the account whenever something important is about to happen.

Although one cannot make any sweeping claims for the role of “we” as a conventional feature of travel accounts, particularly those at sea, “we” in Acts is prominent in the coastal regions as well as in the voyage to Rome. Readers would have deemed the usage appropriate. Research since Dibelius has made it apparent that the narrative function of “we” should be examined before—or at least independently of—the question of source, since source analysis can preempt questions of function. The implication of these findings is that “we” occurs in the narrative because the author has either left or placed it there. The least compelling solution to the problem is the hypothesis that “we” is a relic of a source (or sources) more or less inadvertently not removed by the final editor.

Ernst Haenchen provided the basis for recent research on this problem. The first plural brings the readers into the story. Tannehill and Kurz reach a similar conclusion. This is most apparent at its first appearance at 16:10. When the story comes to the Aegean region, it comes to “us,” that is to say, the implied audience and the geographical horizon of the implied reader. The Pauline churches of the Aegean region testify in their own voice to the power and progress of his message and labors. Yet, as Haenchen recognized, this “vividness” and sense of “participation” cannot be permitted to oust Paul from prominence. Thomas E. Phillips and William S. Campbell have developed two corollaries to this approach. Campbell states that “we” helps to bolster the credibility of Paul (a role that was earlier taken by Barnabas). For Phillips, the chronological watershed of Acts comes after chap. 15, separating the era of the apostles from the time of Paul. The we-narrator is “postapostolic.” “We” marks a division of eras. Contributions like theirs show that future light will come from literary analysis.

Sources may stand behind the bulk of first plural usages. In chaps. 20-21 “we” may reflect the hypothetical source, a letter from Paul and/or his companions on the journey to deliver the Collection, a text in which “we” would be appropriate. There, too, “we” has been manipulated by the author. Similarly, the use of “we” on the voyage to Rome (chaps. 27-28) may reflect a source, although this could have been, as Dibelius suspected, a source that had nothing to do with Paul. In conclusion: narrative explanations illuminate the use of “we” in Acts but do not fully elucidate it. “We” is not a single character and therefore unlikely to represent the author. “Participation,” in the sense of the “we” of the community (as in John 1:14), is an explanation that best gives credit to the author. This does not eliminate the possibility that the author overlooked the conflict between anonymous, omniscient narration and use of the (theoretically) limited first person and thus inadvertently created most of the problems. The use of “we” does not identify the author of Acts. It does serve to enhance the credibility of the narrative and to associate the narrator with the person of Paul. It is a bid to be recognized as an exponent of authentic Paulinism and to authenticate the Paulinism of Acts. “We” is to Acts as the letter form is to the Deutero-Pauline epistles.

[Clownboat]

My friend, none of your arguments are legitimate. All of your arguments are things which one should have thought about long, long ago.

Arguments which one should have thought about long, long ago does not make an argument illegitimate.
Copy/past to save time and sanity: "I'm asking legitimate questions about how humans formed god beliefs and you don't want to discuss such a thing, but boy are you infatuated with my former beliefs for some reason."

Do you really imagine you are the only one who has thought of such a thing? I can go on to tell you that it does not take a whole lot of thinking at all to come to the conclusion that the fact that there are other religions, and that they cannot all be correct, has no bearing at all upon whether we have facts and evidence concerning the resurrection.

There are no facts nor evidence concerning a resurrection.

It is an extremely lame argument which I find it hard to imagine anyone would attempt to make.

What you find lame is irrelevant to debate. That you are unable to answer simple questions is relevant. This is your failure, not mine.
<Snipped irrelevant words about my previous beliefs for being irrelevant to this discussion>

I was a better Christian than you will ever be and you are just deceived by Satan.

What in the world this would have to do with the point I was making is beyond me?

The part you quote mind out that would have clued you in was this: "Two can play this silly game!"
<Snipped more about my previous beliefs for being irrelevant>

Leaving this here for the readers: It is you that continues to make this about me and my previous beliefs. I'm asking legitimate questions about how humans formed god beliefs and you don't want to discuss such a thing, but boy are you infatuated with my former beliefs for some reason.

My friend, your former beliefs, and behavior which you have shared are indeed relevant to the debate, in that you demonstrate one who claims to have been a convinced Christian, but you exhibited behavior which is nowhere taught by Christianity. As far as "god beliefs" are concerned, I have demonstrated that Christianity did not begin with a "god belief". It can be demonstrated that Christianity began with a claimed resurrection.

Let's test your words for honesty or lack there of.
Who is it that resurrected Jesus?

