Is faith a reliable path to reality?

[Angry Ukulele Girl]

Hi there!

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

Thanks!

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #50]

I have not been attempting to argue that we have reason to believe that God exists. I have been arguing there are facts, evidence, and reasons to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Again, you may look at these facts, evidence, and reasons and come to a different conclusion, but the fact that you are analyzing the facts, evidence, and reasons in order to come up with an alternative explanation for the facts, evidence, and reasons we have, absolutely demonstrates we have these facts, evidence and reasons, otherwise, there would be no need for these alternative explanations.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #50]

I have not been attempting to argue that we have reason to believe that God exists. I have been arguing there are facts, evidence, and reasons to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Again, you may look at these facts, evidence, and reasons and come to a different conclusion, but the fact that you are analyzing the facts, evidence, and reasons in order to come up with an alternative explanation for the facts, evidence, and reasons we have, absolutely demonstrates we have these facts, evidence and reasons, otherwise, there would be no need for these alternative explanations.

In any discussion that is worth looking at (as is yoiurs) of course there is evidence. (on another board an habitual Theist fiddler claimed that bad evidence is still 'evidence'. and Facts is equivocation as I'm sure you are aware. That a claim exist in a book is aFact, but whether the claim is true or not is debatable 'evidence' and not Fact - that is, true.

So everyone with two brain cells to scrub together will not misinterpret your rather pointless explanation that the 'evidence' (data/material, faithclaims, etc) exist and may be debated) is obvious, is not a talking point and proves and validated nothing. You will no doubt drop this pointless point as it goes nowhere and will only make browsers wonder why you aren't making valid arguments.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #52]

Okay, you now seem to admit there is facts and evidence, but you do not believe the evidence to be very good. I am not one who appeals to the scholars, and I am not suggesting that appealing to them demonstrates the case, but I am appealing to scholars here who do not believe the resurrection took place, or are extremely skeptical, and it is these scholars who are convinced by the evidence you claim is not very good, that the early followers of Jesus were convinced they had seen Jesus alive after death. Here is what New Testament scholar Paula Fredriksen, who is not a Christian herself had to say,

I know in their own terms what they saw was the raised Jesus. That’s what they say, and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attest to their conviction that that’s what they saw. I’m not saying that they really did see the raised Jesus. I wasn’t there. I don’t know what they saw. But I do know that as a historian that they must have seen something.

In other words, the evidence we have, which you claim is not very good, is strong enough for this scholar who has dedicated her life to the study of such things, who is not a Christian herself is admitting the fact that the evidence which you claim is not very good, is strong enough to cause her to "KNOW as a historian they must have seen something". As the article I am citing puts it,

"She’s admitting, in other words, that the best available historical evidence confirms that followers of Jesus like Mary Magdalene, his brother James, Peter and his other disciples, and even an enemy (Paul) were absolutely convinced that the crucified man Jesus appeared to them alive, raised from the dead."

Again, this is what this scholar is claiming we can KNOW by examining the evidence you claim is not very good. This article goes on to say,

"Virtually every Bible scholar across the Western world, regardless of religious background, agrees that Jesus’ earliest followers believed he appeared to them alive".

Now, I have not verified this to be the case, so maybe you may want to do the research, but if this is indeed the case, then it certainly demonstrates the evidence we have which you claim is not good enough has convinced "virtually EVERY Biblical scholar across the Western world" to come to the conclusion that the early followers were not at all making the story up, but were somehow convinced they saw Jesus alive after death. My friend, you may want to rethink the argument that the evidence we have is not very good.

However, it continues here, as this is what New Testament scholar E. P. Sanders who is considered a cautious agnostic had to say,

That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had Resurrection experiences is, in my judgement, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know.

In other words, this scholar is convinced that the facts and evidence we have causes the resurrection experiences to be a fact. This would mean, the facts and evidence we have causes this to be something we can know beyond a reasonable doubt. Again, you may want to rethink the argument that the facts and evidence we have is not very good. Allow me to share with you just a few things you can know beyond any reasonable doubt by examining the facts and evidence we have which you say is not very good.

