Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your faith is that there is no God, life invented itself etc.

Neither of those makes any sense.

You promote your faith hear on a religious forum. Its not at all complicated.

You would think that that it isn't complicated indeed, but alas....

Apparently some people find it really hard to understand the fact that one does not require "faith", or even evidence, to NOT believe something.

Oh well

 

[Colt]

Neither of those makes any sense.


You would think that that it isn't complicated indeed, but alas....

Apparently some people find it really hard to understand the fact that one does not require "faith", or even evidence, to NOT believe something.

Oh well

And if you had more self-awareness then you would realize that you are promoting an unproven Godless universe which is a form of faith.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I repeated because I was trying to show more clearly what I meant.
You said, Which "religious" belief is masquerading as "science" in your opinion?
No religious beliefs are masquerading as science. Religiously held beliefs in parts of science are masquerading as scientifically held beliefs.

And another repeat of the claims.

Actually I change my mind. That belief is held because historians who believe that prophecy is not true end up concluding that the synoptics must be written after 70AD.

Are you really sure about that, that that is the reason for why historians think it was written after 70 AD?
What's your evidence for that?

If I would go and look it up how they motivate their hypothesis that it was written after 70 AD, do you think that what you said is the reason I will bump into? Are you certain I won't bump into any other reasons?

So for many people it is the fallacy of trusting in authority.

Trusting authority / expertise, is not a fallacy btw

They might not realise that it is a religiously held belief. But I guess you probably realise the reason people think the synoptics were written after 70AD and so you should know that this is a religiously held belief.

Personally I don't give a rat's behind when those things were written and I don't know why historians think it is the case (if they think it is the case, because again I don't know... I don't care enough to have looked it up already).


But especially for you, I googled it. When were they written and how do we know?
Plenty of articles came up. Here's one of them:

When Were the Gospels Written and How Can We Know?

Greetings all! Alas, I am underway with my new blog in which I will explore a variety of topics related to Biblical studies, paying particular attention to the New Testament and other early Christi…

bibleoutsidethebox.blog

I haven't read it in detail, just scanned over it. What matters here, is your claim that historians believe this "because they don't believe in prophecy" or whatever. As if they have no rational motivation at all to justify their thesis that these things were written after 70AD.

Yet, I see the opposite in even that article alone. There's a whole wall of text detailing the justification / motivation for that time period.

So, unsurprisingly, it seems your accusation was just bluster.

 

[Brian2]

And another repeat of the claims.

Let's give an example. The belief that life is a product of chemistry and consciousness also is a product of chemistry. These are religious type beliefs. The science does not show them to be true but people make leaps of faith and believe them anyway.

Are you really sure about that, that that is the reason for why historians think it was written after 70 AD?
What's your evidence for that?

It all seems to have happened in my lifetime. The evidence of the scriptures always pointed to early dates for the writing of the gospels. Then the acceptance among modern scholars of the idea of ignoring the supernatural in scriptures became popular and all of a sudden the dating shot up to times very close to or after the Temple destruction. (times very close being times when normal human predictions of that might actually work.)

If I would go and look it up how they motivate their hypothesis that it was written after 70 AD, do you think that what you said is the reason I will bump into? Are you certain I won't bump into any other reasons?

The Dirty Little Secret About Dating the Gospels - History of Christianity

There is some debate when it comes to the dating of the Gospels. Some would like to date the Gospels in the […]

historyofchristianitypodcast.com

Trusting authority / expertise, is not a fallacy btw

OK so trusting what witnesses said, the experts in what happened, (as Luke claim his gospel comes from) is not a fallacy. That is good.

Personally I don't give a rat's behind when those things were written and I don't know why historians think it is the case (if they think it is the case, because again I don't know... I don't care enough to have looked it up already).

OK so you have no reason to look it up, you just trust what some experts say. That is what happens. Skeptics end up saying that experts say they were written after 70AD, and don't know why they say that.
Interestingly this non acceptance of the truth of prophecy in the analysis of the gospels is meant to be a neutral way to analyse the gospels. But there is no way that the results of it can end up being neutral, especially in the dating of the writing.

But especially for you, I googled it. When were they written and how do we know?
Plenty of articles came up. Here's one of them:

When Were the Gospels Written and How Can We Know?

Greetings all! Alas, I am underway with my new blog in which I will explore a variety of topics related to Biblical studies, paying particular attention to the New Testament and other early Christi…

bibleoutsidethebox.blog

I haven't read it in detail, just scanned over it. What matters here, is your claim that historians believe this "because they don't believe in prophecy" or whatever. As if they have no rational motivation at all to justify their thesis that these things were written after 70AD.

Yet, I see the opposite in even that article alone. There's a whole wall of text detailing the justification / motivation for that time period.

So, unsurprisingly, it seems your accusation was just bluster.

I also scanned the article and found things that I would consider historically inaccurate and statements that I consider biased.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let's give an example. The belief that life is a product of chemistry and consciousness also is a product of chemistry. These are religious type beliefs. The science does not show them to be true but people make leaps of faith and believe them anyway.

First, let's be a little careful with terminology here. "believe" = to accept as factual, as true.
I think you'll be hardpressed to find someone who "believes" those things.
Most people, like me, will rather say that those things are "highly likely".

Second, the science supports those conclusions. These are ideas that are in fact the result of scientific inquiry. It's the science that pushes us towards those conclusions, not the other way round.

I fail to see what is "religious" about following the evidence.

It all seems to have happened in my lifetime. The evidence of the scriptures always pointed to early dates for the writing of the gospels. Then the acceptance among modern scholars of the idea of ignoring the supernatural in scriptures became popular and all of a sudden the dating shot up to times very close to or after the Temple destruction. (times very close being times when normal human predictions of that might actually work.)

