Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[TagliatelliMonster]

Even if true, it amazes me that your goal is to defeat me………… rather than finding out the best explanation for a series of data

Paul had a psychosis.

That is a better explanation then "natural law was suspended".
We know psychosis occurs. And it's not even rare.

 

[leroy]

No, Leroy. That's all YOU have. And it's by design, at least by the design of your faith-based confirmation bias that filters what you are allowed to see. I showed you what locked in was and what it looks like with a series of quotes from the likes of Craig, Ham, and LaRuffa. They proudly announced that evidence has no impact on them if it contradicts faith-based beliefs. That's you, too, Leroy. What message do you think you send when you keep repeating that nobody will show you a refutation of the OP or an alternate hypothesis when others have seen and written those answers themselves? What do you think you are telling us about your relationship with evidence when you refuse to look for the posts I claim I wrote and provided you with a method to find them? I'll tell you: You're not interested in seeing such a thing. Now you write a post like thatone and expect to be regarded as a standard for what has transpired.

One of my favorite resources on the topic of confirmation bias comes from young earth creationist (YEC) and geologist Glenn Morton, who became an old earth creationist (OEC) as he studied geology at university. He describes his confirmation bias as a YEC using the device of a demon who sat at the portal of his awareness screening ideas and throwing those that disagreed with his faith-based belief out to protect him from contradictory evidence. I find him and the description of his experience credible. The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: February 2002 In his words:

"But one thing that those unaffected by this demon don't understand is that the victim is not lying about the data. The demon only lets his victim see what the demon wants him to see and thus the victim, whose sensory input is horribly askew, feels that he is totally honest about the data. The victim doesn't know that he is the host to an evil parasite and indeed many of their opponents don't know that as well since the demon is smart enough to be too small to be seen."

This is how I view your situation, and why I don't place much value in your judgments about what's been posted previously.

I

If you whant to have a serious conversation with me, you have to adress the OP........ provide and develope an alternative hypothesis , and show that the hypothesis is better than the resurection according to the criteria mentioned in that OP.

I will not accept answers such as "naturalism wins because I say so" nor answers such as "I already answered in some post but I will not tell you where"

As a so called "critical thinker " you should repudiate that type of answers


Whithin the las 2 or 3 weeks I spended hours of my time addressing your specific demands and questions.


Why cant you show that same courtesy to me? ...... I am only making 1 specfic request (which is related to the OP)

If I dedicated time to your demands, why wouldn't you do the same with my demands?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok, I am not familiar with that expression in red

It's another way of saying "right of the bat". It means the same thing.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If you whant to have a serious conversation with me, you have to adress the OP........ provide and develope an alternative hypothesis , and show that the hypothesis is better than the resurection according to the criteria mentioned in that OP.

A serious discussion with you, Leroy? That ship has sailed. It's not possible. You don't listen. You only talk, and you don't hear the answers. You ignored everything about confirmation bias. What's in it for me to discuss anything with you?

Whithin the las 2 or 3 weeks I spended hours of my time addressing your specific demands and questions. Why cant you show that same courtesy to me? ...... I am only making 1 specfic request (which is related to the OP). If I dedicated time to your demands, why wouldn't you do the same with my demands?

No, Leroy. You have steadfastly ignored my requests, and I have already answered your questions. You just keep repeating rebutted claims without modify them at all or acknowledging that you saw them and asking others to address them who already have. That's what you give the thread to work with, and I've told you that I'm no longer listening to you, either. Your message is - how did you phrase it? - oh, yes: boring and tedious. Your opinions about the OP are repetitive and tiresome. Only your meta-message deserves consideration - the things you say without words about how you process information. What's interesting is why you seem so refractory to external input.

So, no to me fetching you my posts. You really ought to have understood that by now. And you know what you need to do to change that attitude, or ought to. I've told you repeatedly. But you never saw that, right?

I will not accept answers such as "naturalism wins because I say so"

Nobody gave you that answer.

nor answers such as "I already answered in some post but I will not tell you where"

I did tell you where. You weren't interested in looking.

 

[paarsurrey]

Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus​

Left Coast said: #8
Because people don't come back alive after being dead for days, as a rule. It's a one way trip. Any claim of some miracle explanation for a phenomenon that violates everything we know about how the world works is going to have automatically very low plausibility.
Apologes said: #10
We know that people don't rise from the dead on their own, true, but here we are talking about God raising someone from the dead. This isn't going against how the world works as its not the laws of nature that are raising the dead but an act of God. On what basis would you assign a low plausibility to God choosing to raise Jesus from the dead a priori?
paarsurrey said: #421
Clue from Bible :Jesus did not resurrect, he need not, as rising from the physical dead is against "Sign of Jonah":
Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah rising from the physical dead is against Sign of Jonah, I (therefore) must say (Jesus did not resurrect at all), as I understand?
Right?

paarsurrey said: #430
Jonah did not die in the belly of the fish so Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah could not and did not die on the Cross or in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, please, right?

paarsurrey said: #449
Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah pegged the Sign of Jonah to be shown to the Jews and the Jews knew as per Book of Jonah that (1) Jonah entered the belly of fish alive, (2)remained alive in the belly of the fish and (3)came out alive from the belly of the fish, so if the Sign was for the Jews then Yeshua had to remain alive and he did remain alive (1) on the Cross, (2) in the tomb where he was laid and (3) afterwards as he was seen by many, please, right?

paarsurrey adds:#476
Since Jonah was a truthful prophet of G-d so applying the same criteria Jesus/Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah was also a truthful prophet, please, right?

