• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

There is nothing in the world that you can show to confirm that this happened, much less the revivification of a man three days dead. These words don't do that. You believe them, but by faith, not demonstrable evidence. What you call facts are not facts to any empiricist or critical thinker.
You’ll have to read this again, and yes the resurrection of Jesus is a historical fact.
The Minimal Facts of the Resurrection
The Bible is the best record of this fact. Now you can choose to belief these facts for yourself or not. I can say I’m standing on a firm foundation of truth,
facts and evidence. When I look at the skeptic side of unbelief and doubt I have to ask myself is this a solid foundation or sinking sand, I think it’s sinking sand and a decision that skeptics will regret in the end.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Nor the biblical God who is revealed as they Creator of heaven and earth.

No her book is on her specialty, the OT and is about body parts of Yahweh mentioned in the original Hebrew. The English translations clean them up a bit but the original Hebrew is clearly talking about Yahweh having a human type of body. This was common among all stories of Gods in that time.
Yahweh isn't revealed as creator of anything? Ancient Israelite myths made up a God called Yahweh, paired him with a Canaanite Goddess Ashera and borrowed the Mesopotamian creation stories and made 2 stories of creation by this new God Yahweh. But the myth is a re-working of both Mesopotamian creation myths. The flood narrative is also a re-working of the Mesopotamian Epic of Gilamesh. At times the author copied it verbatim.

So no, that wouldn't count as being "revealed" as creating anything. If so then every Bronze age creation myth (there are hundreds) is a God "revealing" he was the true creator.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Facts are facts, believe them, deny them or accept them:
Twelve Undeniable Facts that Prove the Resurrection

Dr. Gary Habermas’s is not a historian. He's a known theologian and apologist who wrote an article about how 75% of scholars accept the empty tomb and was caught lying about data. He since retraced the claim, there is a recent thread about this. Here he sources ZERO historians, as usual. Just theologians who assume the myths are true.
1. Jesus Died by Crucifixion
Written about in Mark, a mythical narrative about a Greek savior demigod.

2. Jesus Was Buried in a Tomb
As the other thread points out this is not supported as historical. Bart Ehrman, a historian, studies Roman documents and found after crucifixon people were left on the cross.

" Concerned that someone might steal the body, the Jews requested a guard at the tomb (Matt. 27:64-66)."
The first Gospel Mark had no guard. When Matthew wrote the 2nd Gospel he is known to have copied Mark (see Synoptic Problem), 98% of the original Greek in Mark is verbatim in Matthew. There are many arguments that determine Matthew sourced Mark and added his take on the theology. But because people were saying "how do you know the body wasn't stolen" Matthew simply added a guard to the story. This is not history, it's fiction.

3. Jesus’s Death Caused the Disciples to Despair and
Uh, that's a "proof"? It's part of the story yes? It isn't a proof?????

4. Jesus’s Tomb Was Empty a Few Days Later
"This point is not as accepted by scholars as much as the other eleven."
It's not accepted at all by historians because this is a mythical narrative same as any dying/rising savior demigod.


5. The Disciples Had Experiences Which They Believed Were the Literal Appearances of the Risen Jesus

Yes, again, in the story this happened? In Lord of the Rings Gandolf comes back in a new form. That isn't proof he's real?

6. The Transformation of the Disciples

In mythology or any heroes journey characters transform. I can't even believe you entered this article as proof? Did you read it first?

7/8. same, quoting events from a fictional story


9. As A Result of Their Preaching, the Church was Born and Grew
Oddly enough most Jews did not believe any of this was true. Those that did had wildly different theologies. Jesus was only a spirit, Jesus was different than the OT God, and even stranger things.
If something actually happened there wouldn't be such massively diverse groups for an entire century. Gnosticism was at least 50% of Christianity in the 2nd century.
Elaine Pagels writes about it in Lost Gospels.

All the rest are just quotes of things that happened in the fictional narrative. Habermas claims "all scholars" accept these 4 main tenants. Yes, theologians and NT scholars. They start out assuming this stuff is actually true. Historians take an actual non-bias look. None of them consider this any more real than Greek, Roman or Hindu Gods. They are myths.


"
We have presented twelve undeniable facts to prove the resurrection occurred. And scholars are in near-unanimous agreement on these facts.
"

Cool, let's see what a PhD Biblical historian has to say about that?