We can know that Jesus was a real historical figure who walked the face of the earth. We can know that this same Jesus was crucified. We can know that there were those who were claiming to have witnessed Jesus alive after death. We can know that Paul was a persecutor of those who were making these claims. We can know Paul converted. We can know that Paul would have been alive at the time of the events. We can know that Paul would have known the original apostles and heard the claims they were making. We can know that Paul traveled the known world at the time planting Churches. We can know that Paul wrote letters to these Churches. We can know that Paul lived out the rest of his life as though Jesus had rose again. We can know we have no evidence whatsoever that any of those who claimed to have seen Jesus alive after death ever recanted.

I mean, these are just a few things we can know beyond any reasonable doubt, and you are going to stick to the argument the evidence is not very good? I can tell you that when there have been some who are opposed, who are confronted with the evidence above go on to commit what is called intellectual suicide by resorting to claim that we cannot even verify if Jesus ever lived. In other words, the facts and evidence is so overwhelming some are willing to jump off the deep end.

At any rate, the facts and evidence we have is certainly good enough for us all to know, that whatever it is which may explain the facts and evidence we have, would have to be, and continues to be, the most extraordinary tale the world has ever known. This is a fact which cannot be denied. In other words, it would certainly be extraordinary if Christ was raised from the dead. However, I cannot think of any other explanation at all, which would explain the facts and evidence we have, which would not include the extraordinary. Whatever may explain the facts and evidence we have, these events have had the most significant impact the world has ever known which causes these events to be extraordinary. In other words, from the facts and evidence we have, we can know the early followers of Jesus was somehow convinced they saw the risen Christ. We can go on to know, that whatever caused them to believe such a thing has had the most significant impact in history to the point the Jesus is the most well-known name in history. I do not care who you are, that is extraordinary.

Again, you may want to rethink the argument that the evidence is not good enough.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #46]

GOOD GRIEF! There are some folks who make it almost impossible to bow out of a conversation because the "hits just keep on coming", and they make it to easy and amusing to leave the conversation.

So then, let us imagine........ Well before we go on to "imagine", the reason we have to "imagine" is because we cannot use reality, because we may hurt someone's feelings, and we certainly do not want anyone's feelings hurt, so let us simply keep it at "imagining". So again, let us "imagine" we have one who feels the need to announce to everyone they were at one time a convinced Christian, and this "imaginary" person then goes on to tell us there is no facts and evidence to support what they were once convinced of. Let us go on to "imagine" this person tells us that they simply took the word of others in order to be convinced. Therefore, when one appeals to any sort of authority in debate, this person is quick to point out this fallacy.

Now let us "imagine" this person assures us that because they were at one time a Christian, they know quite a lot about the Bible. Then, let us "suppose" another were to challenge this person's claim of Biblical knowledge by challenging them to give an interpretation of a Biblical passage. As we continue to "imagine", let us "suppose" this person fails the challenge miserably because it is demonstrated beyond doubt that the interpretation given would be impossible. Continuing on with the "imagination" let us "suppose" that when this is pointed out, this "imaginary" person actually appeals to what they believe to be an authority and insisting that since they can demonstrate where another has the same interpretation, then this somehow demonstrates the interpretation is legitimate, when it has been demonstrated from the text itself this interpretation would be impossible. In other words, this "imaginary" person, who is quick to point out the fallacy of an appeal to authority does exactly that.

I am certainly glad that all the above was "imaginary" because if it were not, it would be hard to believe one could actually do such a thing. Then again, we have to think about the fact that, you can't make this kind of stuff up, which causes us to believe it may in fact be real, because no one can think up a story in which one would be quick to point out the fallacy of appealing to authority, and then go on to do exactly that. Again, you can't make this stuff up. Although the story seems unreal, we have to keep in mind no one would make such a story up, because no one would ever believe that one could point out the fallacy of an appeal to authority and then in a matter of days this very same person makes an appeal to authority.

