“We have the facts�

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

“We have the facts�

Post #1

Post by 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)?
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 2362
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: “We have the facts�

Post #31

Post by Realworldjack »

Zzyzx wrote: .
Realworldjack wrote: 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.
Realworldjack wrote: 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.

Do we have accounts by 'simple souls' who watched the crucifixion? OR do we have tales that tell of observers?
Why don't you tell us? I can tell you what we do have. We either have these men watching there leaded crucified before there very eyes, who do not take a whole lot of time to grieve, but rather in a very short period of time, begin to tell of this story of how this leader rose from the dead, in the face of those who would have been very much opposed, but they continued to claim these things well into their old age, facing all sorts to problems for doing so. Or, we have those who for whatever reason later on who begin to tell of these things, which somehow caught on, to the point that it consumes the life of those some 2000 years later, such as yourself. I don't care who you are, that is pretty good stuff!

However, we know that it could not have been much later, because we have those who would have been alive at the time, who claim to have known the Apostles, who wrote certain things very early in the second century.

So then, it would seem as if, we have pretty good evidence to suggest these men were indeed followers of Jesus, and that they did in fact begin to spread the idea that Jesus rose form the dead, and it seems all you have is, "it could have been different than the way it seems". Therefore, it is exactly as it seems or, we have events that just so happen to cause these things to seem one way, when all the while they were completely different than they seem, with no facts, and evidence in support of it being a different way.
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.
I have googled it, which is the exact reason I did not say, "every modern day magazine", but rather, "modern day magazines" which would be a fact. At any rate, are you really going to argue over first, and forth? The fact would still remain that somehow, someway, this man would have to rank extremely high in any magazine, and would you really want to argue that Jesus may not be the one of the most well known names in the history of all the world, if not the most well known? And all on account of these men or, events just so happened in some sort of way to cause this to to be the 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.
I do not believe I was responding to you, but rather one who has on numerous occasions insisted a resurrection never happened. Now, you tell me? In that case, would this one own the burden?

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 2362
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Post #32

Post by Realworldjack »

Zzyzx wrote: .
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?



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.
What I have observed is, one does not attempt to come up with alternative explanations, in an attempt to explain something away, unless they understand there is pretty good evidence to support what it is they are attempting to explain away, otherwise there would be no need in these other explanations.

This seems to demonstrate then, that you understand there is good evidence in support of the reports of an empty tomb. So what facts, and evidence do we have that the body was dragged off by wild animals?
There is not one case of which I am aware of reanimation of dead humans -- just tales of many 'resurrections' in the Bible.
Is this really an argument? We know human bodies have been consumed by wild animals, so it must have been wild animals which were responsible for the empty tomb?
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?
Again, you are correct. But again, you demonstrate there must be some sort of explanation given for the empty tomb, because you seem to understand that there is pretty good evidence in support of an empty tomb, otherwise there would be no need in attempting to explain why there would have been an empty tomb.

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Re: “We have the facts�

Post #33

Post by Zzyzx »

.
Realworldjack wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: Do we have accounts by 'simple souls' who watched the crucifixion? OR do we have tales that tell of observers?
Why don't you tell us?
We have unverified tales about people watching an execution – no accounts from said people.
Realworldjack wrote: I can tell you what we do have. We either have these men watching there leaded crucified before there very eyes, who do not take a whole lot of time to grieve, but rather in a very short period of time, begin to tell of this story of how this leader rose from the dead, in the face of those who would have been very much opposed, but they continued to claim these things well into their old age, facing all sorts to problems for doing so.
What we actually have are TALES – unverified tales – about who did what when and who said what.
Realworldjack wrote: Or, we have those who for whatever reason later on who begin to tell of these things, which somehow caught on, to the point that it consumes the life of those some 2000 years later, such as yourself. I don't care who you are, that is pretty good stuff!
The chief proponent of the 'resurrection' tale is said to have met the deceased in a 'vision' (or hallucination, or delusion, or fantasy, or whatever it was) – and also to have been given a tour of heaven. Many believe the tale, many do not.
Realworldjack wrote: However, we know that it could not have been much later, because we have those who would have been alive at the time, who claim to have known the Apostles, who wrote certain things very early in the second century.
“Claim to have known the Apostles� – decades or generations later. Writing to a gentile audience far from the area Jesus is said to have lived and died. They couldn't sell the deal to actual residents of the area, but found an audience among people who did not know Jesus or his people. Jews in the area rejected Jesus and even ran him out of his own hometown as a fraud.

If the tale can't be sold on home ground, go a few hundred miles away and try a different audience, one unfamiliar with the case.
Realworldjack wrote: So then, it would seem as if, we have pretty good evidence to suggest these men were indeed followers of Jesus, and that they did in fact begin to spread the idea that Jesus rose form the dead,
Well, someone spread the tale of a long-dead body coming back to life (and 'many saints' also rising from their graves and going to town). Notice that Jews in the area REJECTED the tale.
Realworldjack wrote: and it seems all you have is, "it could have been different than the way it seems".
We are all likely aware that things may not be as they seem – particularly as they seem in tales written by anonymous people decades later.
Realworldjack wrote: Therefore, it is exactly as it seems or, we have events that just so happen to cause these things to seem one way, when all the while they were completely different than they seem, with no facts, and evidence in support of it being a different way.
“I don't believe your resurrection tales� requires no evidence. Promoters of the tale are expected to provide verifiable evidence that they speak truth.
Realworldjack wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: 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.
I have googled it, which is the exact reason I did not say, "every modern day magazine", but rather, "modern day magazines" which would be a fact. At any rate, are you really going to argue over first, and forth?
“He was the greatest; well maybe not the greatest but almost the greatest�
Realworldjack wrote: The fact would still remain that somehow, someway, this man would have to rank extremely high in any magazine, and would you really want to argue that Jesus may not be the one of the most well known names in the history of all the world, if not the most well known?
Mohammad is ranked higher by many. Does that indicate that he was 'the last prophet'?
Realworldjack wrote: And all on account of these men or, events just so happened in some sort of way to cause this to to be the case.
Yes, there are unverified tales. So what?
Realworldjack wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: 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.
I do not believe I was responding to you, but rather one who has on numerous occasions insisted a resurrection never happened. Now, you tell me? In that case, would this one own the burden?
If one claims to know that the 'resurrection' actually happened, or to know that it did not, they have incurred the burden of proof.