When the question of the historicity of Jesus comes up in an honest professional context, we are not asking whether the Gospel Jesus existed. All non-fundamentalist scholars agree that that Jesus never did exist. Christian apologetics is pseudo-history. No different than defending Atlantis. Or Moroni. Or women descending from Adam’s rib.

No. We aren’t interested in that.

When it comes to Jesus, just as with anyone else, real history is about trying to figure out what, if anything, we can really know about the man depicted in the New Testament (his actual life and teachings), through untold layers of distortion and mythmaking; and what, if anything, we can know about his role in starting the Christian movement that spread after his death. Consequently, I will here disregard fundamentalists and apologists as having no honest part in this debate, any more than they do on evolution or cosmology or anything else they cannot be honest about even to themselves.

Dr Carrier
Historicity Big and Small: How Historians Try to Rescue Jesus • Richard Carrier





 

joelr

Well-Known Member
You’ll have to read this again, and yes the resurrection of Jesus is a historical fact.
The Minimal Facts of the Resurrection
The Bible is the best record of this fact. Now you can choose to belief these facts for yourself or not. I can say I’m standing on a firm foundation of truth,
facts and evidence. When I look at the skeptic side of unbelief and doubt I have to ask myself is this a solid foundation or sinking sand, I think it’s sinking sand and a decision that skeptics will regret in the end.

What you call "skeptic" is just non-bias historians and comparative religious studies presenting what they find. They also don't believe Muhammad received revelations from Gabrielle or Joe Smith received revelations from Moroni. Yet when it comes to your religion you expect people to completely disregard those standards and suddenly accept a bunch of obvious Greek/Persian/Jewish mythology?
It's ok to call Islams updates on Christianity as religious mythology but yours is different?
What you call "evidence" is a story written in fictive literary style and uses Jewish, Greek and Persian mythology? If you don't consider the Quran good evidence for Islam then the gospels are not good evidence for Christianity.

There are literally no historical facts that suggest the Gospel Jesus was real. Your "foundation of truth" is pure confirmation bias and claims.
Posting studies by Habermas doesn't help your case at all.

Three of the "minimal facts" are just claims from a story proven to be a fictional narrative.
  1. Jesus’ death due to crucifixion
  2. The disciples were convinced they had seen literal appearances of the risen Jesus
  3. The transformation of the disciples
The final fact is Pauls conversion. A man who claimed to get messages from ghost Jesus? You probably don't take Muhammads claim of revelations very serious? You probably don't take Joe Smiths claim of revelations serious? Or Prince Arjunas claim. of revelations from Krishna? Yet you think Paul gets a pass? No. Without evidence scholars do not take ridiculous claims like this serious. Nobody should.
As Historian Bart Ehrman will tell you nothing in the gospel narratives can be proven to be a fact. And most is definitely fiction.
 

samtonga43

Well-Known Member
Dr. Gary Habermas’s is not a historian. He's a known theologian and apologist who wrote an article about how 75% of scholars accept the empty tomb and was caught lying about data. He since retraced the claim, there is a recent thread about this. Here he sources ZERO historians, as usual. Just theologians who assume the myths are true.

Historicity Big and Small: How Historians Try to Rescue Jesus • Richard Carrier


Richard Carrier: A Fuller Reply to His Criticisms, Beliefs, and Claims about Jesus | The Bart Ehrman Blog

Richard Carrier? LOL!

Bart’ll put you right. ;)
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
I’ve been observing, reading the replies in the thread, and y’know, I would like to throw my hat into this ring.

To begin, I feel it necessary to state that the Stoic conception of God (or Zeus, Jupiter) is as the immanent Creative Force within the Universe (Logos, Logos spermatikos) who providentially orders the Universe. Indeed, for us Stoics, God is the Universe Itself, the Cosmos.

Having established this, I’m curious – and I invite atheists to make attempts – what would be your justification for disbelieving given the conception of God described above?

Atheists don't argue against deism. If you want to say Zeus sat on a mountain, created lightning and got a mortal pregnant and had a super strong son I would disagree. Or any God that gave revelations, laws, scripture to people and listens to people like a therapist and takes souls to an afterlife...that is what atheists don't see evidence for. If you rename God to the Cosmos, well it's already called the cosmos?
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
As if I've never seen random ad-hom against Carrier that is NEVER backed up with evidence? That is the go-to move for believers.
Please demonstrate where Carrier gives incorrect information.