So then, what you are saying is, you were not very "Christlike" while you were a Christian, but because you are no longer a Christian, this has led you to be more "Christlike"?

Nope, but this if off topic and just a dodge.

<Snipped more about my previous beliefs for being irrelevant to this debate>
<Snipped more about my previous beliefs for being irrelevant to this debate>

This is really funny coming from one who freely admits to being convinced of something there would be no facts and evidence to support.

There are no fact or evidence for any resurrection for any human ever on this planet.
The best you can do is to allude to the idea that some unknown people a long time ago are thought to have believed a thing. If your goal is to show that humans have believed all sorts of silly things in the past, I would agree as it is still ongoing to this day.

Want to hear a real fact? Decomposed corpses don't reanimate to life.
fact
/fak(t)/
noun
a thing that is known or proved to be true.

I can tell you this. Most folks who know me well, accuse me of being critical to a fault.

I would only accuse you of having faulty reasoning and that you war with the English language when you allude to facts and evidence for a resurrection.

I'm afraid not. It is not that they "believed a thing". Rather, it is that they claimed to have witnessed, and there are scholars now who do not believe the resurrection who are convinced these folks were truly convinced they had encountered the risen Christ.

Your appeal to authority is not justification to claim that there are facts and evidence that a decomposing body reanimated to life. You know this already which is why you are not persuaded by what appeals to authority a Muslim would make. I know you know this and so do the readers here.

Now, how do you believe such scholars have come to such a conclusion? That would be based upon the facts and evidence we have.

Thanks for laying out the appeal to authority! You make this far to easy!

This is why I encourage you not to learn about Mormonism.

Learning about Mormonism is not going to change the fact that we have very good evidence that the early followers of Jesus were indeed convinced they had encountered the risen Christ.

Now you call your appeal to authority, very good evidence! Surely you have to be kidding.
Appeal to authority fallacy refers to the use of an expert's opinion to back up an argument. Instead of justifying one's claim.
Your very good evidence is in reality a fallacy.

This is addressed above in that these folks did not simply "believe a thing", but rather were convinced they had witnessed Jesus alive after death.

Nah, they just believed it. On faith. Is faith a reliable path to reality?

Read more carefully. The above is not evidence of the resurrection. Rather, the above demonstrates there are facts, and evidence concerning the resurrection which you want to deny. If there were no facts and evidence concerning the resurrection, then there would be no need in the alternative explanations.

There are no facts nor evidence concerning any human as having ever resurrecting from the dead. There are fallacies and I acknowledge the fallacy you continue to make.

Allow me to attempt to explain it this way. There are some folks who were Christians at one time, and they believed it to be all so simple. In other words, the Bible says it, I believed it, and that settled it". However, when they come to reject Christianity, they are still under the impression that it is all so simple. I am attempting to explain to you that it ain't that simple. For one to be under the impression that it is as simple as "the Bible says it" or that the whole thing was made up, is for one to be in a dream world.

You didn't explain anything. You only prattled.

My friend, it is dealing with an issue head on to admit you have no idea. However, it is relevant to this conversation to bring up the fact that it can be demonstrated that Christianity did not begin with a "god concept". In other words, even if we were to somehow demonstrate how these other "god concepts" originated, this would not explain Christianity since Christianity did not begin with a "god concept".

Holy monkeys! Who was it again that is claimed to have resurrected Jesus?

And Christianity did not start upon such a thing, but was rather based upon a claimed resurrection.

Holy monkeys! Who was it again that is claimed to have resurrected Jesus?

In other words, Christianity was not started with an "idea or notion" rather it was started with an historical event.

Please show that the resurrection of Jesus was a historical event.

None of these have a thing at all to do with a claimed historical event, nor does it have a thing in the world to do with the facts and evidence surrounding the event.

They are the names of a god or gods that predated Christianity. Which god name do you use as the one that resurrected Jesus?
Again, there are no actual facts or evidence surrounding the religious claim that a god concept, (can we use Jehovah, or would you prefer to use another name?) as having resurrected a decomposing corpse. You have offered a fallacy though. The appeal to authority to be specific.

You are making my case. The list you supply has nothing to do with the claim of a resurrection, along with the facts and evidence you are attempting to explain away.

Let's test this for accuracy and honesty.
What is the name of the god concept that is claimed to have resurrected Jesus from the dead? Then we can see if this god concept had anything to do with the claim of a resurrection.

It did not address your question concerning "god concepts". It did however address the fact that you were attempting to suggest that anyone who believes in these things must operate upon faith. I was simply demonstrating that faith is not required in order to believe the resurrection took place.