Did the 'resurrection' happen?
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Post #34

Post by Zzyzx »

.
Realworldjack wrote: What I have observed is, one does not attempt to come up with alternative explanations, in an attempt to explain something away, unless they understand there is pretty good evidence to support what it is they are attempting to explain away, otherwise there would be no need in these other explanations.
Yup, if one contradicts the tale of Little Red Riding Hood by saying that wolves seldom impersonate grandmothers, they MUST think there is 'pretty good evidence' to support the tale.
Realworldjack wrote: This seems to demonstrate then, that you understand there is good evidence in support of the reports of an empty tomb. So what facts, and evidence do we have that the body was dragged off by wild animals?
I do NOT claim that the body in question was dragged away by animals, but ASK if " it be ruled out that person / spirit moved the body?".

Can that be ruled out? If so why?
Realworldjack wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: There is not one case of which I am aware of reanimation of dead humans -- just tales of many 'resurrections' in the Bible.
Is this really an argument? We know human bodies have been consumed by wild animals, so it must have been wild animals which were responsible for the empty tomb?
Correction: We know that humans are consumed by animals. We know that bodies are often moved by humans. We also know that not everything we hear and read is true and accurate.

We do NOT know that long-dead humans come back to life.

Why would a reasoning person prefer the back-to-life tale?
Realworldjack wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: f 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?
Again, you are correct. But again, you demonstrate there must be some sort of explanation given for the empty tomb,
Yup, there must be some sort of explanation for the wolf wearing granny's clothes.
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 2362
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: “We have the facts�

Post #35

Post by Realworldjack »

[Replying to post 31 by Zzyzx]
We have unverified tales about people watching an execution – no accounts from said people.
I'm not thinking this is something we can know? In other words, we do have the accounts. This we can know. What we cannot know, is who would have authored the accounts, which means we cannot know these accounts would not have been from those who would have witnessed the crucifixion. So then, thus far we have the accounts. What evidence do we have these accounts would be false, or that the authors would not have been there to witness the crucifixion themselves?
What we actually have are TALES – unverified tales – about who did what when and who said what.
Which does not in any way demonstrate the claims to be false. Moreover, even those opposed understand there are facts, and evidence to support the claims, which is exactly why they have to attempt to come up with alternative explanations, in an attempt to explain away the facts, and evidence they know that we have.
The chief proponent of the 'resurrection' tale is said to have met the deceased in a 'vision' (or hallucination, or delusion, or fantasy, or whatever it was) – and also to have been given a tour of heaven. Many believe the tale, many do not.
Would this be the same one who was at one time one of the biggest opponents to this movement, who was dragging off those who adhered to the movement to jail, and even consenting to their death, only to become it's biggest missionary? Sort of strange how these things just sort of happened?
“Claim to have known the Apostles� – decades or generations later. Writing to a gentile audience far from the area Jesus is said to have lived and died. They couldn't sell the deal to actual residents of the area, but found an audience among people who did not know Jesus or his people. Jews in the area rejected Jesus and even ran him out of his own hometown as a fraud.
I'm afraid this is not the one I was speaking of. Rather, this would have been Polycarp.
If the tale can't be sold on home ground, go a few hundred miles away and try a different audience, one unfamiliar with the case.
It seems it did pretty well in Jerusalem, having thousands of those who believed. However, the rejection by the Jews was said have been predicted by Jesus now, was it not?

Do you happen to recall when Jesus told the religious leaders that, "all the blood of the prophets from Abel will fall on this generations"? Do you happened to recall when Pilate was said to find no guilt in Jesus, and washed his hands of the guilt? Do you happen to recall how the Jewish people are said that have responded to Pilate? I believe it was, "let his blood fall on us, and our children". Do you happen to recall what happened in 70 AD? Do you happen to recall Jesus saying, "not one stone will be left upon another"? Do you happen to remember it being said that the early Christians in Jerusalem were selling their land and giving the profit to those Jews in need, who had stayed in Jerusalem, instead of returning to their hometown? Do you imagine these Jews could have sold this land, because they were convinced of this prophecy by Jesus, and understood the land would be useless to them any way?
Well, someone spread the tale of a long-dead body coming back to life
Which sort of demonstrates that you understand there were reports of an empty tomb, which needs some sort of explanation.
Notice that Jews in the area REJECTED the tale.
I'm not thinking this was totally the case?
We are all likely aware that things may not be as they seem – particularly as they seem in tales written by anonymous people decades later.
You are correct, but you seem to be admitting the way it seems to be, and it certainly is no argument to simply say, "things are not always the way they seem", unless we have some sort of facts, and evidence to support the idea that it would not be the way it seems. Meanwhile, "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck,and looks like a duck", then we have good reason to believe, it's a duck.
“I don't believe your resurrection tales� requires no evidence.
If that is the case, then neither would, "I believe the claims".
Promoters of the tale are expected to provide verifiable evidence that they speak truth.
Exactly who are these "promoters" you are referring to? If it is the authors contained in the NT, the overwhelming material contained in the NT can be demonstrated to have been addressed to particular audiences at the time, who would have already been believers. So then, exactly what would they have to prove to those who would have already believed?

