The Resurrection is it provable?

[joelr]

Actually, I have studied it so much that I know what I believe. Perhaps you have only looked at one side?

Knowing what you believe doesn't make it true. Islamic and Hindu fundamentalists make the same claims, use the same apologetics and change history in all the same ways. They also know that what they believe is the only truth. Having a GF who was Muslim and another who was Hindu was a surprising experience to re-hear all the same apologetics.

I have listened to all debates by Carrier, Ehrman, Hitchens, Sam Harris, Matt Dillahunty, Josh Bowen, Fransesca Stravopolou and the fundamentalists they debated with. I am familiar with Mike Licona, Gary Habermas, C.S. Lewis, W.L. Craig, Lee Strobel and others. It's all debunked and shown to be psuedo-science. But I listen.

I also listen to Islamic apologists and philosophers, particulary those who Firas Zahabi on youtube mentions as the best or his favorite. I also study Hindu, Advita Vendanta theology and apologetics

I do not believe you have studied any historicity related to Biblical studies. So that question is really aimed at yourself.

Ehrman, Carrier and Lataster are known for Jesus studies
Purvoe specialized on Acts
Goodacre - the Synoptic Problem
Pagels - the Gnostic Gospels
Thompson - Moses and the Patriarchs
Fransesca Stravopolou - Hebrew OT studies
Mary Boyce - Persian religion
E.P. Sanders - NT studies and Greek Hellenistic traits used in Christianity
there are several other scholars who specialize in Hellenism and it's spread into religions around 300 B.C - 100 A.D. Petra Pakken for one
Jeffrey Burton Russell -heaven

Ehrman and Carrier also have blogs with writings.

I'm sorry, peer-reviewed by whom? Which paper? Source?

The Apologetic Use of Transfiguration in 2 Peter, Jerome Neyrey, Catholic Biblical Quarterly -
The Catholic Biblical Quarterly is a refereed peer-reviewed theology journal published by the Catholic Biblical Association of America in January, April, July, and October. It was established in 1939 and its circulation in 2010 was over 3,800.

Achtemeier, Paul. Peter 1 Hermeneia. Lexington Books/Fortress Academic

Stanton, Graham (2003), Eerdmans Commentary of the Bible, Wm.B. Eerdmans.

Williams, Travis B. (1 November 2012), Persecution in 1 Peter: Differentiating and Contextualizing Early Christian Suffering
`

New Testament scholar Graham Stanton rejects Petrine authorship

"Most scholars today conclude that Saint Peter was not the author of the two epistles that are attributed to him and that they were written by two different authors"
source ofd this statement:

1. Moyise, Steve (9 December 2004). The Old Testament in the New. A&C Black. p. 116. ISBN 978-0-567-08199-5.
2. ^ Stephen L. Harris (1992). Understanding the Bible. Mayfield. p. 388. ISBN 978-1-55934-083-0. Most scholars believe that 1 Peter is pseudonymous (written anonymously in the name of a well-known figure) and was produced during postapostolic times.
3. ^ Stephen L. Harris (1980). Understanding the Bible: a reader's guide and reference. Mayfield Pub. Co. p. 295. ISBN 978-0-87484-472-6. Virtually no authorities defend the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter, which is believed to have been written by an anonymous churchman in Rome about 150 C.E.
4. Dale Martin 2009 (lecture). "24. Apocalyptic and Accommodation" on YouTube. Yale University. Accessed 22 July 2013. Lecture 24 (transcript)

I also gave you the opinion on Peter 1/2 of Dr Richard carrier, taken directly from his monograph on Jesus historicity. Peer-reviewed , Sheffield Phoenix Press.

 

[joelr]

Let's start here.... source?

My mistake it's actually "according to" which in Greek at that time was an unusual naming structure but generally meant" as told to me by". It's showing the author isn't the witness.

Carrier writes about it but he explains it here at 30:20

The Gospels are considered anonymous by all historians. Some fundamentalists obviously won't have it. They also say the Earth is 5000 years old.



"The four canonical gospels were probably written between AD 66 and 110.[5][6][7] All four were anonymous (with the modern names added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission.[8] Mark was the first to be written, using a variety of sources.[9][10] The authors of Matthew and Luke both independently used Mark for their narrative of Jesus's career, supplementing it with a collection of sayings called the Q source and additional material unique to each."

