Is Jesus or Rumour effective today?

[marco]

Many claim that Christ still has a direct influence on them today. They are perhaps influenced by John 6:37, “He that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.� But he led those that followed him into torture and death; he could not save himself, and found no words to defend himself against the charges brought. He advocated tolerance and peace then lost his temper in the temple. He did not write anything that can be analysed, but leaving it to those that didn't know him he entrusted himself to rumour.


Is it Christ who has influence today, or the multi-national religions that built churches on his bones?

And is the personal Christ who whispers in the night nothing more than the sober voice of conscience and hope? Does it matter?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 30 by marco]

Mark tells us that a young man: neaniskos, ran naked from Gethsemane. Odd. Mark tells us that a young man: neaniskos, waited in the tomb and was able to tell the women exactly where Jesus had gone. Odd.

Simply because you happen to find something "odd", is not in any way evidence that it would not be true. Moreover, when we talk about the reports of a resurrection, and if there would be sufficient reasons for one to come to the conclusion that a resurrection may have taken place, these things you are bringing up, would have nothing to do with it.

My point is, I am not attempting to demonstrate there is sufficient evidence to come to the conclusion that there was an angel at the tomb. Rather, I have demonstrated that there is sufficient evidence for one to come to the conclusion that a resurrection may have in fact occurred.

My view is that something we do not know has happened.

And it would be a fact, that no matter what it was, it was extraordinary. In other words, it is an extraordinary truth, or extraordinary deceit!

We can call the young man, naked or clothed, an angel. I think this is foolish supposition.

I have no problem with what you, "think." The problem comes in, when one insists that what they "think" would be a fact, with no facts, evidence, or reasons, not to mention that for one to make such a claim, proof would be required.

Is it possible that the wonderful resurrection some have accepted was nothing of the sort.

You are correct, and I have never argued that a resurrection has, and must be the answer. My argument has been, there are very good reasons, facts, and evidence support a belief in a resurrection, and you demonstrate this to be the case, by simply saying, "it is possible there may not have been."

The young man could have told us a lot - but Mark doesn't allow him to.

The author of Mark, was not writing to you, or I, and is not obligated in any way to us.

This gives me sufficient reason for disbelief.

And I have no problem with your "disbelief" nor the idea that you believe you have, "sufficient reason" for it. My problem comes in when there are those who insist there would be no reason for belief, and all the have to offer is their opinion, and the belief they hold, as if this is some sort of evidence, (no make that proof).

[marco]

Simply because you happen to find something "odd", is not in any way evidence that it would not be true.

I am not contesting the truth of the young man; his inclusion suggests he is an important part of the scenario, but possibly a part that Mark had no knowledge of. The "oddness" is that a naked man is mentioned running away at an important part of the prelude to Christ's trial; then again the same Greek word is used for a mystery young man. Was it the same man?


Given there are question marks about this character's appearance - and one who KNOWS where Christ went - we have a duty to withhold our acceptance of a miracle when we can't even explain the human involvement.


What other people deduced at a distance of years, or from second hand accounts - the young man became an "angel" - does not, as you seem to think, add to the evidence for a resurrection. There is good enough reason for us to pause, but 2000 years have intervened and we cannot say what was going on with any certainty.


Incidentally, I very rarely declare that my "opinion" MUST be correct. Were this so, debate would be superfluous.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 32 by marco]

I am not contesting the truth of the young man; his inclusion suggests he is an important part of the scenario, but possibly a part that Mark had no knowledge of. The "oddness" is that a naked man is mentioned running away at an important part of the prelude to Christ's trial; then again the same Greek word is used for a mystery young man. Was it the same man?

What I am attempting to determine is, what any of this would have to do with the truth of the resurrection? In other words, how would the answer to any of the question you have here, give us any indication as to whether the reports of the resurrection would be true, or false?

Given there are question marks about this character's appearance - and one who KNOWS where Christ went - we have a duty to withhold our acceptance of a miracle when we can't even explain the human involvement.

There is so much wrong with this statement, I don't even know where to begin. First, why is it that "we are duty bound to withhold our acceptance of a miracle", but we are not in any way, "duty bound" to the witnesses who report the events?

I am not in any way saying, we are "duty bound" to the witnesses in any way, but it certainly demonstrates a bias, to insist we are "duty bound" one way, but not the other. The fact of the matter is, we are "duty bound" to the facts as they are reported, and anything beyond this would be speculation, unless there were some sort of evidence to support such speculation. Moreover, it is reported that this "young man" told of the whereabouts of Jesus. So while we are not "duty bound" to accept the story, we are certainly not "duty bound" to dismiss the report.

