Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[shunyadragon]

Holding an anti supernatural bias does not mean that there is no God and no supernatural.

I do not consider the Oxford Historical Standards and Methodological Naturalism anti-supernatural bias, because they do not take sides concerning whether miraculous events are valid events, false or true. They simply take the neutral stance they cannot be objectively documented as true facts

If you believe only those things that science says they can analyze, and reject belief in anything else, then that is just part of your world view.

This is again too biased. Religious miraculous events recorded in ancient tribal scripture believed by believers are simply nothing more regardless of whether you believe them or not.

If you start with this worldview and see the world through it, you end up saying things about the date and authorship of the Bible which you say and end up saying that there is no chance that the gospel is real.
It's all a logical progression from your world view and it has taken the form of faith, as can be seen in how you speak about your views on the Bible etc.

Historical Standards do not take sides as to whether the gospels are true or false as is. Historians consider the Gospels as well as the other ancient religious texts including the Bible as Historical narratives set in the culture and the time. They contain historical facts and people, but the documents as a whole are religious in nature, and this is the problem with all ancient tribal texts

And you see it as the only possible right position on the Bible stories and don't realise that you have arrived there from your particular world view, and where you have arrived might be just completely wrong and the result of turning down a blind alley along your logical pathways.

Not clear here, because there is a lack of distinction between history, science, and religious beliefs. Those who believe by faith in the validity of their texts and beliefs of any ancient religion cannot expect history or science to confirm that belief. Of course, some historians are believers and scientists accept the miraculous as true, but they believe in this based on faith.

 

[Brian2]

I do not consider the Oxford Historical Standards and Methodological Naturalism anti-supernatural bias, because they do not take sides concerning whether miraculous events are valid events, false or true. They simply take the neutral stance they cannot be objectively documented as true facts

So the neutral stance is that they cannot be objectively documented as true facts, so they did not happen.
Oddly enough it does not sound neutral to me.
Guilty of lying until proven innocent does not sound unbiased.
To me unbiased would be to accept the stories as history until shown to be false. Innocent of lying until shown otherwise.
But I'm not the one making up the rules, so the history is that Jesus did not rise from the dead and the gospels were written by people who did not know what they were talking about.
It is interesting how it goes from neutral to outright anti,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, even while claiming to be neutral.

Believers should not expect history or science to confirm their supernatural beliefs but should expect that a neutral history is not going to turn anti supernatural.

 

[Brian2]

This seems like a lot of words just to say "I want to believe what I want to believe because I want to believe it."

And just more attempts at transferring your faith onto people who have no use for it, and/or outright reject it as a unreliable pathway to truth.

Does that mean that you agree with everything @joelr says?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

why not?

Seriously?

I only explained it dozens of times already.
You troll somewhere else.

 

[joelr]

Historical scholars can believe whatever they want to,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, as part of their personal faith.

The personal faith (if any) of any given historical scholar is irrelevant. What matters if their beliefs based on historical evidence and the consensus opinions and what the evidence is to back it up. It's an extremely rigorous and detailed field.

But you are not answering the actual question. You claim historians don't believe the gospels because of a supernatural bias but then you go ahead and don't believe the Quran because of the same bias. So that entire argument is nonsense.

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying, but I'm not a historical scholar and am not presenting a historical scholarly work about anything.
Scholars otoh are supposed to be as unbiased as possible in their works and arguments for one position or another.

Historical scholars are as unbiased as possible. Why you don't study Biblical historians is bizarre?

I'm saying you claim historians don't believe Mark because of a supernatural bias yet you don't believe the Quran for the same reason. You don't believe Muhammad recieved updates on Christianity from an angel. Or you would believe the updates.

So you invalidate your own argument.
Also, if you bothered to look at the evidence, at least to know what it is and attempt to debunk it (if you don't attempt to debunk skeptical ideas about your beliefs you are not serious abut truth), you would know there are many reasons why the gospel stories are not believed. It isn't just because of a supernatural bias. You have ZERO idea how critical historical scholarship works or even does it's work.
But yes, since Mark knew about the temple destruction he was writing after the temple was destroyed.
If predictions of the future could be made there would be many astounding examples, not just one that looks like someone was writing after the destruction.

Scholars also disagree. With your line of reasoning, supposedly unbiased scholarship is also unreliable.

Are you even reading my response? Scholars in historicity don't comment on being "led" by a deity or any such thing?

You mentioned you were "led" to Jesus. So, AGAIN, my question is by what method are you able to demonstrate that your version of the feeling of being "led" is more reliable than someone who is "led" to Mormonism, to Judaism, to Jehova Witness, to any other Christian sect, to Islam, to Scientology or Hinduism?

Yes, I bought into a story and I have no methodology. Are you saying that I need one?

Uh, yeah.....? If you care about what is true rather than believing something you WANT to be true. Yeah, that is a bit important.

Because billions, literally billions of people buy into stories that are not your version.

Have you got one apart from saying that what you believe seems right to you?

OF COURSE I DO?!?!?!?!?!? The Law Of Attraction "seemed right to me" once. Rhonda Burns book "The Secret" on the LOA sold millions of copies and millions "resonated" with LOA and went to see Deepak and others lecture about it. Some people still preach it.
When you hear a story of theology or philosophy or supernatural wu that you want to be true it's going to "seem right to you". That is how it works.