• Reddish, Mitchell (2011). An Introduction to The Gospels. Abingdon Press. ISBN 978-1426750083.

 

[joelr]

Just to be clear any post written by a scolar is a good source worthy of readign it and worthy of consideration, is that what you are saying?

So people like William Lane Creig, Gary Habermas, Mickael Licona, Tim Mcgrew etc are all scholars that have published in profetional journals and have relevant credentials …… do you accept them as source?

They do not have relevant credentials. They are NT scholars/theologins. They do not do work in history. They have studied the theology and apologetics. Nothing that would contradict any of the information. Most of those scholars have signed a Statement of Faith that they will never speak against any of the Church doctrines. Licona got himself fired for suggesting the zombie saits who rose during the crucifixion were metaphorical.

Habermas got caught misrepresenting scholarship with your last reference. He redacted the paper. They will not print non-bias information. They will only use apologetics and false historical data.

 

[joelr]

Why do you maintain this attitude ? why cant you simply point to a specific mistake? You do this all the time, you accuse people for being wrong and for lying, but when ask to quote the specific lie you always refuse to quote a specific example.

WLC? OK:


debating tactics - William Lane Craig
WLC dirty tricks - Does William Lane Craig use dirty tricks in his debates? If so, what are they? - Quora
WLC lies - A skeptic's guide to the Galaxy: William Lane Craig is a deceitful liar
WLC hypocrite and charlton - William Lane Craig is a hypocrite and a charlatan
was WLC lying - Was William Lane Craig lying for Jesus?
WLC misleads listeners - William Lane Craig's latest attack on me
WLC lies to Strobel - The Case for Christ: The Movie! • Richard Carrier
WLC lies on gospel contradictions - The Case for Christ: The Movie! • Richard Carrier
WLC arguments full pf holes - Craig's website response re our debate
WLC lies with math debating Krauss - Lawrence Krauss vs. William Lane Craig | ScienceBlogs
WLC misrepresents Pinker - Did William Lane Craig misrepresent Steven Pinker?
WLC lies in paper, exposed in review - Craig vs. Law on the Argument from Contamination • Richard Carrier
WLC lies in article and onstage - No, Mr. Christian, A.N. Sherwin-White Didn't Say That. And Even What He Did Say Was Wrong. • Richard Carrier
WLC article lies debunked - Merry Christmas, God Is Still a Delusion • Richard Carrier
WLC lies anout Hume, baysien probabilities - Crank Bayesianism: William Lane Craig Edition • Richard Carrier



Basic Blunders from the Word “Go”
The first thing wrong with his reply is that though Craig knows Law’s article exists in a philosophy journal, he doesn’t address the exact form of the argument found there, or any of the discussion of it there. Straw man. Right out of the gate. Readers will be misled into thinking Craig is responding to the version of the argument that passed (and thus satisfied) formal peer review. He is not.

Second, instead of respectfully just explaining Law’s actual position (Law is a historicity agnostic, not a historicity denier), Craig loads in a bunch of material quoting his exchange with Law in a debate, I can only fathom in some attempt to make Law look confused, although it really just makes Craig look disingenuous. Ultimately, it just wastes our time with unnecessary verbiage we could have not bothered with. Law is a historicity agnostic. Craig should just say that and move on.

Third, Craig jaw-droppingly says this:

When I first encountered this article in my debate preparation, my first thought was that only a philosophy journal would publish such a piece! This article would never have made it past the peer-review process for a journal of New Testament or historical studies.

Wait. Did that just happen? Did I just see William Lane Craig diss the whole peer review process of all philosophy journals? William Lane Craig, a guy widely published in philosophy journals and proudly citing his articles in them whenever he can? Who even goes out of his way to emphasize that these philosophy journals he’s published in are peer reviewed? Is that what just happened here? Why, yes. Yes, it is.

I eagerly await Craig’s announcement that all his articles published in philosophy journals “would never have made it past the peer-review process for a journal of New Testament or historical studies” (or cosmological science, the subject of many of his articles in the very same journal: Faith & Philosophy) and should therefore be dismissed as unreliable garbage. Wouldn’t that be the day.

