“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 17 by marco]

You are wrong. If something has not been demonstrated to be true, it is not a fact.

There is really no need in arguing over the meaning of words, because either way I think we can agree that if the claims in the NT were demonstrated to be false, they would have been false all along, even before they would have been demonstrated to be false, and this was the point.

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.

My friend, I was not simply talking about "theologians". Rather, I was talking about the fact that this debate has been raging for thousands of years now, between those who attempt to defend the claims, and those who oppose the claims, and the fact is, neither side in all these years has been able to demonstrate their case.

So then, it is not an appeal to authority, because those opposed would be involved as well. Moreover, the reason this debate has been raging for so long is the fact that there would be facts, and evidence to base one's belief upon, no faith required.

I can understand why there would be those who would feel better believing that belief in these claims require faith, but the fact of the matter is, we have facts, and evidence to support the claims, and I do not have to have an ounce of faith to believe the claims.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 13 by Zzyzx]

We have claims in many books. So what?

We are not talking about the claims in "many books". Rather, we are talking about the claims which are contained in the NT. If your attitude toward these claims is, "so what?" I have no problem with that in the least, because I could really not care less what you happened to believe concerning these claims. It is not my concern.

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

Again, it is none of my concern as to what, and, or how much others happen to believe, or if they may dismiss all of it.

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

Again, if this is your attitude toward the claims, then I have no problem with this. Why should I care?

I hold the opinion that claims and stories that cannot / have not been substantiated with verifiable evidence are questionable at best.

My friend, if you have studied the facts, and evidence we have concerning these things, and have arrived to this conclusion, then I have no problem with this in the least. It is not my concern.

I would certainly not present them as true and accurate

I do not present them as true, and accurate myself. However, there are certain things I can point to which would be facts, which I can present as true, and accurate, and allow folks to examine these things I can present as true, and accurate, and let them use their own minds to come to their own conclusions based upon the facts which I can present as being true, and accurate.

and would not base life decisions on the assumption they are true.

There is a difference between one examining the facts, and evidence involved in something, and making an informed decision based upon the facts, and evidence involved, as opposed to one simply accepting something to be true.

Simply because the claims have not been demonstrated to be true, does not in any way mean that those who are convinced of the claims, must, and have to be assuming. If this would be true, then those who reject the claims would have to be assuming as well, since the claims have not been demonstrated to be false. Hopefully, all of us here have examined the facts, and evidence involved, and have come to well informed decisions. If we have all done this, then we are not assuming.

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

You are exactly correct. In other words, if this is as far as you go, then you own no burden at all, and I have no problem with your position. The problem comes in when there are those who insist the claims would be false, and, or, I would have no good reasons to believe the claims.

There is no basis in reason to compel or expect me to prove false the tales presented.

If you do not insist the claims would be false, nor insisting that I have no good reasons to believe as I do, then you are correct. However, since I acknowledge that the claims cannot be demonstrated to be true, I own no burden to demonstrate the claims to be true. All I do is to point out facts, which can be demonstrated to be facts.

It is the burden of the teller to prove true their tales.

If you are speaking about the authors contained in the NT, who exactly do they owe this to? These authors were not addressing me. They were not addressing you, nor anyone else who may be reading this material today. Rather, the majority of the NT can be demonstrated to have been addressed to particular audiences at the time, who would have already been believers. So, how do they own the burden of proof to us, when they were clearly not concerned with us?

I am pretty certain of what your next point will be, but I will wait to see if you make it, before responding to it.

[marco]

My friend, I was not simply talking about "theologians". Rather, I was talking about the fact that this debate has been raging for thousands of years now, between those who attempt to defend the claims, and those who oppose the claims, and the fact is, neither side in all these years has been able to demonstrate their case.

There was no debate "raging" for thousands of years. Until the Reformation people were told what to believe and there were punishments for those that didn't. In the Reformation the debate wasn't about the authenticity of the tales - they were accepted on faith - but on their interpretation.

Moreover, the reason this debate has been raging for so long is the fact that there would be facts, and evidence to base one's belief upon, no faith required.

What on earth does the statement "the fact that there would be facts..." mean? What fact? And the employment of the conditional form "would be" negates fact but introduces possibility.


We accepted the FACTS as being the existence of books and names. These are useless facts. You are now using "facts" to describe what is written, even though we have said we cannot say it is true or false. People did NOT make decisions based on facts. They believed what people were saying. The important thing is whether we believe what people say, even when they present absurdities. I do not believe Paul heard God shouting at him from the sky. It is irrational so to believe but I accept that faith can do the job.

