Do people still believe everyone decended from Adam and Eve?

[sojourner]

No, no, no. He may be a source, but you did not show that to be the case. A link to a reliable source featuring the claims in question is a bare minimum. Simply claiming something is not providing a valid source. Quote and link please.

It was class lecture.

 

[sojourner]

An empty tomb doesn't prove the resurrection, granted, but remember that this is just one of the five minimal facts. And it's entirely congruent with the beliefs of the disciples, Paul, and James that Jesus rose from the dead, since a resurrection implies an empty tomb. Shortly after Jesus died from crucifixion, his disciples believed that they saw him risen from the dead. They said he appeared not only to individuals but in several group settings-and the disciples were so convinced and transformed by the experience that they were willing to suffer and even die for their conviction that they had encountered him.

Then we have two skeptics who regarded Jesus as a false prophet-Paul, the persecutor of the church, and James, who was Jesus' half brother. They completely changed their opinions 180 degrees after encountering the risen Jesus. Like the disciples, they were willing to endure hardship, persecution, and even death rather than disavow their testimony that Jesus' resurrection occurred.

Thus we have compelling testimony about the resurrection from friends of Jesus, an enemy of Christianity, and a skeptic. Finally, we have strong historical evidence that Jesus' tomb was empty. In fact, even enemies of Christianity admitted it was vacant. Where did the body go? If you asked the disciples, they'd tell you they personally saw Jesus after he returned to life.

So we've looked at relevant sources, and we've applied responsible historical methodology. Now we need restrained results. We have to ask ourselves: What's the best explanation for the evidence-the explanation that doesn't leave out any of the facts or strains to make anything fit? My conclusion, based on the evidence, is that Jesus did return from the dead.

And you get all this from much later, non-eyewitness writings.

 

[Skywalker]

And you get all this from much later, non-eyewitness writings.

The case is strong, because it outdistances the competing hypotheses by such a large margin. No other explanation comes close to accounting for all the facts. That makes future disconfirmation unlikely. Historically speaking, I think we've got a cogent and convincing case. The details of eyewitnesses are extremely well-attested historically and that the vast majority of scholars-including skeptics-concede are trustworthy. There isn't just hyperbolic affirmations for the resurrection from conservative Christians who only considered the evidence in favor of their cherished doctrine.

 

[Skywalker]

There probably was not even a tomb. Usually bodies were left on crosses for quite some time to make the punishment even more horrific. The entire tomb part of the story is highly dubious. It was more likely that Jesus hung around for a while and then ended up in a mass grave.

Few scenes are as gripping in the movies-or in real life-as the tenacious and effective cross-examination of a witness in a criminal trial. The prosecution may have presented a persuasive case during the first part of the proceedings, but sometimes the persistent questioning of a witness can reverse the entire outcome of a trial. So far, New Testament historian Michael Licona had presented seemingly conclusive arguments for Jesus' resurrection by using only five "minimal facts" that are well-evidenced and accepted by the vast majority of critical scholars: Jesus was killed by crucifixion; his disciples believed he rose and appeared to them; the conversion of the church persecutor Paul; the conversion of the skeptic James, who was Jesus' half brother; and Jesus' empty tomb.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Few scenes are as gripping in the movies-or in real life-as the tenacious and effective cross-examination of a witness in a criminal trial. The prosecution may have presented a persuasive case during the first part of the proceedings, but sometimes the persistent questioning of a witness can reverse the entire outcome of a trial. So far, New Testament historian Michael Licona had presented seemingly conclusive arguments for Jesus' resurrection by using only five "minimal facts" that are well-evidenced and accepted by the vast majority of critical scholars: Jesus was killed by crucifixion; his disciples believed he rose and appeared to them; the conversion of the church persecutor Paul; the conversion of the skeptic James, who was Jesus' half brother; and Jesus' empty tomb.

Jesus was killed by crucifixion. Check, moderately well supported.

His disciples believed this. Oops, no reliable evidence for this. He failed at step two. But let's keep going.

He appeared to the disciples. Again no reliable evidence of this either. Failure at step three.

How is Paul's conversion evidence? Failure at step four.

What evidence for the conversion of James exists? Why was he a skeptic? Perhaps because he knew who Jesus was. Sorry, but this is at best a nothing burger. Another failure.

What empty tomb? There is no evidence for a tomb empty or not. That is another failure.

Who are these supposed historians that he relies on? Your source is an epic failure.

 

[Audie]

Few scenes are as gripping in the movies-or in real life-as the tenacious and effective cross-examination of a witness in a criminal trial. The prosecution may have presented a persuasive case during the first part of the proceedings, but sometimes the persistent questioning of a witness can reverse the entire outcome of a trial. So far, New Testament historian Michael Licona had presented seemingly conclusive arguments for Jesus' resurrection by using only five "minimal facts" that are well-evidenced and accepted by the vast majority of critical scholars: Jesus was killed by crucifixion; his disciples believed he rose and appeared to them; the conversion of the church persecutor Paul; the conversion of the skeptic James, who was Jesus' half brother; and Jesus' empty tomb.

Seemingly facts that seem conclusive to those who arecalready committed to believe.