Faith is required to believe that a resurrection took place. You for some reason have placed your faith in humans that have arrived at the conclusion you desire.

What I do know is, Christianity did not start upon a "god concept".

What name do you use for the god concept that is credited for having resurrected a Jesus again?

Rather, Christianity began upon what is claimed to be a historical event.

Yes, just a claim. One can choose to believe this claim if they apply faith.

Moreover, there are facts and evidence surrounding the claims of the resurrection,

No, there isn't. If there was, you would have provided them by now. There are appeals to authority that one can place their faith in. This I do acknowledge.

and therefore, one does not have to employ faith in order to believe the resurrection took place since there are facts and evidence to place one's belief upon.

Demonstrably wrong. You have placed your faith in scholars that agree with you. You have not provided any actual facts nor evidence that any decomposing body at anytime has ever reanimated to life.

You are not being honorable.

And I suppose you are?

Yes. If there are any questions that you feel I am not answering, list them and I'll address them.

Where did that come from? The Bible? Well, we know it not to be reliable, right?

Agreed, the Bible and claims made within it should be treated like any other religious promotional material and not assumed to be reliable.

Have you come up with any idea about how ancient Americans (North and South) for example came up with their god concepts?

Perhaps they were believing oral tradition.

How did they come up with their god concepts? Not how did the their stories and ideas get passed down before written language.

Perhaps it was "oral tradition"? What we can demonstrate beyond doubt is the fact that those who started Christianity were not depending upon "oral tradition, but were rather claiming to have witnessed Christ alive after death.

Agreed, those putting forth the religion that became known as Christianity were making claims. Why have you applied faith to believe that these people creating a religion were being honest about their claims that were then written down by unknown people long after the claims MIGHT have been made? I find your faith unjustified and see how it can be applied to believe that Big Foot is real as well. Therefore I don't find faith to be a reliable path to reality.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #74]


Ain't this just something? I'm telling you; you cannot make this stuff up. I mean, I am having far too much fun here. I have one guy who is accusing me of appealing to authority, and how this would be a fallacy, but the thing is, he had already appealed to authority himself, and now I have one who is copying and pasting authority, and I can assure you that the one who has accused me of the fallacy of appealing to authority will not in any way attempt to point out the fallacy of copying and pasting authority. Again, I am having far too much fun.

My friend, did you actually read what you copied and pasted? I mean for real? Right out the gate here is what is said,

One possibility is that the author utilized “we” to mark points at which he was present on the scene.

Do you see what your authority is saying here? in other words, no matter what else is said, this must, and has to remain to be a possibility. Moreover, let us think about the fact that your authority does not in any way deal with the fact that the author begins the second letter describing the actions of the apostles in Jerusalem, but for some strange reason when Paul arrives upon the scene and begins his journeys, we begin to hear nothing of the actions of the apostles in Jerusalem but only begin to hear of the actions of Paul, and we do not hear about the actions of the apostles in Jerusalem until, or unless Paul comes in contact with them. I really do not have to explain why this would be the case. It would be the fact, that if this author was a traveling companion of Paul, he could not have possibly reported upon the actions of the apostles in Jerusalem, until, or unless Paul were to come in contact with them. My friend, this is exactly what we have, and there is no amount of appealing to authority which will change this fact.

Therefore, what we are left with is the fact that this author begins to use the words "we" and "us" as if he is there to witness the events he is recording, and the natural reading of the text would lead one to believe this to be the case. For one to come to a different conclusion, one would have to do all sorts of mental gymnastics. Then we have the fact that the author begins to focus solely upon the actions of Paul, while not reporting upon the actions of the apostles in Jerusalem, while using the words "we" and "us" with another clue being the fact that when Paul does come in contact with the apostles in Jerusalem the author includes them.

My friend, it is plain as the nose on your face, and I have no problem including these other possibilities put forth by the scholars but it in no way negates the fact that we have very good facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the author was a traveling companion of Paul. In other words, the fact remains, if one were to take the natural reading of the text, one would have to come away believing the author was indeed a traveling companion of Paul. In order to come to a different conclusion, one would have to do all sorts of mental gymnastics.

To end here, allow me to explain that I never appeal to authority which agrees with my position. Rather, if I appeal to authority, I appeal to those who would be opposed to the position I hold. In other words, I am appealing to those who are opposed who understand there are things which the facts and evidence demands they must concede. This is a far cry from those who copy and paste authority which support the position they hold. I will be waiting on the one who accused me of appealing to authority to point out this fallacy here, but I highly doubt this one will be willing to point such a fallacy out concerning one they happen to agree with.

