Does Jesus's Prayer Show Christianity Is False?

[Gary]

Yeah, it's pretty ad hoc. I'm certain Occum would have something to say about Gary's reimaginings. In my opinion, a lot of this does comes down to presuppositions though. If you believe there exists a divinity who has the capability to raise people from the dead, then there really isn't any reason to deny where the evidence leads. The Jewish historian Pinchas Lapide wasn't a Christian, but believed the evidence was insurmountable, and led to the conclusion of a resurrection. A skeptical nontheist or deist is always going to look for naturalistic reasons to explain the miraculous.

The logic of this statement escapes me:

Let's again take the Bigfoot example:

What is the evidence for Bigfoot? Only that the geographical area in which this alleged beast lives exists; there are alleged photographs (or at least one photograph); there are people who believe in Bigfoot; there are people who claim to have seen Bigfoot.

So if a skeptic responds: I don't believe that any of this evidence proves the existence of Bigfoot, only that some people believe in the existence of Bigfoot. I think the photographs were staged (humans dressed as a creature) and I think the "witnesses" were either lying, had an hallucination, or a vision, or simply mistook a bear or other animal for this creature.

Bigfoot believer: What evidence do you have for your claim of the non-existence of Bigfoot? Answer: None! You are simply making up explanations to counter the evidence (ad hoc explanations).

Do you not see how ridiculous and preposterous this type of irrational thinking is, folks??

[Leonhard]

1. Is the miracle/supernatural explanation of the evidence the most probable?

or

2. Are there other possible, more naturalistic (not involving miracles) explanations for the evidence that are more probable than the miracle explanation?

Excluded middle fallacy, no one has to decide merely between the miraculous explanation, and the supernatural explanation. Neither Nick, nor I, presented the argument by appealing to a dilemma. We said that there are no plausible naturalistic accounts, given the facts at hand.

A person could in principle say that he did not accept the miraculous explanation, due to metaphysical commitments (such as not believing in God, and being a naturalist), but at the same time also rejecting the naturalistic explanations given as implausible and not worth considering. Biting the bullet so to speak, and accepting then seemingly impossible facts as an unexplained mystery. I would have some respect for this position.

[Leonhard]

What is the evidence for Bigfoot? Only that the geographical area in which this alleged beast lives exists; there are alleged photographs (or at least one photograph); there are people who believe in Bigfoot; there are people who claim to have seen Bigfoot.

So if a skeptic responds: I don't believe that any of this evidence proves the existence of Bigfoot, only that some people believe in the existence of Bigfoot. I think the photographs were staged (humans dressed as a creature) and I think the "witnesses" were either lying, had an hallucination, or a vision, or simply mistook a bear or other animal for this creature.

Bigfoot believer: What evidence do you have for your claim of the non-existence of Bigfoot? Answer: None! You are simply making up explanations to counter the evidence (ad hoc explanations).

Do you not see how ridiculous and preposterous this type of irrational thinking is, folks??

Sure, this Bigfoot believer would be making an argument from ignorance. Is this meant to be an analogy?

[Adrift]

Do you even know what ad hoc means?

It's beginning to look like he really doesn't.

[Gary]

Excluded middle fallacy, no one has to decide merely between the miraculous explanation, and the supernatural explanation. Neither Nick, nor I, presented the argument by appealing to a dilemma. We said that there are no plausible naturalistic accounts, given the facts at hand.

A person could in principle say that he did not accept the miraculous explanation, due to metaphysical commitments (such as not believing in God, and being a naturalist), but at the same time also rejecting the naturalistic explanations given as implausible and not worth considering. Biting the bullet so to speak, and accepting then seemingly impossible facts as an unexplained mystery. I would have some respect for this position.

Once again, you are not addressing the point of the discussion. The issue is: Nick has claimed that the evidence for the Resurrection is strong enough (He has in the past stated 9 out of 10 in strength) on its own to authenticate the claims of Christianity. I say the evidence is weak. I say that the evidence is so weak that the overwhelming majority of non-Christians, if presented with the agreed upon evidence above, would reject it as a superstition, AND, would assume that other, more naturalistic explanations explain the evidence.

Your opinion of the evidence, Nick's opinion of the evidence, and my opinion of the evidence are irrelevant!

Now that Nick has agreed that other naturalistic explanations are possible to explain the evidence (although he finds them very improbable), the question is what does the average citizen of the world think of the evidence? That is the purpose of the survey. The purpose of my discussion has never been to convince Nick of the higher probability of the naturalistic explanations. I don't think Nick would ever change his mind on this issue so that would be a waste of my time.

[Gary]

Sure, this Bigfoot believer would be making an argument from ignorance. Is this meant to be an analogy?

The bigfoot believer is basing his sincere beliefs on a superstition, not on good evidence. That is the analogy I am trying to make. I am not saying that anyone here is ignorant or stupid. Some very intelligent, very educated people are very superstitious.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Excellent! So you agree that there are possible, natural (non-miracle) explanations for the evidence. That is all I wanted you to admit to, Nick. So we agree that there are other possible explanations to the early Christian belief that a the Hebrew God, Yahweh, raised a dead man from the grave. Now it is up to each person to decide which is more probable: the miracle claim or a natural explanation.

I assert that the overwhelming majority of non-Christians will choose a natural explanation. I realize that you do not believe that any of the natural explanations are plausible, but your opinion on plausibility was never the issue. The issue was your claim that the evidence for the supernatural claim of a Resurrection was strong enough on its own to convince the average person of the truths of Christianity. Note I never said the average person in the United States, just the average person, so that would include the entire population of mankind. Use the survey or whatever other neutral questionnaire you want, Nick, but most of the world rejects your supernatural/miracle explanation of the evidence as a silly superstition.

