Does Jesus's Prayer Show Christianity Is False?

[Adrift]

I'll go with Adrift and Leon because I suspect they're paying more attention at this point.

My judgement is that the whole thing is goofy nonsense (which I suspect he realizes), and that his "Christian interpretation" section is trolly. He thinks he's being clever, but ain't no one buying it.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Agreed. I see it as a way of passing intellectual responsibility off to others.

[Leonhard]

I'm curious, I hear this statement a lot that the Creed in I Corinthians 15 can be dated to within five years of the crucifixion. What evidence is that based on?

An interesting thread to open.

[Gary]

Agreed. I see it as a way of passing intellectual responsibility off to others.

Ok, so sounds like we agree on the evidence and the Christian interpretation of the evidence, you just don't trust how I'm going to use the survey. As I said, it is a non-scientific sampling of random people. I suggest you do one as well. It is my assertion, that the only people who will say that the miracle explanation is the more probable explanation, are those people who were raised Christian. I think that most Muslims, Jews, and persons of other religions and persons not brought up in any religion will say its silly, sci-fi nonsense.

[JimL]

I like your thinking, Nick. Skeptics get really tired of some Christians using their personal experiences and feelings as evidence of the veracity of the Christian claims. Most of us like evidence, just like you. And I also like that your belief in the veracity of Christianity rests on the evidence of the Resurrection of Jesus. If only all Christian apologists would believe like you.

I have a suggestion. Both sides, Christians and skeptics, should accept the positions of the majority of NT scholars on the claims of the Resurrection and then let people decide for themselves if this event really happened. So what do we have:

1. Public execution.
2. Public burial.
3. Sealed tomb.
4. Guards at the tomb for most of the period of time in question.
5. Empty tomb, three days and two nights later. (No known witnesses to the body leaving the tomb, however)
6. Post-death sightings, sometimes by hundreds of people at once.
7. Dramatically changed behavior of disciples.
8. Very shameful, very strange new belief system in an Honor-Shame society.
9. A belief never heard of in Judaism, yet believed by several thousand devout Jews.
10. Rapid spread of Christianity.
11. Willingness of thousands of Christians to be persecuted, tortured, and painfully executed for their beliefs.

Now the question:

Based on the agreed upon evidence above, Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public, do you believe that a dead man named Jesus of Nazareth was brought back to life by an ancient Hebrew God, exited his sealed tomb by some manner other than moving the stone, appeared in a superhero-like body to his grieving friends and family (but apparently no one else), and forty days later levitated into the clouds and from there, in some fashion, traveled to the farthest extent of the universe (or possibly into another dimension) to sit on a throne at the right hand of the ancient Hebrew God? Are there any other more naturalistic explanations for the evidence above, or, are the miracle/supernatural/magical explanations of Christianity the most probable explanation?

Your problem here is in your assertion that the so called evidence should be agreed upon by all. Sceptics don't agree that the NT is an accurate historical account of the life of Jesus, or that those who wrote it were actual historians. Show me an actual historian, who witnessed and wrote about the empty tomb, the gaurds, the 3 days and 2 nights, the post death sightings, or the actual resurrection. There is no good reason to believe any of that to be accurate, any more so than it would be to believe someone that just told you they walked on water or spent 3 days in the belly of a whale and were then vomited up alive on the beach. Believers pick and choose that which they want to believe and pass off that which they don't want to defend as metaphorical story telling.

[Leonhard]

Do you have any good reasons for rejecting these facts?

[Adrift]

Ok, so sounds like we agree on the evidence and the Christian interpretation of the evidence

Stop trolling.

[Adrift]

Your problem here is in your assertion that the so called evidence should be agreed upon by all. Sceptics don't agree that the NT is an accurate historical account of the life of Jesus, or that those who wrote it were actual historians. Show me an actual historian, who witnessed and wrote about the empty tomb, the gaurds, the 3 days and 2 nights, the post death sightings, or the actual resurrection. There is no good reason to believe any of that to be accurate, any more so than it would be to believe someone that just told you they walked on water or spent 3 days in the belly of a whale and were then vomited up alive on the beach. Believers pick and choose that which they want to believe and pass off that which they don't want to defend as metaphorical story telling.

Gary's goofy point is that the evidence is generally agreed upon by most critical scholars (including non-Christians), which is actually the case. Most scholars/historians of the New Testament agree to the points presented. You knew this, didn't you?

[Leonhard]

I second Adrift's post. Its a cute project Gary, but the real question is if you have any other natural explanation of the facts.

Focusing solely on explaining those minimal facts, Jesus dying on a cross, the apostles giving up hope, the empty tomb, the apostles reporting what they believed to have been sightings of Christ and them starting to preach that Christ was raised from the dead, despite this thought being alien to Hebrew escathology.

The only explanation that covers all the facts in the simplest way is if Jesus really was ressurected.

[rogue06]

I'm curious, I hear this statement a lot that the Creed in I Corinthians 15 can be dated to within five years of the crucifixion. What evidence is that based on?

Jesus was crucified around 30 AD and Paul, as nearly every scholar I'm aware of calculates, converted somewhere between 34 and 37 AD and then went to Jerusalem between 36 and 38 BC where he would have received first hand information from the apostles and other eyewitnesses concerning His execution, burial and subsequent resurrection. I think it is safe to conclude that what Paul heard wasn't something that they came up with when he met the apostles and what he heard he later repeated in I Corinthians.

[JimL]

Do you have any good reasons for rejecting these facts?