Let’s pretend Craig didn’t just declare the peer review quality of philosophy journals (and thus half his own life’s work) to be worthless (even the journal he himself has published a dozen articles in). Law’s argument is an argument in inductive logic and epistemology, within the general umbrella of philosophy of history. It barely even belongs in “a journal of New Testament or historical studies” and most would likely tell him it’s on a subject they don’t cover. By contrast, Law’s article certainly belongs in a journal dealing with “faith and philosophy.”

Apart from all this being funny, I mention it because for Craig to actually eat his own foot with this inane argument is evincing a sad decline in his ability to argue well. We’re eleven paragraphs into his rebuttal of Law, and we have yet to encounter a single relevant argument against Law’s article.

 

[joelr]

@Subduction Zone


see
This essay examines the contention that Joseph of Arimathaea buried Jesus—in light of what one can know from Greco-Roman culture about the disposal of the bodies of crucified individuals. A survey of the statutes governing the burial of criminals and governing the prosecution of those accused of seditious activity indicates that provincial officials had a choice when confronted with the need to dispose of the bodies of the condemned. Greco-Roman texts show that in certain cases the bodies of the crucified were left to decompose in place. In other cases, the crucified bodies were buried.
Crucifixion and Burial* | New Testament Studies | Cambridge Core


and this article describes 2 expmples of people who where crusified and burrried
Died Like Jesus? Rare Remains Suggest Man Was Crucified 2,000 Years Ago


So is this information good enough to convince that Maybe Bart was wrong? maybe a burial after crusifixtion is not as rare as Bart seems to suggest.

Is this information good enough to convince you that maybe you were wrong in your denial of the burial story?

Article by PhD using current scholarship on why Mark invented the Empty tomb:

Why Did Mark Invent an Empty Tomb? • Richard Carrier

 

[joelr]

Sean Caroll used fancy words and sounded smart , but in reality he didn’t refuted any claim made by WLC, I challenge you to give an example of an actual claim that was refuted.

He debunked every single point. Here he debunks the fine tuning argument.

None of the cosmological arguments mean a Jewish version of a Greek/Persian savior demigod is real or a National God from one nation (who seems to enjoy telling his followers old stories from Mesopotamia?) who is written about in the same way every God was for thousands of years? 2 thousand years prior Innana was written about the same way.

 

[joelr]

Well I see at least 3 problems

0. Pagan myhts are far from analogous or even similar to what the gospels describe //

The Relationship between Hellenistic Mystery Religions and Early Christianity:

A Case Study using Baptism and Eucharist

Jennifer Uzzell
February 2009

Dying/rising demigods

In Pagan Hellenistic and Near Eastern thought, the motif of a “Dying and Rising God” existed for millennia before Christ and there had been stories of divine beings questing into the underworld and returning transformed in some way.

An interesting discussion on the importance of the Dying and Rising God motif and of its place within both Christianity and the Mysteries can be found in J.Z.Smith’s Drudgery Divine. In this he argues that the similarities and differences between the two religions are analogical rather than genealogical and that they are the result of a general movement in the 3rd and 4th centuries CE from “locative” to “utopian” religion which affected Christianity and the Pagan religions alike.


The idea of the outpouring of blood leading to salvation seems to be present also in Mithraism with the myth of the slaying of a primal bull.

-The idea that a human could become one with God and share in his “risen” life is even more inconceivable. It is difficult to see how these ideas in particular could have entered the mind set of early Christians had they not, at the very least, been drawing on the ideas and symbols of the Pagan religions around them. The ignoble death of Jesus, executed as a common criminal, was a source of acute embarrassment to early Christianity which Celsus is quick to exploit.

Were he a god he should not have died, if only in order to convince others for good and all that he was no liar; but die he did-not only that but dies a death that can hardly be accounted an example to good men.

-It is interesting that the term which Paul uses to describe the sufferings of Christ, παθηματα, is also that which, according to Firmicus Maternus, was used in the rites of Osiris to describe the suffering of that deity which also leads to salvation, “Be of good cheer, neophytes, seeing that the god is saved, for we also, after our toils, shall find salvation. "


Early apologists knew Jesus was just like all the other saviors and blamed Satan on going back in time to change the stories and fool Christians. If this doesn't tell you that the whole thing is copied then you are just not ready for that.