• paarsurrey#540
• There are many clues in the Gospels itself that Yeshua- the truthful truthful Messiah did not die on the Cross in the first place so there is no question of his being resurrected from the dead, please, right?

1. Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah prayed in the garden of Gethsemane most fervently to G-d (whom he used to call God-the-Father) that his life may be saved:

Matthew 36-40
36 Then Jesus went with them to a place called Gethsemane; and he said to his disciples, “Sit here while I go over there and pray.” 37 He took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be grieved and agitated. 38 Then he said to them, “I am deeply grieved, even to death; remain here, and stay awake with me.” 39 And going a little farther, he threw himself on the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you want.” 40

So G-d willed and accepted Yeshua's prayer to the astonishment of Pauline-Christianity people and saved the life of Yeshua against all the odds, please, right?
First Clue in the Gospels :“My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me "

• #776

So, G-d made it possible to let the cup pass from him. Yeshua's prayer was accepted by G-d.
Right?

• #1,144

Second clue: Messiah's bones were not broken

• #1,210

Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah's bones were not broken, Pilate's wife saw a dream* and told Pilate to refrain from killing Yeshua, so he maneuvered to save Yeshua's life, right?
*Matthew 27:19
New International Version
"While Pilate was sitting on the judge’s seat, his wife sent him this message: “Don’t have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him.”

Matthew 27:19 - The Crowd Chooses Barabbas

While Pilate was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent him this message: Have nothing to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered terribly in a dream today because of Him.

biblehub.com

Right?

Regards

 

[leroy]

A serious discussion with you, Leroy? That ship has sailed. It's not possible. You don't listen. You only talk, and you don't hear the answers. You ignored everything about confirmation bias. What's in it for me to discuss anything with you?

No, Leroy. You have steadfastly ignored my requests, and I have already answered your questions. You just keep repeating rebutted claims without modify them at all or acknowledging that you saw them and asking others to address them who already have. That's what you give the thread to work with, and I've told you that I'm no longer listening to you, either. Your message is - how did you phrase it? - oh, yes: boring and tedious. Your opinions about the OP are repetitive and tiresome. Only your meta-message deserves consideration - the things you say without words about how you process information. What's interesting is why you seem so refractory to external input.

So, no to me fetching you my posts. You really ought to have understood that by now. And you know what you need to do to change that attitude, or ought to. I've told you repeatedly. But you never saw that, right?

Nobody gave you that answer.

I did tell you where. You weren't interested in looking.

you are making things up, that is disapointing. I honestly thought things where going to be different with you.

You ignored everything about confirmation bias. What's in it for me to discuss anything with you?

Do you really have the hypocrisy of accusing me for ignoing you?

 

[Trailblazer]

I didn't say it did. This is the point that goes over your head.
This is not about the accuracy of your beliefs (or inaccuracy). It's about your justification for holding them.

You think faith is my justification. No, faith is not my justification for holding my beliefs. Evidence is my justification.

Again, it has to do with your justification for it.
It's about "faith" as a justification. It's not a pathway to truth. It's instead a pathway to false believes. You can believe anything on faith.

I think we have covered this before. I never said that faith is the justification for my beliefs. Evidence is my justification.
Faith is what is necessary to believe anything that can never be proven. God can never be proven to exist so faith is necessary adjunct to evidence for most people.

It's implied. Like "fact". It's verifiable. Demonstrable.
That's how "knowledge" distinguishes itself from mere beliefs.

All knowledge is not factual knowledge.
All knowledge is not verifiable or demonstrable.

knowledge
1c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition

To quote AaronRa: "You don't know it, if you can't show it"
knowledge means - Google Search

I can show you what I know and explain how I know it, but it will not be accepted, so what's the point?

You're not getting it.
Knowledge is a subset of belief.
It's the kind of belief that is rationally justified as opposed to being "just a belief".

Knowledge may or may not be a subset of belief, depending upon whether one's belief is based upon knowledge.

belief
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.
Belief Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

You don't need faith if you have proper evidence.
Your "evidence" are the things you have faith in.

There is some truth to that. I do not need faith because I know God exists since I have proper evidence.

Exactly. Which is exactly what makes it useless and irrational to use it as a justification for belief.
Now we are getting somewhere.

I never claimed that faith is a justification for belief. Evidence is my justification.

Again, you wouldn't require faith if you would have valid evidence.
If the evidence alone doesn't get you to where you want to be, then adding faith won't make you move an inch closer. Not a rational inch anyway.

I need faith in my evidence since there is no way to prove that God is behind the evidence.

Most religions have "some truth" in them, correct. These "truths" however, are the same kind of "truths" we find in disney movies.

However, these truths don't come from the same source. Absolute truth comes only from God through His Messengers.

But Iron Man and Thor aren't real charactes that exist in objective reality.
Gods are no different.

Iron Man and Thor aren't real.
God is real but God does not exist in our objective reality.