However, there are those of us who understand this, and also understand there are certain things we can know, and learn as we read these things, and that these letters written to particular audiences at the time, are indeed evidence of what they report to these audiences who would have already believed.
“He was the greatest; well maybe not the greatest but almost the greatest�
My point would certainly not rest on Jesus actually being number one! Rather, it would be the idea that these "simple souls" somehow, someway, did not simply fade away, but rather came up with this story of an empty tomb, which continues to consume the lives of folks some 2000 years later, including yourself, with more than one modern day magazine ranking him as #1. Again, I assure you that I was not banking the whole argument on him being #1, when this would be subjective anyway. What would not be subjective is the fact that this very same Jesus would be one of the most well known names in the history of all the world, if not the most, who continues to consume folks, some 2000 years later, all on account of a few "simple souls", or somehow, someway, those later on, (but it could not have been much later) just so happen to decide to pick up the story, and begin to write about it. I'm here to tell you, "it is an amazing tale, any way you tell it"!
Mohammad is ranked higher by many. Does that indicate that he was 'the last prophet'?
I do not know a whole lot about Mohammad, and I do not need to know a thing about him in order to understand the facts, and evidence which support the claims in the NT. However, since you are the one who brings Mohammad into the conversation, would you like to compare the historical evidence concerning Islam, as opposed to Christianity? I will be glad to walk through it with you.
Yes, there are unverified tales. So what?
I may be able to understand one asking "so what"? When it may be coming from one who is unconcerned about the claims. However, it is hard to swallow coming from one who certainly seems to be consumed by the issue, who spends, day, after day, year, after year, debating the issue.
If one claims to know that the 'resurrection' actually happened, or to know that it did not, they have incurred the burden of proof.
Agreed! However, the same would go for those who insist the resurrection did not happen. Have you been just as sure to let them know they own the burden?
Did the 'resurrection' happen?
My friend, how many times do I have to say that, "I do not insist the resurrection would be a fact that we can demonstrate"? However, they are certainly facts, and evidence in support to the claim, which is demonstrated by the fact there are those opposed who understand these facts, and evidence must have some sort of alternate explanations given, and there are many who spent hour, after hour, day, after day, week, after week, year, after year, being consumed by this claim, which sort of demonstrates there is far more to the claim, than they would like to admit.

Because you see, I do not spend any time at all debating things like, big foot, alien abductions, the earth being flat, etc. Can you imagine why?

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 2362
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Post #36

Post by Realworldjack »

[Replying to post 32 by Zzyzx]
Yup, if one contradicts the tale of Little Red Riding Hood by saying that wolves seldom impersonate grandmothers, they MUST think there is 'pretty good evidence' to support the tale.
My friend, you seem to be making my point? Exactly how many folks do you know who would waste time debating the facts, and evidence concerning, "Little Red Riding Hood"? Now, lets compare this to those who spend hours, upon hours, debating the resurrection. Doesn't quite compare, now does it?
I do NOT claim that the body in question was dragged away by animals, but ASK if " it be ruled out that person / spirit moved the body?".

Can that be ruled out? If so why?
My question still stands. We have facts, and evidence to support a resurrection, which is demonstrated by the fact there are those who come up with things like the body being consumed by animals. So then, I am willing to entertain the idea that the body could have been consumed by animals, but I would need some sort of facts, and evidence this would have been the case, other than, "we know animals eat humans".
Correction: We know that humans are consumed by animals. We know that bodies are often moved by humans. We also know that not everything we hear and read is true and accurate.
I am willing to entertain these as well. So again, what evidence do we have to support any of these ideas, other than, "we know they have happened in the past"?
We do NOT know that long-dead humans come back to life.
This seems to be arguing that we can know all we need to know, simply by what we have experienced in the past?
Why would a reasoning person prefer the back-to-life tale?
My friend, I have demonstrated to you over, and over, that there are those who are Christians, who would have much rather "preferred" not to believe the Christian claims, which is demonstrated by the fact they were out to demonstrate how foolish the belief would be, only to become convinced by the facts, and evidence that what they would have "preferred" not to believe, was indeed true. This does not in any way demonstrate the claims would be true, but it does in fact demonstrate that one does not have to prefer to believe the claims, in order to believe the claims, which is the argument you seem to be making.
Yup, there must be some sort of explanation for the wolf wearing granny's clothes.
Nope, because I do not see anyone spending a whole lot of time debating "Little Red Riding Hood", but there are in fact a whole lot of folks debating the claims in the NT, which should tell you a whole lot about the difference.