I can understand why there would be those who would feel better believing that belief in these claims require faith, but the fact of the matter is, we have facts, and evidence to support the claims, and I do not have to have an ounce of faith to believe the claims.

And now you are back at the start, regarding claims as FACTS when we had already cleared this up. When challenged on "facts" you accept it means having books and names. You accept that what is written may be untrue. So where are these "facts" you have that enable people to have rational acceptance of stinking corpses rising, rather than simply saying they have faith? To back up your beliefs you enter tales of how Luke must have travelled with Paul and must have seen Jesus. So what? Between that statement and belief in Resurrection there is a universe of space, bridged only by faith, no matter how much you protest.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 21 by marco]


It is a fact we have the claims in the NT. It is a fact that there is a reason why we have these claims. You insist the reason we have the claims, would have nothing to do with the claims being true, but you fail to be able to demonstrate this to be the case.

One cannot simply look at the fact that we have these claims, and then go on to claim, "these are useless facts" until they can demonstrate exactly how they would be useless. Otherwise, they are simply assuming this fact would be useless.

In the meantime, there are scholars who clearly understand these facts, and evidence we have is not useless, which is exactly why they understand they must, and have to come up with possible alternative explanations in an attempt to explain the facts, and evidence we do have. If these facts, and evidence we have were useless, then there would be no need in attempting to come up with alternative explanations, in order to attempt to explain away the facts, and evidence we have.

You know, like when these folks claim these authors, must, and had to copy from each other? However, these folks understand clearly that simply copying from one another would not answer all the questions, and so they are forced to come up with the idea that these authors must, and had to have some other source in common which they would have all used, but we have no idea what the source may have been, nor if this source even ever existed. And you want to talk about operating upon faith?

So then, it is abundantly clear why you simply want to throw out your opinions, and not really deal with the facts we have, because it is hard work to actually deal with the facts. It is far easier to simply have faith in the idea that there must, and had to be some sort of deception involved, with no facts, and evidence to support any sort of deception being involved.

[marco]

It is a fact we have the claims in the NT. It is a fact that there is a reason why we have these claims. You insist the reason we have the claims, would have nothing to do with the claims being true, but you fail to be able to demonstrate this to be the case.

Perhaps it would be helpful if you avoided using the elastic term "fact". I said this:

"We accepted the FACTS as being the existence of books and names. These are useless facts."

You translate this to mean I am talking about the claims being useless. It is the existence of books and names that constitute fact; what is in them is open to claims of true or false.

One cannot simply look at the fact that we have these claims, and then go on to claim, "these are useless facts" until they can demonstrate exactly how they would be useless. Otherwise, they are simply assuming this fact would be useless.

We say: I see you have a book there. That's a fact; my eyes tell me so. There are claims in the book. That is a fact. There are names given. That is a fact. We now examine the claims and we pass from fact.

In the meantime, there are scholars who clearly understand these facts,

And presumably they understand which items are fact and which are not.

and evidence we have is not useless, which is exactly why they understand they must, and have to come up with possible alternative explanations in an attempt to explain the facts, and evidence we do have.

The billionaire Chess President, Kirsan Nikolayevich Ilyumzhinov , who rules Kalmykia, claims he was abducted by aliens. I wonder what these "learned gentlemen" would offer as a counter hypothesis. For my part I don't care what counter hypothesis is put forward: I know that corpses do not assume flesh and walk. If a "leaned gentleman" shows me how this can be done, I will bow to his wisdom. Again, I said the existence of books and names is a useless fact. The examination of the data is not useless.

And you want to talk about operating upon faith?

I don't want to talk about operating on faith. To employ your phrase: It is a fact that most people believe through faith. They don't study Anselm or Aquinas. Millions who bow towards Mecca are motivated by faith. The theologian Tom Wright makes an intelligent case for the Resurrection, but his job of course depends on it. The human brain can do wonders, even with nonsense, as we see in modern art.

So then, it is abundantly clear why you simply want to throw out your opinions,

Well three cheers for clarity then. I didn't know my motivation was abundantly obvious.

and not really deal with the facts we have, because it is hard work to actually deal with the facts.

Those pesky facts again. What do they mean this time? Content? Claims? Do you suppose I derived my education by taking the easy route? I have studied theology and its many claims from adolescence. It fascinates me that highly intelligent people still cling to resurrection claims. I think they are wrong in doing so, but I respect their choice. The vast majority of folk take divine Christ as a fact like a flowering shrub, and pay him no more attention.