Real: actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.
real means - Google Search

Imagined: (of something unreal or untrue) believed to exist or be so.
imagined means - Google Search

Reality:

• the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
• the state or quality of having existence or substance.

reality means - Google Search

When the evidence is rational and can be independently and objectively verified, yes. Not when that "evidence" requires faith.

It would not matter even if my evidence could be independently and objectively verified. You would still say "that's not evidence?"

That doesn't seem to be the case at all to me.

How would you know that I am not compelled to through evidence and reason? You do not live in my mind.

You would have to be completely illogical to think that everyone views evidence the same way or that everyone reasons the same way.

No, it is not true that if the evidence was 'good enough' everyone would recognize it as evidence because no two minds think the same way, and if people are convinced "that's not evidence" nothing I can say will change their minds.

 

[lukethethird]

You think faith is my justification. No, faith is not my justification for holding my beliefs. Evidence is my justification.

I think we have covered this before. I never said that faith is the justification for my beliefs. Evidence is my justification.
Faith is what is necessary to believe anything that can never be proven. God can never be proven to exist so faith is necessary adjunct to evidence for most people.

All knowledge is not factual knowledge.
All knowledge is not verifiable or demonstrable.

knowledge
1c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition

I can show you what I know and explain how I know it, but it will not be accepted, so what's the point?

Knowledge may or may not be a subset of belief, depending upon whether one's belief is based upon knowledge.

belief
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.
Belief Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

There is some truth to that. I do not need faith because I know God exists since I have proper evidence.

I never claimed that faith is a justification for belief. Evidence is my justification.

I need faith in my evidence since there is no way to prove that God is behind the evidence.

However, these truths don't come from the same source. Absolute truth comes only from God through His Messengers.

Iron Man and Thor aren't real.
God is real but God does not exist in our objective reality.

Real: actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.
real means - Google Search

Imagined: (of something unreal or untrue) believed to exist or be so.
imagined means - Google Search

Reality:

• the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
• the state or quality of having existence or substance.

reality means - Google Search

It would not matter even if my evidence could be independently and objectively verified. You would still say "that's not evidence?"

How would you know that I am not compelled to through evidence and reason? You do not live in my mind.

You would have to be completely illogical to think that everyone views evidence the same way or that everyone reasons the same way.

No, it is not true that if the evidence was 'good enough' everyone would recognize it as evidence because no two minds think the same way, and if people are convinced "that's not evidence" nothing I can say will change their minds.

Oh, brother.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

you are making things up, that is disapointing.

You disappoint yourself, Leroy. You never bothered to search for my responses that you say don't exist. What did you think would happen following that? How did you imagine the future would go if I told you that you were wrong and showed you how to confirm that, but you never acknowledged even seeing the words ever? What were you expecting instead of this outcome? None other was possible. I told you so repeatedly.

Do you really have the hypocrisy of accusing me for ignoring you?

I wrote, "You ignored everything about confirmation bias. What's in it for me to discuss anything with you?" You did it again. Twice. You've ignored what I've told you all along. Only you know why. But I ask again, what possible other outcome could there be to this given your indifference to whatever is written to you?

 

[leroy]

You disappoint yourself, Leroy. You never bothered to search for my responses that you say don't exist. What did you think would happen following that? How did you imagine the future would go if I told you that you were wrong and showed you how to confirm that, but you never acknowledged even seeing the words ever? What were you expecting instead of this outcome? None other was possible. I told you so repeatedly.

I wrote, "You ignored everything about confirmation bias. What's in it for me to discuss anything with you?" You did it again. Twice. You've ignored what I've told you all along. Only you know why. But I ask again, what possible other outcome could there be to this given your indifference to whatever is written to you?

As ridiculoues as this may sound, but a few days ago, I did gave you the benefit of the doubt and actually scrolled back in search for your posts to see if you really did answered to my request......but I found nothing

But well it was my mistake for trusting you, and I take the blame for that.

I wrote, "You ignored everything about confirmation bias. What's in it for me to discuss anything with you?"

You will not get a reply, because it is obviously an attemt to change the topic and avoid the challenge from the OP.

 

[joelr]

1. The Gospel by Mark. John Mark wrote the earliest (excepting the notes of Andrew), briefest, and most simple record of Jesus’ life. He presented the Master as a minister, as man among men. Although Mark was a lad lingering about many of the scenes which he depicts, his record is in reality the Gospel according to Simon Peter. He was early associated with Peter; later with Paul. Mark wrote this record at the instigation of Peter and on the earnest petition of the church at Rome. Knowing how consistently the Master refused to write out his teachings when on earth and in the flesh, Mark, like the apostles and other leading disciples, was hesitant to put them in writing. But Peter felt the church at Rome required the assistance of such a written narrative, and Mark consented to undertake its preparation. He made many notes before Peter died in a.d. 67, and in accordance with the outline approved by Peter and for the church at Rome, he began his writing soon after Peter’s death. The Gospel was completed near the end of a.d. 68. Mark wrote entirely from his own memory and Peter’s memory. The record has since been considerably changed, numerous passages having been taken out and some later matter added at the end to replace the latter one fifth of the original Gospel, which was lost from the first manuscript before it was ever copied. This record by Mark, in conjunction with Andrew’s and Matthew’s notes, was the written basis of all subsequent Gospel narratives which sought to portray the life and teachings of Jesus.