[TRANSPONDER]

We seem too deep into the discussion for me to get into it but it looks like someone is trying to Validate Acts as a valid record by someone who was eyewitness. I can't think of anything else, not even John's 'eyewitness' which contradicts Luke various sources.

And there's the problem. The gospels can't be trusted. They are not anyone's eyewitness of anything.

cue 'your opinion'. Yes, but demonstrable. Thus, while I credit Paul's letters, though he is a crafty sharper from whom i would not buy a used car, I don't credit any of the gospels as being reliable.

Just sayin' that dickering about whose 'authority' is valid or not and appealing to 'We' as though it proved anything more than the writer asso umed more than one person.

Eg. The problem of John's resurrection. It looks for all the world as if John has Mary Magdalene going alone to the tomb and running off to the disciples to say that it's empty. But 'We' suggests that the other Mary was with her, which is what the other gospels say.

So really ...well 'we' suggests more than one person, but it's a bit flimsy to validate a shambles of a gospel is what I suppose I'm trying to say. But as I say, I sorta lost track of the discussion.

[Difflugia]

Ain't this just something? I'm telling you; you cannot make this stuff up.

It can apparently be difficult to teach, too.

I mean, I am having far too much fun here. I have one guy who is accusing me of appealing to authority, and how this would be a fallacy, but the thing is, he had already appealed to authority himself, and now I have one who is copying and pasting authority, and I can assure you that the one who has accused me of the fallacy of appealing to authority will not in any way attempt to point out the fallacy of copying and pasting authority. Again, I am having far too much fun.

An "appeal to authority" is a fallacy if one is presenting the authority in lieu of logical argument. If you were putting together a logical argument and I were telling you that you're wrong because an authority says you're wrong, that would be a fallacy. I'm not "appealing to authority" to counter any logic, however, but things that you are asserting as fact without justification. The things that you are claiming as fact are simply being pulled from someplace (let's charitably say, "from under your hat"). Up to now, the only reason that you've offered for believing that they're true is, bizarrely, that academics disagree with you.

The "copying and pasting authority" is, quite frankly, not for you. The conversation with you is pretty much winding down. I expect that you've said everything novel you're going to and will now repeat it ad infinitum, ad nauseum. I find the subject interesting, though, and happened to read the essay that I quoted since the last time I commented. I thought it likely enough that someone else reading the exchange might also find it interesting.

My friend, did you actually read what you copied and pasted?

Yes.

I mean for real?

I'm pretty sure.

Right out the gate here is what is said,

One possibility is that the author utilized “we” to mark points at which he was present on the scene.

The author writes like an academic and is mentioning all of the academic positions, even if they're ones with which he disagrees. You'll note, though, that the author never confuses possible and probable.

Do you see what your authority is saying here? in other words, no matter what else is said, this must, and has to remain to be a possibility.

Yes. It's possible. The author is enumerating proposed possibilities. He goes on, however, to explain that the problem with this possibility is that "the apparent claim of authorial presence" isn't viable because it "contrasts with evidence." It's possible, but it's grossly improbable. It's possible, but so are leprechauns.

Moreover, let us think about the fact...

Yes. Ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

[Clownboat]

Let's get this straight this time. I have not "alluded" to anything. Rather, I have stated as a fact. It was not an "idea". Moreover, it is not "unknown people". Finally, it was not that they simply "believed a claim". Can you get all that? Let us put it this way. It is fact which can be demonstrated that we have facts and evidence in support of the early followers of Jesus, Peter, James, John, Matthew, Paul, and so on, were convinced they witnessed Jesus alive after the crucifixion. This is a tremendous difference than those who "believed a claim".

I think you may be too easily convinced, but let's test that.
Who were these followers that you refer to that have convinced you that a decomposing body reanimated to life?

The fallacy of referring to other people's beliefs is called the ad populum fallacy. It occurs when someone argues that a claim is true because many people believe it, instead of using evidence to justify their position.

Correct! But again, we are not talking about those who "believed a claim" others were making. Rather, we are talking about those who were making the claim, with very strong evidence that they actually believed they had witnessed what they were claiming. This means we are left with the fact that they did indeed believe they had witnessed Jesus alive after death, or they were making the claim but knew this not to be the case.

Argument ad populum with an appeal to authority when you refer to the scholar that subscribe to your view. You seem to be using two fallacious arguments in order to believe that a decomposing body reanimated to life. That doesn't give you pause at all?