What you do is use logic and a rational, skeptical methodology and examine evidence, examine debunkings and see if they hold weight and if you can debunk the debunkings. You listen to apologetics then listen to historians debate apologetics and blog about it and see if there are holes in their logic and information.
I've been doing it for for over 10 years.

Do you think that the majority of historians, the ones who disagree with you and your beliefs and with Richard Carrie and etc, are going on what seems right to them or on some scholarly methodologies?

How could you even ask this question?.
So first, virtually ALL historical /biblical scholars agree with the basics. Genesis is a re-working of Mesopotamian myths, Proverbs is shared wisdom (one is verbatim an Egyptian text), Daniel is a forgery, during the 2nd Temple Period the Hebrew were influenced by the Persians and later the Greeks and Jesus was a human preacher.

There are disagreements, Dr Kipp Davis, Hebrew Bible scholar disagreed with Dr Carriers rendition of early Jewish sources and did a series of videos:

He sourced Carriers words and showed where he was in error using the correct Hebrew,

Carrier did respond:

But you can see everything is very strict and evidence based. Kipp is not disagreeing with most of Carriers work, just the Hebrew interpretation.

Historians NEVER go by what they want to be true or think is right because evidence will always show they are probably wrong.
Dr. Richard C. Miller, author of "Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity," originally studied NT theology and was a fundamentalist.
However he changed course into historical studies and has since made the difficult choice to leave the church:

It sounds like you are saying that your beliefs are correct and logically undeniable and those of other historical scholars are not. I suppose that means you think they are biased opinions only, since they disagree with you.

Quite th eopposite, I have had many beliefs changed when I learned the evidence from scholarship. Now I am fairly up on the consensus opinions and understand the evidence.

There are no historians who disagree with me. There are a few issues in history that are debated and I take no side. Kipp vs Carrier is a new debate and historicity (Bart Ehrman) vs mythicism (Carrier, Lataster) is another debate.

None believe Gods or demigods are real.

So disagreement among scholars shows that scholarship is completely useless?

Again, why would you ask? It's because some details are not fully understood. But the Gospels being anon, non-eyewitnesses, all copied from Mark with revisions, theology is a Jewish/Persian/Hellenism is not in dispute. But yes there are debates on smaller issues because how to interpret evidence has some questions in some cases.

Here is an example, Dr Bowden asks Hebrew Bible scholar Dr Baden about contradictions in the OT, Moses not writing the Pentateuch and so on, being consensus view in scholarship.
Baden says yes, outside of apologetic minded institutions academia has been past that since the enlightenment. It's not even a question.

17:45

 

[joelr]

Holding an anti supernatural bias does not mean that there is no God and no supernatural.

It doesn't mean there is or isn't. It means nothing except you don't believe in the supernatural until it's supported by evidence.

If you believe only those things that science says they can analyse, and reject belief in anything else, then that is just part of your world view.

Sure, I don't know who does that however? You have to build strawmen just to make an argument. I hever said these things, you made them up.
I reject belief in things that have no evidence. Things that have an unreasonable reason to hold a belief in.
You actually agree. You don't believe the Quran (Muhammad was given updates on Christianity), despite it being incredibly important to your religion, because you don't buy the supernatural claim. You will try to deny this but that is the only reason.
There is no better evidence for the Gospel stories (really just Mark/Paul) than there is for Muhammad. We have original documents in Islam and known witnesses. Meaning the only reason you deny the updates is because you reject th eclaim that an angel came down and gave updates to Muhammad.
The OT is completely different from the NT. No Heaven for souls, no souls that can be redeemed, no Son of God and many other things (the OT has messianic predictions because of the Persians, it does not say Joshua Messiah/Jesus Christ or any actual prediction that can be clearly verified as an actual knowledge of Jesus.
So, the NT is an update on the OT.

The Quran is the same thing. Yet you deny it, because you don't buy the idea that Gabrielle actually came down and gave information. The same supernatural bias you claim scholars have, YOU HAVE. If scholars just accepted Mark has a prediction of the temple destruction, if you would just believe Gabrielle spoke to Muhammad. Same thing. So your "supernatural bias" is crank.

If you start with this world view and see the world through it, you end up saying things about the date and authorship of the Bible which you say and end up saying that there is no chance that the gospel is real.

The worldview you are talking about is a strawman, so this argument is fake.

There is no chance the Gospels are real for many many reasons, internally and externally. Just like there is no chance the Gospels of Hercules or Osirus are real either.
You have to invent a worldview, impose it on me, and then explain why I don't believe.

How about......not inventing arguments that I never make and listening to what I'm actually saying? Maybe try that?

It's all a logical progression from your world view and it has taken the form of a faith, as can be seen in how you speak about your views on the Bible etc.

How you can warp actual evidence, in the Bible and extra-biblical into "faith" is more apologetic brainwashing.

