Does Jesus's Prayer Show Christianity Is False?

[Gary]

His own letters.

The claim that he went to Jerusalem is entirely uncontroversial. Its where the Christian Church was at that time. He gives an account of some of the earliest meetings they had, in particular the first council where it was decided that you don't have to become a jew to become a Christian.

What proof do you have that he went to Jerusalem other than his own statements and statements by his disciple, the writer of Acts? So based on these two men you are going to declare this issue "uncontroversial"???

You are making some major assumptions friend. Read the author of Acts account about Paul's alleged trip to Jerusalem and then read Paul's. They are contradictory to every one but a fundamentalist Christian.

[Leonhard]

What proof do you have that he went to Jerusalem other than his own statements and statements by his disciple, the writer of Acts? So based on these two men you are going to declare this issue "uncontroversial"???

One question mark suffices. And yes, do you have any good objections? Why should more be required in these cases?

Read the author of Acts account about Paul's alleged trip to Jerusalem and then read Paul's. They are contradictory to every one but a fundamentalist Christian.

Read witness accounts of real events, especially in courtroom cases, or biographies, and then come back to me and claim that they never contradict each other. If I granted you that there a contradictions (and you didn't advance any), what would change in my opinion about St. Paul going to the Jerusalem Church?

[Gary]

I don't know what it looks like in America, but even there the majority of Christians accept those things you outlined without much problems. The Catholic Church is by far the largest single denomination, and it allows its members to hold differing opinions on these subjects. I think your views of Christians are skewed a bit.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/p...man-evolution/

But I know Nick would simple concede all that to you for the sake of argument. "Alright, lets say these things happened as you said, that large parts of the Torah is incompatible with history, etc... I'll grant you all that for the sake of argument. Now... do you have a naturalistic account of the Ressurection?"

One: the majority of Christians in the United States are Protestant, and the largest protestant Church in the United States is the Southern Baptist Convention, who would NEVER put out a statement that they endorse Evolution. The leadership would be taken out and burned alive! (slight exaggeration)

Two: I think you should let Nick speak for himself. I don't think he would agree to the issues you claim he would agree with.

Three: I don't need to come up with THE naturalistic explanation for the evidence. I only have to provide possible explanations. Name one piece of evidence that you believe cannot be accounted for by a natural explanation, and I will show you.

[Leonhard]

Listen Gary, you're obviously very fired up because your responses are coming in after only a few minutes. I've been checking this thread because I'm waiting to see whether the latest SpaceX launch managed to land its rocket, but the feed is almost up and then I'll be returning to other activities. I suggest you open a thread about the topic of whether St. Paul ever went to the Jerusalem Church, or whether the earliest known creed can be traced to around the year 35AD.

Then you'll get input from far more people than here.

[Gary]

Nope. But that's not the issue. If you were to tell me that you have reservations about the historicity of the Exodus as presented in the Old Testament because of the lack of scholarly support, I could certainly sympathize with that. I'm not telling JimL to believe the NT account because of the scholarly support for it, I'm telling him that it's reasonable to believe in it, or as he puts it, there are "good objective reasons" to believe it. These are distinctions that fundamentalists have a hard time understanding, so I can see how you might find this confusing.

Wait a minute!! No one ever said that the majority of NT scholars believes the NT account of the Resurrection. The majority of NT scholars have never stated that the evidence PROVES that a dead man was brought back to life, and that is the central claim of the biblical Resurrection story. Please provide a source for such a statement.

[Gary]

I have some sympathy to what you say here, because I started out as an atheist who was a naturalist. As a naturalist I didn't believe anything supernatural existed, and so there would be no possibility of someone dead coming back to life. And so I didn't see this historical argument as very strong, because of those commitments.

But it leaves the facts unexplained.

Please present the facts that you believe cannot be explained by an alternative, natural explanation.

[Leonhard]

One: the majority of Christians in the United States are Protestant

Yes, but the US isn't all of the world. I live in Denmark. 22% of the US are Catholics, protestants are only barely twice as many.

Two: I think you should let Nick speak for himself. I don't think he would agree to the issues you claim he would agree with.

So far you don't seem to want a good natured discussion, at least not one that is indepth. Settle with me. I happen to know the kind of approach he practices, since its the same that St. Thomas Aquinas works with. Namely grant your opponent as many points as possible for the sake of argument.

Now with all those points granted... what does that gain you in regards to whether or not Jesus was raised from the dead?

I don't need to come up with THE naturalistic explanation for the evidence. I only have to provide possible explanations. Name one piece of evidence that you believe cannot be accounted for by a natural explanation, and I will show you.

I want you to account for all of the facts, not just one of them, with any natural explanation. A plausible explanation would be sufficient.

So don't go "Aliens!" or "Nanomachines, son!"

[Leonhard]

Please present the facts that you believe cannot be explained by an alternative, natural explanation.

They've been listed multiple times in this thread.

[Gary]

They've been listed multiple times in this thread.

Do you insist that the empty tomb is an historical, non-controversial fact? Either way, I can provide natural explanations. Let me know and I will proceed.

[Adrift]

Wait a minute!! No one ever said that the majority of NT scholars believes the NT account of the Resurrection. The majority of NT scholars have never stated that the evidence PROVES that a dead man was brought back to life, and that is the central claim of the biblical Resurrection story. Please provide a source for such a statement.

I have no idea what you're on about. JimL's issue wasn't with the Resurrection itself (though obviously he doesn't believe in that either), his issue is with the minimal facts that most NT scholars accept. That's what I was responding to.

[Adrift]

Yes, but the US isn't all of the world. I live in Denmark. 22% of the US are Catholics, protestants are only barely twice as many.

What he failed to mention was that, though Protestants make up most Christians in the US, the Catholic Church is still the largest single Christian denomination in the States.

[Leonhard]

Do you insist that the empty tomb is an historical, non-controversial fact? Either way, I can provide natural explanations. Let me know and I will proceed.

It seems you've been asked that a couple of times now.

I want you to account for all of the facts, not just one of them, with any natural explanation. A plausible explanation would be sufficient.

I'll grant you all that for the sake of argument. Now... do you have a naturalistic account of the Ressurection?"

I have yet to find a convincing naturalistic explanation.

Go on ahead.

[Gary]

I have no idea what you're on about. JimL's issue wasn't with the Resurrection itself (though obviously he doesn't believe in that either), his issue is with the minimal facts that most NT scholars accept. That's what I was responding to.

Thank you for the clarification, but that is not what you said.

[Leonhard]

Anyway, SpaceX launched the weather satellite without problems. The landing attempt was thwarted by turbulent seas, which broke the landing leg on the rocket (we haven't heard if it fell over though it likely did).

Another successful mission by these guys. Anyway I'm out of here. Gonna fetch myself some dinner.

[Gary]

What he failed to mention was that, though Protestants make up most Christians in the US, the Catholic Church is still the largest single Christian denomination in the States.

Leonhard already stated that. But what difference does it make? Catholics only represent 25% of the US population. What's your point?