Does Jesus's Prayer Show Christianity Is False?

[Adrift]

"You don't seem to understand that the resurrection body is not some sort of "superhero" body."

You can't expect non-believers to incorporate your theology into their view of supernatural claims. When someone tells us that a god raised a man from the dead; that his body was the same as his original body, but this body had new properties that allowed it to walk through locked doors, to appear and disappear out of thin air, to ascend into the clouds and possibly beyond...THAT is a superhero-like body, to us. We are not going to use your terms which to us are nonsensical. If it isn't a natural human body that functions according to the laws of science, biology, and physiology it is a non-natural body, and since we do not believe in the existence of non-natural bodies, it, to us, is fictional, or supernatural.

Plenty of non-believers are mature and respectful enough to use the same language employed by believers on these sorts of topics. They realize that while they broadly disagree with Christians, that the Christian view is not ridiculous or based on comic book fantasy or science fiction, but that Christians have come to their views through logical and rational means. You could learn a lot from atheist philosophers like Michael Ruse. Heck, we've had a number of non-believers on this very forum who've demonstrated this simple sort of courtesy.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Again, I realize that you personally do not believe that any naturalistic explanation is plausible, but that wasn't the issue. It isn't about you and it isn't about me. We both have our biases.

The difference is one of us informs ourselves and the other one doesn't.

I never said that the average man and woman would reject the Resurrection simply because it is based on a miracle. I believe that they will reject the claim due to poor evidence that supports the miracle claim, not simply because it is a miracle claim.

You mean evidence so poor you can't come up with a more plausible theory? All we have are possibilities that are ad hoc.

Most people expect extraordinary claims to have extraordinary evidence.

What counts as extraordinary? How do you recognize extraordinary evidence. Does it glow in the dark?

extraordinaryevidence.jpg

Christians only have an empty tomb and generalizations about what first century Jews and Romans would and would not believe and do. That's it. That isn't strong evidence. You have zero witnesses to the resurrected body exiting the tomb and your alleged "eyewitness reports" are written by four anonymous guys, writing decades later, in far away lands; men who the majority of scholars don't believe even knew Jesus, for Pete's sake.

Um. No. Our first reports of the eyewitnesses can be dated to within five years of the event. Even James Crossley says that this is gold in the ancient world. We have an empty tomb, eyewitness claims that the person was alive again, the conversion of skeptics, the acceptance of a shameful belief across the Roman Empire, the immediate addition of Jesus into the divine identity, etc. As for four books that are anonymous, many books from the ancient world are anonymous. If you mean the name of the author is not in the book itself, well most books today would be anonymous as the body of the writing doesn't contain the name of the author. Martin Hengl meanwhile argued that the Gospels never traveled without names. They just weren't in the body of work but on the scroll itself.

Mormons have better evidence for their supernatural claim. At least they have affidavits of 13 known men, not four anonymous reports of non-eyewitnesses, writing about alleged events which happened decades earlier.

Oh this will be fun. Please do tell your source on Mormonism for this.

It isn't good evidence, Nick. It just isn't Believe it if you wish by faith, but the evidence itself is poor.

The evidence is so poor Gary can't come up with a more plausible account.

[psstein]

"Reburial is what James Tabor has attempted to argue. From what we know of Jewish burial customs, moving the body before it decomposed is unheard of."

Which is more probable: A dead man walked out of his tomb and later ascended into the clouds, or, an "unheard" of moving of the body occurred? That is the issue, Stein. "Adrift" is entirely correct. Both sides on this issue bring presuppositions into this debate. For Christians, who believe in the existence of the all-powerful, all-knowing Jewish/Christian God, Yahweh, it is no stretch of the imagination to believe that he could raise his Son from the dead. But for those of us who believe that the Hebrew god Yahweh is no more real than Zeus or Jupiter and that if miracles occur (it is impossible to prove that they don't), that they are very rare events, we arrive at the conclusion that it is much more probable that a first century Jew/Roman/pagan/grave robber/disciple would break a major taboo and move the body than that a supernatural resurrection would occur.

Does that make sense? For you the probability of miracles is very high, for us they are extremely low. That is probably where our impasse originates.

Gary, you're making things up, as is Tabor. You keep invoking alternatives that were abandoned 150 years ago (the disciples moved the body).

No, the probability of miracles is adjudicated on a case by case basis. The Catholic Church, for example, investigates miracle claims with great skepticism. Yet, it does find that some are legitimate.

Why would a grave robber steal the body? Also, grave robbery was far less common around Jerusalem than in places in Galilee.