In other words, once people stopped simply believing it all and actually started questioning it and looking which parts and in what ways these texts are actually supported by evidence, then opinions about it started to change?

I don't think that's surprising. Why do you think it is surprising?
Also, you're not actually answering the point....

The point is about YOUR CLAIM that the sole motivation for these statements, is that they are "unbelievers" and are trying to rationalize their "unbelief".
My response to that is that that is simply not true and that if you actually go and read WHY scholars come to these conclusions, it turns out that they have very much to say about their motivation and it deals with EVIDENCE - not with their personal opinions or disbeliefs.

OK so trusting what witnesses said, the experts in what happened, (as Luke claim his gospel comes from) is not a fallacy. That is good.

No, that is not what I said.
I said trusting in expertise. I did not say "witnesses".

When I look up during the night and see a strange moving object in the sky and then, as a witness, claim that I have seen a UFO...
That does NOT make me an expert at astronomy.

OK so you have no reason to look it up, you just trust what some experts say.

No... I told you that I don't care. You should start reading with a bit of comprehension.

Having said that... if I would be interested, I would have no problem tentatively accepting the consensus of the experts of the field in question.
This is not "blind faith". This is rather the result of understanding how science works. It's reasonable as a non-expert to tentatively accept the consensus of experts when it comes to scientific subjects.

That is what happens. Skeptics end up saying that experts say they were written after 70AD, and don't know why they say that.

So you keep claiming.

Interestingly this non acceptance of the truth of prophecy in the analysis of the gospels is meant to be a neutral way to analyse the gospels. But there is no way that the results of it can end up being neutral, especially in the dating of the writing.

This is completely backwards.
The exact opposite is true. Your conclusions can't be neutral if you start out with believing it. Especially when you have emotional investement attached to it also, as is always the case with religious belief.

Your "research" is going to simply end up being an attempt at drawing the bullseye around the arrow.

NOT accepting it right out the gates, is in fact what makes sure you are able to conduct your research with an open mind, leaving all possibilites on the table.

I also scanned the article and found things that I would consider historically inaccurate and statements that I consider biased.

And your expertise in the field of history is, what?
What are your qualifications?

 

[Brian2]

First, let's be a little careful with terminology here. "believe" = to accept as factual, as true.
I think you'll be hardpressed to find someone who "believes" those things.
Most people, like me, will rather say that those things are "highly likely".

Second, the science supports those conclusions. These are ideas that are in fact the result of scientific inquiry. It's the science that pushes us towards those conclusions, not the other way round.

I fail to see what is "religious" about following the evidence.

So you don't believe those things, of course not. But others do.

In other words, once people stopped simply believing it all and actually started questioning it and looking which parts and in what ways these texts are actually supported by evidence, then opinions about it started to change?

I don't think that's surprising. Why do you think it is surprising?
Also, you're not actually answering the point....

The point is about YOUR CLAIM that the sole motivation for these statements, is that they are "unbelievers" and are trying to rationalize their "unbelief".
My response to that is that that is simply not true and that if you actually go and read WHY scholars come to these conclusions, it turns out that they have very much to say about their motivation and it deals with EVIDENCE - not with their personal opinions or disbeliefs.

Not all are unbelievers. Some want to be good little historians and do what the other historians do and make it a science question with the same presuppositions of science. No acceptance of the supernatural until the supernatural is shown to be real. Claimed witness accounts, observations, are not evidence for the supernatural until they can be verified scientifically, whatever that may be.

No, that is not what I said.
I said trusting in expertise. I did not say "witnesses".

When I look up during the night and see a strange moving object in the sky and then, as a witness, claim that I have seen a UFO...
That does NOT make me an expert at astronomy.

OK so seeing the risen Jesus and speaking to Him and seeing Him ascend to heaven is like you seeing something moving in the sky and claiming it is a UFO? Hmmm.

No... I told you that I don't care. You should start reading with a bit of comprehension.

Having said that... if I would be interested, I would have no problem tentatively accepting the consensus of the experts of the field in question.
This is not "blind faith". This is rather the result of understanding how science works. It's reasonable as a non-expert to tentatively accept the consensus of experts when it comes to scientific subjects.

You don't care. Like you have no reason to look it up.
But yes it is reasonable as a non expert to tentatively accept the consensus of experts when it comes to scientific subjects. And that is what people do with subjects like consciousness and origins of life etc. Science say all the evidence points to chemistry, who are we to disagree.

This is completely backwards.
The exact opposite is true. Your conclusions can't be neutral if you start out with believing it. Especially when you have emotional investement attached to it also, as is always the case with religious belief.

Your "research" is going to simply end up being an attempt at drawing the bullseye around the arrow.

NOT accepting it right out the gates, is in fact what makes sure you are able to conduct your research with an open mind, leaving all possibilites on the table.

If you start out believing that what is written is a lie made up after 70AD, you cannot be neutral about when the gospels were written and you certainly are not neutral about the supernatural. It's like saying, as a neutral historian, that you are going to study the lies in the Bible.
So presumptions about the truth or not of the prophecy should not be used to date the writing of the gospel.
Those historians who believe in the truth of the prophecy do not use that belief to date the writing of the gospels,,,,,,,,,,,,,, they use everything but that.
The first thing used by those who deny the prophecy is the 70AD date and that the writing must be close to or after that date.
And no, it is not a matter of "not accepting it (the prophecy) right out the gates", it is a matter of dismissing the prophecy from the beginning because science does not know of the supernatural. It is a matter of saying that science does not know about prophecy and the supernatural so this prophecy is a lie and cannot be evidence of prophecy and the supernatural.
Your friend in the site you gave says that accepting the prophecy is circular reasoning, but he has been smitten with the same blindness that you have and does not see how circular it is to deny the prophecy.

