Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Gary View Post
    Let me rephrase #8: Jesus of Nazareth was bodily resurrected from the dead and was seen alive again by over 500 people after his death.

    What number, 0-10, would you give for the strength of the evidence for this historical claim?
    Thank you. Could you please answer my other question?
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
    sigpic
    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

    Comment


    • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
      Thank you. Could you please answer my other question?
      I would be happy to after you answer mine.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
        Gary. You keep using analogies over and over instead of dealing with the actual case and the specifics of that case. If you're not well-read on the resurrection of Jesus (Which it's pretty easy to tell you're not), just say so. Until then, no more to the analogies. Any case is addressed by dealing with the case itself, like William and Dave are.
        You didn't answer the question, Nick.

        Our disagreement has never been about whether there is ANY evidence for the Resurrection. it has been about the STRENGHTH of the evidence. Hearsay and statements in anonymous books written decades after the alleged event IS evidence. I contend, however, that this is very weak evidence to make a historical claim of fact and you contend that it is very strong.

        I think that Abigail and CP have hit the nail on the head: The evidence for the Resurrection is not strong enough to convince the average, educated person of its historicity without the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Jesus wants disciples not just believers of evidence. Jesus made the evidence weak so that only those who truly seek him with a pure heart and open-mind will find him. He made the evidence weak to cause the wise and the arrogant to stumble over it due to their foolish pride.

        But you said Abigail, CP, and others are wrong. You say that the evidence is so strong that its overwhelming strength as an historical fact can be demonstrated without the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

        So if you are correct, then please back up your claim that most PhD historians, teaching in US public universities, believe that the historical evidence for the Resurrection is very strong, but they are unwilling to put it into university textbooks because they want to remain neutral on historical facts that involve religion.

        Comment


        • Gary. When did I base my case on the Gospels?

          You should learn a skill of Dave and William.

          It's called listening.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
            Gary. When did I base my case on the Gospels?

            You should learn a skill of Dave and William.

            It's called listening.
            You are still not answering the question. I think we all know that if you did have a source for your claim, you would have given it by now. Your statement that the reason why historians do not include the Resurrection of Jesus as an historical fact in US public university history text books is simply your opinion, isn't it?

            Comment


            • I did answer the question. Look back and you'll find it.

              Again, try listening.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                I did answer the question. Look back and you'll find it.

                Again, try listening.
                No you did not. You only said that your "evidence" was not dependent on the Gospels. That was not my point.

                I am saying that the reason that historians do not include the Resurrection in US public university history textbooks is because the evidence, ALL the evidence, every piece of evidence that you have given, and, any evidence that you have left out but other apologists have published in journals or online, is not sufficient to meet the standard of evidence required by PhD historians, teaching in US public universities, to include it as an historical fact in their public university history textbooks. Your claim is that these historians believe that the cumulative evidence, your evidence and that of other Christian apologists, is very strong (9/10) evidence but do not want to include it in their textbooks because it is a religious issue and they want to remain neutral on religious issues. I say you are making this up. It is only your opinion, not based on any evidence. Please answer this very specific question: Is your statement on this question based on a source that you can refer us to or is it simply our personal opinion?
                Last edited by Gary; 07-30-2015, 01:11 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                  No you did not. You only said that your "evidence" was not dependent on the Gospels. That was not my point.

                  I am saying that the reason that historians do not include the Resurrection in US public university history textbooks is because the evidence, ALL the evidence, every piece of evidence that you have given, and, any evidence that you have left out but other apologists have published in journals or online, is not sufficient to meet the standard of evidence required by PhD historians, teaching in US public universities, to include it as an historical fact in their public university history textbooks. Your claim is that they believe ALL of your evidence and the other Christian apologists' evidence as very strong evidence but do not want to include it in their textbooks because it is a religious issue and they want to remain neutral on religious issues. I say you are making this up. It is only your opinion, not based on any evidence. Please answer this very specific question: Is your statement on this question based on a source that you can refer us to or is it simply our personal opinion?
                  Yeah. I did. It's a claim that would be seen as an endorsement of religion. Maybe you read about the first amendment in high school?

                  Is my belief in the resurrection based on available material. Yes. NT scholars. Try reading them.

                  And again, my case is not dependent on the Gospels. You would know that if you had paid an ounce of attention.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                    Yeah. I did. It's a claim that would be seen as an endorsement of religion. Maybe you read about the first amendment in high school?

                    Is my belief in the resurrection based on available material. Yes. NT scholars. Try reading them.

                    And again, my case is not dependent on the Gospels. You would know that if you had paid an ounce of attention.
                    I think that we can all see that Nick is obfuscating.