What other religion are we talking about in which we have those who were making a claim of a resurrection with very strong evidence these folks were truly convinced they had witnessed such a thing, and if they were not convinced of this, we are left with them making a claim they knew to be false? What other religion compares? Would you like to make a case for any of these other religions?

All explained in the part you quote mind out for some reason: "You have alluded to the idea that unknown people 2,000 years ago believed a claim."

Allow me to demonstrate the difference here. If you can demonstrate those who claimed to have witnessed Muhammed's flight, along with strong evidence these folks were convinced they had witnessed such an event, then you would have a case. So then, the comparison is, Muhammed makes the claim and there are those who simply believe the claim, as opposed to those who make the claim to have witnessed Jesus alive after death, with very strong evidence they believed they had indeed witnessed such an event. The point is, it is not hard to believe that there are folks who believe something they were told by others, (as some folks former lives demonstrate) as opposed to having folks convinced, they had indeed witnessed an event.

I reject that appeals to authority or arguments ad populum are justifications for believing claims. This goes for dead bodies reanimating to life or people flying on winged horses. More than fallacies are needed for me. I submit that many humans apply faith to believe such claims and I don't feel that faith is a reliable path to reality.

NO! What I am offering is the fact that we have a number of folks who claimed to have witnessed Jesus alive after death, with strong evidence they believed this to be the case, which has nothing whatsoever to do with those who may simply believe claims others were making.

Thanks for noting again both fallacies that you are committing. I acknowledge that these fallacies are what you refer to when you use the words fact and evidence for a resurrection. What you haven't actually provided is a valid fact nor evidence to justify a decomposing corpse reanimated to life.

What in the world did they witness? I'm thinking that would be golden plates. If there were golden plates, what was on these golden plates? Well, we would have to take the word of one who claimed to be the only one who had the ability to interpret the plates. How in the world does this compare to a good number of folks claiming to have witnessed Jesus alive after death, with the evidence they believed this to be the case?

The evidence for Mormonism is almost as bad as the evidence you are providing. You're literally asking me to compare your bad evidence to the bad evidence for Mormonism and I think this escapes you.

The main thing here however is, you are doing yourself no favors by pointing to these other religions.

Then engage me on these other religions and show just how futile my endeavor is if you can. Religious beliefs are based on faith. Yours it seems is based on fallacies that you are calling facts and evidence. I assume there is also faith being employed as well.

I tend to stay away from the odds and stick to the facts and evidence.

Odds are why we know we shouldn't gamble and your facts and evidence are in reality fallacies.
Some scholars believe that there were people that believed they witnessed a Jesus after a crucifixion. = Argument from authority fallacy.
Some people believed they witnessed a Jesus after a crucifixion. = Ad populum fallacy.
You really should stick with odds over fallacies and especially over faith in my opinion.

Correct! And we can look at the former life of one here to demonstrate this to be the case. As far as Christianity is concerned, who was deceived? Was it the early followers of Jesus who were convinced they had seen Jesus alive after death? Or did they know Jesus did not rise, and they were the ones doing the deceiving? I can assure you, either way you go here, you are left with the extraordinary.

I don't know, but I'm open to learning. Do you have anything outside of fallacious arguments to justify a reanimated corpse, or should I just apply faith and then believe this claim? I don't find faith to be a reliable path to reality. How about yourself?

I'm sorry, but which folks are you alluding to? Can you provide names for these eyewitnesses like I can for Joseph Smith?

Sure, Peter, James, John, Matthew, Paul, and all the rest of the apostles, along with others.

You allude only to the people that were putting forth this new religion, not to any external eyewitnesses. What's worse is that John is the only one that may have witnessed the crucifixion. We can assume their motive (they were creating a new religion which humans seem to have done for 10's of thousands of years) and that assumption is more in line with reality than a reanimated corpse. Unless we apply faith that a corpse really did reanimate that is.

You are not getting it. There is a tremendous difference between the main character of a religion who is making a claim to have heard from God in some sort of way, who then goes out in order to convince others this would be the case, telling these others how God would have us behave, as opposed to the main character of Christianity who does not leave a single word, who is crucified, and it is a whole group of others who claimed to have seen this same character alive after the crucifixion, with very strong evidence these folks truly believed they had seen this character alive after death.

First it would be silly to think that all main characters in religions should be the same. Differences should be expected and differences in a main character do not justify believing claims. Secondly, you once again commit the ad populum fallacy by pointing to a whole group of 'others' who made claims that we don't actually have. I assume you are applying faith to believe that these 'others, made claims'.