And your expertise in the field of history is, what?
What are your qualifications?

I just noticed things that he said which completely disagree with things I have read many times before. For example, he said that the earliest date for a universal census in the Roman world was 74AD and so the earliest date for the writing of Luke was 74AD.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you don't believe those things, of course not. But others do.

Who are those people? Are they here on the forum? Who are you talking about?
Note also how you tend to use generalized terms to refer to "them" and try your best to make it seem that it is pretty much every atheist.

I claim that you'll be very hard pressed to find someone, atheist or otherwise, to commit to the wording you are trying to push here.

Not all are unbelievers. Some want to be good little historians and do what the other historians do and make it a science question with the same presuppositions of science.

So you're just going to add another accusatory claim on top of it?
Now you're also accusing religious historians of simply going along with the other historians for ...what? Reputation purposes or something?

Your psychological defenses are really something else.

No acceptance of the supernatural until the supernatural is shown to be real.

Isn't that the rational thing to do?
What's the alternative? Accepting X is real while there is no evidence to show it is real? Claims are to be believed by default until proven false?
Should we also apply this warped logic in court? The accused is considered guilty until proven innocent?
So all I have to do is accuse you of murder and then by default you should be treated as a murderer and jailed for life until you can show you are innocent?

"the burden of proof" - have you ever heard of that concept?

Claimed witness accounts, observations, are not evidence for the supernatural until they can be verified scientifically, whatever that may be.

Indeed.
Again, what alternative do you propose? That we simply accept all claims by default?
So we should simply believe the claims of alien abductees, bigfoot spotters, voodoo victims, loch ness monster spotters, time travelers, incarnations of napoleon, ... etc?

Or let me guess.... we should only lower our standards of evidence to the point that no evidence is required when it comes to the claims of your particular religion / beliefs?

OK so seeing the risen Jesus and speaking to Him and seeing Him ascend to heaven is like you seeing something moving in the sky and claiming it is a UFO? Hmmm.

So do you believe the claims of alien abductees and bigfoot spotters at face value also?

You don't care. Like you have no reason to look it up.

Indeed. Much like you likely don't care about how and when the Quran was compiled. Or the Bagavad ghita. Or the book of the dead. Or the iliad. Or Dianetics. Or the book of Mormons Or the scriptures of any of the other hundreds, if not thousands, of religions.

Don't act so surprised that the book of your particular religion gets the same treatment from me.

But yes it is reasonable as a non expert to tentatively accept the consensus of experts when it comes to scientific subjects. And that is what people do with subjects like consciousness and origins of life etc. Science say all the evidence points to chemistry, who are we to disagree.

You say it is reasonable and then completely ignore, or show ignorance, as to WHY it is reasonable.
It is reasonable because science does not require you to "just believe" what scientists say.
If there is consensus about a certain hypothesis / theory, then you are NOT required or limited to just accept the claims of scientists.
No. These hypothesis / theories are going to be documented as a matter of public record in scientific publications / papers. There, you can read ALL ABOUT IT, including the justification for it. The evidence, the experiments, the demonstrations.

Furthermore, knowing how the scientific process works, you will also KNOW that that article isn't "just" the words and claims of the author. Instead, you know that it has been scrutinized by PLENTY of other scientists who did their outmost best to tear the idea apart and show it to be false. It's what they do. Scientists are on eachothers' case like hawks.

As the saying goes: "fame and glory in science is reserved for those people who show all their collegues wrong"

So.... the fact that all the evidence points to chemistry is not just some statement by some scientist. It is a CONCLUSION from the data. A conclusion that's been validated and reviewed by many many other scientists, who have incentive to prove the original author wrong whenever possible.

This is why consensus in science is so powerful. It means that those in the field that attempted to disprove the idea, failed to do so.
No, that doesn't mean the idea is necessarily correct. It does mean that it is supported by verifiable evidence and that it is quite solid in explanatory power.
The more such verifiable evidence it gathers, and the more attempts fail to try and disprove it, the more likely and solid the idea becomes.

So that's where your "problem" of consciousness and abiogenesis situates itself. An ongoing accumulation of supporting evidence and repeated failed attempts at disproving it. And literally zero valid alternative idea's.


So yeah.... not sure what else to tell you.

If you start out believing that what is written is a lie made up after 70AD, you cannot be neutral about when the gospels were written and you certainly are not neutral about the supernatural.

You double down on your already corrected mistake.
Your statement is false.
Nobody "started out" believing that. That they were written after 70AD is a CONCLUSION drawn AFTER doing to research. Not before it.

So presumptions about the truth or not of the prophecy should not be used to date the writing of the gospel.
Those historians who believe in the truth of the prophecy do not use that belief to date the writing of the gospels,,,,,,,,,,,,,, they use everything but that.

Those "historians" aren't proper historians. They are biased believers who are attempting to paint the bullseye around the arrow.
They engage in EXACTLY the mistake that you accuse proper historians off.

The first thing used by those who deny the prophecy is the 70AD date and that the writing must be close to or after that date.
And no, it is not a matter of "not accepting it (the prophecy) right out the gates", it is a matter of dismissing the prophecy from the beginning because science does not know of the supernatural.

Ever heard the sentence "assumed innocent until shown guilty"?
The same concept applies here.