Early apologists admited similarities and blamed them on Satan.

Even allowing for these caveats, it is clear that substantial ideological and ritual similarities did exist. In fact they were sufficiently obvious to the early Christian apologists that they felt obliged to offer some explanation for them, particularly since, to their embarrassment, it was clear that the Mystery rituals predated their own. The most common explanation, offered by many Christian apologists including Firmicus Maternus, Tertullian and Justin Martyr, was that demons had deliberately prefigured Christian sacraments in order to lead people astray. This explanation has sufficed for Christians over countless centuries, and indeed scholastic bias towards the assumed uniqueness, primacy and superiority of Christianity is one of the major methodological pitfalls encountered by those engaged in the comparative study of Christianity and the Mysteries. Many Christian scholars have been so certain that Christianity alone, of all the world’s religions, is an original and unique revelation that at times it seems that they might almost prefer the “demonic intervention” explanation to the unthinkable possibility that Christianity was influenced by its philosophical and theological environs. This paper, however, will seek to explore and quantify the similarities and differences and to offer a more prosaic explanation for them as far as it is possible to do so at such a remove and in the light of the methodological difficulties discussed above.



-It is interesting that Celsus refers to Christianity and the “other mysteries”. Clearly he regards Christianity as a Mystery religion of a particularly low and degenerate sort. Even Augustine is forced to admit that Christians are not always morally distinguishable from the Pagans around them and Tertullian warns Christians that in matters of sexual conduct in particular, there are “heathens who may sit in judgement on you.” Julian is also deeply suspicious of Christian baptism which he understands as a licence to repeated immoral behaviour with confession and repentance as an “easy way out”.

 

[rational experiences]

Basic human advice.

O earth the planet owning a heavens that was cold clear was attacked by the sun blast.

It was explained in human memory as a O body mass cooling like planets were. Larger. And all bodies exploded.

As outside seal mass pressure space kept heat inside of cooling.

Planets formed volcanic eruptions.

Suns blasted it's mass outwards.

Earth was changed. It inherited an alight burning heavens.

Hence body mass gas of earth ended naturally. Cold. Clear. Not burning gas.

Mass cooled sealed.

Exact.

So there isn't any Jesus theory relating to natural earth actually.

It belongs only to a human machine experience.

 

[leroy]

Those do not help you. Your first article is not readable. If you had studied this topic you would know that crucifixion was not just done by the Romans. The countries that they conquered tended to copy them. The Jews would crucify too at times. They would then still follow their burial laws. They would not have left bodies up to rot. Your first article is not readable.and by their laws, since it was a treasonous crime, would have left him up. If you want to claim that it was a Jewish crucifixion then you could claim that he was taken down, but that would be changing the story quite a bit.

Also, the "nail in the ankle bone" has been refuted. Would you like to see it?

Ok we have both tombs of crucified people and Greco roman texts that indicate that sometimes people where buried after the crucifixion, if you don’t count this as evidence then you are just being unreasonably too skeptic.

Even bart erman agreed that most scholars disagree with him.

Your first article is not readable.

reed the abstracts, reed articles that use that article as a source............ you shoundt ignore the evidnece just because you can´t reed it.............. many of the primary sources in your sources not readble ether, but I dont use that as an excuse to ignore your sources.

Also, the "nail in the ankle bone" has been refuted. Would you like to see it?

Yes

 

[leroy]

No, he used the science that WLC did not understand. Who is going to understand physics better, an expert in the field or someone that probably never got past high school physics if he got that far? To understand the refutation you would need more than high school physics. I did not see any physicists calling out Sean Carroll.

Nobody is denying that Sean is an expert , just saying that he didn't refuted any of WLC claims .


Feel free to prove me wrong ,

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok we have both tombs of crucified people and Greco roman texts that indicate that sometimes people where buried after the crucifixion, if you don’t count this as evidence then you are just being unreasonably too skeptic.

Even bart erman agreed that most scholars disagree with him.

No, you have not shown that you have tombs when it comes to Roman crucifixion. It is easy to show tombs for Jewish crucifixion. But this was not a Jewish crucifixion. You are trying to lump all crucifixion together. That is an error on your part.