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Post #37

Post by Zzyzx »

.
Realworldjack wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: We have unverified tales about people watching an execution – no accounts from said people.
I'm not thinking this is something we can know? In other words, we do have the accounts. This we can know. What we cannot know, is who would have authored the accounts, which means we cannot know these accounts would not have been from those who would have witnessed the crucifixion. So then, thus far we have the accounts.
Yes, we have anonymous accounts telling tales about crucifixion and a 'resurrection'.
Realworldjack wrote:
What evidence do we have these accounts would be false, or that the authors would not have been there to witness the crucifixion themselves?
We have no evidence that authors were or were not present and whether the accounts are true or false.
Realworldjack wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: What we actually have are TALES – unverified tales – about who did what when and who said what.
Which does not in any way demonstrate the claims to be false.
Correct: Presence of tales does not demonstrate that the crucifixion happened as described and/or whether witnesses were present.
Realworldjack wrote:
Moreover, even those opposed understand there are facts, and evidence to support the claims, which is exactly why they have to attempt to come up with alternative explanations, in an attempt to explain away the facts, and evidence they know that we have.
Many observe that accounts exist. Some consider them accurate and others do not.

Those who present the tales being true are expected to demonstrate that they are true and accurate. “I don't believe your tales� does not obligate anyone to prove the tales false or to provide alternate 'explanations' (except perhaps in the mind of Apologists attempting to defend the tales).
Realworldjack wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: The chief proponent of the 'resurrection' tale is said to have met the deceased in a 'vision' (or hallucination, or delusion, or fantasy, or whatever it was) – and also to have been given a tour of heaven. Many believe the tale, many do not.
Would this be the same one who was at one time one of the biggest opponents to this movement, who was dragging off those who adhered to the movement to jail, and even consenting to their death, only to become it's biggest missionary? Sort of strange how these things just sort of happened?
The tales themselves tell of Paul/Saul being 'converted' in a mysterious 'vision' (or hallucination, or delusion, or fantasy, or whatever it was). There is no independent / disconnected verification of the tales told by the author of Acts (whoever that may have been). At least it makes a good story.
Realworldjack wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: “Claim to have known the Apostles� – decades or generations later. Writing to a gentile audience far from the area Jesus is said to have lived and died. They couldn't sell the deal to actual residents of the area, but found an audience among people who did not know Jesus or his people. Jews in the area rejected Jesus and even ran him out of his own hometown as a fraud.
I'm afraid this is not the one I was speaking of. Rather, this would have been Polycarp.
Polycarp was a 2nd-century Christian bishop of Smyrna. What do you suggest he witnessed?
Realworldjack wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: If the tale can't be sold on home ground, go a few hundred miles away and try a different audience, one unfamiliar with the case.
It seems it did pretty well in Jerusalem, having thousands of those who believed.
Oh, were there thousands of believers?

WHERE do we find those figures? Could it be in the tales themselves? Is there independent / disconnected verification of those claims?
Realworldjack wrote:
However, the rejection by the Jews was said have been predicted by Jesus now, was it not?
Yes Jesus was and is rejected as 'messiah' by Jews.

So what if he did indeed predict the rejection (IF he did in his own words and not just in later after-the-fact accounts written by others).

It is not unexpected that a fraud might have some fear of being outed. Remember, he was run out of his own hometown (according to tales) as a fraud.
Realworldjack wrote:
Do you happen to recall when Jesus told the religious leaders that, "all the blood of the prophets from Abel will fall on this generations"? Do you happened to recall when Pilate was said to find no guilt in Jesus, and washed his hands of the guilt? Do you happen to recall how the Jewish people are said that have responded to Pilate?
I recognize some of that as part of the story line in the gospel of Matthew.

Again, it is just part of the tale – not verification of anything.
Realworldjack wrote:
I believe it was, "let his blood fall on us, and our children". Do you happen to recall what happened in 70 AD? Do you happen to recall Jesus saying, "not one stone will be left upon another"? Do you happen to remember it being said that the early Christians in Jerusalem were selling their land and giving the profit to those Jews in need, who had stayed in Jerusalem, instead of returning to their hometown? Do you imagine these Jews could have sold this land, because they were convinced of this prophecy by Jesus, and understood the land would be useless to them any way?
1) I have no way of knowing whether the story is true
2) I have no way of knowing the motivation of people living 2000 years ago
Realworldjack wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: Well, someone spread the tale of a long-dead body coming back to life
Which sort of demonstrates that you understand there were reports of an empty tomb, which needs some sort of explanation.
Correction: A spun yarn does NOT require an explanation.
Realworldjack wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: Notice that Jews in the area REJECTED the tale.
I'm not thinking this was totally the case?
Perhaps Jews did not 'totally' reject Jesus' message. A small percentage may have believed. However: Luke 4:28 All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. 29 They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff. 30 But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way.
Realworldjack wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: We are all likely aware that things may not be as they seem – particularly as they seem in tales written by anonymous people decades later.
You are correct, but you seem to be admitting the way it seems to be, and it certainly is no argument to simply say, "things are not always the way they seem", unless we have some sort of facts, and evidence to support the idea that it would not be the way it seems.
Dead wrong. “Things are not always the way they seem� stands alone as a true statement. It requires no evidence against what has been presented. Disagreement would seem to necessitate 'Things ARE always the way they seem' – which runs counter to life experience.
Realworldjack wrote:
Meanwhile, "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck,and looks like a duck", then we have good reason to believe, it's a duck.
Yes, and if it looks like folklore, fiction, and fantasy we are well advised to consider those options.
Realworldjack wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: “I don't believe your resurrection tales� requires no evidence.
If that is the case, then neither would, "I believe the claims".
Exactly.

I challenge no one's beliefs (that is a personal matter); however, I often challenge claims, statements, stories they announce in public.
Realworldjack wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: Promoters of the tale are expected to provide verifiable evidence that they speak truth.
Exactly who are these "promoters" you are referring to?
I refer to anyone who sets forth the tales as being truthful and accurate as being a promoter of the tales.
Realworldjack wrote:
If it is the authors contained in the NT, the overwhelming material contained in the NT can be demonstrated to have been addressed to particular audiences at the time, who would have already been believers. So then, exactly what would they have to prove to those who would have already believed?
The tales themselves indicate distention within church congregations Philippians 4:2-3

Paul/Saul also cautions about false teachers (those who disagree with him?)