This came from the Persians and into Judaism:

fundamental doctrines became disseminated throughout the region, from Egypt to the Black Sea: namely that there is a supreme God who is the Creator; that an evil power exists which is opposed to him, and not under his control; that he has emanated many lesser divinities to help combat this power; that he has created this world for a purpose, and that in its present state it will have an end; that this end will be heralded by the coming of a cosmic Saviour, who will help to bring it about; that meantime heaven and hell exist, with an individual judgment to decide the fate of each soul at death; that at the end of time there will be a resurrection of the dead and a Last Judgment, with annihilation of the wicked; and that thereafter the kingdom of God will come upon earth, and the righteous will enter into it as into a garden (a Persian word for which is 'paradise'), and be happy there in the presence of God for ever, immortal themselves in body as well as soul. These doctrines all came to be adopted by various Jewish schools in the post-Exilic period, for the Jews were one of the peoples, it seems, most open to Zoroastrian influences - a tiny minority, holding staunchly to their own beliefs, but evidently admiring their Persian benefactors, and finding congenial elements in their faith. Worship of the one supreme God, and belief in the coming of a Messiah or Saviour, together with adherence to a way of life which combined moral and spiritual aspirations with a strict code of behaviour (including purity laws) were all matters in which Judaism and Zoroastrianism were in harmony; and it was this harmony, it seems, reinforced by the respect of a subject people for a great protective power, which allowed Zoroastrian doctrines to exert their influence. The extent of this influence is best attested, however, by Jewish writings of the Parthian period, when Christianity and the Gnostic faiths, as well as northern Buddhism, all likewise bore witness to the profound effect: which Zoroaster's teachings had had throughout the lands of the Achaernenian empire.


then this came from Hellenism and into a new cult which was a Jewish mystery religion called Christianity:

-the seasonal drama was homologized to a soteriology (salvation concept) concerning the destiny, fortune, and salvation of the individual after death.


-his led to a change from concern for a religion of national prosperity to one for individual salvation, from focus on a particular ethnic group to concern for every human. The prophet or saviour replaced the priest and king as the chief religious figure.


-his process was carried further through the identification of the experiences of the soul that was to be saved with the vicissitudes of a divine but fallen soul, which had to be redeemed by cultic activity and divine intervention. This view is illustrated in the concept of the paradoxical figure of the saved saviour, salvator salvandus.


-Other deities, who had previously been associated with national destiny (e.g., Zeus, Yahweh, and Isis), were raised to the status of transcendent, supreme


-The temples and cult institutions of the various Hellenistic religions were repositories of the knowledge and techniques necessary for salvation and were the agents of the public worship of a particular deity. In addition, they served an important sociological role. In the new, cosmopolitan ideology that followed Alexander’s conquests, the old nationalistic and ethnic boundaries had broken down and the problem of religious and social identity had become acute.


-Most of these groups had regular meetings for a communal meal that served the dual role of sacramental participation (referring to the use of material elements believed to convey spiritual benefits among the members and with their deity)


-Hellenistic philosophy (Stoicism, Cynicism, Neo-Aristotelianism, Neo-Pythagoreanism, and Neoplatonism) provided key formulations for Jewish, Christian, and Muslim philosophy, theology, and mysticism through the 18th century


- The basic forms of worship of both the Jewish and Christian communities were heavily influenced in their formative period by Hellenistic practices, and this remains fundamentally unchanged to the present time. Finally, the central religious literature of both traditions—the Jewish Talmud (an authoritative compendium of law, lore, and interpretation), the New Testament, and the later patristic literature of the early Church Fathers—are characteristic Hellenistic documents both in form and content.


-Other traditions even more radically reinterpreted the ancient figures. The cosmic or seasonal drama was interiorized to refer to the divine soul within man that must be liberated.


-Each persisted in its native land with little perceptible change save for its becoming linked to nationalistic or messianic movements (centring on a deliverer figure)


-and apocalyptic traditions (referring to a belief in the dramatic intervention of a god in human and natural events)


- Particularly noticeable was the success of a variety of prophets, magicians, and healers—e.g., John the Baptist, Jesus, Simon Magus, Apollonius of Tyana, Alexander the Paphlagonian, and the cult of the healer Asclepius—whose preaching corresponded to the activities of various Greek and Roman philosophic missionaries

Those are Facts from history.
Also Mark is written like historical fiction and uses mainly older sources. OT, Homer, Romulus, Greek religions, Jesus Ben Ananias
Historians from the time call it a "harmless superstition".
The very first apologist, Justin Martyr, confirms Jesus is just like a Greek deity and has to claim the devil made those older religions up to fool Christians into thinking it was a copy-cat religion.
Hmmmmm, what are the odds it actually is a copy-cat religion??????



There is no faith there, that is historical information.

 

[joelr]

And you see it as the only possible right position on the Bible stories and don't realise that you have arrived there from your particular world view, and where you have arrived might be just completely wrong and the result of turning down a blind alley along your logical pathways.

Oh and Genesis, is a reworking of Mesopotamian myth. Taught in all university textbooks.

These are all facts.

I haven't even mentioned the real archaeology yet.


My "worldview" is WHAT DOES THE EVIDENCE SHOW. What are the religious trends before Christianity. What were the religions of the nations who occupied Israel? What does the Gospel text say? What style? Historical, fiction? Is it using other stories and sticking Jesus in them?

Are the Gospels eyewitnesses, anonymous, what is th eevidence.

What are historians from the time saying????