You say it is much easier to have faith in the view there was deception. I don't have any theories on deception. It is sufficient to accept Jesus chose simple souls and they ate whatever they were offered. Jesus may not have been a deceiver, just a man filled with gigantic self belief. But aren't many preachers today? If Paul deceived he was the main victim then.

I have a distant relative who thinks she was Cleopatra in another existence. I can't prove she wasn't nor can I prove Jesus did not arise from death. I don't think I have to do either. My acceptance would come from mountain-moving faith, which I don't have. Some do.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 23 by marco]

We say: I see you have a book there. That's a fact; my eyes tell me so. There are claims in the book. That is a fact. There are names given. That is a fact. We now examine the claims and we pass from fact.

I understand this, and this is exactly what I have said. However, there is a reason we have the claims. If the claims a true, this would explain the reason we have them. If the claims are false, then there would be some sort of reason these folks sat down to write out what would be false information. The point being made is, if you simply choose to doubt the claims, then you own no burden to demonstrate what these reasons would be. However, if one insists the claims would are false, then they own the burden to demonstrate exactly how this would be.

The billionaire Chess President, Kirsan Nikolayevich Ilyumzhinov , who rules Kalmykia, claims he was abducted by aliens. I wonder what these "learned gentlemen" would offer as a counter hypothesis. For my part I don't care what counter hypothesis is put forward: I know that corpses do not assume flesh and walk. If a "leaned gentleman" shows me how this can be done, I will bow to his wisdom. Again, I said the existence of books and names is a useless fact. The examination of the data is not useless.

It seems sort of strange how you broke up my sentence, and then never respond to the point being made, and also go on to make some sort of comparison with something that would have nothing at all to do with it?

I have no idea who this billionaire you are referring to may be, nor do I know the story, but it very well may be that the reason this gentleman is not getting very much attention is because there is not enough facts, and evidence to even consider the matter, which is exactly my point. In other words, when all we have is claims, with nothing more to examine, there is nothing there to debate.

However, since the scholars understand very well, that there is enough facts, and evidence to support the claims in the NT, they are forced to deal with these facts, and evidence, because they understand that these facts, and evidence has to be given an alternative explanation, other than the way it which we have them.

Ergo, we have to consider the idea that these authors may have copied from each other, and when this does not answer all the questions, we must consider the idea that they may have all had another source which they all copied from. Of course, we also cannot simply assume the author of the letters to Theophilus would have only been addressing one individual, so we have to consider the meaning of the name Theophilus, and assume he may have been using this name in order to address a wider audience. Next would be that we cannot simply assume this author would have intended to be understood as traveling with Paul when he uses the words "we", and "us" because we must consider this ancient literary device, which the author may have been using. And of course when there is evidence from the letters of Paul which would indicate this author would have traveled with Paul, we cannot simply assume that Paul would have been the author of this letter that bears his name, but must consider the idea that someone else could have possibly wrote this letter under the name of Paul.

I could continue on, and on, but the fact of the matter is, there certainly must be very good facts, and evidence involved as far as the claims in the NT, otherwise there would be nothing there to examine in order to attempt to explain it away, which may indeed explain why the billionaire you refer to, is not getting a whole lot of attention.

It is a fact that most people believe through faith. They don't study Anselm or Aquinas. Millions who bow towards Mecca are motivated by faith.

This may indeed be true, but it does not in way demonstrate that the only way to belief is through faith.

The theologian Tom Wright makes an intelligent case for the Resurrection, but his job of course depends on it. The human brain can do wonders, even with nonsense, as we see in modern art.

This is SO, SO COMICAL! In other words, according to you Wright "makes an intelligent case for the resurrection" but it could not possibly have to do with there is a case to be made, but rather that it is his job? Sort of strange how that always seems to work like that?

Do you suppose I derived my education by taking the easy route?

We are no talking about how you may have obtained your education. However, I can assure you that it is the easy route to simply assume one is making an intelligent case, simply because it is his job to do so. GOOD GRIEF!

I have studied theology and its many claims from adolescence. It fascinates me that highly intelligent people still cling to resurrection claims.

This is the difference between us. I look at the fact that there are "highly intelligent people" who come to a different conclusion than I have, and it causes me to pause, while you simply seem astonished that others cannot see the plain truth as you do.

Again, allow me to remind you that there are very well educated and intelligent folks who were completely opposed to Christianity, and were out to demonstrate just how foolish the belief would be, who became convinced of it's truth, by the examination of the facts, and evidence they were studying, in order to demonstrate how foolish it would be.

Now, this would have nothing to do with the truth of the matter, because I am sure this would go both ways. However, it should demonstrate that there are very intelligent folks on both sides of the equation, and for most folks, it does not cause us to be astonished that there would be intelligent folks who disagree with us, but rather causes us to understand that there must be evidence, and reason on both sides.