Woe, woe be unto thee, if tis thee on triial,
Yes, for thine very life, should thy persecutors
resot to such vain and feckless arguments before a jury already decided of your guilt

 

[Audie]

Jesus was killed by crucifixion. Check, moderately well supported.

His disciples believed this. Oops, no reliable evidence for this. He failed at step two. But let's keep going.

He appeared to the disciples. Again no reliable evidence of this either. Failure at step three.

How is Paul's conversion evidence? Failure at step four.

What evidence for the conversion of James exists? Why was he a skeptic? Perhaps because he knew who Jesus was. Sorry, but this is at best a nothing burger. Another failure.

What empty tomb? There is no evidence for a tomb empty or not. That is another failure.

Who are these supposed historians that he relies on? Your source is an epic failure.

Paul's conversion? He converted the " faith"!

His story about "jesus" talking to him is just about as believable Joseph Smiths story how the angels showed him where to find the gold Book of Mormon.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Paul's conversion? He converted the " faith"!

His story about "jesus" talking to him is just about as believable Joseph Smiths story how the angels showed him where to find the gold Book of Mormon.

So I should become a Mormon? That way I can believe both

 

[Subduction Zone]

Paul's conversion? He converted the " faith"!

His story about "jesus" talking to him is just about as believable Joseph Smiths story how the angels showed him where to find the gold Book of Mormon.

On a serious note much of what is wrong with Christianity came from Paul. He pushed for the idea that no one is deserving of being saved. That keeps the believers cowed in fear. If the leave the faith the punishment will be eternal. He also was most likely a closet homosexual. He had some huge "sin" that he could not admit to and he had to bury it in his religious beliefs. Unfortunately those got exported to a huge portion of the world. Christianity would be a much better religion without Paul.

 

[Audie]

On a serious note much of what is wrong with Christianity came from Paul. He pushed for the idea that no one is deserving of being saved. That keeps the believers cowed in fear. If the leave the faith the punishment will be eternal. He also was most likely a closet homosexual. He had some huge "sin" that he could not admit to and he had to bury it in his religious beliefs. Unfortunately those got exported to a huge portion of the world. Christianity would be a much better religion without Paul.

Or might have evaporated which would be fine too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Or might have evaporated which would be fine too.

He did come up with a winning formula for a continuing religion. Convince people that they deserve the worst and then offer them an out at what seems to be a very low price.

 

[Skywalker]

Jesus was killed by crucifixion. Check, moderately well supported.

His disciples believed this. Oops, no reliable evidence for this. He failed at step two. But let's keep going.

He appeared to the disciples. Again no reliable evidence of this either. Failure at step three.

How is Paul's conversion evidence? Failure at step four.

What evidence for the conversion of James exists? Why was he a skeptic? Perhaps because he knew who Jesus was. Sorry, but this is at best a nothing burger. Another failure.

What empty tomb? There is no evidence for a tomb empty or not. That is another failure.

Who are these supposed historians that he relies on? Your source is an epic failure.

Why wouldn't the disciples believe that Jesus was crucified? The swoon theory is an Islamic belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why wouldn't the disciples believe that Jesus was crucified? The swoon theory is an Islamic belief.

What are you talking about? No one brought up the swoon theory.

Go back and reread those posts. If you have do not understand ask questions.

 

[Skywalker]

Jesus was killed by crucifixion. Check, moderately well supported.

His disciples believed this. Oops, no reliable evidence for this. He failed at step two. But let's keep going.

He appeared to the disciples. Again no reliable evidence of this either. Failure at step three.

How is Paul's conversion evidence? Failure at step four.

What evidence for the conversion of James exists? Why was he a skeptic? Perhaps because he knew who Jesus was. Sorry, but this is at best a nothing burger. Another failure.

What empty tomb? There is no evidence for a tomb empty or not. That is another failure.

Who are these supposed historians that he relies on? Your source is an epic failure.

Paul was different from a religious extremist. Paul went to jail for his faith in Christ. He didn't do violent things.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Paul was different from a religious extremist. Paul went to jail for his faith in Christ. He didn't do violent things.

LOL Are you sure about that?

Tell me, what did Paul do before his conversion?

 

[Skywalker]

LOL Are you sure about that?

Tell me, what did Paul do before his conversion?

Paul didn't persecute Christians after he became one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Paul didn't persecute Christians after he became one.

Now you are changing your story. Naughty naughty.

 

[Skywalker]

Now you are changing your story. Naughty naughty.

The context of the verse you responded to was after Paul became a Christian.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The context of the verse you responded to was after Paul became a Christian.

It was not implied in any way at all. I wonder if he did do violent acts after the became a Christian. How would you know if he had?

 

[sojourner]

The case is strong, because it outdistances the competing hypotheses by such a large margin. No other explanation comes close to accounting for all the facts. That makes future disconfirmation unlikely. Historically speaking, I think we've got a cogent and convincing case. The details of eyewitnesses are extremely well-attested historically and that the vast majority of scholars-including skeptics-concede are trustworthy. There isn't just hyperbolic affirmations for the resurrection from conservative Christians who only considered the evidence in favor of their cherished doctrine.

There ARE no eyewitness accounts.