However, let us continue to "imagine" how it may be possible for this "imaginary" person to cause a passage to say what it has been clearly demonstrated not to be saying. We can do this if we were to "imagine" this same "imaginary" person, were to accuse another poster on this site of finding some sort of "painful experience" they may have had to be "hilarious" when this poster said no such thing, and it could not have even been possible for this poster to have done such a thing when this poster could not have possibly known about any sort of painful experience they may have had. If we could demonstrate where this "imaginary" person has made such an accusation and can go on to demonstrate the poster could not have possibly known about any sort of painful experience, then this may well explain how this "imaginary" person can make a passage say anything they wish.

It seems we have demonstrated that our "imaginary" person who claims to have been a convinced Christian at one time, who freely admits that when they were a Christian, they simply took the word of others, and regurgitated what they were told, (authority) continues to do just that.

Let us now leave "imagine land" and get back to the real world. As I have said, there are Christian nationalists who are using this passage in the same exact way you are, and I have debated one of the most prominent Christian nationalists here in the United States on his interpretation of this passage, and he was forced to admit that the passage was a warning to the Corinthians, and Paul had no intentions of instructing us as Christians to "take every thought captive". Notice carefully that I said he was forced to admit this. I can assure you that it was not at all because he was being intellectually honest, because I can assure you that he is not. This goes to demonstrate that even one who is not in any way intellectually honest had to admit the passage was in no way communicating what he had been claiming. It is impossible to make the passage be anything other than a warning to the Corinthians, and it does not matter what authority you appeal to, and it does not matter how many Christians misinterpret the passage. All that matters is if it is even possible to make the passage mean anything other than a warning to the Corinthians, and this would be impossible. However, if we go back to our "imaginary" person who was able to accuse another poster of finding some sort of painful experience they may have had hilarious, when this poster could not have possibly known about any sort of painful experience, then we may just find one who is able to make any passage say anything they like as long as it promotes the agenda they have. But again, even a self-proclaimed Christian nationalist, who was using this passage to promote Christian nationalism, who does not possess intellectual honesty, was forced to admit the passage has to be twisted in order to promote his agenda.

Again, I am here to tell you that this passage can be demonstrated to be a warning to the Corinthians, and there is no way to make it say what you are attempting to make it say, and it does not matter who you appeal to. It speaks volumes that you do not even deal with the text in the least in order to determine if those you appeal to could be in gross error (and they are) and I am willing to put my reputation on the line that you cannot read the whole chapter and explain how it can have anything at all to do with, "Paul talking about what we allow to take hold in our minds". I am confident this would be impossible for anyone to do.

So then, it looks like both of our reputations is on the line here. Either you can demonstrate where those you appeal to are correct in their interpretation, or it stands that this can only be seen as a warning to the Corinthians.

I was a born again, drunk in the holy ghost, street evangelizing missionary (3 countries) for almost 2 decades. Losing my Christian beliefs was one of the hardest things I have ever gone through, but I am now a more loving and accepting (Christlike) person due to this ironically.

Hopefully one day you will be set free as well.

The things that were dodged in place of addressed in the quoted post were:
You should have supplied the alluded to facts and evidence here for us to examine. Why didn't you?

Isn't it funny that Christianity.com agrees with me and you still want to discount this in place of addressing the mechanism for how and why humans created god concepts. Arguing about what the Bible is saying is something that Christians do with themselves. I don't care that you Christians cannot agree, I am curious about how and why humans have created god concepts and the faith that is required in order to believe in one of the available gods. You know, like the topic of this thread.

I assume you slander me because that is easier when compared to discussing how humans created the gods and how faith is required.

What are your thoughts about how religions came about in the Americas? What do you think was the mechanism for say the American Indians and South American civilizations for how they arrived at their god concepts and do you think they would still worship their gods today if their civilizations were not destroyed by Europeans?