Those are all important pieces of evidence that NT theology completely ignores or changes. Hmmm, why would they have to lie and lie by ommission?
Also fake Epistles, fake Acts, 36 other gospels, the first canon was the Marcionite canon, now unknown?
All evidence points to it being folk tales based on religious trends.

You are even denying that I'm using basic evidence and twisting it into a "worldview".

YET, you hear ONE supernatural story from the Quran and you are immediately like, "nope". The only person filtering through a worldview is you. You claim to believe in the supernatural. You believe in the NT updates, yet the Quran and Mormon updates can't be real. But you believe in the supernatural so it's a worldview.

I am going by evidence. Evidence informs my worldview.

 

[joelr]

Can't you see that I am defending myself from people who seem to be saying that because I look at the world through my beliefs that means that all my thoughts and decisions are biased?

This is another strawman. Where did I say this. The thoughts you have that are biased are beliefs that are not supported by good evidence.
Do you believe in Big Foot? Or Roswell Aliens? If you think you are going to see a Big Foot in the woods or alien craft at Area 51 you are going on biased information.

If you think the angel Moroni visited Joseph Smith and gave him updates on Christianity, or Muhammad wrote new info on Christianity and God then you will have bias beliefs. Same with any religion.

Are all your thought and decisions biased because you view the world through your world view?

No because I use evidence, logic, skepticism and so on. This is the best method we know for knowing what is true. I am biased toward what is true. Some things we cannot know, some we cannot know for certain. But when evidence and such is used we can have reasonable certainty about beliefs to a reasonable degree.
I'm certainly not claiming I know something is true because I "feel it in my heart" or was "led" to it. I know that is a B.S. method to truth.

I don't expect to know everything, just our best understanding of what can be known to be true or likely true.

Do you have a different answer for 1+1 because you are an atheist?
Why you (and other atheists) need to make my comment to be something it's not is bizarre.

You would have to explain what exactly your comments are being made out to be? I'm saying your beliefs are not based on good evidence.
You recently said you were "led" to this religion.
This is a terrible way to know if something is true. The exact same claim is made by Islam, Scientologists, Hindu, Sikh, Mormons. So unless you have a methodology to demonstrate why your version of being "led" is more reliable than theirs, it's not reliable.

 

[joelr]

So the neutral stance is that they cannot be objectively documented as true facts, so they did not happen.
Oddly enough it does not sound neutral to me.
Guilty of lying until proven innocent does not sound unbiased.
To me unbiased would be to accept the stories as history until shown to be false. Innocent of lying until shown otherwise.

Here we go again. Then, in this case, you should be unbiased.
So, the angel Gabrielle DID in fact give updates to Muhammad (just being unbiased by your definition and you definitely should now believe this)
and these updates are contained in the Quran.
Being unbiased you should convert to Gods new plan (because humans messed it up and used Greek paganism with the Jesus story (that part is actually true)) and Jesus was just a prophet like Moses and Muhammad.

You say this junk but don't actually DO IT. What you really mean is you shouldn;t have supernatural bias on MY RELIGION ONLY.


Which is so bias and special pleading it's a huge ridiculous farce.


Muhammad hasn't been shown to be lying?

For that matter neither has the Mormon updates, Bahai, or any new religion?


Unbiased is to accept reality as it stands, no supernatural anything has any good evidence.
OR, all supernatural claims should be considered real if enough support exists and the Quran and Mormonism count and are more reliable than fragments and re-writes of the Gospels from the 3rd century or later.

This stance is no good, no apologist uses this because it's inconsistent. If they wanted to appear as honest they would have to also accept the Quran at the least and it's claims because we have original sources and witnesses and none for Christianity.


However, there is no evidence for any supernatural thing, ever. While in Mark we do have a reasonable explanation for the destruction of the temple, it was written after the temple was destroyed.
That isn't bias, it's using a more possible and reasonable explanation. To ignore this means bias. You would not ignore this for any other religion, you don't and are bias towards the Gospels being true, period.
I have suspicion even you don't buy this fully and know this to be true but use it as a talking point to counter some arguments.
The idea is to find out what is true, not throw out useless points.

 

[joelr]

Well the fact that my argument has not been refuted or even addressed strongly suggest I made a pretty good argument

Whatever. Respond to all my posts then.

1 Provide and develop your hypothesis

2 expalin why is that hypothesis better than the resurrection according to the criteria mentioned in the OP



Did it. Historical critical scholarship did it and has been refining it for decades.
17:45
OT contradictions, Moses was not a individual but many different people, Mesopotamian origins and so on.....
Dr Joel Baden, Harvard OT Hebrew scholar, Yale Divinity lecturer:

"since the Enlightenment this has been the consensus in scholarship, outside of apologetic institutions..." 17:45

Apologetics is made up crank.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It's not hard to comprehend, but [atheism] is just a scam.

Atheism is the scam? Religions teaches that there is a magic man in the sky who will burn you forever if you don't obey a bunch of rules they say come from a god, and to come to church each week with your wallet, but rejecting that is the scam?

But the scam imo is to say you have no beliefs that you are trying to sell.

Sell? Humanists want to create a free, tolerant, society administered by a secular, democratic government committed to providing a playing field for the pursuit of happiness as the individual understands it by giving each access to education and social and economic opportunity.