My friend, there is a whole lot more which can be added, but the point is, it is not very hard to imagine a main character of a religion being able to convince folks they hear from God and obtaining a large following. What is extremely hard to imagine is a whole group of everyday common fishermen, who have followed a certain man for some 3 years, who watch as this man is crucified, and these folks all are somehow convinced they saw this man alive after the crucifixion, with very strong evidence these men continued to proclaim this resurrection well into their old age.

Oh my! The people that believed Joseph Smith's claims would not be more or less reliable had they been fisherman or not.
On top of that, if the claims in the Bible are to be believed, they put perfumes and spices on the corpse (perhaps to conceal the smell?) and then traveled to the traditional place where a body would be buried.

What would be even more difficult to believe, is the idea that these everyday common fishermen, who had just watched their leader crucified, in a matter of weeks were able to put some sort of story together, knowing it to be a lie, going out and attempting to convince others of this extraordinary event, in the face of those who would have had every reason to put a stop to it, and all these events, no matter the explanation, becomes one of the most, if not the most significant events in the history of the world.

John is the ONLY one according to the Bible that may have seen this crucifixion. Why pretend that all of them were there when they weren't (according to the story)?
You are also committing another fallacy. The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone concludes that since they can't believe something is true, then it must be false, and vice versa.

My friend, no matter the explanation you have for these events some 2000 years ago, you are left with the extraordinary.

Negative. The body was perfumed and spiced and then they traveled to Galilee. If this was done to bury a body, then nothing extraordinary happened.
You will reject this very possible explanation and will reject it due to 3 fallacies you are committing.

If Jesus was not raised from the dead but these folks were somehow convinced that He had, and go on to make this claim one of the most significant events known to man, that is extraordinary.

If this event took place, it was so insignificant that it can't be found anywhere outside of the promotional material putting forth this religion.

If Jesus was not raised from the dead, and these folks knew this to be the case,

Which folks are you alluding to? Please be specific so we can know if fallacies are being committed. I think you might be giving too much credit to unknown peoples.

and were somehow able to hold the story together,

The resurrection story is not has held together as you would like to believe. Transponder has alluded to some of the discrepancies.

It seems to me you are simply exchanging one extraordinary tale for another, and going with the one you believe to be the least extraordinary.

This is nothing but an attempt to level the playing field. Perfuming and spicing a corpse and then traveling to the traditional burial place of the said corpse is not extraordinary. It is expected.

What would be extraordinary is for a whole group of folks to claim to have witnessed an event which they knew to be a lie.

Argument ad populum, not to mention people believe lies all the time. People being deceived by other people is in fact not extraordinary.

It is extremely difficult for me to imagine that we had the technology in the 1960's to travel to the moon. However, you know what convinces me that we did? That would be what all would have to be involved in order for it to be false, including the number of folks who would have had to be in the know, who would have had to hold it all together. Again, there is a tremendous difference between a main character claiming to hear from God and going on to deceive others, as opposed to a main character who leaves nothing in writing himself, who was put to death, and it is those after his death who are able to hold together the tale that he had rose from the dead in the face of those who would have had every reason to stop the claim.

Argument from incredulity. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.

Allow me to point something else out here. I do not have to know a thing about any other religion, in order to determine if there are facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the resurrection.

No need to point this out as it is known to me. What you are doing is offering fallacy after fallacy and calling your fallacies, facts and evidence.

Special pleading would be for me to ask that Christianity be held to a different standard, and I have not done such a thing.

Like if a main character was different when compared to other main characters like you offered above?

If all we had was people believing a claim, then that would not be evidence in the least. However, as I am demonstrating we have far more involved than that as far as Christianity is concerned.

Now what evidence are you referring to? We have discussed some scholars beliefs, some unknown people's beliefs from 2,000 years ago and your incredulity. I'm at a loss as to what more involved you might be alluding to.

Any thoughts as to how religions formed in the ancient Americas for example (everywhere to be honest)?
Do you think that humans wanted answers to unknowns and that the gods supplied such answers? Is it possible that the gods are humans invented answers to address these unknowns, or do only the Muslims have it right possibly?

You may well be correct in that man has created gods.

We both know that humans have created many god concepts. An atheist rejects them all. A Christian/Muslim/Hindu also reject them all, except for their preferred one. Hmmmmm.

However, we both know for a fact that Christianity did not begin with a "god concept".