                    Here is what I recommend: Let's do some research and see who is correct. Let's send a letter to 20 American public universities, addressed to the chairpersons of the History Dept. of those public universities, asking them to settle this issue. I will post my proposed letter below. If Nick has any suggestions for making the letter clearer, he can say so. Here is the proposed letter:

                    Dear Dr. __________,
                    History Dept. Chairperson,
                    State University
                    Anytown, USA

                    I and my friend, Nick, would like to ask your assistance is settling our debate regarding the strength of the historical evidence for an alleged event in ancient history---the bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

                    We both notice that history textbooks in US public universities do not cite the bodily resurrection of Jesus as an historical event as they do for such events as Alexander the Great laying siege to the city of Tyre, or the act of Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon to seize control of Rome. We also notice that if the bodily resurrection of Jesus is mentioned in a US public university history textbook, it is only mentioned as an “alleged” event in regards to early Christian belief, never as an historical fact or even a “probable” historical fact.

                    Our question for you is: Why?

                    I, Gary, assert that the reason that this alleged event is not mentioned in American public university history textbooks as an historical fact is that the historical evidence for this claim is extremely weak by the standards of evidence used by historians evaluating historical claims in ancient history.

                    My friend, Nick, believes that the overwhelming majority of historians teaching in US public universities believe that there is very strong historical evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus (A nine on a 0-10 scale) and that the reason that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is not included in the history textbooks of US public universities as an historical fact is because historians prefer to remain neutral on issues involving religion. Nick says that historians prefer to remain neutral on this issue, even though they truly believe that this event is as historical as Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon.

                    We realize that you are very busy, so to make it easier for you to reply, you may simply circle one of the two options below, then please sign and print your name, title, and university at the bottom of the page, and return this page in the self-addressed, stamped envelope provided.

                    A. Gary’s position: weak or non-existent evidence.

                    B. Nick’s position: Very strong evidence as an historical fact, but desire to remain neutral.


                    Thank you very much for your assistance,

                    Gary and Nick
                    participants in debate on Theology Web, an online discussion and debate forum

                    Comment


                    • Yeah I am sure university professors will spend their precious time answering your idiotic letter Gary.

                      BTW, I thought you said you were leaving this site because it was so biased? Yet you are still here.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        Yeah I am sure university professors will spend their precious time answering your idiotic letter Gary.

                        BTW, I thought you said you were leaving this site because it was so biased? Yet you are still here.
                        If the Christian evidence for the historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus is as strong as Nick claims it is (without the assistance of the Holy Spirit), then let's put his claim to the test. We won't know if these busy historians will take the time to answer my "idiotic" letter unless we send it to them, will we? Are you up to this challenge, Nick? Or do you want to admit right now that the historical evidence for the Resurrection is NOT strong enough for the average educated person to believe for the very simple reason that historians do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to consider this claim an historical fact, only an "alleged" event, believed by people with the assistance of an invisible holy spirit?

                        Comment


                        • Here's the thing, folks. If the historical evidence for the Resurrection is not good enough for professional historians to put into public university history textbooks as an historical fact, in this country, or in the public university textbooks of any other country on the face of the planet, there is no good reason why I nor any other educated person should accept Nick's claim that he has "excellent or even good" evidence for this claim.

                          The very obvious truth is that the evidence for this claim is NOT good, it is weak. In order to believe this claim you must make a giant leap of faith, assisted in this giant leap of faith by an invisible spirit, a spirit whose existence can only be proven by the intense, devout feelings and intuition of the people who have chosen to believe this ancient story...despite a lack of good historical evidence.

                          Christians and skeptics should simply accept this fact as the truth...and leave each other alone.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                            If the Christian evidence for the historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus is as strong as Nick claims it is (without the assistance of the Holy Spirit), then let's put his claim to the test. We won't know if these busy historians will take the time to answer my "idiotic" letter unless we send it to them, will we? Are you up to this challenge, Nick? Or do you want to admit right now that the historical evidence for the Resurrection is NOT strong enough for the average educated person to believe for the very simple reason that historians do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to consider this claim an historical fact, only an "alleged" event, believed by people with the assistance of an invisible holy spirit?
                            The evidence is good enough so that millions of people have accepted it since Christ walked the earth. Compare that to atheists (sure you are an agnostic LOL) like you who only want to mock Christianity and God. You have historically only made up a few measly percent of the population. So that seems to indicate that the evidence is pretty good. Go ahead and write your letter.

                            Are you related to skepticbud by any chance? Or do all new atheists just act the same way?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              The evidence is good enough so that millions of people have accepted it since Christ walked the earth. Compare that to atheists (sure you are an agnostic LOL) like you who only want to mock Christianity and God. You have historically only made up a few measly percent of the population. So that seems to indicate that the evidence is pretty good. Go ahead and write your letter.

                              Are you related to skepticbud by any chance? Or do all new atheists just act the same way?
                              Are you saying that just because a large number of people believe something, and have believed that belief for a very long time, that is proof that the belief is true?

                              Comment


                              • Here's what I recommend.

                                Deal with the case that was presented. Your wanting to turn to someone else to do your thinking for you is evidence enough you can't deal with the evidence.

                                The evidence has been enough to pass peer-review at secular institutions.

                                When you're ready to deal with the real case, let me know. Until then, Dave and William are providing intelligent conversation and not cowardly dodges.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X