Next, what "question marks" does this character raise? As I said, he reports the whereabouts of Jesus. So then, what other questions does this character raise? Are you suggesting this character may have had something to do with the disappearance of the body? If so, what would be the evidence? What would have been done with the body? How would anyone be able to pull such an event off, with all the guards, along with all those who you say, were expecting just that? Were the Apostles involved? Did they know about this? Or, were they simply deceived, and we have all these facts involved simply because of some sort of deception? Please explain why we are "duty bound" to accept such an outlandish explanation, with no facts, or evidence, to support such a claim, and we are not "duty bound" to accept the reports, with all the facts, evidence, witnesses, and reasons concerning the reports?

What other people deduced at a distance of years, or from second hand accounts - the young man became an "angel" - does not, as you seem to think, add to the evidence for a resurrection. There is good enough reason for us to pause, but 2000 years have intervened and we cannot say what was going on with any certainty.

First, where in the world did you get the idea that I was under the impression that, "the young man became an angel" added to the evidence of the resurrection, when I have never mentioned this, character, and have never imagined in my mind that he was any sort of angel? Again, you simply make things up.

Next, you are correct to say that we cannot be certain, and I have never suggested anything else. However, this would mean that we cannot be certain that the reports must, and have to be false.

Incidentally, I very rarely declare that my "opinion" MUST be correct.

I believe I can site where you have said something to the affect that, "there was most certainly not a resurrection." How would this not be an example of insisting that your "opinion MUST be correct?" This is only one example because I can, and have cited many times where you state your opinion, as if it were a fact, when you cannot cite one example as far as I am concerned.

[marco]

The fact of the matter is, we are "duty bound" to the facts as they are reported, and anything beyond this would be speculation, unless there were some sort of evidence to support such speculation.

Good. We have a reported empty tomb. Some stranger is sitting in it. Ergo we conclude the body has gone. We may conclude, since the stranger had access to the tomb and seems to know where the body is, that this stranger had something to do with the body's disappearance. We may wonder why the soldiers did not challenge him, but we're not told.

It would be incredible speculation to suppose the body assumed life and walked away.

Incidentally, I very rarely declare that my "opinion" MUST be correct.

I believe I can site where you have said something to the affect that, "there was most certainly not a resurrection." How would this not be an example of insisting that your "opinion MUST be correct?"

We can say with confidence that decomposing corpses do not put on new vigour and walk away. A world that denies this is a world to which we have no access. So there are things we can assert with condidence. However, "opinions" are not of this nature and opinions can be wrong.


The world to which Paul and his pals belonged understood heaven to be somewhere above the clouds. The vast Empire on the doorsteps of these simple people entertained deities. When we hear that some worthies from the ancient world thought that a decomposing body rose up, we quietly dismiss their superstition. To entertain it is to throw aside centuries of progress and perhaps accept astrology as a worthy science.

The only possible way we can agree that a resurrection took place is by FAITH. For many, that is enough. For me, it is insufficient. There are no routes to resurrections via reason. Sorry.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 34 by marco]

Good. We have a reported empty tomb. Some stranger is sitting in it. Ergo we conclude the body has gone.

Well no! It does not seem like you quite have it yet. Because you see, we cannot simply "conclude a body is gone." Rather, as I said, we can only stick with the facts as we have them.

Ergo, we have several reports of an empty tomb. Ergo, we have evidence of an empty tomb, or we have evidence of those who were either lying, or deceived in some sort of way.

As we continue on, we have several reports that the empty tomb was caused by a resurrection. Of course, this does not mean we have a resurrection, but rather simply means, we have evidence of a resurrection, or we have evidence of a lie, or those who were deceived in some sort of way.

Now of course, there are those who will stop right here, and go on to conclude that the reports must, and had to be false, because the reports are far to extraordinary to believe.

Of course you also have those who believe these reports because this is what they have been taught from childhood, and they cannot imagine they have been taught such things if these things would be false.

However, you also have those who have went on to investigate all the evidence involved, and these folks come to the realization that either way, something extraordinary did in fact happen, and these folks have gone on to become convinced that a resurrection did in fact occur.

Surely there are other scenarios involved, that we have not covered, but the bottom line is the fact that no matter what side of the equation you end up on, or how you may have arrived to your conclusions, you have no way in which to demonstrate what it is you believe concerning the matter, and all one has left to do is to give the facts, reasons, and evidence, which would support the conclusions you have come to.

These are the facts we have, and all are welcome to look at, and analyze these facts and come to the conclusions they think best answers the questions, and as long as one does not insist that the conclusions they have arrived at must, and has to be correct, then they do not own any sort of burden. However, when, and if one begins to insist their position is the correct position, no matter which side they are on, they then own "the burden of proof."

So then, no! Hopefully, no one simply looks at the reports, and comes to the conclusion the reports must be true. On the other hand, hopefully, no one simply looks at the reports, and simply draws the conclusion that they must, and have to be false, simply because they are extraordinary. Both, would be an example of a simple mind.

We may conclude, since the stranger had access to the tomb and seems to know where the body is, that this stranger had something to do with the body's disappearance.