You say it is much easier to have faith in the view there was deception.

Nope! Never said such a thing.

It is sufficient to accept Jesus chose simple souls and they ate whatever they were offered.

Right, and these "simple souls" who have just watch their leader crucified in front of their eyes, are somehow able to continue on, to the point the leader who was crucified somehow becomes the most influential man in the history of the world according to modern day magazines some 2000 years later. Not bad for some "simple souls".

I have a distant relative who thinks she was Cleopatra in another existence. I can't prove she wasn't nor can I prove Jesus did not arise from death. I don't think I have to do either. My acceptance would come from mountain-moving faith, which I don't have. Some do.

No, you do not have to prove a thing to simply keep believing as you do. However, when one insists the resurrection did not occur, they have the obligation to demonstrate their case. One thing I can assure you of is, I do not have near enough faith in order to simply believe a man rose from the dead. I need a lot more than faith to believe such a thing.

[Zzyzx]

.

Right, and these "simple souls" who have just watch their leader crucified in front of their eyes, are somehow able to continue on, to the point the leader who was crucified somehow becomes the most influential man in the history of the world according to modern day magazines some 2000 years later. Not bad for some "simple souls"

Do we have accounts by 'simple souls' who watched the crucifixion? OR do we have tales that tell of observers?

There is difference of opinion regarding who was the most influential person in history. Jesus is not ranked at top by many (third or lower). Google the term if in doubt.

No, you do not have to prove a thing to simply keep believing as you do. However, when one insists the resurrection did not occur, they have the obligation to demonstrate their case.

False dichotomy = claim it true vs. claim it false.

Alternative: Not able to determine – and consider any unverified tale as being of questionable veracity at best -- request further information.

[marco]

[Replying to post 24 by Realworldjack]

We move round and round in circles. You seem much taken by "highly educated people." They make mistakes; I have many highly intelligent people around me.

The onus is on me, you say, to prove no resurrection took place. It's not a question of proving anything but accepting or rejecting stories.

On the one hand billions and billions of bodies, we know, have decomposed and we know why. We can explain the chemical process. If someone says Jesus was buried and his body decomposed, we accept this because science and experience say so.

If somebody says Jesus rose from the dead and walked we say a mistake is being made. At this distance we do not know what that mistake might be: mistaken identity, hallucination, lie, reporting the figurative as literal... it does not matter what the reason was for the wrong report, but luckily life has taught us to accept the report is wrong.

If people on the very edge of the intelligence range, like the young girl who obtained a first from Oxford in mathematics, think the resurrection did take place then at some point they are accepting the word of reporters, for whatever highly intelligent reason. Presumably these highly intelligent people are outside our range of questioning: we can only gasp at their verdict and bow in acceptance of it. Welk some do, but I don't.

You say that for you it requires "more than faith" to accept the resurrection. Faith is sufficient: it accepts miracles. You have subjected the details to close investigation and you have come up with the conclusion it must be true. Well done. Did you see the body? Do you know the people who made the report? Do you know the angel's name, the one who waited in the sepulchre? Do you know what Jesus was wearing when he left the grave? Do you know why, given he was miraculously healed, the wounds remained? Have you wondered why people did not at first recognise him? Is it acceptable to believe he defied not only death but gravity by ascending unmechanically into what his reporters thought was the location of heaven? If you have conquered all these questions with a positive, you have done very well.

I prefer the viewpoint of reason: Jesus stayed dead, and still does. The resulting popularity and glory that seems also to impress you come from conquests, power, earthly ambition - which have nothing to do with Christ.

[Zzyzx]

.
I observe that it is much more common for animals to drag away and consume human bodies than it is for long-dead bodies to come back to life and leave.

Many animals, including bears, crocodiles, lions, tigers are known to eat humans.

There is not one case of which I am aware of reanimation of dead humans -- just tales of many 'resurrections' in the Bible.

If an 'angel' (or 'young man') was present according to the tales they might have kept animals away, BUT can it be ruled out that person / spirit moved the body?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 26 by marco]

We move round and round in circles.

Yes we do, because you seem to find it difficult to deal with facts, but instead state your opinion as if it would be fact.

You seem much taken by "highly educated people.

I believe it would have been you who let me know about your education? Was it not you who said.

Do you suppose I derived my education by taking the easy route?

They make mistakes

Would that include the ones who are well educated who are opposed to the claims? Or, would it only include those who "cling to resurrection claims"? Because again, I believe it was you who said,

It fascinates me that highly intelligent people still cling to resurrection claims.