121:8.4 (1341.5) 2. The Gospel of Matthew. The so-called Gospel according to Matthew is the record of the Master’s life which was written for the edification of Jewish Christians. The author of this record constantly seeks to show in Jesus’ life that much which he did was that “it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet.” Matthew’s Gospel portrays Jesus as a son of David, picturing him as showing great respect for the law and the prophets.

121:8.5 (1341.6) The Apostle Matthew did not write this Gospel. It was written by Isador, one of his disciples, who had as a help in his work not only Matthew’s personal remembrance of these events but also a certain record which the latter had made of the sayings of Jesus directly after the crucifixion. This record by Matthew was written in Aramaic; Isador wrote in Greek. There was no intent to deceive in accrediting the production to Matthew. It was the custom in those days for pupils thus to honor their teachers.

121:8.6 (1342.1) Matthew’s original record was edited and added to in a.d. 40 just before he left Jerusalem to engage in evangelistic preaching. It was a private record, the last copy having been destroyed in the burning of a Syrian monastery in a.d. 416.

121:8.7 (1342.2) Isador escaped from Jerusalem in a.d. 70 after the investment of the city by the armies of Titus, taking with him to Pella a copy of Matthew’s notes. In the year 71, while living at Pella, Isador wrote the Gospel according to Matthew. He also had with him the first four fifths of Mark’s narrative.

121:8.8 (1342.3) 3. The Gospel by Luke. Luke, the physician of Antioch in Pisidia, was a gentile convert of Paul, and he wrote quite a different story of the Master’s life. He began to follow Paul and learn of the life and teachings of Jesus in a.d. 47. Luke preserves much of the “grace of the Lord Jesus Christ” in his record as he gathered up these facts from Paul and others. Luke presents the Master as “the friend of publicans and sinners.” He did not formulate his many notes into the Gospel until after Paul’s death. Luke wrote in the year 82 in Achaia. He planned three books dealing with the history of Christ and Christianity but died in a.d.90 just before he finished the second of these works, the “Acts of the Apostles.”

121:8.9 (1342.4) As material for the compilation of his Gospel, Luke first depended upon the story of Jesus’ life as Paul had related it to him. Luke’s Gospel is, therefore, in some ways the Gospel according to Paul. But Luke had other sources of information. He not only interviewed scores of eyewitnesses to the numerous episodes of Jesus’ life which he records, but he also had with him a copy of Mark’s Gospel, that is, the first four fifths, Isador’s narrative, and a brief record made in the year a.d. 78 at Antioch by a believer named Cedes. Luke also had a mutilated and much-edited copy of some notes purported to have been made by the Apostle Andrew.

121:8.10 (1342.5) 4. The Gospel of John. The Gospel according to John relates much of Jesus’ work in Judea and around Jerusalem which is not contained in the other records. This is the so-called Gospel according to John the son of Zebedee, and though John did not write it, he did inspire it. Since its first writing it has several times been edited to make it appear to have been written by John himself. When this record was made, John had the other Gospels, and he saw that much had been omitted; accordingly, in the year a.d. 101 he encouraged his associate, Nathan, a Greek Jew from Caesarea, to begin the writing. John supplied his material from memory and by reference to the three records already in existence. He had no written records of his own. The Epistle known as “First John” was written by John himself as a covering letter for the work which Nathan executed under his direction.

121:8.11 (1342.6) All these writers presented honest pictures of Jesus as they saw, remembered, or had learned of him, and as their concepts of these distant events were affected by their subsequent espousal of Paul’s theology of Christianity. And these records, imperfect as they are, have been sufficient to change the course of the history of Urantia for almost two thousand years.” UB 1955

I'm sourcing scholars in the historical NT field. You are copy/pasting crank fiction from the The Urantia Book.
Needless to say you did not even respond to one single point I made about the literary structures used in Mark and the massive evidence we have that Mark was sourcing older fiction.

You might as well just admit you are not interested in any type of discussion, or are unable to engage in any discussion and cannot provide answers to the facts that Mark is using largely fictive writing styles, situations and lacking sources. It's also not Mark but most likely was "The Gospel of Jesus". Nothing in that crank Urantia fiction is confirmed as accurate by anyone in any field.
You do not care about what is true. For some weird reason you seem to think I also might not care. Which is weird because I actually tried to give you peer-reviewed facts.

Even worse, that is just the website front page drivel you pasted.

 

[joelr]

Wishful thinking by an anti-Christ.

Hillel was a real Rabbi, pre-Jesus. But by all means, never let truth get in the way of a good story.


"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the entire Torah, and the rest is its commentary. Now go and study.


To one who wished to learn the entire Torah on one foot, Shabbat 31a


“Do not judge your friend until you have stood in his place.”13

13.	Pirkei Avot 2:4.

The “Seven Rules” he employed—some of which are reminiscent of rules prevailing in Hellenistic schools where Homer was studied and interpreted—were to serve as the basis for more elaborate rules in the 2nd century. Homilies or parables ascribed to Hillel reveal him as a superb pedagogue.