Yes, one could conclude this but, what would be the evidence to arrive at such a conclusion? What would have been done with the body? Why would this young man do such a thing? What would he have to gain? Were the Apostles aware of this, or were they simply deceived? How do we explain the reports of Jesus alive after the burial?

I could go, on, and on, but the fact is, you are acknowledging there was indeed an empty tomb, and simply throwing out the possibility that this young man may have had something to do with the body, does not come close to answering all the questions involved, especially when we have no evidence of such a thing.

We may wonder why the soldiers did not challenge him, but we're not told.

"We are not told" because "we" are not the ones being addressed. Rather, "we" are reading letters that were intended for audiences at the time, and the fact is, as we continue to read these letters, that continued to be written down through the years after these events, we can clearly see that these men continued to live, and tell the same things, in the face of certain persecution, with nothing to gain, and we know for a fact that Paul was imprisoned for proclaiming these things.

It would be incredible speculation to suppose the body assumed life and walked away.

My friend, I do not have to "speculate" that this is what happened, because it was reported to have happened, and we have other evidence besides these reports to support this. What would be, "incredible speculation" is to draw the conclusion that these reports must, and have to be false, simply because they are extraordinary.

I m not insisting, these reports must, and have to be true, but it is certainly evidence, and as far as I know, we have no evidence that would suggest they would be false.

It is amazing how there are those who can spot these sort of things in others, but all the while they cannot see it in themselves.

We can say with confidence that decomposing corpses do not put on new vigour and walk away. A world that denies this is a world to which we have no access.

Agreed! And the Apostles were not in any way attempting to report that this event was possible, but rather, "the impossible has happened."

So there are things we can assert with condidence.

Agreed! But it is one thing to assert with confidence, "decomposing corpses do not put on new vigour and walk away" which you can say, as opposed to, "the reports of a resurrection in the NT are false" which you cannot say with any sort of confidence, without owning the burden to demonstrate your case.

However, "opinions" are not of this nature and opinions can be wrong.

Exactly! And your opinion that the reports in the NT are false, can be wrong. We seem to be making progress, a little at the time.

The world to which Paul and his pals belonged understood heaven to be somewhere above the clouds. The vast Empire on the doorsteps of these simple people entertained deities.

This is SO, SO, COMICAL! Even if what you have to say is true, it would not in any way demonstrate that what was reported would be false. In fact, we have evidence that this would not be the case in the least. Here is what is recorded by the author of 2 Peter 1:16

For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.

Now, this does not demonstrate that what they report would be true, however it does in fact demonstrate that this author was well aware of what you are talking about, and he went on to ensure his audience at the time, that this is not what he and the others, were reporting, and he uses what he claims is a fact, which is they were eyewitnesses.

So while you may be correct to say, "Paul and his pals belonged" to such a world, we have evidence here that they understood this, and were ensuring that what they were reporting would not be confused with such things.

When we hear that some worthies from the ancient world thought that a decomposing body rose up, we quietly dismiss their superstition.

Simple minds, do in fact do, simple things.

To entertain it is to throw aside centuries of progress and perhaps accept astrology as a worthy science.

What sort of progress has there been, which would demonstrate that the reports in the NT would be false? I am not aware of such progress. Moreover, I happened to be convinced of these reports, and I am here typing on a laptop computer. Next, I do not accept astrology as a worthy science. Ergo, it seems you are wrong on all accounts.

The only possible way we can agree that a resurrection took place is by FAITH. For many, that is enough. For me, it is insufficient. There are no routes to resurrections via reason. Sorry.

You should be "sorry" because you are incorrect again, my friend! Again, when there are facts, reson, logic, and evidence to base a belief upon, faith is not required.

Moreover, this subject has been debated now for centuries, and continues to be to this day, and there are arenas filled with folks who come to listen to these sort of debates, and there have even been Atheist debaters themselves, who have admitted that the Christian won the debate.

Now of course, I am not suggesting that the Christian always wins the debate, rather my point is, one cannot have an Atheist admit the debate was won by the Christian, if the Christian was simply appealing to faith. Rather, in order to win such a debate, they would have to leave the world of faith, and use reason, logic, facts, and evidence, because I highly doubt an Atheist would admit a Christian won a debate simply appealing to faith.

Next, there have been many former Atheists, who have converted to Christianity after analyzing all the evidence involved. I could give any number of examples of this sort of thing, but allow me to simply mention, Rosaria Butterfield.

Misses Butterfield was a tenured professor of English at Syracuse University. She was also a lesbian in a lesbian relationship. She was so opposed to Christianity that she was in the process of writing a book on, "The Rise of the Christian Right in America." It was during this process, (which took years btw) in which she became convinced of the truth of the Christian claims, and she credits her education, for coming to this conclusion.

This was not an easy step for Misses Butterfield, in that she had to leave her life partner, lost many friends, and her job as a professor at Syracuse. I could continue, but there is plenty of information on the web, along with books she has authored, and the one I have read is, "The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert."