But no theist need buy into that, and there's no need to "sell" it to them. They can be Christians (for example) in such a society. They can worship their god, pray around the dinner table, read their Bibles, and gather to fellowship and sing hymns, decorate their bodies, cars, homes, and businesses with religious icons and platitudes. They don't need to understand or accept humanist values to benefit from them.

For the humanists to do that, they'll need to tame the authoritarian and theocratic tendencies that oppose them, and that is the struggle that defines our time. You're seeing it play out in the news in both the political and climactic crises, where it's the humanists trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect democracy and the rule of law. We're also seeing it play out in the abortion, LGBTQ+ and drag queen wars - people wanting freedoms that others with religious and authoritarian proclivities don't want them to have.

So you say that only things that have verifiable evidence are real and can only be demonstrated only through their verifiable evidence.

No, those are your words. What the critical thinker says is that only things that can be demonstrated to actually exist should be thought to exist.

you make the error in your thinking when you think that only verifiable things are real.

That's your error, not his. Please try to understand the difference between "I won't accept that it is real until you show me" and "If you don't show me, it's not real." Do those sound like the exact same idea to you, or can you distinguish between them. If the latter, please note that the skeptic's position is the latter one and to discontinue morphing it into the former one, unless you think it's a good way to think. If so, please explain why you think that.

And of course you don't even believe this yourself, when it comes to most unverifiable things, even if you like to use it against the existence of God and the supernatural.

Of course he doesn't. It's YOUR straw man. You wrote, "So you say that only things that have verifiable evidence are real and can only be demonstrated only through their verifiable evidence. Then you ask, "Which demonstrably real things don't have verifiable evidence?"
But you make the error in your thinking when you think that only verifiable things are real." He did not say that "only things that have verifiable evidence are real." Those are your words, not his. His words are the ones that followed, which you quotes rather than mis-paraphrase, and it means something different than your words.

Historical scholars can believe whatever they want to,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, as part of their personal faith.

Scholarship excludes faith. All academia does.

So disagreement among scholars shows that scholarship is completely useless?

Once again, not what he wrote, which was, "Feeling led because you learned a supernatural story is 100% psychology and seems to happen no matter the religion. Making your method completely useless until you demonstrate it's more effective. Without circular logic." He's referring to your method of deciding what's true - faith.

Holding an anti supernatural bias does not mean that there is no God and no supernatural.

Did you mean being a critical thinker? He has a bias against all belief by faith. So do I. It's called skepticism, or the belief that ideas should be empirically justified before being believed.

It's all a logical progression from your world view and it has taken the form of a faith

You seem incapable of understanding that not all belief is held by faith. There is a method for extracting faith from ones thoughts and belief set. Master it and faith is gone from your thinking. To those who have not understood what this method is and does, all belief must seem equal to theirs. What else is possible for them to believe if thusly unaware?

Can't you see that I am defending myself from people who seem to be saying that because I look at the world through my beliefs that means that all my thoughts and decisions are biased?

That's true for all of us, but our biases need not be irrational. The bias in favor of justified belief over unjustified is called skepticism and is a fundamental value of critical thought, and what makes that bias rational is the stellar success of its application, which has given us Enlightenment values: science and reason over faith, tolerant secular governments, and free citizens with guaranteed rights. That's the evidence that this bias is rational and constructive. Faith has no such successes. The biases of the Abrahamic religions include irrational and destructive bigotries (gays and atheists are abominations, women are incubators, man is worthless and helpless) and magical thinking.

Are all your thought and decisions biased because you view the world through your world view?

Yes, as I just described, unless by bias you mean only irrational bias.

Do you have a different answer for 1+1 because you are an atheist?

No, but I might if I believed by faith:

“If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa

Now THAT's an irrational bias and a terrible idea.

That does not mean that you don't view all things from your atheist pov however.

 

[Brian2]

The personal faith (if any) of any given historical scholar is irrelevant. What matters if their beliefs based on historical evidence and the consensus opinions and what the evidence is to back it up. It's an extremely rigorous and detailed field.

But you are not answering the actual question. You claim historians don't believe the gospels because of a supernatural bias but then you go ahead and don't believe the Quran because of the same bias. So that entire argument is nonsense.

The analysis of the historical evidence is based on the presumptions of the people analysing. The same historical data can produce many interpretations. It would be nice for you if there was a consensus among the historians which agreed with your view, even if it would be an appeal to popularism and authority fallacies.
It does not matter if the historians do or don't believe the gospels, it's being neutral that matters.
And of course, being neutral in their scholarship does not automatically mean being anti supernatural and does not automatically lead to a lack of belief in God.

I'm saying you claim historians don't believe Mark because of a supernatural bias yet you don't believe the Quran for the same reason. You don't believe Muhammad recieved updates on Christianity from an angel. Or you would believe the updates.

My response was to show how illogical your response was.
I believe in the supernatural but that does not mean that I have to believe what all religions teach.
You believe in scholarship and that does not mean that you either do or have to believe what all scholars say.
IOW there is nothing wrong with me not believing the Quran unless there is something wrong with you not believing all scholarship.