Will you debate by discussing these questions, or will you continue to slander my 2 decades of Christianity that has nothing to do with the debate at hand? Try the former as the latter has me embarrassed on your behalf.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #52]

Okay, you now seem to admit there is facts and evidence, but you do not believe the evidence to be very good. I am not one who appeals to the scholars, and I am not suggesting that appealing to them demonstrates the case, but I am appealing to scholars here who do not believe the resurrection took place, or are extremely skeptical, and it is these scholars who are convinced by the evidence you claim is not very good, that the early followers of Jesus were convinced they had seen Jesus alive after death. Here is what New Testament scholar Paula Fredriksen, who is not a Christian herself had to say,

I know in their own terms what they saw was the raised Jesus. That’s what they say, and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attest to their conviction that that’s what they saw. I’m not saying that they really did see the raised Jesus. I wasn’t there. I don’t know what they saw. But I do know that as a historian that they must have seen something.

In other words, the evidence we have, which you claim is not very good, is strong enough for this scholar who has dedicated her life to the study of such things, who is not a Christian herself is admitting the fact that the evidence which you claim is not very good, is strong enough to cause her to "KNOW as a historian they must have seen something". As the article I am citing puts it,

"She’s admitting, in other words, that the best available historical evidence confirms that followers of Jesus like Mary Magdalene, his brother James, Peter and his other disciples, and even an enemy (Paul) were absolutely convinced that the crucified man Jesus appeared to them alive, raised from the dead."

Again, this is what this scholar is claiming we can KNOW by examining the evidence you claim is not very good. This article goes on to say,

"Virtually every Bible scholar across the Western world, regardless of religious background, agrees that Jesus’ earliest followers believed he appeared to them alive".

Now, I have not verified this to be the case, so maybe you may want to do the research, but if this is indeed the case, then it certainly demonstrates the evidence we have which you claim is not good enough has convinced "virtually EVERY Biblical scholar across the Western world" to come to the conclusion that the early followers were not at all making the story up, but were somehow convinced they saw Jesus alive after death. My friend, you may want to rethink the argument that the evidence we have is not very good.

However, it continues here, as this is what New Testament scholar E. P. Sanders who is considered a cautious agnostic had to say,

That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had Resurrection experiences is, in my judgement, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know.

In other words, this scholar is convinced that the facts and evidence we have causes the resurrection experiences to be a fact. This would mean, the facts and evidence we have causes this to be something we can know beyond a reasonable doubt. Again, you may want to rethink the argument that the facts and evidence we have is not very good. Allow me to share with you just a few things you can know beyond any reasonable doubt by examining the facts and evidence we have which you say is not very good.

We can know that Jesus was a real historical figure who walked the face of the earth. We can know that this same Jesus was crucified. We can know that there were those who were claiming to have witnessed Jesus alive after death. We can know that Paul was a persecutor of those who were making these claims. We can know Paul converted. We can know that Paul would have been alive at the time of the events. We can know that Paul would have known the original apostles and heard the claims they were making. We can know that Paul traveled the known world at the time planting Churches. We can know that Paul wrote letters to these Churches. We can know that Paul lived out the rest of his life as though Jesus had rose again. We can know we have no evidence whatsoever that any of those who claimed to have seen Jesus alive after death ever recanted.

I mean, these are just a few things we can know beyond any reasonable doubt, and you are going to stick to the argument the evidence is not very good? I can tell you that when there have been some who are opposed, who are confronted with the evidence above go on to commit what is called intellectual suicide by resorting to claim that we cannot even verify if Jesus ever lived. In other words, the facts and evidence is so overwhelming some are willing to jump off the deep end.

At any rate, the facts and evidence we have is certainly good enough for us all to know, that whatever it is which may explain the facts and evidence we have, would have to be, and continues to be, the most extraordinary tale the world has ever known. This is a fact which cannot be denied. In other words, it would certainly be extraordinary if Christ was raised from the dead. However, I cannot think of any other explanation at all, which would explain the facts and evidence we have, which would not include the extraordinary. Whatever may explain the facts and evidence we have, these events have had the most significant impact the world has ever known which causes these events to be extraordinary. In other words, from the facts and evidence we have, we can know the early followers of Jesus was somehow convinced they saw the risen Christ. We can go on to know, that whatever caused them to believe such a thing has had the most significant impact in history to the point the Jesus is the most well-known name in history. I do not care who you are, that is extraordinary.

Again, you may want to rethink the argument that the evidence is not good enough.