Now, this does not in any way prove the truth of Christianity, but it does in fact demonstrate that your idea that it would be impossible to arrive to the conclusion that a resurrection did in fact take place, through facts, reason, logic, and evidence would be false.

Moreover, there would be millions of very intelligent Christians who have analyzed these facts, reasons, and evidence, and have come to the same conclusions, and I cannot imagine anyone who would come to the conclusion that, "I am on the side of reason, while all of these other very intelligent folk, do not possess reason", when this very one very seldom uses any reason, facts, and evidence to support their case, but rather simply states an opinion, as if it were a fact, as demonstrated above.

In other words, you can continue to say, "There are no routes to resurrections via reason" all you like, but this will not cause what you say to be fact, especially with the evidence against you!

[marco]

My friend, I do not have to "speculate" that this is what happened, because it was reported to have happened, and we have other evidence besides these reports to support this. What would be, "incredible speculation" is to draw the conclusion that these reports must, and have to be false, simply because they are extraordinary.

We have reports of an empty tomb. This is maybe mysterious but not remarkable. I can accept the tomb was empty, but not having been there at the time, I cannot provide the correct reason why the tomb was empty.

The reports of an empty tomb may not be false; the conclusion about a walking corpse is. Science supports this "speculation" as does common sense. I can't see what you are arguing about. Basically you believe Paul and company, which is nice, but doesn't lead to belief in a resurrection.

Agreed! And the Apostles were not in any way attempting to report that this event was possible, but rather, "the impossible has happened."

Then they were simply wrong, and simple souls as well. And I can see WHY they would think this because they lived in an age where conquerors DID believe in many gods and in miracles. Belief makes miracles happen.

But it is one thing to assert with confidence, "decomposing corpses do not put on new vigour and walk away" which you can say, as opposed to, "the reports of a resurrection in the NT are false" which you cannot say with any sort of confidence, without owning the burden to demonstrate your case.

I think you've contradicted yourself, since if it is correct to state confidently what corpses cannot do, then when some person denies this accepted truth, we can say this person is wrong; and do so with confidence! It is ludicrous to ask somebody to PROVE that a corpse didn't walk away. But I think you know this.

This is SO, SO, COMICAL! Even if what you have to say is true, it would not in any way demonstrate that what was reported would be false. In fact, we have evidence that this would not be the case in the least. Here is what is recorded by the author of 2 Peter 1:16

For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.

Now, this does not demonstrate that what they report would be true, however it does in fact demonstrate that this author was well aware of what you are talking about, and he went on to ensure his audience at the time, that this is not what he and the others, were reporting, and he uses what he claims is a fact, which is they were eyewitnesses.

Here's what you are saying: "Peter" said that it really did happen and was not made up. Therefore we can accept it did happen. for "Peter" said it.

We have no idea who this Peter is. He writes too well for an ignorant fisherman who didn't demonstrate any great intellectual prowess in his interactions with Jesus. So the statement is possibly made up, as was the tale of the resurrection.

and there have even been Atheist debaters themselves, who have admitted that the Christian won the debate.

This illustrates there are good debaters and bad debaters. Is this amazing? Of course a poor debater can concede that a more eloquent antagonist triumphed. It says nothing about who is right and who is wrong. Politeness is not a Christian monopoly, nor is facundity located among atheists alone.

I have read many Christian apologists and they write impressively, if unconvincingly. Basically they write from faith: there are no rational pathways to the Resurrection.


Perhaps you have reached your conclusions not from faith but admiration and maybe admiration is the precursor of faith. I see no evidence at all that some sort of reasoning process has been involved in accepting resurrection claims, but I accept you THINK you have come to your conclusions through reason. We must agree to differ here. If anything your arguments have strengthed my belief in my belief, but it would be wrong to conclude that because my arguments weigh more heavily than yours, then I must be correct. Some young David with an eloquent sling might strike at my humble convictions and confound them. Who knows?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 36 by marco]

We have reports of an empty tomb. This is maybe mysterious but not remarkable. I can accept the tomb was empty, but not having been there at the time, I cannot provide the correct reason why the tomb was empty.

FINALLY! Thankyou, and we are finally getting somewhere. In other words, we were not there, and can only go on the reports we have, and you cannot "provide us" with the answer as to whether the reports of a resurrection would be true, or false. You see, it took a while, but you have finally arrived!

The reports of an empty tomb may not be false; the conclusion about a walking corpse is.

Well, looks like I spoke to soon! However, you are now under the burden to demonstrate that such a conclusion would be false?

You see, there is a tremendous difference in claiming to disagree with a certain conclusion, as opposed to claiming a conclusion would indeed be false. One is an opinion, that would not need any sort demonstration, while the other would be a statement of fact, and the one who makes such a claim, owns the burden of proof.