Paul warns about false teachers and teachings several times. In 1 Timothy 1:3, Paul urges Timothy to command the false teachers to stop teaching false doctrines. They were devoted to myths and endless genealogies and were abusing the law (v. 4, 7). In 1 Timothy 4:1-3, he warns of demonically inspired teachers who forbid marriage and certain foods. False teaching has been a threat in every age including the present. It threatens to keep many from the narrow road leading to salvation and instead leads them to the broad road of destruction.
Realworldjack wrote:
However, there are those of us who understand this, and also understand there are certain things we can know, and learn as we read these things, and that these letters written to particular audiences at the time, are indeed evidence of what they report to these audiences who would have already believed.
It appears as though people believed differently than Paul/Saul wanted them to believe.
Realworldjack wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: “He was the greatest; well maybe not the greatest but almost the greatest�
My point would certainly not rest on Jesus actually being number one!
Oh. I thought you made the claim that Jesus was “the most influential person in history�
Realworldjack wrote:
Rather, it would be the idea that these "simple souls" somehow, someway, did not simply fade away, but rather came up with this story of an empty tomb, which continues to consume the lives of folks some 2000 years later, including yourself, with more than one modern day magazine ranking him as #1.
Yes, it might take a 'simple soul' to assume that an empty tomb means the deceased came back to life and left.
Realworldjack wrote:
Again, I assure you that I was not banking the whole argument on him being #1, when this would be subjective anyway. What would not be subjective is the fact that this very same Jesus would be one of the most well known names in the history of all the world, if not the most, who continues to consume folks, some 2000 years later, all on account of a few "simple souls", or somehow, someway, those later on, (but it could not have been much later) just so happen to decide to pick up the story, and begin to write about it. I'm here to tell you, "it is an amazing tale, any way you tell it"!
Paul/Saul and the gospel writers (whoever they may have been) would not likely be considered 'simple souls'. The tales indicate some measure of education and literacy (not to mention PR skills)
Realworldjack wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: Mohammad is ranked higher by many. Does that indicate that he was 'the last prophet'?
I do not know a whole lot about Mohammad, and I do not need to know a thing about him in order to understand the facts, and evidence which support the claims in the NT. However, since you are the one who brings Mohammad into the conversation, would you like to compare the historical evidence concerning Islam, as opposed to Christianity? I will be glad to walk through it with you.
Feel free to start a thread on that topic.
Realworldjack wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: Yes, there are unverified tales. So what?
I may be able to understand one asking "so what"? When it may be coming from one who is unconcerned about the claims. However, it is hard to swallow coming from one who certainly seems to be consumed by the issue, who spends, day, after day, year, after year, debating the issue.
Some of us are willing to devote time and energy to present ideas to readers that contradict the religious propaganda that permeates our society.

The unverified tales are used as a basis for influencing the society in which we live.
Realworldjack wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: If one claims to know that the 'resurrection' actually happened, or to know that it did not, they have incurred the burden of proof.
Agreed!
Thank you.

Those who maintain that the 'resurrection' actually occurred are invited / encouraged / expected to present verifiable evidence to support the tales (something more substantial than the tales themselves)
Realworldjack wrote:
However, the same would go for those who insist the resurrection did not happen. Have you been just as sure to let them know they own the burden?
Take that up with those who 'insist the resurrection did not happen'.
Realworldjack wrote:
However, they are certainly facts, and evidence in support to the claim, which is demonstrated by the fact there are those opposed who understand these facts,
Correction: There are TALES to support TALES – plus conjecture, opinion, testimonials
Realworldjack wrote:
and evidence must have some sort of alternate explanations given,
It is very naive in debate to say, 'If I throw out some stories you must provide alternative explanation for what my stories tell.'
Realworldjack wrote:
and there are many who spent hour, after hour, day, after day, week, after week, year, after year, being consumed by this claim, which sort of demonstrates there is far more to the claim, than they would like to admit.
One might ask why Apologists spend hours, days, weeks, and years attempting to defend the tales as true – when all they need do is present credible, verifiable evidence

It is not any particular claim that warrants opposition, but the entire dogma and doctrine and propaganda that is foisted upon members of society including those who regard it as rubbish.

Those of us who oppose theocracy in any form spend FAR less time and energy than promoters of religion spend in furthering its propaganda.
Realworldjack wrote:
Because you see, I do not spend any time at all debating things like, big foot, alien abductions, the earth being flat, etc. Can you imagine why?
None of those things are used as propaganda to influence the society in which you (we) live.

Perhaps you (and readers) can understand that you (they) would likely put in time and effort to resist imposition of OTHER religious beliefs on society (say Sharia law).
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 2362
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Post #38

Post by Realworldjack »

[Replying to post 35 by Zzyzx]
Yes, we have anonymous accounts telling tales about crucifixion and a 'resurrection'.
I will take this to be an admission then, that we cannot demonstrate the authors would not have witnessed the crucifixion? In other words, since as you say, we cannot demonstrate who the authors would have been, then we cannot possibly know that they would not have witnessed the things which they wrote.

I will also point out the fact that there are some authors who write anonymously, because they do not want their identity to be known. However, there are also authors who may not identify themselves, and it would have nothing whatsoever to do with not wanting their identity be known, but rather because the audience being addressed would have already known the author, giving the author no reason to give his name to his intended audience.