You are buthurt and like to play the "religion victim card".
The fact of the matter is that all claims get the same treatment. Supernatural or otherwise.
All claims are evaluated based on merrit, precedents, plausibility, etc.

Claims involving the supernatural or other types of magic are "right out the gates" extremely implausible.
Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence.

 

[Brian2]

Who are those people? Are they here on the forum? Who are you talking about?
Note also how you tend to use generalized terms to refer to "them" and try your best to make it seem that it is pretty much every atheist.

I claim that you'll be very hard pressed to find someone, atheist or otherwise, to commit to the wording you are trying to push here.

So you think that nobody on this forum thinks that life and consciousness are products of chemistry, really?

So you're just going to add another accusatory claim on top of it?
Now you're also accusing religious historians of simply going along with the other historians for ...what? Reputation purposes or something?

I don't think they would see it as accusatory and no doubt they believe they are being neutral about the handling of prophecy in scripture, but when it is so plain that the handling is not neutral I just can't see how anyone can think it is neutral. imo.

Isn't that the rational thing to do?
What's the alternative? Accepting X is real while there is no evidence to show it is real? Claims are to be believed by default until proven false?
Should we also apply this warped logic in court? The accused is considered guilty until proven innocent?
So all I have to do is accuse you of murder and then by default you should be treated as a murderer and jailed for life until you can show you are innocent?

"the burden of proof" - have you ever heard of that concept?

We aren't talking here about whether someone believes the prophecies or not, we are talking about how the prophecies are dealt with by the historians.
I in fact think that they should be dealt with neutrally by secular historians, and that is the claim, that they are dealt with neutrality, but in reality that is not happening. They are dealt with as if they are lies. iow if historians want to find out when the synoptic gospels were written they do not ignore the prophecy about the Temple destruction, they use that prophecy and say, "That is a lie so the synoptics were written after 70AD". That's called "guilty until proven innocent". It is not neutral.

Indeed.
Again, what alternative do you propose? That we simply accept all claims by default?
So we should simply believe the claims of alien abductees, bigfoot spotters, voodoo victims, loch ness monster spotters, time travelers, incarnations of napoleon, ... etc?

Or let me guess.... we should only lower our standards of evidence to the point that no evidence is required when it comes to the claims of your particular religion / beliefs?

We aren't talking here about whether someone believes the supernatural accounts or not, or whether someone believes in bigfoot etc.
We are talking about whether observation by witnesses is counted as evidence, not whether that proves anything.
Clearly observations or claimed observations are evidence, even if some people want to say it is bad evidence.

So do you believe the claims of alien abductees and bigfoot spotters at face value also?

No, I need more evidence.

Indeed. Much like you likely don't care about how and when the Quran was compiled. Or the Bagavad ghita. Or the book of the dead. Or the iliad. Or Dianetics. Or the book of Mormons Or the scriptures of any of the other hundreds, if not thousands, of religions.

Don't act so surprised that the book of your particular religion gets the same treatment from me.

I'm not surprised.

You say it is reasonable and then completely ignore, or show ignorance, as to WHY it is reasonable.
It is reasonable because science does not require you to "just believe" what scientists say.
If there is consensus about a certain hypothesis / theory, then you are NOT required or limited to just accept the claims of scientists.
No. These hypothesis / theories are going to be documented as a matter of public record in scientific publications / papers. There, you can read ALL ABOUT IT, including the justification for it. The evidence, the experiments, the demonstrations.

Furthermore, knowing how the scientific process works, you will also KNOW that that article isn't "just" the words and claims of the author. Instead, you know that it has been scrutinized by PLENTY of other scientists who did their outmost best to tear the idea apart and show it to be false. It's what they do. Scientists are on eachothers' case like hawks.

As the saying goes: "fame and glory in science is reserved for those people who show all their collegues wrong"

So.... the fact that all the evidence points to chemistry is not just some statement by some scientist. It is a CONCLUSION from the data. A conclusion that's been validated and reviewed by many many other scientists, who have incentive to prove the original author wrong whenever possible.

This is why consensus in science is so powerful. It means that those in the field that attempted to disprove the idea, failed to do so.
No, that doesn't mean the idea is necessarily correct. It does mean that it is supported by verifiable evidence and that it is quite solid in explanatory power.
The more such verifiable evidence it gathers, and the more attempts fail to try and disprove it, the more likely and solid the idea becomes.

So that's where your "problem" of consciousness and abiogenesis situates itself. An ongoing accumulation of supporting evidence and repeated failed attempts at disproving it. And literally zero valid alternative idea's.


So yeah.... not sure what else to tell you.

All that does not mean that it has to be accepted by the lay person who hears of a certain hypothesis with a fair bit of evidence behind it.
With abiogenesis and consciousness for example the reason I reject the ideas of science are religious reasons but based on belief in evidence that is not evidence that science can accept.
I believe witness reports of consciousness outside the body in NDEs for example, but it seems science does not. It is observation evidence but not good enough for science. Science seems to want evidence for the supernatural before it accepts evidence for the supernatural.

You double down on your already corrected mistake.
Your statement is false.
Nobody "started out" believing that. That they were written after 70AD is a CONCLUSION drawn AFTER doing to research. Not before it.

I have trouble accepting all the reasoning in the Doston Jones site you posted and I certainly do not accept the 74AD dating of the first universal census in the Roman Empire.
He also does not seem to know about the early quotes from the New Testament writers by the Apostolic Fathers and others.

Those "historians" aren't proper historians. They are biased believers who are attempting to paint the bullseye around the arrow.
They engage in EXACTLY the mistake that you accuse proper historians off.