Wait minute! Is your facts and evidence that a decomposing body reanimated to life justified because some scholars believe that unknown people a couple thousand years ago believed the claim? I was hoping for actual facts and evidence.

If this is the case, don't read about Joseph Smith or you will become a Mormon. I mean, people believed that he had golden plates and magic glasses and wrote the book of Mormon after all. Did I leave out the part that people believed he was met by the angel Moroni himself! Praise be!

Crap, I hope I haven't said too much already!

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #53]

again, that looked rather long to me, but essentially the point seems to be the same. There is 'evidence' for the resurrection in the Gospels. I would prefer nit to use the word 'facts' apart from the Fact that the narration is there.

You appeal to authority, and I don;t care because at the best they all seem to fall short of understanding what the gospels are and how they were written, but that's just my opinion.
You point to my case or 'Research'. I did it back in the 80's and have been adding to it ever since.

It is basically that the contradictions refute the resurrection claim

Let's recap the case.

Mark has an empty tomb and angelic message. That's all. cue excuses. They do not wash. As the earliest of the extant synoptics, it ought to have had the occurrences afterwards, but does not, Conclusion. The empty tomb is the only claim (and that has some dodgy aspects) and John refutes the angelic message. It will not wash with anyone other than believers that he simply didn't bother to mention it, because Mary Magdalene, panting out her discovery to the disciples, has no idea what has become of Jesus. Never mind that Matthew says the women ran into Jesus on the way back (cue excuses) and it gets no better with the disciples traipsing pointlessly off to Galilee while in Luke Jesus turns up that evening and gives a series of scriptural slide - lectures.
My case - the contradictions show that the resurrection accounts are invidually made up and that is why they contradict.

If there has not been any kind of walking copse, there would have been a story as basic as the empty tomb and crucifixion, and there would be no need to make different stories up.

Over to you. Do you accept that there is reasonable cause to dismiss the resurrection - accounts as credible evidence for a resurrection, never mind facts? Or do you not, in which case, why not?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #54]

I was a born again, drunk in the holy ghost, street evangelizing missionary (3 countries) for almost 2 decades.

GOOD GRIEF! You make this statement as if this is something to be proud of. I mean, not in the way that you would be proud of the fact that you threw 2 decades of your life away, but rather somehow proud of the idea that since you were such a dedicated Christian for so long that this somehow demonstrates your arguments are legitimate. Well, I hate to be the one to tell you, it does not demonstrate this in the least. However, allow me to tell you what it does in fact demonstrate. It demonstrates one who was walking around as though they were "drunk in the Holy Ghost" when this sort of thing can be nowhere found in what is contained in the Bible. That is exactly what it demonstrates. It seems to me we are demonstrating that the fault does not in any way lie with Christianity. Rather, the fault clearly lies with one who knows just enough about the Bible to be dangerous, and it is indeed dangerous to throw 2 decades of one's life away based upon something Christianity does not teach. I mean, you continue to give me ammunition, and when I use the ammunition, you freely give me, you want to complain.

Losing my Christian beliefs was one of the hardest things I have ever gone through

Okay? I am sure it was, and I am not attempting to make light of your situation, but this is a debate site, and I am trying to understand what this would have to do with our debate? I mean, is there a point to be made here? Or are you simply sharing?

but I am now a more loving and accepting (Christlike) person due to this ironically.

You know what? As I age, I find myself more caring and accepting of folks than I once was, but I do not credit this to my religion or the lack thereof, but rather attribute it to age. It's called maturity. But again, this is a debate site and your being more loving and caring since you lost your faith is not in any way an argument against that which you were once so convinced of.

Hopefully one day you will be set free as well.

I would love to be set free from Christianity, because I can assure you that I would rather not believe it. I cannot imagine one who truly understands it who would want to believe it. The problem is my mind continues to be enslaved to facts, evidence, and reasons to believe. In other words, the only way I can be set free of it, would be to ignore the facts, evidence, and reasons.

You should have supplied the alluded to facts and evidence here for us to examine. Why didn't you?

Oh, but I have, and one of the strongest pieces of evidence we have, that we do indeed have these facts, and evidence, is the fact that folks like you continue to attempt to give alternative explanations for the facts, evidence, and reasons you say we do not have. Kind of comical.