So you invalidate your own argument.
Also, if you bothered to look at the evidence, at least to know what it is and attempt to debunk it (if you don't attempt to debunk skeptical ideas about your beliefs you are not serious abut truth), you would know there are many reasons why the gospel stories are not believed. It isn't just because of a supernatural bias. You have ZERO idea how critical historical scholarship works or even does it's work.
But yes, since Mark knew about the temple destruction he was writing after the temple was destroyed.
If predictions of the future could be made there would be many astounding examples, not just one that looks like someone was writing after the destruction.

Many astounding examples of prophecy have been made and they are in the Bible. All of them however seem to have been written after the fact when critical Biblical scholarship starts criticising them.
Is that because they have all been written after the fact or is it something to do with critical Biblical scholarship?

Are you even reading my response? Scholars in historicity don't comment on being "led" by a deity or any such thing?

Christian scholars in historicity don't comment on being led by a deity. So?

You mentioned you were "led" to Jesus. So, AGAIN, my question is by what method are you able to demonstrate that your version of the feeling of being "led" is more reliable than someone who is "led" to Mormonism, to Judaism, to Jehova Witness, to any other Christian sect, to Islam, to Scientology or Hinduism?

I have no answer and I don't need an answer.
But as I said, historical scholarship leads to all sorts of analysis and you have nothing to show that your version of historical analysis is any better than others.

Uh, yeah.....? If you care about what is true rather than believing something you WANT to be true. Yeah, that is a bit important.

Because billions, literally billions of people buy into stories that are not your version.

Billions of people believe the Bible, billions do not. So?
You have no answer for me about why your historical analysis is best, so why should I have an answer?
For all I know your historical analysis is based on the presumptions you bring to the Bible,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, your preheld beliefs. Maybe not, maybe you have to only true Biblical analysis and everyone should believe you.

OF COURSE I DO?!?!?!?!?!? The Law Of Attraction "seemed right to me" once. Rhonda Burns book "The Secret" on the LOA sold millions of copies and millions "resonated" with LOA and went to see Deepak and others lecture about it. Some people still preach it.
When you hear a story of theology or philosophy or supernatural wu that you want to be true it's going to "seem right to you". That is how it works.

What you do is use logic and a rational, skeptical methodology and examine evidence, examine debunkings and see if they hold weight and if you can debunk the debunkings. You listen to apologetics then listen to historians debate apologetics and blog about it and see if there are holes in their logic and information.
I've been doing it for for over 10 years.

I've been doing something like that for a while also and my faith in Jesus is still intact. Maybe I'm just biased, yes probably. Maybe I'm just thick, yes probably. Maybe Jesus is the truth, yes probably.
I see the Bible and I see many people come along and attack it's reliability etc and I see none to manage to do a really good job. Each new attack can challenge my faith, (and it is faith, but there is reasoning there also) and your's did that also, but in the end I saw thru it, for what it is,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, imo.
Maybe you and I aren't that different in our approaches but we start off from different places and with different presuppositions and so end up at different places.

How could you even ask this question?.
So first, virtually ALL historical /biblical scholars agree with the basics. Genesis is a re-working of Mesopotamian myths, Proverbs is shared wisdom (one is verbatim an Egyptian text), Daniel is a forgery, during the 2nd Temple Period the Hebrew were influenced by the Persians and later the Greeks and Jesus was a human preacher

Not really virtually all. There are plenty of scholars who disagree and see and analyse things differently.

Quite th eopposite, I have had many beliefs changed when I learned the evidence from scholarship. Now I am fairly up on the consensus opinions and understand the evidence.

There are no historians who disagree with me. There are a few issues in history that are debated and I take no side. Kipp vs Carrier is a new debate and historicity (Bart Ehrman) vs mythicism (Carrier, Lataster) is another debate.

None believe Gods or demigods are real.

So a common element in your historians would be a lack of belief in the supernatural.

Again, why would you ask? It's because some details are not fully understood. But the Gospels being anon, non-eyewitnesses, all copied from Mark with revisions, theology is a Jewish/Persian/Hellenism is not in dispute. But yes there are debates on smaller issues because how to interpret evidence has some questions in some cases.

Here is an example, Dr Bowden asks Hebrew Bible scholar Dr Baden about contradictions in the OT, Moses not writing the Pentateuch and so on, being consensus view in scholarship.
Baden says yes, outside of apologetic minded institutions academia has been past that since the enlightenment. It's not even a question.

A common element might be belief in the Bible with another group of scholars.
Different beliefs can mean a different way of viewing the evidence.

 

[Brian2]

It doesn't mean there is or isn't. It means nothing except you don't believe in the supernatural until it's supported by evidence.

Having an anti supernatural bias means that you see things in that light and analyse the Bible in that light, and say that it cannot possibly be true because for a start you do not believe in the supernatural and so start off with the presupposition that the Bible cannot be true, and then you analyse the history in such a way that it shows the Bible is not true. This is what I find when I read attacks against the Bible. It is circular reasoning and can even start with the idea that the Bible is not evidence of anything except that it was written.

Sure, I don't know who does that however? You have to build strawmen just to make an argument. I hever said these things, you made them up.
I reject belief in things that have no evidence. Things that have an unreasonable reason to hold a belief in.