Who is claimed to have raised Jesus from the dead again? Was it the god concept with many names that I have supplied already? Did this god concept exist as an idea (at least) prior to this resurrection you are arguing for? Was this claimed God not responsible for this resurrection that you argue is what began the Christian religion?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #75]

The first thing I would like to point out is the fact that I have one in post #74 who has copied and pasted authority which you claim to be a fallacy in other posts including this one. I happen to agree this would be a fallacy and will deal with what you accuse me of as we get to it in this post. My question is, are you willing to be intellectually honest enough to point out this fallacy concerning one who happens to agree with you? I'll be waiting on you to point out this fallacy but if I were to wager my bet would be upon the fact that you will abstain from pointing out this fallacy when it involves one who agrees with you. Please prove me to be wrong!

Arguments which one should have thought about long, long ago does not make an argument illegitimate.

Sure, it does. If there have been these other religions long before you were even born, and there have been millions of folks, maybe even billions who have had to consider this fact, then this sort of demonstrates this sort of thing has been dealt with millions, if not billions of times. Moreover, the fact remains, I do not have to know a thing about any of these other religions in order to know if there are facts evidence and reasons to believe a resurrection took place.

Copy/past to save time and sanity: "I'm asking legitimate questions about how humans formed god beliefs and you don't want to discuss such a thing, but boy are you infatuated with my former beliefs for some reason."

YUP! And I can copy and paste my response since I have answered this every time you have ask it by pointing to the fact that this would not include Christianity since Christianity did not begin with a "god concept".

There are no facts nor evidence concerning a resurrection.

If this were true, this would demonstrate one who was convinced of something for over 2 decades traveling the globe drunk in the holy ghost when there would be no facts and evidence in support of what one was convinced of, and this one now would like us to believe that since the mind has changed, this somehow demonstrates the thinking has changed. That is pretty funny, but what is even more funny is the fact that this one continues to attempt to give alternative explanations for the facts and evidence they claim we do not have. This is "good stuff".

What you find lame is irrelevant to debate. That you are unable to answer simple questions is relevant. This is your failure, not mine.

I am not really interested in the "god concepts" since Christianity did not begin with a "god concept". Your failure is the fact that you claim to have been a convinced Christian for over 2 decades claiming to have very good knowledge of the Bible, but you have failed the test of interpretation of a simple text, and in fact have not even attempted to deal with the actual text because you know that it would be impossible for you to cause this passage to have anything at all to do with Paul commanding us to guard our thoughts. This goes on to demonstrate one who did not possess a very good knowledge of what they claim to have been convinced of.

Can you see now why your past beliefs are relevant? It is because you demonstrate a lack of knowledge of what you were convinced of, which goes on to demonstrate that it is not Christianity you are rejecting, when you demonstrate lack of knowledge of the very basics. Just like the idea of one traveling the globe drunk in the holy ghost, when Christianity never mentions such a thing. These things are extremely relevant to the debate.

Let's test your words for honesty or lack there of.
Who is it that resurrected Jesus?

Well, according to you he was never resurrected at all. But the thing is, it can be demonstrated that Christianity had it's beginning with the claim of a resurrection with no "god concept". We are talking about how Christianity began, and it did not begin with a "god concept". We have reports of a resurrection, with no reports that God had a thing to do with it, and we have very strong evidence these folks were truly convinced they had encountered Jesus alive after death. This is the way in which Christianity began. It was attributed to God after the fact.

Nope, but this if off topic and just a dodge.

How is this a dodge, and off topic? You are the one who brought into the debate that you are more Christlike since you lost your faith. I am simply attempting to figure out how it is possible to be more Christlike once you have rejected Christ?

First you say,

There are no fact or evidence for any resurrection for any human ever on this planet.

You then go on to say,

The best you can do is to allude to the idea that some unknown people a long time ago are thought to have believed a thing.

This is really hilarious! First you say there is no evidence, and then you go on to explain away the evidence we do not have. GOOD GRIEF! And again, all you are doing is to demonstrate one who was convinced of something to the point they were traveling the globe, drunk in the holy ghost, for some 2 decades, when there were no facts and evidence to support what one was convinced of. Again, do you see how your past life, which you have freely shared becomes relevant? I mean, you can't make this stuff up.

Moreover, you can continue to suggest that these folks simply "believed a thing" but it can be demonstrated beyond doubt that these folks were not simply claiming to "believe a thing" but were rather claiming to have witnessed Jesus alive after death, with very strong evidence that they were convinced that they had. Listen! It is not my fault we have this evidence. I did not have a thing in the world to do with it. I can tell you though, it is pretty strong evidence when we can know these folks were making the claim, with strong evidence they were convinced they had witnessed what they claimed to have witnessed, with no other confirmed explanations for the facts and evidence we have. It is certainly fine for one to be under the impression that there must and has to be an alternative explanation for these facts and evidence we have, but one has to be in complete denial to insist there are no facts and evidence.