Isn't it funny that Christianity.com agrees with me

No! I'll tell you what is funny. It is funny that since I have issued this challenge, you have not one time actually dealt with the text, and that is because it would be impossible for you to actually deal with the text and make it say anything other than being a warning to the Corinthian Church. So, you do not deal with the actual text, because you can't, and therefore you are left with appealing to one you say agrees with you, but the funniest thing of all here is the fact that you, just a few days ago, were very quick to attempt to point out this sort of thing as a fallacy. Now, I don't care who you are, that is funny. It is what I call, "good stuff". What would be even funnier, is if it was not that Christianity.com agrees with you, but rather that when I offered the challenge you simply did a google search and went with the first thing that popped up, without actually going to the text to determine if such an explanation would even be possible. Now that would be funny. However, the funniest thing of all is the fact that simply pointing to the fact that someone agrees with you, or better yet that you agree with them, is not an argument at all. Remember? It's what you called a fallacy.

you still want to discount this in place of addressing the mechanism for how and why humans created god concepts.

Oh, but I have indeed addressed this, and I have addressed it head on, and I have done so by admitting I would have no idea about such a thing. What I do know for a fact is, Christianity was never, ever based upon any sort of "god concept". Rather, it can be demonstrated beyond doubt, that Christianity is based upon what is claimed to be a resurrection, and there is a tremendous difference. You would think one who was a "born again, drunk in the holy ghost Christian for over 2 decades" would have known this.

Arguing about what the Bible is saying is something that Christians do with themselves.

Here again, there is a tremendous difference between "arguing about what the Bible says" as opposed to demonstrating beyond doubt what a text is actually saying, and that it would be impossible for the text to say anything other than what has been demonstrated. And again, it speaks volumes that you have not as of yet even attempted to deal with the text itself, because it would be impossible for you to do so, rather you appeal to those who you claim agree with you, which is exactly what you call a "fallacy".

I am curious about how and why humans have created god concepts and the faith that is required in order to believe in one of the available gods.

I have addressed this as well, by demonstrating that I do not need an ounce of faith in order to believe the resurrection took place, because there are facts and evidence to base one's belief upon. This may be a hard concept for one to grasp, who was convinced of something there would be no facts and evidence to support.

I assume you slander me because that is easier when compared to discussing how humans created the gods and how faith is required.

Again, I cannot stress this enough. It is not "slander" when one simply repeats exactly what one has reported about themselves. Next, one needs to attempt to comprehend that there is a tremendous difference between humans dreaming up "god concepts" as opposed to humans creating what they claim to be a historical event, in which the facts and evidence demonstrates they were truly convinced this historical event took place, because the facts and evidence demonstrates this to be the case, and these folks go on to live out the rest of their lives as if this event did in fact take place, and this event, no matter the explanation turns out to be the most significant event in the history of the world. These are the facts, and evidence you are dealing with, and there are no easy answers, and the fact that one walked around "drunk in the holy ghost for over 2 decades" is not going to change these facts. You see, this is not "slander". It's repeating exactly what one has said about themselves, almost word for word.

Try the former as the latter has me embarrassed on your behalf.

Oh? I have no doubt that someone is "embarrassed", and there is no wonder. When one shares the events of their former life, it does, and can enter into debate, and the events of one's former life, combined with what one has to say today, just may well demonstrate that Christianity is not the fault at all, when one has demonstrated they were behaving in such a way, when Christianity never teaches such a thing. The bottom line is, if one does not want these things used against them, then they need to stop sharing them. In other words, they need to stop giving me ammunition, and then complain when I use the ammunition they have supplied. One cannot share these things as if they were relevant to the debate, and not expect another is not going to use these things which are given to them on a silver platter. It's like the gift that keeps on giving.

[otseng]

Crap, I hope I haven't said too much already!