I have many highly intelligent people around me.

I have no doubt!

The onus is on me, you say, to prove no resurrection took place.

What I actually said was, "if one insists, we can be certain a resurrection never happened", as you have said in the past, then yes they do in fact own the burden to demonstrate how we can know the reports of a resurrection never occurred. If however, one were to simply claim not to believe the claims, then they own no burden.

It's not a question of proving anything but accepting or rejecting stories.

Well again, if all you are doing is to reject the stories, then you own no burden. I can tell you this though, I do not simply accept the stories as being true.

On the one hand billions and billions of bodies, we know, have decomposed and we know why.

Billions, and billions of people have never traveled to the moon. Is this any evidence that no one has?

We can explain the chemical process.

Being able to explain the way in which a body decomposes, does not explain away the facts, and evidence we have for a resurrection.

If someone says Jesus was buried and his body decomposed, we accept this because science and experience say so.

This is to be under the impression that science, and our experience, can tell us all we need to know.

If somebody says Jesus rose from the dead and walked we say a mistake is being made.

"WE" don't, some do. As an example, when I hear of the billionaire you refer to, who claims to have been abducted by aliens, I do not say, "a mistake is being made". Rather, I simply could not care less if he had been or not. However, if I did care enough to spend day, after day, debating the issue on a web site, I would have far more to offer than, "billions, and billions of people have lived and died, and have never been abducted". If this is all I had, I would spend my time on something else.

At this distance we do not know what that mistake might be: mistaken identity, hallucination, lie, reporting the figurative as literal... it does not matter what the reason was for the wrong report, but luckily life has taught us to accept the report is wrong.

Again, I have no problem with you simply making assumptions, that is totally up to you, but on a debate sight, this does not work.

If people on the very edge of the intelligence range, like the young girl who obtained a first from Oxford in mathematics, think the resurrection did take place then at some point they are accepting the word of reporters, for whatever highly intelligent reason.

Again, there are a number of well educated, intelligent folks, who were very much opposed to Christianity, who were out to demonstrate just how foolish the belief would be, only to become convinced Christianity would be true, based on the facts, and evidence they were examining in order to demonstrate it to be false. I highly doubt these folks would have converted to Christianity simply by taking the word of the reporters. If you insist this is exactly what they did, then you need to demonstrate this to be the case. Your opinions are not holding up so well, in the face of the evidence.

Presumably these highly intelligent people are outside our range of questioning: we can only gasp at their verdict and bow in acceptance of it.

Well, not exactly. Many of them are alive today, and have authored books on exactly how they came to their conclusions, so it should not be difficult to demonstrate to us exactly how they simply took the word of the reporters.

You say that for you it requires "more than faith" to accept the resurrection.

Actually it would be that, I do not have that kind of faith. In other words, I would need something other than faith in order to believe the claims. What I would require, would be, facts, and evidence, no faith required.

Faith is sufficient: it accepts miracles.

Maybe for some. Faith is required to believe in those things which there would be no facts, and evidence to weigh.

You have subjected the details to close investigation and you have come up with the conclusion it must be true.

Not exactly! What I have said is, I have very good reasons to believe the claims, which is far different than, "it must be true".

Did you see the body?

Did you?

Do you know the people who made the report?

Do you?

Do you know the angel's name, the one who waited in the sepulchre?

Do you?

Do you know what Jesus was wearing when he left the grave?

Do you?

Do you know why, given he was miraculously healed, the wounds remained?

Do you?

Is it acceptable to believe he defied not only death but gravity by ascending unmechanically into what his reporters thought was the location of heaven?

This would depend on the evidence. I would not recommend simply accepting it.

If you have conquered all these questions with a positive, you have done very well.

What we discover is, you know nothing of these things yourself, but somehow, someway, you are convinced the resurrection never happened? I wonder how that would be? Hopefully, it is because you have examined the facts, and evidence, and have become convinced by the facts, and evidence that the resurrection never occurred. To read what you say, it certainly does not seem that way, but hopefully this is the case. If it is, I have no problem with that in the least. But for some odd reason, you seem to want to insist that I would have no reason to believe the claims, and you continue to fail to demonstrate your case.

I prefer the viewpoint of reason:

Right! And that's what they all say.

Jesus stayed dead, and still does.

Can you demonstrate this to be the case? Well no! But maybe if you believe it enough it will come true.

The resulting popularity and glory that seems also to impress you come from conquests, power, earthly ambition - which have nothing to do with Christ.

Right! I know! All these things seem to simply fall right into place, as if they fell from the sky, and there is nothing amazing about it in the least?