Science supports this "speculation" as does common sense. I can't see what you are arguing about.

You continue to appeal to science, and it is not helping your case. Science can only tell us that a resurrection would be, scientifically impossible, which simply means that science would not be able to explain the event. It cannot tell us if a resurrection has occurred or not.

As far as "common sense" is concerned, are you suggesting that all those who have believed throughout all the centuries, did not, or do not possess "common sense", and only you, and those who happen to agree with you have this, "common sense?" This is a very weak argument.

Basically you believe Paul and company, which is nice, but doesn't lead to belief in a resurrection.

You can continue to say the same things over, and over, and I will simply continue to be here to correct you, over, and over. It is not that I "believe Paul and company", but rather I do not possess the faith in "Paul and company" that you seem to have.

Then they were simply wrong, and simple souls as well.

And again, you are under the burden to demonstrate your case.

And I can see WHY they would think this because they lived in an age where conquerors DID believe in many gods and in miracles. Belief makes miracles happen.

We will deal with this below, where you address the passage from Peter.

I think you've contradicted yourself, since if it is correct to state confidently what corpses cannot do, then when some person denies this accepted truth, we can say this person is wrong; and do so with confidence! It is ludicrous to ask somebody to PROVE that a corpse didn't walk away. But I think you know this.

Acknowledging the fact that it is impossible for a corpse to get up and walk away, does not in any way demonstrate that this never happened. All this would do is to demonstrate that we cannot explain how it could have happened. So, it is not a contradiction.

Next, I am not asking you to demonstrate "that a corpse didn't walk away." Rather, I am asking you to demonstrate your claim that, the claims in the NT are false? Because you see, I am not claiming these claims are true, but you certainly seem to be claiming to know they are false. Ergo, the burden belongs to you.

Now of course, if you will simply admit that this is your opinion, which could indeed be in error, then we can agree that you, and I are in the same boat, and can only give the facts, reasons, and evidence to support what it is we believe concerning these reports.

The fact of the matter is, you seem to be under the impression that it is I, who is under the burden, when it is in fact you who is under the burden, because I am not making any claims, but am rather stating facts, that you cannot refute. You on the other hand, are making certain claims, as if they were fact, and cannot demonstrate your case.

Here's what you are saying: "Peter" said that it really did happen and was not made up. Therefore we can accept it did happen. for "Peter" said it.

This is REALLY, REALLY SAD, because you know for a fact, that this was not my argument. Here is the comment of yours, I was responding to,

The world to which Paul and his pals belonged understood heaven to be somewhere above the clouds. The vast Empire on the doorsteps of these simple people entertained deities.

So then, my citing this verse had nothing whatsoever to do with attempting to demonstrate that what was reported was true. In fact I said as much right after citing this verse,

Now, this does not demonstrate that what they report would be true, however it does in fact demonstrate that this author was well aware of what you are talking about, and he went on to ensure his audience at the time, that this is not what he and the others, were reporting, and he uses what he claims is a fact, which is they were eyewitnesses.

So while you may be correct to say, "Paul and his pals belonged" to such a world, we have evidence here that they understood this, and were ensuring that what they were reporting would not be confused with such things.

So again, as we can see, there would be no way you could confuse my citing of this verse to be in any way in defense of the truth of the claim. Rather, it clearly demonstrates this author was well aware of what you are saying, and the reason for this passage is to ensure his audience that what he is reporting would not be based on such things. In other words, the author is setting the reports up to be the truth, or a lie. There is no room now to claim, it could all be some sort of myth, folklore, legend, etc.

As we can see, you continue to make what is called, "straw man arguments", because there is no way you could have mistaken what was being said.

We have no idea who this Peter is.

This would be beside the point. No matter who the author may have been, he claims to be, "The Apostle Peter" and he acknowledges exactly what you are saying, and does so in order to demonstrate that this is not what he, and the other Apostles were doing.

Now again, this does not demonstrate the truth of the matter, but it does demonstrate that the author is claiming that these reports would not be based upon myth, folklore, legend, etc.

He writes too well for an ignorant fisherman who didn't demonstrate any great intellectual prowess in his interactions with Jesus.

Again, this is SO, SO, comical! We can determine it was not Peter, because he writes to well to be Peter, but Peter absolutely would have been one of those involved in carrying out this hoax, that would has the whole world talking about it, even 2000 years later, to the point they have you consumed, but Peter could not have possibly wrote so well?

In other words, this Peter could be involved in pulling off the biggest lie in history, but could not possibly be smart enough to write so well?

So then, either Peter was indeed the author of this letter or, someone else wrote under his name, who meets your standard as a writer, and this fake author, just so happens to address your concerns, by using an event that was recorded by other authors, to ensure his audience that, what is reported is not based upon, myth, legend, folklore, etc? Like I say, you have far more faith in these folks than I do.

So the statement is possibly made up, as was the tale of the resurrection.