If your goal is to show that humans have believed all sorts of silly things in the past, I would agree as it is still ongoing to this day.

My friend, if my "goal was to show that humans have believed all sorts of silly things in the past" all I would have to do is to point to one who was traveling the globe drunk in the holy ghost. What I am doing is to demonstrate we have those who were claiming to have witnessed Jesus alive after death, with strong evidence to support the fact that they truly believed this to be the case. Do you have any explanation for these facts? Or are you going to deny the fact that we have this strong evidence that they truly believed they had witnessed such an event? If this is what you are going to do, then we are left with those making the claims, who would have known the claim to be a lie. I'm just telling you; these are the facts you are dealing with.

Want to hear a real fact? Decomposed corpses don't reanimate to life.
fact
/fak(t)/
noun
a thing that is known or proved to be true.

Correct! And as we read the accounts of the resurrection, we do not encounter those who were proclaiming that a resurrection was possible. Rather, they seem to clearly understand that they were proclaiming the impossible has occurred.

I would only accuse you of having faulty reasoning and that you war with the English language when you allude to facts and evidence for a resurrection.

It is one thing to accuse someone. It is something completely different to demonstrate this to be the case. Thus far I have demonstrated the facts and evidence which must be explained, and you demonstrate one who is in complete denial.

Your appeal to authority is not justification to claim that there are facts and evidence that a decomposing body reanimated to life. You know this already which is why you are not persuaded by what appeals to authority a Muslim would make. I know you know this and so do the readers here.

Again, you need to read more carefully. I am not suggesting that what I offered there was evidence of a "decomposing body reanimated to life". I am saying however, that this would be evidence that those who reported the event truly believed they had witnessed Jesus alive after death. If it can be demonstrated these folks truly believed this to be the case, then we would need some sort of explanation. We cannot simply assume a resurrection best explains it, but we would need some sort of explanation in order to eliminate what they were claiming to have witnessed.

Thanks for laying out the appeal to authority! You make this far to easy!

This is SO, SO FUNNY! I am not appealing to authorities who believe a resurrection took place. I am appealing to authority who have dedicated their lives to the study of such things, and they are convinced by the facts, and evidence we have, that the early followers of Jesus were convinced they had encountered the risen Christ. Now, you can absolutely disagree with this, and we have no problem. In other words, you can attempt to make the argument that these folks were not at all convinced they had encountered the risen Christ. However, this would leave us with those who were making the claim, who knew it to be a lie, in the face of those who would have had every reason to put a stop to it. Again, these are the facts and evidence you are dealing with, and all you continue to do is to insist we do not have these facts and evidence.

Now, since you seem to want to be so quick to point out this fallacy, could you please demonstrate me to be in error by pointing out this very same fallacy in post 74?

Now you call your appeal to authority, very good evidence! Surely you have to be kidding.

It is not an appeal to authority. What I am saying is, we have enough facts and evidence to convince those who dedicate their lives to the study of such things, to convince them that the early followers were at the very least convinced they had encountered the risen Christ. If this is not the case, we are left with those who were making the claim who knew the claim to be a lie.

Appeal to authority fallacy refers to the use of an expert's opinion to back up an argument.

Right! And a very good example of the above is demonstrated in post 74. Do you plan to point it out? Allow me to repeat. I am not appealing to authority in order to back my argument. I am saying this is the conclusions they have come to based upon evidence you claim we do not have. If they are incorrect, we are still left with those making the claim who knew it to be a lie. How is this an appeal to authority?

Nah, they just believed it. On faith. Is faith a reliable path to reality?

Okay? So, let's attempt to get this straight? You are saying they believed upon faith they had witnessed Jesus alive after death? I mean, faith is belief in something there would be no evidence for, and these folks were pointing to an empty tomb. So then, it would seem as if they truly believed they had witnessed Jesus alive after death, and the empty tomb was evidence they offered, or they knew what they were claiming was a lie, and they were somehow responsible for the empty tomb. Are you beginning to see why I say, "it ain't that simple"? I'm just telling you, when one sits down in order to determine what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false, they will indeed discover there are no easy answers. It seems sort of strange for one to have a former life in which they were convinced it was all so simple. Now that they have changed the mind, it continues to be just as simple.

I am going to leave it here for now, because the rest below seems to be rinse and repeat. If there is something you think I have missed just let me know an I will address it.