So people who do not use the prophecy to date the gospels are biased and those who use it to say the gospel was written after the Temple destruction are not biased. Hmmm.

Ever heard the sentence "assumed innocent until shown guilty"?
The same concept applies here.

You are buthurt and like to play the "religion victim card".
The fact of the matter is that all claims get the same treatment. Supernatural or otherwise.
All claims are evaluated based on merrit, precedents, plausibility, etc.

Claims involving the supernatural or other types of magic are "right out the gates" extremely implausible.
Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence.

So you are saying that the Temple prophecy is used for the dating of the gospels and is not ignored.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you think that nobody on this forum thinks that life and consciousness are products of chemistry, really?

I told you to be careful with terminology, which you again changed now.
You went from "believe" to "think".

The first means "to accept as fact / true". The latter means "to accept as likely".
Yes, I think it is highly likely, as per the evidence, that life and consciousness are products of (bio)chemistry, yes.

There is no dogmatic, unquestionable belief there. There is no religious-like faith or belief there.
What there is, is nothing more then "this is what all the evidence points to, so it's what I'm tentatively going with until new evidence points me in another direction if such would be found"

Goal posts.... better to leave them in the same place.

I don't think they would see it as accusatory and no doubt they believe they are being neutral about the handling of prophecy in scripture, but when it is so plain that the handling is not neutral I just can't see how anyone can think it is neutral. imo.

You continue to claim how "plain" it is, but so far all you have done is just claim that.
You haven't motivated / justified this claim with evidence AT ALL.

And in fact, if you google the subject (when were they written and how do we know), you find article after article, paper after paper where they detail WHY they think that and it's based on evidence and data. Not on a priori beliefs, like you like to claim.

We aren't talking here about whether someone believes the prophecies or not, we are talking about how the prophecies are dealt with by the historians.

And you are complaining that they don't evaluate the texts while assuming the prophecies (and all else) are true....
In reality, those claims are dealt with in the exact same way as any other claim.

It seems you want your precious religious claims to receive extra special treatment. Why?

I in fact think that they should be dealt with neutrally by secular historians

They are. They are not assumed true and they are not assumed false.
They are just dealt with like any other claim... ie: non-acceptance until verifiable evidence justifies acceptance.

No such evidence exists.

What is your complaint?

, and that is the claim, that they are dealt with neutrality, but in reality that is not happening.

It is exactly what is happening. Them concluding that there is no valid verifiable evidence to justify acceptance of said claim isn't to your liking, I get it.
But a historian's job is to come up with valid conclusions based on verifiable evidence. Not to cater to your religious sensitivities.

They are dealt with as if they are lies. iow if historians want to find out when the synoptic gospels were written they do not ignore the prophecy about the Temple destruction, they use that prophecy and say, "That is a lie so the synoptics were written after 70AD". That's called "guilty until proven innocent". It is not neutral.

Yes, you claimed this already.
Whenever you are ready to justify that claim with actual evidence.....

We aren't talking here about whether someone believes the supernatural accounts or not, or whether someone believes in bigfoot etc.
We are talking about whether observation by witnesses is counted as evidence, not whether that proves anything.

But there is no observation. Instead, there are people making CLAIMS. They CLAIM to have observed it.
Well, to be exact.... it's more like we have people who are claiming to have heard from other people claiming that even other people made this observation.

People making claims of having observed something, does not count as evidence for that observation. That would be circular nonsense.
What we have here are CLAIMS.

And that is why I brought up bigfoot and alien abduction.
If your "witnesses" claims are to be considered evidence (of the claims themselves?), then the same should go for "witness" claims of bigfoot, sasquatch, loch ness and alien abduction.

Or is this circular nonsense only permitted when it comes to the claims of your religion?
Seeking special treatment again?

Clearly observations or claimed observations are evidence, even if some people want to say it is bad evidence.

Properly documented and repeatable observations are evidence.
Claimed observations are just claims and require evidence.

I'm sorry you don't understand the difference.

No, I need more evidence.

Funny how you can instantly recognize that when it comes to claims of observed alien abduction, but not when it comes to a claim of observing an ancient resurected jew.

I'm not surprised.

Ow, so you KNOW about your double standard?

All that does not mean that it has to be accepted by the lay person who hears of a certain hypothesis with a fair bit of evidence behind it.

Sure. Just like flat earthers.

With abiogenesis and consciousness for example the reason I reject the ideas of science are religious reasons but based on belief in evidence that is not evidence that science can accept.

So IOW, you acknowledge that your objection to scientific ideas are based in non-scientific religious beliefs.

Just like I said from the get-go.
Thanks for playing.

I believe witness reports of consciousness outside the body in NDEs for example

Because they happen to remotely align with your a priori religious beliefs.
If your religious beliefs said aliens were visiting the planet, you would also believe the "witness reports" of alien abductees.
The bias is painfully obvious.

, but it seems science does not.

Yes. Science cares not for mere claims. Science requires evidence.

It is observation evidence but not good enough for science.

Unverifiable claims of observation are indeed not good enough.
Alien abductee claims are dismissed for the same reason.

Science seems to want evidence for the supernatural before it accepts evidence for the supernatural.

That makes no sense.

So people who do not use the prophecy to date the gospels are biased and those who use it to say the gospel was written after the Temple destruction are not biased. Hmmm.

People who don't go in with a priori established requested outcome are those that are not biased.
These are the people that let the evidence guide them.
You are not one of them. You are one of the people with a priori beliefs and who demands special treatments for the religious claims you believe.

So you are saying that the Temple prophecy is used for the dating of the gospels and is not ignored.