So then the question is, does the fact that the authors do not identify themselves, give us any evidence whatsoever that the reports may be false?
We have no evidence that authors were or were not present and whether the accounts are true or false.
This is indeed false. We do have evidence the authors would have been present, because we have those a lot closer in time attesting to who the authors would have been. This may not be proof of who the authors would have been, but it is at least evidence.

Next, we know that Paul would have been alive at the time of Jesus, and we know that we have pretty good evidence the author of the letters to Theophilus would have traveled with Paul, which would demonstrate this author would have been alive at the time of Jesus as well. Seeing as how this author assures Theophilus that he had "investigated everything carefully from the beginning" we would have to assume that he would have been lying here, or he would have had to have been alive at the time of the events.
Correct: Presence of tales does not demonstrate that the crucifixion happened as described and/or whether witnesses were present.
My friend the fact that we have the reports is evidence. The reports are certainly not any sort of evidence the reports would be false.
Many observe that accounts exist. Some consider them accurate and others do not.
This is true. However, some go on to acknowledge there may be very good facts, evidence, and reasons on both sides of the equation, and allow folks to analyze these facts, and evidence for themselves, in order to come to their own conclusions, not insisting that everyone must, and has to see things in the same way.
Those who present the tales being true are expected to demonstrate that they are true and accurate.
Who do they owe this to? If I were out of town, and sat down to write a letter to my wife, I may not identify myself to my wife, because I am confident she would know my identity, which would give me no reason to assure her of who I was. If I were to go on in this letter to tell her of some extraordinary event, I would not be obligated to demonstrate or prove what I was saying to her, if she already believed the event had occurred, and I was simply giving her the details which I may have witnessed.

If you were to somehow have access to this letter hundreds of years later, your complaint that I did not identify myself, nor demonstrate the event actually happened, would have nothing to do with the event being true, of false. In other words, these things would not even enter into the equation.

So then, since I am writing to my wife, who would have already been convinced of the event, I owe no proof to her, and I certainly do not owe any sort of proof to others who may read this letter, whom I never intended to read the letter. However, there may be certain, facts, and evidence which you may be able to glean from this letter, which may give one reason to believe the event very well may have occurred. One would never know this, if they are under the false impression that my not identifying myself would have something to do with the truth of the claims, or that I did not demonstrate my case in this letter, would have any bearing upon the truth, when neither would have had a thing in the world to do with it.

The point is, you continue to seem to insist that the authors not identifying themselves, or not demonstrating their case, would have something to do with the truth of the matter, when it could have nothing whatsoever to do with it.
“I don't believe your tales� does not obligate anyone to prove the tales false or to provide alternate 'explanations'
Okay. Well then, "I do believe the claims", does not obligate anyone to prove the claims to be true, an it certainly does not require them to provide alliterate explanations".

However, as I have pointed out, when those opposed attempt to come up with alternative explanations, in an attempt to explain away the facts, and evidence we have, it sort of demonstrates their understanding that there are good facts, and evidence to support the claims, which is why they understand an alternative must be given.

I will also point out that, although I am not obligated to prove the claims, I am asked many times to explain why I do believe the claims, as if the issue would be so simple it could be explained in one post. All I can tell you is, if there are those opposed who think they can explain the reasons why they do not believe the claims very simply, then they are indeed under the false impression that it is all so simple, and I can assure you that it is not that simple in the least.
The tales themselves tell of Paul/Saul being 'converted' in a mysterious 'vision' (or hallucination, or delusion, or fantasy, or whatever it was). There is no independent / disconnected verification of the tales told by the author of Acts (whoever that may have been). At least it makes a good story.
Here is an example, because it is not that simple at all. The fact of the matter would be, this same Paul would have been out in order to violently oppose this movement, (and we have evidence of this from more than Acts) who becomes it's biggest missionary, and we indeed have very good evidence that Paul continued to live in this same way well into his old age, going to jail for years, for his efforts.

This sort of demonstrates that we have certain evidence to support what is reported, when one would have to simply assume there must have been "hallucination, delusion, or fantasy" involved.
Polycarp was a 2nd-century Christian bishop of Smyrna. What do you suggest he witnessed?
You need to keep up with the conversation. He claimed to have been a disciple of the Apostle John, and would have lived some 30 years in the first century. Here is what Irenaeus had to say about Polycarp,
I could tell you the place where the blessed Polycarp sat to preach the Word of God. It is yet present to my mind with what gravity he everywhere came in and went out; what was the sanctity of his deportment, the majesty of his countenance; and what were his holy exhortations to the people. I seem to hear him now relate how he conversed with John and many others who had seen Jesus Christ, the words he had heard from their mouths.
The point is, who is in a better position to know who would have authored the Gospels?
Oh, were there thousands of believers?

WHERE do we find those figures? Could it be in the tales themselves? Is there independent / disconnected verification of those claims?
There is plenty of evidence for this, that we do not even have time to go into. First, it is a fact which can be easily demonstrated that the Gospel was only preached to the Jews, for a good number of years, and the Apostles never expected the message to go any further than the Jews, which can be demonstrated by when Peter first preached it to Gentiles. So then, who would Paul have been traveling around, dragging off to prison? It could have only been Jews, and as I said, this can be demonstrated to have been the case for a good number of years.

So Paul would have made it his business to travel around in order to drag off the scant few who were believing the message? But I guess we can argue that this may not have been true, even though we have this reported by not only the author to Theophilus, but also Paul himself, to audiences who would have been able to verify this information.