You might think I have an unreasonable reason, but you see the Bible as not being evidence of anything. It is unreasonable to you but not to me.

You actually agree. You don't believe the Quran (Muhammad was given updates on Christianity), despite it being incredibly important to your religion, because you don't buy the supernatural claim. You will try to deny this but that is the only reason.
There is no better evidence for the Gospel stories (really just Mark/Paul) than there is for Muhammad. We have original documents in Islam and known witnesses. Meaning the only reason you deny the updates is because you reject th eclaim that an angel came down and gave updates to Muhammad.

Yes I believe in Jesus. Why do you think a believer in the supernatural should believe the truth of every religion. Maybe a Baha'e can do that, but that is unreasonable.

The OT is completely different from the NT. No Heaven for souls, no souls that can be redeemed, no Son of God and many other things (the OT has messianic predictions because of the Persians, it does not say Joshua Messiah/Jesus Christ or any actual prediction that can be clearly verified as an actual knowledge of Jesus.
So, the NT is an update on the OT.

Yes the NT carries the revelation further and makes it clearer.

The Quran is the same thing. Yet you deny it, because you don't buy the idea that Gabrielle actually came down and gave information. The same supernatural bias you claim scholars have, YOU HAVE. If scholars just accepted Mark has a prediction of the temple destruction, if you would just believe Gabrielle spoke to Muhammad. Same thing. So your "supernatural bias" is crank.

Yes I believe God has led me to Jesus and Muhammad is a false prophet, so?
And are you saying that your scholars just don't believe the supernatural in all religions and so are consistent?
The anti religion historians who make it their life's work to debunk religions and who seem to concentrate on the Bible. But you don't see that the profound basic background belief is to not believe. That makes other conclusions and ways of analysing, just logical necessities.

The worldview you are talking about is a strawman, so this argument is fake.

There is no chance the Gospels are real for many many reasons, internally and externally. Just like there is no chance the Gospels of Hercules or Osirus are real either.
You have to invent a worldview, impose it on me, and then explain why I don't believe.

How about......not inventing arguments that I never make and listening to what I'm actually saying? Maybe try that?

You certainly have some basic background belief, or lack thereof. It is a firm one from what you say and how you say it.
Reading historians with that same belief has a way of encouraging that belief or lack thereof, and you end up saying that there is no chance the gospels are real, internally or externally.

Those are Facts from history.
Also Mark is written like historical fiction and uses mainly older sources. OT, Homer, Romulus, Greek religions, Jesus Ben Ananias
Historians from the time call it a "harmless superstition".
The very first apologist, Justin Martyr, confirms Jesus is just like a Greek deity and has to claim the devil made those older religions up to fool Christians into thinking it was a copy-cat religion.
Hmmmmm, what are the odds it actually is a copy-cat religion??????

There is no faith there, that is historical information.

Wow, really?
I see faith, based on your and other like minded people's analysis of the Bible.
It all looks like a reasoned position to me,,,,,,,,,,,, but there is a background doubt in the Bible that has been encouraged and grown into a full blooded denial.

 

[Brian2]

Oh and Genesis, is a reworking of Mesopotamian myth. Taught in all university textbooks.

These are all facts.

I haven't even mentioned the real archaeology yet.

You trust mainline anti faith scholarship way too much imo.
It is all the current myths that sees itself as so advanced because it is the 21st century afterall.

 

[shunyadragon]

So the neutral stance is that they cannot be objectively documented as true facts,

True

so they did not happen.

No that is not the conclusion. The stance is neutral they cannot determine whether they happened or not.

Oddly enough it does not sound neutral to me.
Guilty of lying until proven innocent does not sound unbiased.
To me unbiased would be to accept the stories as history until shown to be false. Innocent of lying until shown otherwise.

To me?!? That is not how either the Oxford Standards of History and Methodological work. They do not accept hypothetical or subjective claims of supernatural events. The conclusions are not that they are guilty or innocent of anything.

There is no such thing as an accusation of lying involved here. It is simply neutrality as to whether the claims are true or false, because of the lack of historical or scientific evidence.

You need to document where the conclusions of these Universal Academic Standards involve the accusation of lying, which you cannot.

But I'm not the one making up the rules, so the history is that Jesus did not rise from the dead and the gospels were written by people who did not know what they were talking about.
It is interesting how it goes from neutral to outright anti,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, even while claiming to be neutral.

I am thankful that you nor any other believer in supernatural events in any religion determines a neutral standard of academic history and science.

It is fully accepted that the authors of the gospels and other religious writings in human history believed what they wrote, but that is not the academic standard for history and science. Many people today write about meeting 'Bigfoot' and aliens. They are not questioned whether they believe what they see. The problem remains; Can it be objectively determined whether it can be determined as true or false? Academic History nor science can justify these claims have a historical or scientific basis based on objective documented facts.

The Structure of Resurrection Belief

Abstract. Faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ is absolutely central to the Christian religion. This book deals critically with the attempts of the wo

academic.oup.com

Faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ is absolutely central to the Christian religion. This book deals critically with the attempts of the world's leading theologians over the past 100 years to handle the resurrection of Christ conceptually. In the second half of the book a religiously positive and constructive attempt is made to articulate a logically coherent epistemology of faith in the resurrection, which respects the authority of the scriptural traditions as they are now understood and assessed by contemporary theologians whilst at the same time being true to the transcendental dimensions of the resurrection as a divine mystery, and to contemporary Christian experience of the Easter Christ.