I'm saying that cricular reasoning is a fallacy

 

[urantianX]

Please demonstrate evidence that the Urantia Book is an actual revelation.

let me participate here: i and others have already proven URANTIA is a divine reveltion:

Urantia Book Questions

I believe I know my Bible and have the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Well, I believe the same things.

www.religiousforums.com

(today just now.)

 

[joelr]

LoL!

Laughing at the idea of educating oneself, especially scholarship in a field, is probably the biggest self-defeat of your position you could possibly do. You are basically saying "knowledge, facts, rational thinking and evidence, who needs that when I can just decide what I want to be true IS TRUE!!"
Hilarious. But sad.

You put soooooo much effort into your atheist faith!

No I put zero effort into atheism. First it isn't a faith, it's only evidence. What I put effort into is understanding what is most likely true and why. How do we know that and how can I debunk what I think is true, to see if it holds up under investigation. That is important. To someone who cares about knowing what is true.

For others, who laugh at knowledge, who think evidence is faith, who misrepresent my position at every turn because you have to argue with strawmen otherwise you have no argument, truth isn't important. What you want to be true and ignoring all else seems to be the priority.

I already said, have fun with that, you don't care about truth in that way so there is no point here.

You are only convincing yourself of your own doubts!

See, strawman. Now I have given several lines of evidence over the last several posts. What did you do? Comment on why each point was wrong and show your evidence? Nope. Claim it was wrong? Nope. Ignore it completely and double down on your non-argument. Yes.

I am following evidence. I did ask you for your method to demonstrate how you know your revelations are true and others are not. Ignored.
I always explain where the evidence points as a source. Ignored.
I don't have doubts. I have levels of belief based on the quality of each line of evidence. ALL evidence.
Of course you ignore the evidence and arguments and try to frame things in a manner not consistent with reality. It's all over this reply. Strawmen, misleading statements and quotes from fiction which you haven't even attempted to demonstrate has any reason to believe is true.

"A one-eyed person can never hope to visualize depth of perspective.

non sequitur

Neither can single-eyed material scientists nor single-eyed spiritual mystics and allegorists correctly visualize and adequately comprehend the true depths of universe reality. All true values of creature experience are concealed in depth of recognition."

Right but the book of fictive revelations with zero proof you quote and accept 100%. Nice work. You make this easy for me.

Yes, it's also another strawman, I never claimed anyone was comprehending the true depths of universe reality.
We can comprehend certain revelations are probably made up by people however. Generally when someone is making the claim of revelations and they manage to spew out exactly the same level of knowledge, wisdom, science, philosophy, going around the new-age world, that means it's not real. Like all revelations.
No one needs comprehend "universe" reality to know some stuff is made up. Or traditional religion is just re-working of local trends.

But yeah, nothing here is responding to any of my arguments. Perfect score on goalpost moving.

 

[joelr]

So no faith beliefs can be true?

That isn't what I said. I said faith is not a path to truth. Yeah, you can have faith in something and also accidentlly it happens to be true. Does that sound like a good way to find truth? No, it isn't.
You can hold faith in something and it can also be false. So having faith is meaningless in determining if it's true. You need more, evidence.

You can pick a daily number and have faith it's a winner. Eventually it might be. Doesn't make faith useful for truth.

However usually faith is an excuse for having no evidence. The people in the stories, OT and NT, never needed faith. They wrestled with God, saw his chariot, spoke with him, saw miracles, people rise from the grave, pigs and people exorcized of demons. Faith is written in for the future people who are aimed at buying into the story because the author knows there will be no magic powers for them to witness because they probably also didn't see any themselves. So they needed something else.

I'm tired of being accused of such things.

Then demonstrate some actual evidence. Demonstrate a method of how you know one claim of revelations is true and others are not that is a reliable method? You are accused of such things because you do them. You said you didn't have a way to show that and do not even want to.

Then you complain about getting called out for it? What???

Look at this - "I don't need verifiable evidence for anything, you are hung up on verifiable " your quote, not an acusation, proof you use non-evidence.
Living God? Uh....he's from a book. Please explain the "living" part and by what method do you know it's a god in your life and not confirmation bias? How do you distinguish? Because Hindus consider Krishna a living God who they feel working in their life and have a relationship with.

Mormons also say the exact same. But their Bible says Jesus went to America. So despite the blasphemy do you think the same God is engaged in a relationship with them also?
And why doesn't this God engage in a relationship with the 25,000 people , 10,000 under 10 who die daily from starvation? When people say this about God they usually mean they feel him acting and guiding their lives so every time something positive happens they credit the deity.

I did that as well once. Then after leaving religion I was surprised, when you make effort in life to do something, it often works out and feels like supernatural help. Because we forget all the work we put in towards doing something, ignore the misses and see the results. Religious people give credit to a deity. So by what method do you determine it's a God and not simple probability?

 

[joelr]

let me participate here: i and others have already proven URANTIA is a divine reveltion:

Urantia Book Questions

I believe I know my Bible and have the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Well, I believe the same things.

www.religiousforums.com

(today just now.)

There is nothing there that demonstrates Urantia is remotely divine. It leads to a study guide , for one.

I found a paper explaining why th escientific claims do not demonstrate revelations.