So then, why don't we all simply discard the NT completely? I will tell you why. It is because those opposed understand it is not that simple in the least, and there is far more involved than simply saying, "it could be false information". If it were that simple, there would be nothing to debate, and you would not have spent a good portion of your life now, debating a subject in which there would be no facts, and evidence to support.

This is just the tip of the ice berg of the evidence we have that there would have been many Jews who believed the message. So, what kind of evidence do we have that there would not have been very many Jews who would have believed?
Yes Jesus was and is rejected as 'messiah' by Jews.
Not by all of them. And you might want to check out "One For Israel" because it seems as if there are a good number of Jews who are now beginning to see how they have not been told the whole truth, and a good number of them are coming to believe that Jesus is the Messiah.
So what if he did indeed predict the rejection (IF he did in his own words and not just in later after-the-fact accounts written by others).
It seems that most everything is a "so what" to you, but what you fail to realize is, all these "so whats" are mounting against you, and all you seem to have is, "so whats", and "what ifs".
I recognize some of that as part of the story line in the gospel of Matthew.

Again, it is just part of the tale – not verification of anything.
My friend, it can be verified that we have the report, which you have just demonstrated. Your argument seems to be the reports, cannot be verified to be true, but then again, they cannot be verified to be false, so what reason do I have to doubt the claim, the Jews would have called down these curses upon themselves?
1) I have no way of knowing whether the story is true
You do know the claim was made. So then, do you have a way to know the claim would be false?
2) I have no way of knowing the motivation of people living 2000 years ago
Right! But you do know there would be other ways to support those in need, other than selling your land. Is it possible then, that these folks sold their land because they were convinced it would be useless to them? It is possible indeed. Did it come about that this land was indeed useless for them to own? Well yes it did come about.
Correction: A spun yarn does NOT require an explanation.
If you are insisting the yarn had already been spun, then you are under obligation to demonstrate this to be the case.
Perhaps Jews did not 'totally' reject Jesus' message.
Oh? Because, I was under the impression that this is why the message had to be taken hundreds of miles away? But, "perhaps" there were a few? Or, "perhaps" there were thousands?
A small percentage may have believed.
Which would be all that it would take to be in the thousands.
However: Luke 4:28 All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. 29 They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff. 30 But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way.
My friend, we are talking about those who would have believed after the death of Jesus, and you are bringing something in which would have been before?
Dead wrong. “Things are not always the way they seem� stands alone as a true statement. It requires no evidence against what has been presented.
So then, you are agreeing that this would be no argument at all against the claims?
Disagreement would seem to necessitate 'Things ARE always the way they seem' – which runs counter to life experience.
What would not "run counter to life experience" is the fact that many times things are exactly the way they seem.

But I still do not see how this is not an admission the way things seem to be, with what we are discussing, which would be the only reason I could imagine anyone bringing this into the conversation?
Yes, and if it looks like folklore, fiction, and fantasy we are well advised to consider those options.
Exactly how does it look like those things? I can tell you that I can fill up a few pages demonstrating how it does not.
Exactly.

I challenge no one's beliefs (that is a personal matter); however, I often challenge claims, statements, stories they announce in public.
Then we seem to be wasting a lot of time and space, because we seem to agree that neither one side or the other can be demonstrated, and I make no claims which I cannot demonstrate to be facts.
I refer to anyone who sets forth the tales as being truthful and accurate as being a promoter of the tales.
Okay, back to the letter to my wife. If I write a letter to her, in which I describe some very extraordinary things which she already believes, and I am simply describing to her what I may have witnessed, with no intentions that anyone else may ever read this letter, would I be considered a "promoter" of the event, simply because someone reads this letter hundreds of years later?
The tales themselves indicate distention within church congregations Philippians 4:2-3
NO! We are talking about the content of the NT, being addressed to those who would have already believed. We cannot in any way know what sort of facts, and evidence one may have given in any sort of oral transmission to those who would have been unbelievers.
Paul/Saul also cautions about false teachers (those who disagree with him?)

Paul warns about false teachers and teachings several times. In 1 Timothy 1:3, Paul urges Timothy to command the false teachers to stop teaching false doctrines. They were devoted to myths and endless genealogies and were abusing the law (v. 4, 7). In 1 Timothy 4:1-3, he warns of demonically inspired teachers who forbid marriage and certain foods. False teaching has been a threat in every age including the present. It threatens to keep many from the narrow road leading to salvation and instead leads them to the broad road of destruction.
What would any of this have to do with the content of the NT being addressed to those who would have already believed, and was not intended to convince unbelievers of the claims?
It appears as though people believed differently than Paul/Saul wanted them to believe.
How do we know this? From letters that would have been addressed to those who would have already believed the claims.
Oh. I thought you made the claim that Jesus was “the most influential person in history�
Go back and read again, and you will see that I said, "Jesus is proclaimed to be the most influential person in all of history by modern magazines" which would be a fact. I worded it this way, because I am fully aware there are others who have him listed a little lower, but this does not negate the fact that there are indeed those who rank him at #1. But again, the argument was not banking on him actually being #1, because this would be subjective anyway. The question is, would you like to argue as to whether Jesus would be one of the most well known figures in all of history, if not the most well known?
Yes, it might take a 'simple soul' to assume that an empty tomb means the deceased came back to life and left.
Right! And it "might" take "simple souls", to simply dismiss the claims because they are hard to believe.
Paul/Saul and the gospel writers (whoever they may have been) would not likely be considered 'simple souls'. The tales indicate some measure of education and literacy (not to mention PR skills)
I am not the one who referred to them as "simple souls" (that would have been Marco) but some do, and then would like to go on to have the faith in these "simple souls" to have orchestrated all these things in such a way.
Feel free to start a thread on that topic.
I am not the one who makes the comparison.
Some of us are willing to devote time and energy to present ideas to readers that contradict the religious propaganda that permeates our society.