Believers should not expect [academic] history or science to confirm their supernatural beliefs but should expect that a neutral history is not going to turn anti supernatural.

Again see the Oxford Academic Standards cited above. Yes, the bold is a neutral view of whether the supernatural events recorded in ancient religions text is true or false.

To be anti-supernatural one must believe these claims are determined as false, which is how the philosophical materialist, ie some atheists, would 'believe.' This is a philosophical/theological claim, and not documented in history and science.

The same is true for whether God exists or not, which is the basis for the claim by believers that supernatural events are true. The existence of God cannot be demonstrated as true or false by Academic Historical Standards or Methodological Naturalism.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So the neutral stance is that they cannot be objectively documented as true facts, so they did not happen.
Oddly enough it does not sound neutral to me.

That's because you don't appear to understand it. I've tried explaining it as well, to no avail.

Guilty of lying until proven innocent does not sound unbiased.

No, it's still "innocent until proven guilty." You just have to demonstrate first that god or the supernatural are guilty of existing.

To me unbiased would be to accept the stories as history until shown to be false. Innocent of lying until shown otherwise.

That's not unbiased. It's just plain stupid and an almost-guarantee that you're going to end up believing in all sorts of untrue things.

But I'm not the one making up the rules, so the history is that Jesus did not rise from the dead and the gospels were written by people who did not know what they were talking about.
It is interesting how it goes from neutral to outright anti,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, even while claiming to be neutral.

Believers should not expect history or science to confirm their supernatural beliefs but should expect that a neutral history is not going to turn anti supernatural.

If we used the "methodology" you discuss here, then we'd be stuck believing every single story, and every single claim everybody ever said, until someone proved it wrong. Which I'm pretty sure I've pointed out to you many times in the past.

Thor is real, until someone proves him false.
Leprechauns are real, until someone proves them false.
Banshees are real, until someone proves them false.
Chupacabras are real, until someone proves them false.
Shiva is real, until someone proves it false.
Anything I say is true, until someone proves it false.


Do you see how we might run into problems using your methodology?

 

[Brian2]

No that is not the conclusion. The stance is neutral they cannot determine whether they happened or not.

It is not neutral if not being able to determine their truth means that the Bible is analysed as if they are not true.

There is no such thing as an accusation of lying involved here. It is simply neutrality as to whether the claims are true or false, because of the lack of historical or scientific evidence.

You need to document where the conclusions of these Universal Academic Standards involve the accusation of lying, which you cannot.

Don't be so literal. It is rhetorical comment.

Faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ is absolutely central to the Christian religion. This book deals critically with the attempts of the world's leading theologians over the past 100 years to handle the resurrection of Christ conceptually. In the second half of the book a religiously positive and constructive attempt is made to articulate a logically coherent epistemology of faith in the resurrection, which respects the authority of the scriptural traditions as they are now understood and assessed by contemporary theologians whilst at the same time being true to the transcendental dimensions of the resurrection as a divine mystery, and to contemporary Christian experience of the Easter Christ.

I would hold a more conservative view of the resurrection that Peter Carnley.

To be anti-supernatural one must believe these claims are determined as false, which is how the philosophical materialist, ie some atheists, would 'believe.' This is a philosophical/theological claim, and not documented in history and science.

If the supernatural claims are rejected in the analysis of the Bible, eg the when and where and by whom in the writing of the gospels, they may as well be completely denied. So if the gospels are seen as post 70AD writing because of the prophecy of the Temple destruction, and so by people who did not know Jesus, that is an analysis by people who have rejected the supernatural, it is an analysis of the Bible by skeptics, even if they are liberal Christians.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Does that mean that you agree with everything @joelr says?

Much of it, yes. Everything? Probably not. I don't think there is anybody I agree with on every single thing.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is not neutral if not being able to determine their truth means that the Bible is analysed as if they are not true.

No, it means that "they cannot determine whether they happened or not."
Those are different things.
You really need to grasp this point. Perhaps a crash course in the basic rules of logic may help you with understanding this.

Don't be so literal. It is rhetorical comment.



I would hold a more conservative view of the resurrection that Peter Carnley.



If the supernatural claims are rejected in the analysis of the Bible, eg the when and where and by whom in the writing of the gospels, they may as well be completely denied. So if the gospels are seen as post 70AD writing because of the prophecy of the Temple destruction, and so by people who did not know Jesus, that is an analysis by people who have rejected the supernatural, it is an analysis of the Bible by skeptics, even if they are liberal Christians.

 

[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.”
paarsurrey:

• #1,576

So, Pilate maneuvered and arranged things to save Jesus/Yeshua's life, and the truthful Israelite Messiah did not die on the Cross, right?
paarsurrey:

• #1,585

It was an arranged ploy by Pilate that the constable did not break Yeshua's bones and declared him already dead, right?
paarsurrey:

• #1,620

One can't see a dream on one's own, it was such an overwhelming dream that she (Pilate's wife) did tell about it to Pilate, must be from the holy spirit, and Gospel mentions it, right?

Regards