THE SEVEN RULES OF HILLEL*

For example, Yeshua's famous "golden rule": Whatever you would that men should do to you, do you even to them, for this is the Torah and the Prophets. (Matthew 7:12)


This reads very closely with Hillel's famous statement: What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor that is the whole Torah ... (b.Shabbat 31a)


Paul was certainly taught these rules in the School of Hillel by Hillel's own grandson Gamliel. When we examine Paul's writings we will see that they are filled with usages of Hillel's Seven Rules (several examples appear below). It would appear then that the Seven Rules of Hillel are at least part of what Paul was speaking of when he spoke of "rightly dividing the Word of truth."

http://www.yashanet.com/studies/revstudy/hillel.htm

The simplest child like faith is all that is required.

Good point. I agree. Child like faith also confirms Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, elves and Big Foot.

Regular non-child faith can prove deities as well as gender or race supremacy and other terrible things people should not believe but will because they hold faith in it, depending on who is using it.
No wonder you believe that book you quoted. You don't have a rational epistemology. Just have faith and anything can be real. Wonderful.

 

[joelr]

I do believe that the existence of some form of Q remains a real possibility. The view that Mark is 'the first story set on earth; is a bit of an over-the-top assertion. and seems to assert that Mark was 'first written as is.' Yes, Mark is the first of the three gospels we presently have, but I believe that there is evidence that Mark was embellished and added to before its present text. If you want to consider Q an earlier shorter version of Mark OK. The question of authorship is another issue of evidence of evolved gospels including Mark. I believe the authors presently in the gospels are not the authors. The present text of the gospels is the result of one or more compilers that wrote the present form of the gospels and attributed them to the apostles to give them credibility.

You would have to weigh Goodacre's evidence and see if you feel you can debunk it.

Richard Carrier said his work pretty much closes the case.

The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem: Goodacre, Mark: 9781563383342: Amazon.com: Books

The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem [Goodacre, Mark] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem

www.amazon.com

"Goodacre has an impressive knack for exposing weaknesses in what so many have supposed are good arguments. Those who do not believe in Q will find him a mighty ally in their unbelief. Those of us who remain in the Q camp will have to meet his worthy challenge and wrestle with his fresh and instructive observations on the synoptic problem." Dale C. Allison, Jr. Errett M. Grable Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity--Sanford Lakoff

"If his agument should be sustained, Q would become unnecessary and decades of Gospel research will have to be re-thought The Case Against Q provides the most accessible and compelling defense to date of the theory of Gospel origins championed by James Ropes, Austin Farrer, and Michael Goulder."--Sanford Lakoff

"This is an urgently needed book in New Testament studies Goodacre's sharply argued book dismantles the shopworn case for Q and challenges us to think freshly about synoptic relationships Every intellectually serious teacher of the New testament must grapple with this book."--Sanford Lakoff

"Those who do not believe in Q will find Goodacre a mighty ally in their unbelief. Those of us who remain in the Q camp will have to meet his worthy challenge and wrestle with his fresh and instructive observations on the synoptic problem."--Sanford Lakoff

The positing of Q as a source for Matthew and Luke is founded on the twin suppositions of Markan priority and the independence of Matthew and Luke. In this lucid and carefully argued exploration of the Synoptic Problem, Goodacre argues that Markan priority is reasonable and well-founded, and that a good case can be made for Luke's direct dependence on Matthew. If his argument should be sustained, Q would become unnecessary and decades of Gospel research will have to be re-thought. But whether or not Goodacre is ultimately correct, The Case Against Q provides the most accessible and compelling defense to date of the theory of Gospel origins championed by James Ropes, Austin Farrer and Michael Goulder. John S. Kloppenborg, Claremont Graduate University and The University of Toronto

This is an urgently needed book in New Testament studies. The Q hypothesis dominates the field partly because of intellectual inertia and partly because it serves the ideological interests of critics who desire a Jesus without a narrative, without a cross. Reminding us that Q is a hypothesis, not an extant ancient document, Goodacre s sharply-argued book dismantles the shopworn case for Q and challenges us to think freshly about synoptic relationships. His alternative deserves serious consideration: Markan priority, combined with Luke s use of Matthew as a source alongside Mark. Goodacre s chapter on narrative criticism and the Sermon on the Mount is especially illuminating. Every intellectually serious teacher of the New Testament must grapple with this book. Richard B. Hays The George Washington Ivey Professor of New Testament The Divinity School, Duke University--Richard B. Hays

 

[joelr]

I already found the answers thankfully

There are many answers, the question is which answers are correct and how can you demonstrate it?

 

[joelr]

This is tedious and boring

All those points have been addresses multiple times.

Lets stick to the OP

1 provide a hypothesis (explain and develope the hypothesis)

2 explain why is that hypothesis better than the resurection according to this criteria

Explanatory scope - does the hypothesis account for all the data
- Explanatory power - how well does the hypothesis explain the data
- Plausibility - is the hypothesis compatible with or implied by facts that are generally accepted as known
- Less ad hoc - does the hypothesis go beyond what is known and makes unevidenced assumptions
- Illumination (a bonus criteria) - does the hypothesis shed light on other areas of inquiry

Any comments unrelated to this will be ignored


And just to be clear, I am not blaming you for anything, I am aware of the fact that I contributed in to moving the thread to topics that have nothing to do with the OP.


and the same goes for other people form this forum
@joelr @Subduction Zone @It Aint Necessarily @shunyadragon etc.

any Post that doesn’t even attempts to address these 2 points will be ignored

I am pretty sure that the author of this thread (@Apologes ) had this intent when he wrote the OP

Are you serious with this?