Bart’ll put you right.
First, if you bother to watch this podcast Carrier goes through an Ehrman interview and exposes many fallacies he's been making.

Second, to be clear, Ehrman does not help a believers cause at all. Ehrman believes the Gospels are a fictional savior demigod narrative based on a human teacher. He does not believe the stories are any more real that tales about Osirus. I have read How Jesus Became God. He is an atheist.
Carrier is also a mythicist but neither believe any of those legends.
Now Carrier has made some good points about Ehrman on certain topics and Ehrman will not debate Carrier. But neither support the religion.

Why do you think Ehrman will put me right? What information do you think he has that I need?
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
You’ll have to read this again, and yes the resurrection of Jesus is a historical fact.

The Bible is the best record of this fact.
The gospels are actually the "best record". Which is a terrible source, besides being obvious fiction and that historians say - "Mainstream scholars agree the Gospels are mythologies, not histories, and that if anything in them is historical, it is difficult to impossible to ascertain what that may be. "

"Actual mainstream experts, by contrast, admit that the Nativity and Resurrection stories are legendary accretions, as are countless miracle accounts (such as Jesus walking on water, murdering thousands of pigs, glowing in the dark, withering a fig tree, raising the dead, and on and on); and, as I already noted, nearly everything Jesus is claimed to have said. The Gospels are myths. They are no more historically reliable than the labors of Hercules, the travails of Achilles, the travels of Apollonius, or Romulus suckling a she-wolf. And no true belief system can be based on treating myths as history."
Dr Carrier

Gospel - Wikipedia

" All four were anonymous (with the modern names added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses,
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

- The majority view among critical scholars is that the authors of Matthew and Luke have based their narratives on Mark's gospel, editing him to suit their own ends,

-and most scholars believe that the best solution to the problem is that Mark was the first gospel to be written and served as the source for the other two

-Mark is a counter-narrative to the myth of Imperial rule crafted by Vespasian.[71] In 1901 William Wrede demonstrated that Mark was not a simple historical account of the life of Jesus but a work of theology compiled by an author who was a creative artist.[72] There has been little interest in his sources until recently, but candidates include the Elijah-Elisha narrative in the Book of Kings and the Pauline letters, notably 1 Corinthians, and even Homer.[73]

Dr Carrier has several posts and links to papers demonstrating Mark is creating a fictional narrative using Pauline letters, Kings, Homer, Romulus and other fiction. He also uses fictive literary devices constantly. Jesus scores 18 out of 22 on the Rank Ragalin mythotype scale, as high as King Arthur. This is fiction and far from a reliable source.

Marks use of Paul's Epistles - Mark's Use of Paul's Epistles • Richard Carrier
 
Last edited:

Sundance

pursuing the Divine Beloved
Premium Member
Atheists don't argue against deism. If you want to say Zeus sat on a mountain, created lightning and got a mortal pregnant and had a super strong son I would disagree. Or any God that gave revelations, laws, scripture to people and listens to people like a therapist and takes souls to an afterlife...that is what atheists don't see evidence for. If you rename God to the Cosmos, well it's already called the cosmos?

Oh boy. I honestly don’t know where to begin with this. It’s 5 am, but I’ll do my best.

The Stoics were not deists. You’re thinking of Epicureans. Stoics were pantheists. Zeus (God), for them, was equivalent to the cosmos. Can you argue against the existence of the cosmos? No. No one in their right mind can possibly justify saying that the Universe does not have independent reality.

Additionally, we are philosophers. I know I kind of explained this before, but all right. Philosophers did not approach the Gods and arrive at understanding the world through the stories of mythology. They made use of their intellect in uncovering knowledge of these things.


As for this little teeny tidbit,

“Or any God that gave revelations, laws, scripture to people and listens to people like a therapist and takes souls to an afterlife...”

Yeeeeaaahhh Stoics didn’t conceive of these things, at least in the manner you present. They were Pagans (I don’t like this word, but I’ll roll with it). In the ancient world, Pagans did indeed have
oracles, divine injunctions given through methods of divination or moral teachers who were considered divine, and various cults dedicated to offering the individual a pleasant afterlife, but I’m gonna take a stab in the dark and assume none of this is what you have in mind. Also, again, none of these practices are Stoic-specific.


To summarize:

NONE OF THESE CRITICISMS APPLY TO THE STOIC CONCEPTION OF GOD.
 