[Gary]

Gary, you're making things up, as is Tabor. You keep invoking alternatives that were abandoned 150 years ago (the disciples moved the body).

No, the probability of miracles is adjudicated on a case by case basis. The Catholic Church, for example, investigates miracle claims with great skepticism. Yet, it does find that some are legitimate.

Why would a grave robber steal the body? Also, grave robbery was far less common around Jerusalem than in places in Galilee.

I now realize why we are never going to get anywhere on this discussion. It all boils down to our personal view of the probability of miracles. For any given extraordinary event, Christians are going to give a much higher probability for the cause of the extraordinary event having been a miracle, and we skeptics a very low probability.

Example: Mr. Smith, a devout Christian, is driving down the highway and is involved in a terrible accident. His car is totaled. The entire front end of the car is smashed into the front seats, except where Mr. Smith is sitting. "It is a miracle", exclaim Christians. "It is a rare event," exclaim non-theists.

Who is right?

No one can say for sure.

Christians might give a 90% probability of this event being a miracle, while skeptics would give it a less than 0.1% probability of being a miracle. We will never agree on the probability of a natural explanation being more probable than a miracle explanation for the evidence for the Resurrection if our view of the probability of miracles is so divergent. This is why we keep butting heads. It is inconceivable to us skeptics that intelligent, educated Christians would give a higher probability to what to us seems like a sci-fi explanation, and to you it seems that we are dismissing the probability of miracles out of hand without fully investigating their existence, such as reading Keener's book. We both see the other as being unreasonable.

We aren't being unreasonable. We are simply coming into the debate with very divergent presuppositions.

[Adrift]

I now realize why we are never going to get anywhere on this discussion. It all boils down to our personal view of the probability of miracles. For any given extraordinary event, Christians are going to give a much higher probability for the cause of the extraordinary event having been a miracle, and we skeptics a very low probability.

Well, no. Not Christians specifically, but theists in general (outside of deists perhaps). I mean, that does make sense to you, doesn't it? A theist is more likely to believe in the miraculous than a non-theist?

[Gary]

The difference is one of us informs ourselves and the other one doesn't.



You mean evidence so poor you can't come up with a more plausible theory? All we have are possibilities that are ad hoc.



What counts as extraordinary? How do you recognize extraordinary evidence. Does it glow in the dark?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]12482[/ATTACH]



Um. No. Our first reports of the eyewitnesses can be dated to within five years of the event. Even James Crossley says that this is gold in the ancient world. We have an empty tomb, eyewitness claims that the person was alive again, the conversion of skeptics, the acceptance of a shameful belief across the Roman Empire, the immediate addition of Jesus into the divine identity, etc. As for four books that are anonymous, many books from the ancient world are anonymous. If you mean the name of the author is not in the book itself, well most books today would be anonymous as the body of the writing doesn't contain the name of the author. Martin Hengl meanwhile argued that the Gospels never traveled without names. They just weren't in the body of work but on the scroll itself.



Oh this will be fun. Please do tell your source on Mormonism for this.



The evidence is so poor Gary can't come up with a more plausible account.

"Our first reports of the eyewitnesses can be dated to within five years of the event."

Other than Paul, please provide eyewitness statements from the first five years after Jesus death. NOT statements of non-eyewitnesses allegedly quoting statements of eyewitnesses, but statements from the actual eyewitnesses.

[Gary]

Five. You're forgetting Q. Also, scholars believe there is plenty of original material in both Matthew and Luke.



Who's to say they haven't seen something? I don't think you'll get that from the Protestants on this forum. I may not think it's actually Mary, but I don't doubt that those people have seen something.



Nope. Belief in the "Jewish/Christian God, Yahweh" is not at all what I meant by presuppositions. You can't believe in a Christian God first and then work backwards from there to believing that the Christian God raised Christ. That doesn't make any sense. The only presupposition I was referring to was the simple belief in a divinity that is capable of the miraculous. An individual may believe in the existence of such a divinity, yet not know his/her identity, or assume that divinity has many identities. Regardless, belief in the existence of a divinity is also reached through evidence, so I don't believe belief in the divine itself is presupposed (though some reformed believers believe that belief in God is properly basic). Sometimes the evidence of the resurrection can strengthen belief in the divine, but I think belief in the actual miracle of the resurrection requires some amount of belief in divinity in the first place, or at least a very open mind about these things.