Yes you will ignore my post no matter what because you always do.

I have already explained, the resurrection has no "explanatory power", is not believed to be anything but a story by all historical scholars in the field, is written like a fictive story, is following a fictive trend and many many similar saviors have also died and come back to life. Not only mystery religions, which Christianity IS a version of (Hellenism combined with a local religion, Judaism) but even the Roman savior died and returned to live again.
Jews believed in bodily resurrection (from Persian religion) and Hellenistic resurrection was a spirit body, which is exactly what Paul began preaching with the first Christians, in Antioch, the HUB of Hellenistic culture. Which the Bible says is where the first Christians come from.

You could not be handed a more obvious and reasonable explanation. The evidence available shows this is a fictional story arising from folk beliefs.


To re-fresh your memory, a sample:


1) The gospels are not "historical claims", Mark is a myth. It is not written as history in any way shape or form. It IS written as a myth. No sources, explanations for unusual events, (Pontius Pilate, would let a violent and murderous rebel go free,and no ceremony is ever attested as having taken place), improbable events, borrowing from OT narratives, Psalms, 20 close parallels to Romulus and the RR hero myth, all found in Greek myth. Greek theology - savior demigods, salvation, baptism, eucharist, Logos, a devil, afterlife, layers of parables, ring structure and more literary devices. No religion is a historical claim. No mystery religion is a historical claim.



Myth from that time does use real people and places:


"So we already have a bit of contemporary background information showing us that fictional biographies were commonplace at the time, and thus warrant caution when examining writings that may look like histories upon first glance. However, there are also certain things we should expect to find in writings that are laden with myth and allegory as opposed to history. We can’t simply try to categorize the writings as fitting within some particular genre, as myths have been written in any and all genres, even as historical biographies (as was just mentioned), for example Plutarch’s Life of Romulus. In fact, quite a large amount of ancient biography, even of real people, was composed of myth and fiction, and thus we are forced to actually examine the content in detail to determine whether or not it is more likely to be myth or history. Some characteristics of myth include (but are not necessarily limited to): potent and meaningful emulation of previous myths, or potent emulation of real events in some cases; the presence of historical improbabilities — which is not only limited to magic or miracles, but also natural events and human behaviors that are unrealistic as well as the presence of amazing coincidences; and also the absence of external corroboration of key (rather than peripheral) elements, since a myth often incorporates some real historical people and places that surround a central mythical character and story (just as we see in most fiction, e.g., though Dorothy’s home-state of Kansas is a real place, the primary setting, main characters, and story in The Wizard of Oz, including the Wizard of Oz himself, are fictional constructs). It should be noted that not all of these characteristics need be present simultaneously for a story to be myth, but the more that are, or the more instances of each type found, only increases the likelihood that what one is reading is in fact myth rather than history."


Historical claims don't re-write the Elisha story from Kings 2, use Psalms verbatim, and many other stories. The triadic ring structure and many other devices are not how history is written.


Look at the parallels just from Jesus Ben Ananias:


1 – Both are named Jesus. (Mark 14.2 = JW 6.301)


2 – Both come to Jerusalem during a major religious festival. (Mark 11.15-17 = JW 6.301)


3 -Both entered the temple area to rant against the temple. (Mark 14.2 = JW 6.301)


4 – During which both quote the same chapter of Jeremiah. (Jer. 7.11 in Mk, Jer. 7.34 in JW)

5 – Both then preach daily in the temple. (Mark 14.49 = JW 6.306)

6 – Both declared “woe” unto Judea or the Jews. (Mark 13.17 = JW 6.304, 306, 309)


7 – Both predict the temple will be destroyed. (Mark 13.2 = JW 6.300, 309)

8 – Both are for this reason arrested by the Jews. (Mark 14.43 = JW 6.302)


9 – Both are accused of speaking against the temple. (Mark 14.58 = JW 6.302)


10 – Neither makes any defense of himself against the charges. (Mark 14.60 = JW 6.302)



11 – Both are beaten by the Jews. (Mark 14.65 = JW 6.302)
12 – Then both are taken to the Roman governor. (Pilate in Mark 15.1 = Albinus in JW 6.302)


13 – Both are interrogated by the Roman governor. (Mark 15.2-4 = JW 6.305)


14 – During which both are asked to identify themselves. (Mark 15.2 = JW 6.305)

15 – And yet again neither says anything in his defense. (Mark 15.3-5 = JW 6.305)

16 – Both are then beaten by the Romans. (Mark 15.15 = JW 6.304)

17 – In both cases the Roman governor decides he should release him. (Mark 14.2 = JW 6.301)

18 – But doesn’t (Mark)…but does (JW) — (Mark 15.6-15 = JW 6.305)


19 – Both are finally killed by the Romans: in Mark, by execution; in the JW, by artillery. (Mark 15.34 = JW 6.308-9)

20 – Both utter a lament for themselves immediately before they die. (Mark 15.34 = JW 6.309)


21 – Both die with a loud cry. (Mark 15.37 = JW 6.309)


The odds of these coincidences arising by chance is quite small to say the least, so it appears Mark used this Jesus as a model for his own to serve some particular literary or theological purpose. In any case, we can see that Mark is writing fiction here, through and through.