Last edited:

joelr

Well-Known Member
You’ll have to read this again, and yes the resurrection of Jesus is a historical fact.
The Minimal Facts of the Resurrection
.
Fact 1: Jesus died by crucifixion. Habermas points to the gospels, which are first-century writings that all report a crucifixion. From outside the Bible, he gives Lucian, Mara Bar Serapion, and the Talmud, but these all appear to be second-century writings and don’t add a lot. An earlier non-Christian source is Josephus, but Josephus’s two references to Jesus appear to have been added or modified by later scribes (more here).

Habermas concludes, prematurely, “Clearly, Jesus’ death by crucifixion is a historical fact supported by considerable evidence.” The story does gradually became widespread, though this was long after the time of Jesus. That doesn’t make it “historical fact.”
Fact 2: The disciples believed that Jesus rose and appeared to them. The disciples went from cowards hiding from the authorities to bold proclaimers of the gospels, even to the point of martyrdom.

Yes, that’s what the story says, but let’s be skeptical about stories. We don’t take at face value the story about Merlin being a shape-shifting wizard. We don’t even unskeptically take the very un-supernatural claim that Arthur was king of England. Why then take elements of the supernatural Jesus story as history, even the natural ones?

In the second place, the “Who would die for a lie?” argument (that the disciples’ deaths is strong evidence) also fails. In brief, the historical evidence for apostles’ martyrdom is weak (more here).

Finally, the claim that the gospels document eyewitness history is also suspect when we don’t even know who wrote them (more here).

The gospel mentions emboldened disciples, but until we have good evidence otherwise, this is a story rather than history. Both “But they were eyewitnesses!” and “But they died for their faith!” are poorly evidenced claims.
Fact 3: The church persecutor Paul was suddenly changed: Paul was an enemy of the church but became a persuasive theologian and prolific church builder. His belief came from first-hand experience, and his martyrdom was documented by six sources.

But what of this could only be explained by an actual resurrection? So Paul gets religion and spreads the word—this isn’t surprising and happens in our own day. The sources we have are Paul’s own writings, Acts, and the writings of church fathers many decades later, all of which we must be skeptical of.

Was Paul knocked to the ground with a vision of Jesus? Maybe it was a complete fabrication. Maybe he just imagined it. Maybe the story grew in his mind until he wrote it down years later. The natural explanations are much more plausible than the supernatural one.

Fact 4: James the brother of Jesus was changed. Habermas takes us on a scavenger hunt through the Bible to pick up various pieces to create a life story for James that supports his preconception.

  • James and the rest of Jesus’s family weren’t believers. In fact, they thought he was crazy (Mark 3:21).
  • Next, James saw Jesus after his resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:7).
  • Then James became a leader in the Jerusalem church (Acts 15—a vague reference).
  • Finally, James died as a martyr. Habermas must go outside the Bible to Josephus and Eusebius for this factoid. Their stories being contradictory points to the martyrdom of James as legend.
The James story varies depending on what pieces you pick up. Mark makes clear that the family of Jesus didn’t believe and never says that they changed their minds. We see this in John as well, where Jesus commanded “the disciple whom he loved” to take care of his mother after he died (John 19:26–7). Why would Jesus do this if his brother James was available? Both of these gospels were written long after the death of James. They never mentioned James as part of the inner circle, and perhaps that was because he wasn’t.

And what does “James, the Lord’s brother” (Galatians 1:19) mean? That James was the biological brother of Jesus or simply that James was one of the Christian brethren, as in “brothers and sisters loved by God” (1 Thessalonians 1:4)?

The basic facts of James’s life are tentative enough. The story can’t support the additional claim that he saw the risen Jesus.
Fact 5: The tomb was empty.
Debunked in a recent thread. Habermas lied about the 75%. But the other thing is -
  • Paul actually says Jesus rose in a different body than he died in. So producing the corpse that Jesus left behind would not have impacted Christian preaching at all.
 
Last edited:

Sheldon

Veteran Member
People who don't understand the Christian view of reality should not argue against it. You just end up showing your ignorance.

I could say the same for Christians whose ignorance of their beliefs is palpable, like not knowing the a basic fact like the gospels names being fictional for example. I have seen enough theists make claims to knowledge, and then fail to offer anything beyond subjective anecdote and hyperbole, so don't be silly, one can only challenge what is presented. You can't blame those challenging your beliefs for your inability to offer cogent arguments and explanations for those beliefs. Like all superstitions, it has at its core vague appeals to supernatural magic and mystery after all. If you can explain how magic works, in a testable falsifiable way, then get on with it, I'm sure we will all be waiting for you to enthral us.