Moderator Comment

Any profanity is saying too much, even if you think it's mild.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #56]

again, that looked rather long to me

You continue to complain that my posts are long, but they are not at all long compared to others. But let us think about this for a moment. You claim you have been at this since the 80's. Well, that is quite a lot of research, and I am not discrediting your research. In fact, I appreciate one who has done such research. However, if you have indeed been at this since the 80's this sort of demonstrates the fact that this subject is far more complicated than most folks on both sides attempt to make it out to be. In other words, if this issue was simple to resolve, then it would not take decades of research in order to come to a conclusion but even by your own admission your conclusions are simply your opinion and do not demonstrate the case. I have been at this myself for some 30 years, but I do not believe that the years I have put in does anything at all to strengthen my case. Moreover, if one has indeed been at this for some 30 years, while also knowing this debate has been raging for some 2000 years now, I cannot imagine such a one being under the impression that one small post is going to settle the issue. It may settle the issue in your mind, and I have no problem with that, but your 30 years of research in no way trumps all others.

There is 'evidence' for the resurrection in the Gospels. I would prefer nit to use the word 'facts' apart from the Fact that the narration is there.

My friend, there is a tremendous difference between one who is pointing to what you are calling "The Gospels" and saying "because it is reported in the Gospels this is evidence of the resurrection" as opposed to one saying, "even if what is contained in the Bible is not reliable, there are certain facts we can know by reading this unreliable material" and then going on to point to these things we can know from reading the material which is not reliable to be evidence of the resurrection. The latter is nowhere close to saying, "the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it". I mean, this is exactly what historians do. They read ancient letters which they do not believe to be completely reliable in that they contain what the historian believes to be false made-up stories, fabrications, along with discrepancies. However, in these letters which the historian does not consider to be completely reliable, they believe we can know certain things to be fact by reading this material, which causes us to be almost certain concerning historical events. So then, while you may not "prefer to use the word fact apart from the Fact that the narration is there" there are certain facts we can know to be true by reading the narration, whether the narration be reliable or not. And again, there is a tremendous difference between one saying, "the narrative is the evidence" as opposed to acknowledging that the facts we can know by reading the narrator, whether reliable or not would be evidence.

You appeal to authority

The authority I have appealed to would be the authorities which would be opposed to my position. In other words, I am not saying, "you see, the scholars agree with me". Rather, I am saying, the scholars who do not hold my position come to the conclusion, from material they do not believe to be reliable, that the early followers of Jesus were convinced they saw Jesus alive after death. Would you like to argue with this conclusion? Go ahead! But where would this leave us? Did we have early followers fabricate the story, who then somehow convinced others, including Paul the enemy? You can claim the whole thing was some sort of fabricated story, but when one sits down in order to determine what all would have to be involved for this to be the case, they will determine it would be far more complicated than that. In other words, it is not as simple as a lot of Christians make it out to be when they say, "the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it", but it is also not as simple as suggesting the whole thing was made up. There would have to be a whole lot more involved.

It is basically that the contradictions refute the resurrection claim

Okay, in order to keep this post from being extremely long, I am going to deal with this here, and not go into some of the other points, because the post would be extremely long, which goes on to demonstrate the case is not as simple as most folks make out on both sides.

I have acknowledged the contradictions, and I am not attempting to defend the credibility of the authors. Rather, I am saying, there is a world of things we can know to be fact by reading the material, whether the material be reliable or not. It would indeed be an extremely long post if I were to go through and demonstrate what all we can know to be fact by reading this material whether the material be reliable or not.

If there has not been any kind of walking copse, there would have been a story as basic as the empty tomb and crucifixion, and there would be no need to make different stories up.

So then, you are left with the idea the whole thing was made up. Well, I am here to tell you that it is not as simple as that. There would have to be a whole lot of explaining to do in order for this to be the case (and I mean a whole lot) and since you complain about long posts, we cannot get into what all would have to be explained, and I can assure you that anyone who has put in decades of research would have to know this to be the case.