"The purpose of this essay is to set the cosmology and astronomy of the Urantia Book against what modern, twenty-first-century cosmology and astronomy observe in the physical universe. I will also argue that even if today’s cosmology and astronomy have got some things wrong about the structure of the universe, there is enough evidence favoring cosmology’s fundamental insights to render the Urantia Book’s cosmology, and much of what it says about astronomy, impossible"

Problems with the Cosmology and Astronomy of The Urantia Book

ABSTRACT The purpose of this essay is to set the cosmology and astronomy of the Urantia Book against what modern, twenty-first-century cosmology and astronomy observe in the physical universe. I wi…

ruminations.blog

But if you want to provide evidence why don't you find all of the scientific claims and give them? From the passages I read from Urantia it's absolute nonsense, assumes a "spirit world" without providing evidence, it just grants that that exists and most importantly gives ZERO science or math (or philosophy on par with great philosophers since the Enlightenment).

The book was written in the 1940s but printed in 1955 and it's possible some changes were made in the interm.
It would have been so easy to have simply said "soon a number of particles will be discovered, called the hadron explosion. Eventually physicists will understand they are a manifestation of a few particles (quarks) with 4 types and 4 charges. They hold the nucleus together with the strong force." That would do. He could have mentioned anything else, Bell's. theorem, solved Fermat's Last Theorem, dark matter. Black holes, the age of the universe, the size of the local universe.

What is mentioned is the SCIENCE FROM THAT TIME. Like steady state universe, a term NEVER MENTIONED anymore but then it was a big thing.
A smart writer wrote this.

 

[joelr]

let me participate here: i and others have already proven URANTIA is a divine reveltion:

Urantia Book Questions

I believe I know my Bible and have the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Well, I believe the same things.

www.religiousforums.com

(today just now.)

Then there is this, from the last link:

" Mankind should understand that we who participate in the revelation of truth are very rigorously limited by the instructions of our superiors. We are not at liberty to anticipate the scientific discoveries of a thousand years."

Uh Huh. Here they are telling you they are going to be wrong as science progresses. It's a huge red flag that people who want to believe will ignore.

The science things I mentioned are not science finds from "one thousand years", they are a few decades, one is like 1 decade in the future.
The writer was smart enough to know his science will soon be all wrong and came up with an excuse from Star Trek. It isn't even a revelation from God, it's from his "superiors". So this is like the Bashar channeling thing where he channels aliens. Bashar ALSO cannot give any new science because he isn't allowed by his superiors. Yup, true story. If people buy it others will sell it.
Channeling aliens isn't really religion but it's not real.

 

[Colt]

Laughing at the idea of educating oneself, especially scholarship in a field, is probably the biggest self-defeat of your position you could possibly do. You are basically saying "knowledge, facts, rational thinking and evidence, who needs that when I can just decide what I want to be true IS TRUE!!"
Hilarious. But sad.





No I put zero effort into atheism. First it isn't a faith, it's only evidence. What I put effort into is understanding what is most likely true and why. How do we know that and how can I debunk what I think is true, to see if it holds up under investigation. That is important. To someone who cares about knowing what is true.

For others, who laugh at knowledge, who think evidence is faith, who misrepresent my position at every turn because you have to argue with strawmen otherwise you have no argument, truth isn't important. What you want to be true and ignoring all else seems to be the priority.

I already said, have fun with that, you don't care about truth in that way so there is no point here.







See, strawman. Now I have given several lines of evidence over the last several posts. What did you do? Comment on why each point was wrong and show your evidence? Nope. Claim it was wrong? Nope. Ignore it completely and double down on your non-argument. Yes.

I am following evidence. I did ask you for your method to demonstrate how you know your revelations are true and others are not. Ignored.
I always explain where the evidence points as a source. Ignored.
I don't have doubts. I have levels of belief based on the quality of each line of evidence. ALL evidence.
Of course you ignore the evidence and arguments and try to frame things in a manner not consistent with reality. It's all over this reply. Strawmen, misleading statements and quotes from fiction which you haven't even attempted to demonstrate has any reason to believe is true.




non sequitur


Right but the book of fictive revelations with zero proof you quote and accept 100%. Nice work. You make this easy for me.

Yes, it's also another strawman, I never claimed anyone was comprehending the true depths of universe reality.
We can comprehend certain revelations are probably made up by people however. Generally when someone is making the claim of revelations and they manage to spew out exactly the same level of knowledge, wisdom, science, philosophy, going around the new-age world, that means it's not real. Like all revelations.
No one needs comprehend "universe" reality to know some stuff is made up. Or traditional religion is just re-working of local trends.

But yeah, nothing here is responding to any of my arguments. Perfect score on goalpost moving.

Scholarship can just be an opinion when it comes to determining what actually happened in history. Eyewitnesses to an event that happened a few days ago let alone 2000 years can vary in details. If a so-called scholar popped up and said "I know exactly what happened in the minds of the eyewitnesses, in the handling of the story decades and centuries later" is just an opinion. Obviously, the Atheist choses the opinions that match his preexisting bias!

The spiritual truths remain intact, the forces of darkness will not be able to overcome the powers of the spirit that established and sustains the Kingdom of Heaven!

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said:

Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus​

• #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?

The Second Coming 1835-1908 says:

Quote. "When Pilate presided at his court, his wife sent word to him saying,

Have nothing to do with that just man (don’t seek to have him killed) for I have suffered many things in a dream because of him. See Matthew 27:19.9
So, this angel, whom the wife of Pilate saw in her dream, would have us and all fair-minded people believe, that God had never intended for Jesus to die on the cross.
Ever since creation, it has never happened that God should reveal to a person in a dream that a particular thing would happen in a certain way, and still that thing should fail to happen.
For example, Matthew says that an angel of the Lord came to Joseph in a dream and said:
Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. (Matthew 2:13)
Can anyone imagine that Jesus could have been killed in Egypt?
The dream of Pilate’s wife was similarly a part of divine design, which could never fail in its objective.
Just as the possibility of Jesus being put to death during the journey to Egypt was against the specific promise of God, so here too it is unthinkable that the angel of God should appear to Pilate’s wife and point out to her that if Jesus died on the cross it would spell disaster for her, and yet the angel’s appearance should go in vain,
and Jesus should be allowed to suffer death on the cross". Unquote
Page-26 https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Jesus-in-India.pdf

"Jesus in India"

https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Jesus-in-India.pdf

View attachment 81484

Question: "Yes, it seems that the dream Pilate's wife had was of divine origin. The question is: did God want Pilate to release Jesus?" #1,718
Answer: Yes, G-d wanted to save the the life of the truthful Israelite Messiah his Prophet and Messenger for sure, certainly, and most reasonably as argued in the above post, please, right??