And where did Ehrman say that most scholars disagreed with him?

reed the abstracts, reed articles that use that article as a source............ you shoundt ignore the evidnece just because you can´t reed it.............. many of the primary sources in your sources not readble ether, but I dont use that as an excuse to ignore your sources.

The abstract is not enough. It does not tell you what crimes resulted in even a possibility of a tomb. Or if they were differentiating between Roman crucifixion and crucifixion by others.

Yes

I will see if I can find it for you today. Later when I am on my desktop.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nobody is denying that Sean is an expert , just saying that he didn't refuted any of WLC claims .


Feel free to prove me wrong ,

I doubt if you would understand it. If you watched their debate and did not understand it then do you seriously think that posting it again for you would do any good?

 

[Subduction Zone]

They do not have relevant credentials. They are NT scholars/theologins. They do not do work in history. They have studied the theology and apologetics. Nothing that would contradict any of the information. Most of those scholars have signed a Statement of Faith that they will never speak against any of the Church doctrines. Licona got himself fired for suggesting the zombie saits who rose during the crucifixion were metaphorical.

Habermas got caught misrepresenting scholarship with your last reference. He redacted the paper. They will not print non-bias information. They will only use apologetics and false historical data.

To be an apologist one has to be willing to lie for Jesus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is where Sean Carroll hands WLC his donkey when it comes to the fine tuning argument:

 

[Kenny]

Why do the eyewitnesses not only tell stories that they weren’t there for but also wrote them like they had a tv tropes list and tried to check off as many as they could? I wouldn’t expect fancy literary techniques that were probably lazy back then too. I would expect more realistic writing. There is a difference between what a PhD in literature would write and a kid too innocent to say anything but what they thought unfiltered.

I'm not sure how to address this because we weren't the writers and we can't ask them they why's and the how's.

How does one define "realistic"? Realistic for someone in the throws of starvation in Ethiopia may see "poor" in the US as unrealistic.

Can you be a little more specific?

 

[Kenny]

We can compare your handwriting. Try that with biblical authors.

I'm not sure. Letters were copied to send and share, they weren't necessarily originals.

 

[Kenny]

Did they meet the authors?

Context please... did who meet the authors. Certainly today's scholars haven't met the authors.

 

[Kenny]

Knowing what you believe doesn't make it true.

Then again... it doesn't make it false either

 

[1213]

...I hadn't heard about Ray Epps before now, but I don't see how his life proves that the insurrection was faked or why. I found this at Republicans spread the conspiracy theory that Trump supporter Ray Epps was an undercover FBI agent who incited the Capitol riot. Epps says it ruined his life. | Business Insider México | Noticias pensadas para ti , ...

Maybe he should not have been there inciting the insurrection in multiple videos. He ruined his own life by doing so, not very smart.

How does that support your view that the election was stolen or that the insurrection was something other than what it appeared to be - angry Trump supporters violently venting their anger? And if you had it wrong, would it matter to you to know that and get it right? That is, if it was Trump supporters after all as it appeared, would knowing that change anything for you?

For me the problem is that there are still people in prison for less than what Epps did. That is why I think it is fake insurrection and also like Stalinist show trial that has nothing to do with the truth and justice.

What other means account for manufactured and aimed mirrors being on the moon?

I would have to see them by my own eyes first.

 

[Kenny]

My mistake it's actually "according to" which in Greek at that time was an unusual naming structure but generally meant" as told to me by". It's showing the author isn't the witness.

Carrier writes about it but he explains it here at 30:20

The Gospels are considered anonymous by all historians. Some fundamentalists obviously won't have it. They also say the Earth is 5000 years old.



"The four canonical gospels were probably written between AD 66 and 110.[5][6][7] All four were anonymous (with the modern names added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission.[8] Mark was the first to be written, using a variety of sources.[9][10] The authors of Matthew and Luke both independently used Mark for their narrative of Jesus's career, supplementing it with a collection of sayings called the Q source and additional material unique to each."

• Reddish, Mitchell (2011). An Introduction to The Gospels. Abingdon Press. ISBN 978-1426750083.

so you have studied pretty much everyone who disagrees with my position. Like those who go to Ivy League schools, you graduate with what is placed in your heart.

As believers in the words of Jesus as he said, "From the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks"...

Likewise, what one meditates in, grows. In your case in that which is contrary to what was written.