Over to you. Do you accept that there is reasonable cause to dismiss the resurrection

I have never suggested otherwise. I have always said there are facts, and evidence concerning the events surrounding the resurrection claims, and folks can use these facts, and evidence, along with reason and come to different conclusions. I have no problem at all with those who come to different conclusions, and I do not insist they have no reason to come to the conclusions they have. My problem comes in when there are those who want to insist there would be no facts, evidence, or reasons to believe the claims. In other words, I am convinced by the facts and evidence that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, but I leave room for those who are opposed, and do not insist they have no reason to be opposed. What I can tell you is, no matter what it is that would explain the facts, and evidence we have concerning this issue, we are left with one of the most (if not the most) extraordinary tales in history.

Over to you.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #55]

Wait minute! Is your facts and evidence that a decomposing body reanimated to life justified because some scholars believe that unknown people a couple thousand years ago believed the claim?

No! One needs to read more carefully. However, this would not be shocking at all if it were coming from one who was walking around "drunk in the holy ghost for some 2 decades" based upon Christianity when the fact is, nowhere in what is contained in the Bible is there anything close to this at all. So, let's attempt to read more carefully so that we do not throw more years of our life away. It is not that these folks "believed the claim". In other words, the scholars are not in any way saying the facts and evidence demonstrates they believed a claim, others were making. Rather, these scholars are convinced by material they do not believe to be completely reliable, that the earliest followers of Jesus were convinced they saw Jesus alive after death. Can you see the difference?

You see, there is a major difference between believing what another has to say, as opposed to believing you actually witnessed the event. What this would mean is, these folks were not at all attempting to spread what they knew to be false but were rather convinced what they were reporting was fact. If this is indeed the case, then this would need some sort of explanation. The explanation would either be, they did indeed witness Christ alive, which would be extraordinary, or they were all deceived in some sort of way, which would be extraordinary. Therefore, either way we go, we are left with the extraordinary.

Okay, but the scholars could be in error, and these folks were really not convinced they saw Jesus alive, and therefore we are left with all these folks making the whole thing up. However, we are still left with a whole lot of explaining to do, like how in the world did all these folks pull this off in the face of those who would have had every reason to put a stop to it? Moreover, we can know for a fact that there were those who were attempting to put a stop to it, because we know for a fact that Paul was doing all he could do to stop it. My friend, this is just one of the things we would have to explain along with much more, and either way we go you are left with one of the most (if not the most) extraordinary tales the world has ever known. I am just telling you; this is where the facts, and evidence we have leads.

If this is the case, don't read about Joseph Smith or you will become a Mormon.

Oh really? Well let's just see. I was hoping you would want to compare the historical facts and evidence we have for the resurrection to that of another religion, and it seems you have chosen Mormonism. Okay, here we go. What I am citing here is Wikipedia.

"The Eight Witnesses were the second of the two groups of "special witnesses" to the Book of Mormon's golden plates".

Umm? I wonder why there would have to be a "second group of special witnesses"? Well, that would be because the first witnesses would be just three, and these three did not work out so well, and therefore there was a need to move on to the eight folks who just so happened to be relatives of who? Oh? That would be Joseph Smith. So then, what happened to the original three witnesses? Again, Wikipedia.

"All three witnesses eventually broke with Smith and were excommunicated from the church. In 1838, Joseph Smith called Cowdery, Harris, and Whitmer "too mean to mention; and we had liked to have forgotten them."

Now, does one really want to compare the historical facts, and evidence of Mormonism to Christianity? Well, no they do not because there is no comparison. Rather, this is the same old worn out, and tired argument of, "since we know all religions cannot be true, then this somehow demonstrates they all must, and have to be false". GOOD GRIEF!

To be clear here, I am not arguing that Mormonism would be false. I am simply comparing the historical evidence we have for Mormonism to Christianity. Next?

I mean, people believed that he had golden plates and magic glasses and wrote the book of Mormon after all. Did I leave out the part that people believed he was met by the angel Moroni himself! Praise be!

Correct, "people believed" but we are not talking about those who claimed to believe. Rather, we are talking about those who claimed to have witnessed, and when we compare those who claimed to have witnessed the "golden tablets" to those who claimed to have witnessed the resurrection, we discover there is no comparison at all, unless you would like to make a defense for the witnesses of the "golden tablets"?

Crap, I hope I haven't said too much already!

My only comment here is, I have never reported anyone to the moderators, and never will.