Regards

 

[Colt]

paarsurrey said:

Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus​

• #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?





Question: "Yes, it seems that the dream Pilate's wife had was of divine origin. The question is: did God want Pilate to release Jesus?" #1,718
Answer: Yes, G-d wanted to save the the life of the truthful Israelite Messiah his Prophet and Messenger for sure, certainly, and most reasonably as argued in the above post, please, right??

Regards

God wanted the Israelites to receive his Son and his Gospel! Tragically they rejected both! Father and Son decided that Jesus would “allow” himself to to be killed for all to see and then return which he did!

 

[AnthonyGiarrusso]

I recently finished Michael Licona's book The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach which argues that there are 3 minimal facts that are accepted by virtually all New Testament scholars which form the so called historical bedrock regarding the fate of Jesus. These are as follows:

1. Jesus was killed by crucifixion under Pilate
2. Very soon after his death, his disciples reported having experiences which they interpreted as the risen Jesus appearing to them, both individually and in groups
3. The early Church persecutor Paul also had an experience which he interpreted as Jesus appearing to him and this experience convinced him to convert to Christianity

Licona argues in detail against the naturalistic hypotheses that attempt to account for the bedrock and concludes that the best explanation is that Jesus actually rose from the dead. He does so by ranking each hypothesis based on how well they satisfy the following 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

Has anyone interacted with this argument or others similar to it such as those of N.T. Wright, William Lane Craig and Gary Habermas? If so, what are your objections to it?

I haven't read this book yet, but in 2023, people are resurrected in hospitals daily. There were even accounts of resurrection pre-dating Christ, so to me it is pretty normal.

If we had a time machine, we could go back to that time and see what really happened once and for all.

 

[joelr]

Scholarship can just be an opinion when it comes to determining what actually happened in history.

In this case there is far more evidence that the religion is syncretic.
Evidence by a historian that it's a "harmless superstition"
No evidence of any supernatural events in any historical or other. The tales are only in the Gospels.
Written as historical fiction, no sources, changing events.
The field has quite a bit of evidence. Ignored by apologists because they don't want to know.

Eyewitnesses to an event that happened a few days ago let alone 2000 years can vary in details. If a so-called scholar popped up and said "I know exactly what happened in the minds of the eyewitnesses, in the handling of the story decades and centuries later" is just an opinion. Obviously, the Atheist choses the opinions that match his preexisting bias!

There is no evidence that helps the theist position. None. Exactly as much as Mormonism or Islam. This style of circular argument is all you seem to have. I begin presenting evidence, you ignore it, wiat a bit, then act like it doesn't exist and it's neutral.
The religion has been debunked as a myth to a reasonable degree. Believers actually do face that fact, often.
PhD Kipp Davis, Dr Richard Miller, Bart Ehrman, Dr John Collins, a few who went from fundamentalist to atheist.

The spiritual truths remain intact,

There are no spiritual truths. Please demonstrate one. Provide evidence.

the forces of darkness will not be able to overcome the powers of the spirit that established and sustains the Kingdom of Heaven!

Right, in Star wars, LOTR, and all mythology, including Christian mythology. Which is a blend of Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Persian and Greco-Roman. It's a story, made up by people based on older stories.
When I start presenting evidence you ignore it and continue making claims without evidence or reason.

 

[joelr]

I recently finished Michael Licona's book The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach which argues that there are 3 minimal facts that are accepted by virtually all New Testament scholars which form the so called historical bedrock regarding the fate of Jesus. These are as follows:

1. Jesus was killed by crucifixion under Pilate
2. Very soon after his death, his disciples reported having experiences which they interpreted as the risen Jesus appearing to them, both individually and in groups
3. The early Church persecutor Paul also had an experience which he interpreted as Jesus appearing to him and this experience convinced him to convert to Christianity

Licona argues in detail against the naturalistic hypotheses that attempt to account for the bedrock and concludes that the best explanation is that Jesus actually rose from the dead. He does so by ranking each hypothesis based on how well they satisfy the following 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

Has anyone interacted with this argument or others similar to it such as those of N.T. Wright, William Lane Craig and Gary Habermas? If so, what are your objections to it?

Licona debated Dr carries twice and Ehrman once and then a long all-day debate. Both 2hr debtates with Carrier and Ehrman are on youtube.

All of his facts are form stories written as historical fiction. There are far far more probable explanations for these stories considering they borrow extensively from Greek and Persian mythology and the source Gospel is highly mythic in it's literary devices and style, as well as his blatant use of older narratives like ELija and Romulus.

Paul was a Jew and decided to convert. Adding that he had "visions" where he recieved all these detailed explanations is likely not what happened. We don't believe people when they make this claim, ever. So why grant Paul this?

Carrier debunks all of his points and Licona can only say "well it's possible" or "well I disagree so let's move on". He clearly just want it to be true rather than follow the evidence in a non-bias way.