Why would Matthew the Apostle, an alleged eyewitness to the events, need to plagiarize 70% of Mark's book, when Mark was not an eyewitness but was allegedly reporting what Peter had said in years past? What proof do we have that John Mark remembered Peter's statements correctly? What proof do we have that John Mark didn't add some fiction into his book, allegedly quoting Peter to give his book more authority, but including non-historical events for theological purposes, as many scholars believe that Matthew did?

[Apologiaphoenix]

"Our first reports of the eyewitnesses can be dated to within five years of the event."

Other than Paul, please provide eyewitness statements from the first five years after Jesus death. NOT statements of non-eyewitnesses allegedly quoting statements of eyewitnesses, but statements from the actual eyewitnesses.

It is in Paul. The early creed is a reference to the eyewitnesses who were available for questioning. Paul could make the claim because they were there.

Again, this is not controversial among scholars in the field.

[Gary]

It is in Paul. The early creed is a reference to the eyewitnesses who were available for questioning. Paul could make the claim because they were there.

Again, this is not controversial among scholars in the field.

Are you telling us that scholars know for sure that Paul verified every person on the "Witness List" to make sure their claim was genuine? Please provide the scholars or scholar.

Scholars may believe that the Creed in I Corinthians was in circulation within five years of Jesus death, but what does that prove? It only proves that people BELIEVED that these people had seen Jesus, it doesn't prove that they actually did.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Why would Matthew the Apostle, an alleged eyewitness to the events, need to plagiarize 70% of Mark's book, when Mark was not an eyewitness but was allegedly reporting what Peter had said in years past?

Because Peter is part of the inner three that numerous times in the Gospels gets to see things that the other apostles don't. Matthew would want his eyewitness testimony to those events.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Are you telling us that scholars know for sure that Paul verified every person on the "Witness List" to make sure their claim was genuine? Please provide the scholars or scholar.

No.

Scholars may believe that the Creed in I Corinthians was in circulation within five years of Jesus death, but what does that prove? It only proves that people BELIEVED that these people had seen Jesus, it doesn't prove that they actually did.

The fact that many people claimed to see Jesus alive after His death is uncontroversial and this passage is one of the strongest reasons for that.

[Adrift]

Why would Matthew the Apostle, an alleged eyewitness to the events, need to plagiarize 70% of Mark's book, when Mark was not an eyewitness but was allegedly reporting what Peter had said in years past?

I don't remember claiming that Matthew was either an eyewitness or the author of the book associated with his name, nor do I remember making the claim in this thread that Mark is the author of his gospel (though decent cases have been made for both). Also, as far as I know, Matthew replicates approx. 98% of Mark. Still, there is original material in both Matthew and Luke. Critical scholars like Bart Ehrman recognize this, so I'm not certain why you would bristle at it.

What proof do we have that John Mark remembered Peter's statements correctly? What proof do we have that John Mark didn't add some fiction into his book, allegedly quoting Peter, to make it more interesting?

What are you talking about? Where in this thread did I say anything about John Mark remembering Peter's statements? All I've mentioned is that scholars believe that there is independant source material in both Matthew and Luke.

[Gary]

Well, no. Not Christians specifically, but theists in general (outside of deists perhaps). I mean, that does make sense to you, doesn't it? A theist is more likely to believe in the miraculous than a non-theist?

You are correct. A theist is going to be much more likely to believe a miracle claim, regardless of which religion is claiming its God is responsible for the miracle, than a non-theist. But my point is, when it comes to Christian miracle claims, Christians are going to credit a miracle as a much, much higher probability than a non-theist.

So I do not believe that there is any way that we can reach agreement on the explanation for the evidence for the alleged Resurrection unless we can come to an agreement on the probability of miracles and I don't see that happening. We skeptics are not going to convince you theists that there are no verifiable miracles in the history of mankind and you theists are not going to convince us skeptics that there are simply due to tens of thousands of anecdotal cases.

[Gary]

I don't remember claiming that Matthew was either an eyewitness or the author of the book associated with his name, nor do I remember making the claim in this thread that Mark is the author of his gospel (though decent cases have been made for both). Also, as far as I know, Matthew replicates approx. 98% of Mark. Still, there is original material in both Matthew and Luke. Critical scholars like Bart Ehrman recognize this, so I'm not certain why you would bristle at it.




What are you talking about? Where in this thread did I say anything about John Mark remembering Peter's statements? All I've mentioned is that scholars believe that there is independant source material in both Matthew and Luke.

Sorry, I wasn't intending my statement to be directed specifically to you.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Okay. Let's have some fun. Go ahead and demonstrate that there are no viable miracles in the history of mankind. That's hundreds of thousands of years across the whole planet.