By all means explain what you think any non Christian is ignorant of? Given the number of Christians who don't even have a basic knowledge of the origins of the gospels, calling atheists ignorant here is pretty ironic, and I suspect just another churlish reaction to them not sharing your beliefs.
 
Last edited:

joelr

Well-Known Member
Oh boy. I honestly don’t know where to begin with this. It’s 5 am, but I’ll do my best.

The Stoics were not deists. You’re thinking of Epicureans. Stoics were pantheists. Zeus (God), for them, was equivalent to the cosmos. Can you argue against the existence of the cosmos? No. No one in their right mind can possibly justify saying that the Universe does not have independent reality.

Additionally, we are philosophers. I know I kind of explained this before, but all right. Philosophers did not approach the Gods and arrive at understanding the world through the stories of mythology. They made use of their intellect in uncovering knowledge of these things.


As for this little teeny tidbit,

“Or any God that gave revelations, laws, scripture to people and listens to people like a therapist and takes souls to an afterlife...”

Yeeeeaaahhh Stoics didn’t conceive of these things, at least in the manner you present. They were Pagans (I don’t like this word, but I’ll roll with it). In the ancient world, Pagans did indeed have
oracles, divine injunctions given through methods of divination or moral teachers who were considered divine, and various cults dedicated to offering the individual a pleasant afterlife, but I’m gonna take a stab in the dark and assume none of this is what you have in mind. Also, again, none of these practices are Stoic-specific.


To summarize:

NONE OF THESE CRITICISMS APPLY TO THE STOIC CONCEPTION OF GOD.

That's what I meant, if you are not arguing theism it isn't something atheists are going to try to argue against. I don't believe in any pantheism because if it's the cosmos I'll just call it the cosmos, I don't see the need to say that it is God and it doesn't need to be a consciousness entity to be a force of creation. But there isn't any argument against things like deism or pantheism. The idea of a soul that goes to an afterlife (Greek Hellenism) has a lack of evidence so I would argue against that but that is something different.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
What you don’t realize or understand is that in the Scripture God only recognizes the Body of Christ, One Church. Any Church that doesn’t submit to the Bible as their authority no matter what they call themselves are just the apostate church and not part of the Body of Christ. Paul addressed this in Corinthian Church.
“Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”
‭‭I Corinthians‬ ‭1:10-13‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

What you seem unable to grasp is that the other 44999 sects deny yours, and use the same claims to do it. Just repeating this hyperbole fails to address the fact, that your methodology for arriving at your beliefs is just as subjective as the other 44999 sects, and this is just one religion. Humans have imagined countless religions and deities.
 

Firelight

Inactive member
Nope, not angry. You made a claim and I'm asking for evidence. You made a claim of communication with a supernatural entity. A claim that you have communication, pretty big claim. Now you sound upset that you were called out. Actually I'm the one asking for evidence? You said it was beyond your intelligence, great! I'll ask again, please ask about how to quantize gravity!

You certainly come off as angry. It seems you’re angry because you’re not getting what you want, so you keep spewing the bs and repeating yourself over and over in hopes it will get you what you want. It won’t. If you don’t understand spirituality and know what I’ve been telling you, then too bad.

Of course if I was claiming to have communication with a deity who was giving me answers beyond my intelligence you wouldn't think to ask about the information? Or have me ask some questions for you? Not really an unreasonable response (unlike yours?).

If I did ask you to ask some questions for me and you responded by saying you don’t ask those types of questions, I would be respectful, say OK, and leave you alone. I wouldn’t spout out lectures, have a tantrum, and demand you comply with my request.

This is all misdirection. You in fact did choose the only answer that doesn't demonstrate you have communicated with a deity?

Then why do you continue to demand that I communicate with a deity for you?

Attempting to drag down my response isn't getting you anywhere.

I am not trying to get anywhere!

There also is clear open mindedness here.

Bull.

You made a claim and now I'm asking you to follow up and provide evidence.

I told you I don’t ask those types of questions. How many times must I tell you? This is the last time, regardless.

In no real debate is that ever a foul attitude. Maybe in a Christian forum where no one questions ideas and claims you can make these claims. Not in a real debate, you need evidence.
You seem to think open-mindedness is being gullible? If I claim to be talking to Grey aliens and they give me information over my intelligence level IN NO WAY is it ANY of the things you claim to simply ask for evidence.
Provide evidence or at the least expect your claims to be called out.
All the nonsense you are accusing me of you are doing in this response?