The unverified tales are used as a basis for influencing the society in which we live.
Maybe those with this opinion should devote their time to preventing any of us from attempting to legislate our beliefs upon others, instead of attempting to demonstrate there would be no reason to believe as one does, and maybe they would make more headway in this way, instead of attempting to insist everyone see things in the same way.
Thank you.

Those who maintain that the 'resurrection' actually occurred are invited / encouraged / expected to present verifiable evidence to support the tales (something more substantial than the tales themselves)
Again, we seem to be wasting a lot of time, and space, since I am not insisting the resurrection did occur, and you are not insisting that it did not.
Take that up with those who 'insist the resurrection did not happen'.
Are you suggesting this does not occur here on this site? I assure you it does, and it seems sort of strange that you would not be just as sure to scold them?
Correction: There are TALES to support TALES – plus conjecture, opinion, testimonials
If it could be demonstrated that this is all we had, there would not be so many who are opposed who understand they must give some sort of explanation for the information we have. You know, like we do not have web sites devoted to debating things like, "Little Red Riding Hood" that you like to compare this to, because we all know there is really no comparison, which is exactly why you debate this issue, and not things such as "Little Red Riding Hood".
It is very naive in debate to say, 'If I throw out some stories you must provide alternative explanation for what my stories tell.'
The fact of the matter is, I am not the one who "threw out these stories". Next, it is not that you must give some sort of explanation, but that you understand that you must, and attempt to do so. The point is, I am not insisting that you must, but for some reason even though I am not insisting this, there are those who for some reason feel the need to come up with alternative explanations.
One might ask why Apologists spend hours, days, weeks, and years attempting to defend the tales as true – when all they need do is present credible, verifiable evidence
You will have the ask the Apologists this question. I am simply refuting the idea that I would have no reason to believe the claims.
It is not any particular claim that warrants opposition, but the entire dogma and doctrine and propaganda that is foisted upon members of society including those who regard it as rubbish.
Again, if this is what is truly bothering you, then you need to spend time attempting to make it where folks cannot legislate their beliefs upon others, and I will be right there with you.
Those of us who oppose theocracy in any form spend FAR less time and energy than promoters of religion spend in furthering its propaganda.
I am really beginning to wonder about that? Because you see, I could not care less what it is you believe about these things, and I certainly would not want to force you in any way to believe them. I am not sure there are not those who are ready to somehow enforce an end to religion?
None of those things are used as propaganda to influence the society in which you (we) live.

Perhaps you (and readers) can understand that you (they) would likely put in time and effort to resist imposition of OTHER religious beliefs on society (say Sharia law).
As demonstrated above, your argument does not seem to be as to whether Christianity would be true, or false, or whether there would be any reason to believe it, but rather with those who attempt to legislate what they believe upon others. With this being the case, allow me to end with a real live true story, which would be just one example, of why I am not a member of any Church at the time, and have not been for years.

If you will remember, a good number of years ago, Disney World decided to make insurance available to the partners of employees who would have same sex partners. Of course this was a big deal, and the Southern Baptist Convention lead the way by announcing a boycott of Disney World.

Well, when it was time for the statewide conference of the denomination I was a member of at the time, a motion was brought to the floor, to send a letter of protest to DW. When this motion was brought to the floor, I stood up on the floor and addressed hundreds of delegates, and I asked the question, "what do we have to do with DW"? I went on to say, "DW does not name the name of Christ, so why would we expect DW to adhere to what we expect"? I then said, "there are a lot of folks who do name the name of Christ, and they are preaching a false Gospel, and I would be more than happy to not only send a letter of protest to them, I would also be in favor of forbidding any of our members from supporting any of these ministries in any way, but I do not see what we have to do with DW, and what they decide to do"?

The point I am making is, it seems we may agree a whole lot more than we think.

User avatar
1213
Savant
Posts: 11333
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
Location: Finland
Has thanked: 312 times
Been thanked: 357 times

Re: “We have the facts�

Post #39

Post by 1213 »

Zzyzx wrote: ...
What FACTS support “He has risen� (without using tales from the NT to support tales from the NT)?
Fact that supports Jesus has risen is that Jesus is not on earth anymore. :)

But, does it really make any difference if you would know surely that Jesus was risen and the story is true? Wouldn’t you anyway be against Jesus?

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Re: “We have the facts�

Post #40

Post by Zzyzx »

.
1213 wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: What FACTS support “He has risen� (without using tales from the NT to support tales from the NT)?
Fact that supports Jesus has risen is that Jesus is not on earth anymore.
Dead people are not on Earth anymore.
1213 wrote: But, does it really make any difference if you would know surely that Jesus was risen and the story is true?
How could I know if the tale is true? I'm certainly willing to consider the notion -- but no one seems to have anything but a story about an empty tomb and an assumption that means the corpus came back to life and left.
1213 wrote: Wouldn’t you anyway be against Jesus?
Heck no. I am not against Jewish preachers. If one of them ACTUALLY died and came back to life, I would accept them as something very special.

I do NOT accept that one did 'long ago and far away' based on religious tales that cannot be / have not been shown to be anything more than fiction, folklore, legend, myth, or religion promotional claims.
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

Post Reply