2) positive reasons, although not needed, are right there, you just ignore them. The story is a trending theology/mythology happening in Greek occupied nations. Paul even says the first Christians are found in Antioch. History shows this was the center of Hellenism and it's the "cradle of Christianity". The name "Christian" is from Antioch.


What more is needed? I gve an entry from Encyclopaedia Biblica a serious academic work from the late 1800s. Even back then they had to admit the Greek origins. This is a serious apologetic and bias work.

 

[joelr]

If by hearsay you mean “written by a third person” then yes, except for Paul all appearances are hearsay……….. but so what? most historical documents would be hearsay by that standard. And historians don’t reject them.

My point is that any claim that

1 was written by a contemporary author

2 that was corroborated by independent sources

3 that if true explains a series of data without adhoc fallacies

Huh? Again with the historians. Even well attested history has to match other records or evidence. Everything you say about historians is plain wrong.
For someone like Caesar we have:

his own accounts of the Gallic Wars
the speeches of Cicero
Sallust’s account of Catiline’s War
Suetonius’s section on Caesar in Twelve Caesars
Plutarch’s section on Caesar in Plutarchs’s Lives.”

Do we trust those? No. We trust what those sources say mostly in respect to what we can externally corroborate in eyewitness and archaeological sources.
we have actual coins and inscriptions dating from Caesar’s time and the time of his contemporaries. None for Jesus. We also have several eyewitness accounts. Caesar’s own and Cicero’s and Sallust’s.
also Pompey (surviving collections of Cicero’s letters include letters from Pompey) and Augustus (Caesar’s adopted son and successor, who commissioned many inscriptions and coins). And Livy, a contemporary of Caesar, covers Caesar in his histories—and in their poetry, so do contemporaries Virgil, Ovid, and Catullus. The Gospels are not eyewitness sources, name no eyewitness sources, and have no verifiable eyewitness sources. There are no eyewitness sources for Jesus. There are at least nine for Caesar.

Is accepted by historians as an uncontroversial fact of history, even if it was not written by a witness, if you want to apply different rules with miraculous events, then that is an other issue. That has nothing to do with history but with philosophical and theological assumptions.

Jesus stories, from a historian.
"The evidence for Jesus is not extraordinary, despite apologetic exaggerations to the contrary. Nevertheless, there is a limited degree of evidence for the historical Jesus, and such evidence points towards [an] obscure, itinerant apocalyptic prophet… This figure, of course, was exaggerated and embellished by legendary accounts since not long after the time of his death. Such exaggerations inspired the legendary figure that is now worshiped in modern Christianity today. That Jesus, however, who is prayed to and worshiped in church, has not been proven by historical evidence"

Your resurrection is a story. Just like the Quran being written by God through Gabrielle dictated to Muhammad.

We do have 1,2 and 3 for some of the appearances. (peter, paul, the women, the 12)…….. the other appearances, like James or the 500 fail at numer “2” so by normal historical standards these would qualify as “probably true” but with room for reasonable doubt.,..But that’s not the only example. 2 Peter attacks even a fellow Christian sect that was claiming the Gospels were “cleverly devised myths.” Ignatius also spends several letters attacking fellow Christians who were teaching that at least parts of the Gospels were mythical. And Irenaeus devotes books to the subject of other Christians claiming substantial portions of the Gospels were mythical. Indeed, the genealogies for Jesus are claimed to be mythical even in the New Testament itself! (1 Tim. 1.4; Tit. 3.9.)

But more importantly, this has nothing to do with historicity. We do not doubt the historicity of Jesus because his biographies have transcription errors in them (even deliberate ones). So that there are transcription errors in the biographies of Caesar isn’t relevant. Transcription errors (both accidental and deliberate) only matter if you wanted to treat the biographies of Caesar as guides to life, as the inviolate and inerrant Word of God. Rather than as a problematic lens granting only distorted knowledge of their subject in varying degrees of probability. Which is how historians treat those sources.


"“no one was arguing that the accounts of Jesus’s actions were fabricated or mythical.”

uh yeah, not only did Celsus claim that, and extensively, writing in the same time as Justin Martyr, but Trypho (the fake Jew Justin invented for his dialogue) argues the same point, too (he says the Gospel stories are just “unfounded rumor” and a Christian “invention,”


Matthew Ferguson, historian

[N]ot only do contemporary written sources exist for Alexander the Great (even ignoring archeological evidence, which is also vastly more abundant for Alexander than Jesus), but they are also better in every conceivable way than the written sources that exist for Jesus — both extant or lost. The apologist will now respond that we should not expect there to be better evidence for Jesus. … True. But this consideration does not eliminate the relevance of contemporary sources.
As such, appeals to a lack of contemporary or early sources are valid when arguing that such a lack impairs our ability to know about the person or event in question. We may never expect to have such evidence, since it may have never been produced. But it still affects what we can know about the past…
The evidence for Jesus is not extraordinary, despite apologetic exaggerations to the contrary. Nevertheless, there is a limited degree of evidence for the historical Jesus, and such evidence points towards [an] obscure, itinerant apocalyptic prophet… This figure, of course, was exaggerated and embellished by legendary accounts since not long after the time of his death. Such exaggerations inspired the legendary figure that is now worshiped in modern Christianity today. That Jesus, however, who is prayed to and worshiped in church, has not been proven by historical evidence.