And again, a statement made as a fact, that you can in no way demonstrate. You continue to make my case, over, and over.

This illustrates there are good debaters and bad debaters. Is this amazing? Of course a poor debater can concede that a more eloquent antagonist triumphed. It says nothing about who is right and who is wrong. Politeness is not a Christian monopoly, nor is facundity located among atheists alone.

Again, you fail to see the point. There is no way a Christian can win a debate with an Atheist, simply appealing to faith, which is what you are saying. There is no way any Atheist could lose a debate with this being the case. Ergo, the Christian has to be appealing to facts, reason, evidence, and logic, which you claim cannot be done concerning Christianity. This fact, clearly defeats your argument, that Christianity can only be believe on faith.

I mean, can you even imagine an Atheist debater admitting a Christian won the debate, and they only appealed to faith? No you cannot, nor can I. Again, this demonstrates clearly that Christianity can be believed based upon, facts, reason, logic, and evidence.

I have read many Christian apologists and they write impressively, if unconvincingly. Basically they write from faith: there are no rational pathways to the Resurrection.

Can you please cite one claimed Christian apologist who appeals to faith in his arguments for the truth of a resurrection? I am not speaking of just any Christian here, I am talking about those who claim to be apologists, because I have attended and listen to many of these debates, and have never heard any apologist appeal to faith in order to make their point, because I think they would be well aware that they would be laughed out of the debate. Here is an example if you are interested,

Perhaps you have reached your conclusions not from faith but admiration and maybe admiration is the precursor of faith.

Or "perhaps", I have examined the evidence, and have been convinced that either way, something very extraordinary happened some 2000 years ago, and the tale of all these folks being involved, and creating all that we still now have, with all the facts and evidence involved, along with the possibility of them all being deceived, is simply. to simple of an answer, and really is no answer at all.

I see no evidence at all that some sort of reasoning process has been involved in accepting resurrection claims, but I accept you THINK you have come to your conclusions through reason.

And I can certainly understand and accept that you are under the impression that you have used reason to come to your conclusions, but reason does not simply stop when it may arrive to a claim that seems impossible to believe.

We must agree to differ here.

I do not like to simply "agree to disagree. Rather, let us end with the agreement that one of us are completely in error. Next, I do agree that both of us can use reason to come to the conclusion we have. You are the one who seems to insist that reason could not be used to come to the conclusion that the reports in the NT, are true, and you are wrong.

If anything your arguments have strengthed my belief in my belief, but it would be wrong to conclude that because my arguments weigh more heavily than yours, then I must be correct.

This is no argument at all, and should never be said, because I can say with absolute confidence that, being on this site for years now, has caused my belief to be strengthened as well, but it means nothing.

Moreover, I am not in any way attempting to convince you of anything. That would be futile. Rather, I have demonstrated that it is not as simple as you make it out to be, and your arguments demonstrate as much.

[marco]

The reports of an empty tomb may not be false; the conclusion about a walking corpse is.

Well, looks like I spoke to soon! However, you are now under the burden to demonstrate that such a conclusion would be false?

I always find this amusing. When an absurdity is claimed, we use common sense and we don't accept it unless there is PROOF that the absurdity did happen. I say PROOF, not evidence of an empty tomb and "opinions" as to why it was empty.

the one who makes such a claim, owns the burden of proof.

And you have not proved a resurrection took place. Instead you ask me to prove it didn't. We operate otherwise in the real world, jack.

You continue to appeal to science, and it is not helping your case. Science can only tell us that a resurrection would be, scientifically impossible ….

And that suffices in a court of law. End of story, unless you think Paul and Luke and old uncle Tom thought more profoundly.

As far as "common sense" is concerned, are you suggesting that all those who have believed throughout all the centuries, did not, or do not possess "common sense",

No, they possessed it but didn't use it since "faith" was able to override reason. In any event millions of believers do not equal truth.

In other words, this Peter could be involved in pulling off the biggest lie in history, but could not possibly be smart enough to write so well?

I have never claimed Peter to be the author of a resurrection hoax; more likely is it that others in the background might have been. Jesus did negotiate with people, without the apostles being involved. I think an earthly explanation of an empty tomb superior to a heavenly one. Don't you?

You continue to make my case, over, and over.

Your case seems to be that you cannot assert there was a resurrection, but you think there was, since you are persuaded by testimony of those who think there was. I would love to be able to help with this "case" but unfortunately it seems to be full of empty holes, like the sepulchre from which the body was removed.

Rather, let us end with the agreement that one of us are completely in error.

You are not completely in error since you concede your belief in the Resurrection may be misguided or wrong. I'm afraid I have been trained to reject a proposition when I bump into an absurdity, or something that contradicts what we accept as truth. I still say that behind belief in a Resurrection is FAITH, which can move the mountain of the impossible happening. Reason cannot do that. As for your billion believers - the sword is a great persuader and then it's just a matter of being born.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 38 by marco]

I always find this amusing. When an absurdity is claimed, we use common sense and we don't accept it unless there is PROOF that the absurdity did happen. I say PROOF, not evidence of an empty tomb and "opinions" as to why it was empty.