I never mentioned the word gullible. I don’t have to provide anything for you. All responses are voluntary, no matter what forum you’re on. I gave you the only explanations and answers about “evidence” that you’re going to get from me. Continuing your demands is not going to change that.

I know faith is just a concept given to all religious people from all religions because there is no actual evidence. I know prayer actually do not work. Studies have been done but it isn't hard to see it's all confirmation bias. Christians mortality rates from terminal disease is no different than any other religious or non-religious.

Are mortality rates supposed to be different? No. Everyone will die of something. Faith and prayer won’t change that.

So either your God doesn't answer prayers regarding life or death matters or no deity is answering prayers. The studies also demonstrated the same.

So, just because we all die, that means God never answers a prayer? That’s complete BS, not to mention a cop-out. Just because someone fails get what they asked for or demanded from God, doesn’t mean that he doesn’t exist or doesn’t answer prayers. That is a spoiled brat concept.

However you claimed you can receive information beyond your intelligence. Which is useless anecdotal stories. If one cannot use this as evidence it has no point in a discussion. Also how do you know? If you really have communication, instead of freaking out why not ask for the information? If you use anecdotal evidence, I'm going to ask for proof.

Would you rather that I LIE to you, instead of telling you the TRUTH? It seems that you would rather believe in psychics or anyone who would tell you what you want to hear. I won’t give into your demands, therefore you think my experiences can’t be real. You are so quick to judge and make irrational conclusions.

The idea that some people get actual answers, as if it's a level is complete BS.

A level? Another one of your interpretations. You make everything so complicated and it’s really very simple.

Until someone provides some simple evidence those are just ghost stories.

To you they are. You can keep your judgments, they are of no value to me.
 
What you seem unable to grasp is that the other 44999 sects deny yours, and use the same claims to do it. Just repeating this hyperbole fails to address the fact, that your methodology for arriving at your beliefs is just as subjective as the other 44999 sects, and this is just one religion. Humans have imagined countless religions and deities.
It’s not hyperbole it’s what the Bible says. If a church disagrees with what God says in Scripture they can say they’re Christian all day long but that doesn’t make it so. Not sure what’s so difficult to understand here. I thought you understood the Bible? apparently not.
 
Fact 5: The tomb was empty.
Debunked in a recent thread. Habermas lied about the 75%. But the other thing is -
  • Paul actually says Jesus rose in a different body than he died in. So producing the corpse that Jesus left behind would not have impacted Christian preaching at all.
This shows how little you understand what happened when Jesus rose, yes He was glorified after He rose from the dead and His earthly body did not see corruption, according to the Scriptures.
““Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know— Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it. For David says concerning Him: ‘I foresaw the Lord always before my face, For He is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken. Therefore my heart rejoiced, and my tongue was glad; Moreover my flesh also will rest in hope. For You will not leave my soul in Hades, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption. You have made known to me the ways of life; You will make me full of joy in Your presence.’ “Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear. “For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.” ’ “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.””
‭‭Acts‬ ‭2:22-39‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

I would say you’re on quicksand my friend
 
@joelr
This is the way Jesus said to pray, it’s an outline of prayer. Do you realize when asking God specifically to do something that sometimes the answer is no or wait? You seem to equate God like a Genie or something.

“In this manner, therefore, pray: Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done On earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, As we forgive our debtors. And do not lead us into temptation, But deliver us from the evil one. For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen. “For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭6:9-15‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

Completely agree with @Firelight and the comments to you, usually I rebuke that spirit that comes across in your comments in the name of Jesus.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Here's an excerpt from your link, the second of ten alleged facts:
  • Jesus Was Buried in a Tomb Joseph of Arimathea put Jesus’s body in his new tomb and rolled a large stone across the entrance (Matt. 27:57-61; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53-54; John 19:39-42). Concerned that someone might steal the body, the Jews requested a guard at the tomb (Matt. 27:64-66). Christ’s body remained there until Sunday morning.
There is nothing in the world that you can show to confirm that this happened, much less the revivification of a man three days dead. These words don't do that. You believe them, but by faith, not demonstrable evidence. What you call facts are not facts to any empiricist or critical thinker.