Yes, I have good objective reason for rejecting them "as" facts. The real question is do you have any good objective reason for accepting them as facts?

[Adrift]

Yes, I have good objective reason for rejecting them "as" facts. The real question is do you have any good objective reason for accepting them as facts?

You mean, other than the fact that most experts on the history of the New Testament and the early church accept them? Again, you know this is the case, right?

[Leonhard]

Yes, I have good objective reason for rejecting them "as" facts. The real question is do you have any good objective reason for accepting them as facts?

Yes.

We can start by taking the fact of Jesus dying on the cross. Aside from some naturalists in the eighteenth century trying to explain this away by Jesus swoning, there's no one who really thinks that he could have survived the crucifixion. Also there's virtually no one (perhaps aside from a few fringe mythicists), who thinks that the Christians would put the story about the cross into their narrative, since it made evangelization that much harder. Gnostics were infamous for rewriting the passion account so that either someone else like Judas took his place, or that the entire event was an illusion. Muslims hold to the latter to this day.

For such reasons, and others, such as the details of the crucifixion being fairly accurate, makes the majority of the scholars agree that Jesus died on the cross.

[Gary]

Your problem here is in your assertion that the so called evidence should be agreed upon by all. Sceptics don't agree that the NT is an accurate historical account of the life of Jesus, or that those who wrote it were actual historians. Show me an actual historian, who witnessed and wrote about the empty tomb, the gaurds, the 3 days and 2 nights, the post death sightings, or the actual resurrection. There is no good reason to believe any of that to be accurate, any more so than it would be to believe someone that just told you they walked on water or spent 3 days in the belly of a whale and were then vomited up alive on the beach. Believers pick and choose that which they want to believe and pass off that which they don't want to defend as metaphorical story telling.

The premise was that I and the Christians here on TW would accept all the evidence that is agreed upon by the majority of NT experts/scholars. I have debated the issue of the historicity of the empty tomb with the Christians here and they have responded that the majority of scholars believe in the historicity of the empty tomb, based on a study by Gary Habermas. I question Habermas' methodology, but I have agreed to accept this event as historical for one reason: To get Christians to agree to accepting the majority expert opinion on ALL issues relating to the Bible, such as:

---The majority of experts reject a literal six day Creation.
---The majority of experts believe in evolution and natural selection of the species.
---The majority of experts believe that the universe is billions of years old.
---The majority of experts believe that the earth is millions if not billions of years old.
---The majority of experts reject the claim of a worldwide flood.
---The majority of experts reject the literal, biblical story of the Exodus as historical.
---The majority of experts reject the literal, biblical story of the Conquest of Canaan as historical.
---and there are probably more that I can't think of at the moment...

So to be consistent, I accept the majority expert opinion on the historicity of the empty tomb.

Christians here, specifically Nick, insisted that I accept the historicity of the empty tomb due to the fact that most experts believe it is historical. I challenge you to ask Nick if he accepts the majority expert opinion on the issues above. I can assure you he will say, "No". And why will he say no? He will say no because he believes that he knows more than the experts on the other claims I have listed above (in particular the Exodus). He knows more than the majority of experts!

Now, some of the things I included in the evidence list are not agreed upon by the majority of experts as proven historical events, such as a sealed tomb, guards at the tomb (only mentioned in Matthew, who is known for exaggeration), and that hundreds of people saw Jesus at once. I included these beliefs that CHRISTIANS believe are historical because these "facts" actually make the story even more preposterous! That is why I added the gold streets in heaven and other details. The more fantastic claims from the Bible that I add, the more ridiculous the story. But I removed anything the Christians objected to, even though a large swath of Christians believe them to be fact. For instance, what percentage of Christians believe that they will live in a "mansion" once they get to heaven? I would bet a very high percentage.

So the real evidence agreed upon by experts would be very brief, such as:

---public execution
---public burial
---empty tomb
---claims of post death appearances
---change in the behavior of the followers of Jesus
---growth of Christianity even under persecution

I assert that giving the longer list of evidence actually hurts the Christian assertion of fact. Why? Most conservative Christians live in a cocoon. They only associate with like-minded Christians. I challenge them to use the survey and seek out Jews, Muslims, and people who were not raised in a religious home and ask their opinion on the evidence.

The world of conservative Christians is inhabited by like-minded people. So if everyone believes in leprechauns and everyone teaches their children from infancy to believe in leprechauns, everyone is going to believe in leprechauns. Step out of the cocoon folks, and see how non-like-minded people view your supernatural belief system. I assert that the overwhelming majority of them will reject your evidence of a resurrection as the most likely explanation of the evidence.

[JimL]

Yes.

We can start by taking the fact of Jesus dying on the cross. Aside from some naturalists in the eighteenth century trying to explain this away by Jesus swoning, there's no one who really thinks that he could have survived the crucifixion. Also there's virtually no one (perhaps aside from a few fringe mythicists), who thinks that the Christians would put the story about the cross into their narrative, since it made evangelization that much harder. Gnostics were infamous for rewriting the passion account so that either someone else like Judas took his place, or that the entire event was an illusion. Muslims hold to the latter to this day.

For such reasons, and others, such as the details of the crucifixion being fairly accurate, makes the majority of the scholars agree that Jesus died on the cross.

Crucifixions happened all the time, so whether or not there was a cult leader seen as a troublemaker by the powers that be, and so crucified, is hardly worthy of debate. And why you say that would make evangelization that much harder makes no sense. After all Jesus would have to die in order to resurrect.