What I find amusing is the fact that the facts, and evidence involved does not allow it to be as simple as you make it out to be. It is fine if there are those who would like to stop at the fact that these reports are extraordinary. However, there are others of us who go past this idea in order to examine all the facts involved because we are not satisfied with simple minded answers, that really cannot answer all the questions involved.

And you have not proved a resurrection took place. Instead you ask me to prove it didn't. We operate otherwise in the real world, jack.

And the fact of the matter is, I have never claimed that I could prove such a thing. Next, I have not asked you to prove that it did not, but have rather asked you to prove the statements you make as fact, which causes one to own the burden, and you have failed to do this. That is how things really work in the "real world jack."

And that suffices in a court of law. End of story,

I don't think so! Because I believe that all are aware that science cannot answer the question as to whether an event occurred or not? Rather, science can only tell us if they can explain an event scientifically. However, there are those who put their total trust, and faith in science, even though we all know it is the product of fallible humans.

unless you think Paul and Luke and old uncle Tom thought more profoundly.

This is the type of snide remarks the majority of your argument consists of, and it has been demonstrated, you posses far more faith, and confidence in the likes of Paul, and Luke than I ever have, because I certainly do not believe that anyone would possess the extraordinary abilities you seem to think these folks had.

No, they possessed it but didn't use it since "faith" was able to override reason.

You can continue to say the same things over, and over, and I will continue to correct you. Faith is not required when there are facts, reason, and evidence, to base a belief upon.

In any event millions of believers do not equal truth.

We agree, but I have never made such a ridiculous argument. Rather, it seems to be you who was insinuating that your position is the one who has "common sense" on your side, which then insinuates that all those who are opposed to your position either does not have common sense, or does not use it.

The fact of the matter is, there have been millions, upon millions, of very intelligent folks who have come to the conviction that these claims are indeed true, and many of them have used what you call, "common sense." Many of these folks, were completely opposed to these sort of beliefs at one time. With this being a fact, it demonstrates that it is nowhere near as simple as you make it out to be.

I have never claimed Peter to be the author of a resurrection hoax; more likely is it that others in the background might have been. Jesus did negotiate with people, without the apostles being involved.

Oh, okay? So you are saying Jesus was behind the whole thing, and had himself crucified, and then somehow arranged for others to do away with his body, and then somehow has folks believing that they witnessed him alive after the crucifixion, and burial, and that Peter, and company are somehow deceived, and go on to live out the rest of their life as if this was really true, leaving letters along with other evidence, and then we have Paul who we know was completely opposed to this belief, so much so that he is out traveling around in order to put a stop to it, going to any measures, but something just so happens to occur, which caused Paul to convert, to become the reason for the spread of Christianity all around the known world at the time, and Luke gets so swept up into all of this that he spends years of his life traveling around with Paul on these miserable journeys, and it is all of these facts which have lead to Jesus becoming the most recognized name in history, along with having the most significant impact on history, to the point it has consumed much of your life, and all of this has occurred, because Jesus simply, "negotiated with people, without the apostles being involved?"

Now, I am not the type of person who likes to look at the odds, but you certainly seem to be. So then, what do you think the odds are for the above to be fact? Allow me to help you out. They ain't good, my friend!........... They ain't good! What you are demonstrating is that, any explanation you come up with, would be just as absurd as if there was a resurrection. And again, this demonstrates that it is not as simple as you make it out to be, and your arguments demonstrate this fact.

I think an earthly explanation of an empty tomb superior to a heavenly one. Don't you?

I really do not believe it wise to come to conclusions, simply based upon one's opinion of what they believe to be, "superior." It would seem to me, it would be better to examine all the facts involved, and attempt to determine which explanation, if any, better answers all the questions, and as we have seen, the explanations you give, beg a lot of questions.

Your case seems to be that you cannot assert there was a resurrection, but you think there was, since you are persuaded by testimony of those who think there was.

NO! My case has been, there are certainly facts, reason, and evidence to support the claims, and I have certainly NOT been persuaded by anyone's testimony, but rather by all the facts, and evidence involved, because I do not have the faith in these folks that you seem to have, as you demonstrate above with the faith you have in Jesus to be such an extraordinary negotiator.

I would love to be able to help with this "case" but unfortunately it seems to be full of empty holes, like the sepulchre from which the body was removed.

My friend, you may not be able to see it, but just continue to make the arguments you are making, because you are helping far more than you can imagine!

You are not completely in error since you concede your belief in the Resurrection may be misguided or wrong.

I do indeed, because I understand that neither of us can demonstrate our case.

I'm afraid I have been trained to reject a proposition when I bump into an absurdity, or something that contradicts what we accept as truth.