"

 

[danieldemol]

If I propose an alternative hypothesis where prokaryotes and eukaryotes evolved independently , then my hypothesis would also make the same predictions for NH than your hypothesis, we would both predict “no mammals with feathers_”


So by your ridiculous definition of evidence NH is not evidence for evolution (common ancestry)

I think you haven't understood @TagliatelliMonster 's definition of evidence.

The whole underlying principle of it appears to be that evidence should be relevant to the question posed.

So since in your imaginary hypothesis it has in common with the real hypothesis that mammals evolved, NH is evidence for evolution, because in both hypothesis the common question is did mammals evolve, the common evidence is NH, and the common answer is that mammals evolved.

But if you change the question to did mammals evolve from prokarites and eukaryotes or only from one of them you need evidence that distinguishes between the two hypothesis.

It is like this. A description of an individual that accurately fits both jim and Bob as being at a murder scene is not enough to prosecute either one (say for example if they are identical twins). You would need some piece of evidence which can place only Jim at the murder scene.

Now suppose Jim does not have an identical twin. In this case if one investigator proposes Jim committed the murder with a knife and another proposes Jim committed the murder with a gun. If we are asking the question did Jim commit the murder a description fitting only Jim would be evidence that Jim is our murder. But if we change the question to what was the murder weapon used, a knife or a gun? Then a description of Jim is not evidence relevant to the question. We would need either a description of the weapon or evidence such as a bullet in the body or slash wound etc. In this case our description of Jim is not evidence relevant to the question being asked.

So the first case of Jim having a twin is analogous to explaining an event using miracles. God could have miraculously caused Jesus to be resurrected, or could have miraculously caused Paul to die for a delusion. In this case miracles fit literally any scenario and thus it is not even like giving a description of Jim. Your description may as well be that a human did it, it is a description (or evidence) that fits everyone.

The second case of a description fitting only Jim, but approaching the case with two different questions is analogous to your imaginary hypothesis about evolution.
Because your evidence (NH) is relevant to the question did evolution occur, but not relevant to the question which pathway did evolution take.

Consider yourself refuted in my view.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

you are making things up, that is disapointing. I honestly thought things where going to be different with you.




Do you really have the hypocrisy of accusing me for ignoing you?

Talk about confirming what he was saying...................

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think we have covered this before. I never said that faith is the justification for my beliefs. Evidence is my justification.

//facepalm

Your "evidence", is the thing that requires faith to be accepted...

Faith is what is necessary to believe anything that can never be proven. God can never be proven to exist so faith is necessary adjunct to evidence for most people.

Which you would then only do because you want to believe it.

It would not matter even if my evidence could be independently and objectively verified. You would still say "that's not evidence?"

I would not. Why on earth would you think that I would?
It's exactly what I ask for: objectively verifiable evidence.
It's the only evidence that matters.

Unverifiable "evidence", isn't evidence at all. It fails to fullfill the whole point of "evidence", which is to render something more plausible.
Adding just another claim to be believed (like unverifiable "testimony"), does not make it more plausible.

How would you know that I am not compelled to through evidence and reason?

You wouldn't require faith.

You would have to be completely illogical to think that everyone views evidence the same way or that everyone reasons the same way.

I'm well aware of that. You are a fine example.
Unfortunately, when it comes to religions, a lot of theists fail to reason properly and view evidence rationally.
The more fundamentalist they are, the more problems they usually have with that also.

No, it is not true that if the evidence was 'good enough' everyone would recognize it as evidence because no two minds think the same way, and if people are convinced "that's not evidence" nothing I can say will change their minds.

Myeah okay... i was assuming people are all rational.
Yes, people who fail at rational reasoning have problems with properly evaluating evidence, you are correct.
Point for you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I

If you whant to have a serious conversation with me, you have to adress the OP........ provide and develope an alternative hypothesis , and show that the hypothesis is better than the resurection according to the criteria mentioned in that OP.

I will not accept answers such as "naturalism wins because I say so" nor answers such as "I already answered in some post but I will not tell you where"

As a so called "critical thinker " you should repudiate that type of answers


Whithin the las 2 or 3 weeks I spended hours of my time addressing your specific demands and questions.


Why cant you show that same courtesy to me? ...... I am only making 1 specfic request (which is related to the OP)

If I dedicated time to your demands, why wouldn't you do the same with my demands?

Leroy, we've all spent hours as well, responding to your posts, refuting your arguments and pointing out where your evidence is lacking.
And what do we get from you? Repetition of the EXACT. SAME. POST. Over and over again. Please don't bother trying to admonish us for not addressing your points when that is all we have done over and over again. Seriously.

Nobody anywhere on this thread has said "Naturalism wins because I say so" and it's disingenuous of you to say as much when you know full well nobody has argued that.