You’ll have to read this again, and yes the resurrection of Jesus is a historical fact. The Minimal Facts of the Resurrection

I just rebutted it. I told you that the words your site offered as evidence of Jesus being buried in a tomb are only evidence that those words were written, not that they happened as written. People make things up when motivated to do so.

Unless you can show me an error in the rebuttal - that words reporting an event establish that it occurred - the issue has been resolved.

What's a fact to you? Does it include anything you have chosen to believe by faith? To me, a fact is a sentence or paragraph that demonstrably maps onto reality. If I say that there are apples in the refrigerator (the sentence), and one can open the refrigerator and find apples (the demonstrable mapping of the words onto reality), then the statement is a fact. If your definition allows for things that cannot be shown, then what you call facts aren't considered correct by the empiricist.

The Bible is the best record of this fact. Now you can choose to belief these facts for yourself or not.

OK then. So you ARE using a different definition of fact than I do. Notice mine again. Unlike with what you are calling fact, there is no choice about believing whether the apple is in the refrigerator when one opens the door and grabs an apple from it. What you are describing - things one chooses to believe - are what I call matters of faith.

I can say I’m standing on a firm foundation of truth, facts and evidence.

And I would say that your foundation is a zealous belief, which has apparently been sufficient for your purposes. I wouldn't call it firm, just safe from falsification.

When I look at the skeptic side of unbelief and doubt I have to ask myself is this a solid foundation or sinking sand

Do you have an answer yet? You've had an opportunity to read the words of dozens of us. My foundation is reason applied to evidence. Everything I believe has passed that test - either being evidently and demonstrably true like the apple, or sound conclusions derived from such evidence using valid reasoning. Both of those methods reliably produce correct ideas, that is, ideas that can be confirmed to accurately map some aspect of reality. No firmer foundation for belief is possible. No more sound basis for mapping and navigating reality are available to humanity. And my experience in life living that way has been to my liking. What else can anybody hope for from a world view?
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You certainly come off as angry. It seems you’re angry because you’re not getting what you want, so you keep spewing the bs and repeating yourself over and over in hopes it will get you what you want. It won’t. If you don’t understand spirituality and know what I’ve been telling you, then too bad.

It looks like you're still trying this irrelevant canard. For starters, it is you that is angry. I already explained that to you, but you ran from it. Remember this: "There's more of your anger. Isn't there another way you could have written this if you weren't angry? I frequently challenge the posting habits and etiquette of other posters, but neve like this. Isn't that what I'm doing now? In fact, didn't I just tell you that, "Your comments are mostly angry BS," but without the anger?" Too angry to reply? Maybe it was a different emotion guiding you that time.

Look at the language you used above in the quote section: BS, spew and it's too bad. Take a breath when you feel like that. It's not good to post when emotional (or drunk). Wait for your anger to pass before posting. Your posts will sound more cool, collected, and dispassionate.

I say canard, because skeptics are used to wheeling out the "angry [or militant] atheist" nonsense from frustrated theists who give up on debate and deflect to personal attack, a rather base form of dissent, wouldn't you agree?

Here are some thoughts about that form of proselytizing:
  • "But I also have to quarrel with the very notion that a person's arguments can be dismissed because of anger. Smugly accusing someone of anger doesn't do anything to discount the content of the argument. I'd argue that people who see vile behavior in the name of religion and don't get angry are the ones who have something wrong with them." - Amanda Marcotte
  • "Atheists aren't angry because we're selfish, or bitter, or joyless. Atheists are angry because we have compassion. Atheists are angry because we have a sense of justice. Atheists are angry because we see millions of people being terribly harmed by religion, and our hearts go out to them, and we feel motivated to do something about it. Atheists aren't angry because there's something wrong with us. Atheists are angry because there's something right with us."- Greta Christina
  • "I've wondered, for awhile, why Christians think that accusing me of being angry at their religion is actually an argument against my objections. I mean, even if I were abnormally angry ... I have absolutely no rational reason I can come up with that makes that a good enough reason to think I'm wrong ... the reasoning often seems to be that, because I'm angry, my argument is flawed and I can be dismissed." - Peter Mosley
  • "Religious apologists complain bitterly that atheists and secularists are aggressive and hostile in their criticism of them. I always say: look, when you guys were in charge, you didn't argue with us, you just burnt us at the stake. Now what we're doing is, we're presenting you with some arguments and some challenging questions, and you complain." - A.C. Grayling
 
Top