My friend, the idea that Jesus arranged all of this is "absurd", and yet you seem to entertain this idea?

I still say that behind belief in a Resurrection is FAITH, which can move the mountain of the impossible happening.

And you can say it all you like. However, where there are facts, reason, and evidence, faith is not required.

Reason cannot do that.

It certainly can, and does, where there are facts, reason, and evidence.

As for your billion believers - the sword is a great persuader and then it's just a matter of being born.

Well, I do not have a sword to my throat, nor do many other of the millions of other believers.

I am sorry, but your arguments just do not wash. As has been pointed out, there are any number of very intelligent people who were completely opposed to Christianity, and have used facts, reason, evidence, and logic in order to convert, which demonstrates there is reason, fact, and evidence to support the claims. Again, it is not as simple as you make it out to be.

[marco]

However, there are others of us who go past this idea in order to examine all the facts involved because we are not satisfied with simple minded answers, that really cannot answer all the questions involved.

Well I'm sorry to be excluded from that exclusive club that employs complex thought to get at the Resurrection mystery. Declaring we use complexity doesn't actually mean that we have done so. It depends on what we think complexity is. I laboured under a professor who thought classical dynamics a triviality and I've spent many a midnight hour on the best rendering of various foreign languages into English. But I guess reading Paul and concluding corpse ran off is too difficult for me to handle. Oh, well.

I do understand that the resurrection is scientifically impossible and I do understand that you have convinced yourself to overlook science and accept that it did happen, some two millennia ago.

I don't think so! Because I believe that all are aware that science cannot answer the question as to whether an event occurred or not?

We use the tools at our disposal. Because we do, we are able to explore Mars. If we still lived in an age where gods are running about all over the place appearing as swans or showers of gold we could get to Mars in a whale's stomach. Science cannot answer all our problems: but it can tell us which propositions to ignore.

I certainly do not believe that anyone would possess the extraordinary abilities you seem to think these folks had.

Yes, part of your persuasion is that Paul and company must have pulled off the biggest hoax in history. So be it! However, that's not what I am saying. They were gullible folk and perhaps other wiser people pulled the strings. When folk are CONVINCED, they are capable of dying for a lie, as we see today.

The fact of the matter is, there have been millions, upon millions, of very intelligent folks who have come to the conviction that these claims are indeed true,

Is this a guess? Some very intelligent people believe that they eat Jesus, because Jesus told them so. Do they stop being intelligent when they so believe? Or is intelligence measured in compliance with what you believe? Intelligent people believe from FAITH, not from reason. They may later attach reasons to their faith, as Aquinas did in his Summa, but the basis of conviction is faith. You tell me that you don't base your conviction on faith but on working things out like a detective. Amazing - who am I to question this?

Oh, okay? So you are saying Jesus was behind the whole thing,

He may have been. The details you add are your own. I don't pretend to know what happened, but that explanation has the virtue of being plausible.

but something just so happens to occur, which caused Paul to convert

You are much exercised by this simple event. Have you not heard that through history people DO experience some epiphany and they react badly or well? Muhammad was visited by Gabriel and a billion Muslims believe it. Japanese pilots were so persuaded of their cause that they became suicidal bombers. Who knows what happened to Paul? He was tricked; he suffered a fit; there was some amazing coincidence. I think we can be sure God didn't holler from heaven.

What you are demonstrating is that, any explanation you come up with, would be just as absurd as if there was a resurrection. And again, this demonstrates that it is not as simple as you make it out to be, and your arguments demonstrate this fact.

The game is NOT to propose an explanation and then have it knocked down. Is it reasonable to suppose some strange, but natural event happened to Paul that set him on a new course? Do we have any parallel with that in history, involving religion? Why yes we do - Muhammad, as I said and dear Joan of Arc. You have thrown out logic too soon, I think.

My friend, you may not be able to see it, but just continue to make the arguments you are making, because you are helping far more than you can imagine!

Then accept my apologies for pushing you into error.

You are not completely in error since you concede your belief in the Resurrection may be misguided or wrong.

My friend, the idea that Jesus arranged all of this is "absurd", and yet you seem to entertain this idea?

And the idea that Jesus raised Lazarus is not absurd? Jesus MAY have arranged everything. That is ONE explanation. It is not absurd, as the resurrection is, because it does not defy any natural laws. The question it raises is: Why did Jesus do this and who helped him? The answer is - we do not know, but we know how Jesus was later used to build up religious institutions.

I am sorry, but your arguments just do not wash.

I would be more alarmed if they did "wash" in your view, given your criterion results in accepting the impossible. I hear you say there are facts and when you have placed them all together you argue that 2 and 2 is 5. I deny this and you ask me to explain why it is not so.

In chess when we find a good move we are told to look for a better one. You have told us you moved away from simple explanations and came up with the resurrection as the most sensible. Good idea - now perhaps it's time to look for a better one.