Then let them come up with a better explanation. I've read the other side and have found the arguments entirely lacking and in fact, many of the non-Christians are some of the best critics of the others on their theories. Many times in reading something on the end of the life of Jesus, you'll find a lot of quiet.

Also, I seriously doubt most of the world rejects it because it is a miracle. Most would reject for reasons prior to that. Some would do so for a prior commitment to naturalism. Others would do so because of another worldview, such as Muslims who don't even think Jesus died on the cross.

Nick would you kindly provide your source that states that Jesus' tomb had the seal of Caesar on it which meant that not even Pilate could break the seal and open the tomb? I think you pulled this out of thin air or it is another one of your assumptions.

Do the other gospels state that the tomb was "sealed" or just Matthew? Many non-fundamentalist Christian scholars do not believe that the story of the guards at the tomb is historical; that it is an embellishment by Matthew. So where do you get your claim of FACT if only one gospel states the tomb was "sealed"?

Or are you saying that ALL tombs in Palestine, once the stone was rolled in front, were considered "sealed" by Caesar under Roman law, thereby making it a capital crime to move the stone?

Okay. Then throw that out. So who would bury Jesus and why? The answer is the Sanhedrin actually. They were the ones that offered him up to Pilate so they were responsible for the body. If the body is missing who did it? Some could say the Sanhedrin themselves, but they have nothing to gain and they could have quieted the movement early on. The Romans? Again, the same reason. The disciples? Even that isn't taken much seriously any more. The disciples would be in a position of producing one of the greatest ethical systems of all based on what they knew to be a lie and thus also as good Jews forfeiting their position with YHWH eternally as well as taking on a lifetime of shame. How about ordinary grave robbers? Not likely. If a body was stolen, it would be for magical purposes and then you would only take the parts of the body needed.

So again, what is the best explanation? Historians are welcome to give possible explanations, but when we want to know what happened, we look for the best possible explanation. It has to be less ad hoc, it has to have more explanatory scope, be backed by data, illuminate other data, and fit in well with facts that we already know.

The resurrection hypothesis passes with flying colors.

The bigfoot believer is basing his sincere beliefs on a superstition, not on good evidence. That is the analogy I am trying to make. I am not saying that anyone here is ignorant or stupid. Some very intelligent, very educated people are very superstitious.

Yes, and I find many skeptics are just as superstitious as their theistic counterparts.

[Gary]

Then let them come up with a better explanation. I've read the other side and have found the arguments entirely lacking and in fact, many of the non-Christians are some of the best critics of the others on their theories. Many times in reading something on the end of the life of Jesus, you'll find a lot of quiet.

Also, I seriously doubt most of the world rejects it because it is a miracle. Most would reject for reasons prior to that. Some would do so for a prior commitment to naturalism. Others would do so because of another worldview, such as Muslims who don't even think Jesus died on the cross.



Okay. Then throw that out. So who would bury Jesus and why? The answer is the Sanhedrin actually. They were the ones that offered him up to Pilate so they were responsible for the body. If the body is missing who did it? Some could say the Sanhedrin themselves, but they have nothing to gain and they could have quieted the movement early on. The Romans? Again, the same reason. The disciples? Even that isn't taken much seriously any more. The disciples would be in a position of producing one of the greatest ethical systems of all based on what they knew to be a lie and thus also as good Jews forfeiting their position with YHWH eternally as well as taking on a lifetime of shame. How about ordinary grave robbers? Not likely. If a body was stolen, it would be for magical purposes and then you would only take the parts of the body needed.

So again, what is the best explanation? Historians are welcome to give possible explanations, but when we want to know what happened, we look for the best possible explanation. It has to be less ad hoc, it has to have more explanatory scope, be backed by data, illuminate other data, and fit in well with facts that we already know.

The resurrection hypothesis passes with flying colors.



Yes, and I find many skeptics are just as superstitious as their theistic counterparts.

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.

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. Most people expect extraordinary claims to have extraordinary evidence. 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.

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.

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

[psstein]

It has been said that if you ever want to see how strong the resurrection hypothesis is, just read the competitors.

This shows it.

The only other hypothesis that I think is even remotely plausible is Crossley's. Reburial and mistaken identity don't work.

I have the article somewhere; I'll send you it.

[psstein]

You are a fundamentalist, my friend, if you believe that the probability of a resurrected super-hero is more probable than the naturalistic alternative explanations I have given. Is there at least ONE reasonable Christian on this site who will admit that the two scenarios I have given are at least possible?? Stein?

No. I don't think either one of your theories work. The issue is that, as one scholar said, they didn't see a glimpse of someone's face or a ghost of some type. What they saw was Jesus.

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.

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

[Gary]

No. I don't think either one of your theories work. The issue is that, as one scholar said, they didn't see a glimpse of someone's face or a ghost of some type. What they saw was Jesus.

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.

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

What eyewitness statements do Christians possess of anyone saying that they saw the "face" of Jesus after his death? None! You only have four books, written anonymously, decades later, by men whom the majority of scholars do not believe were eyewitnesses to the events. For goodness sakes, my Christian friends, at least two of the books borrow (plagiarize) heavily from the first book written. Why would Matthew the Apostle plagiarize a book written by a non-eyewitness, John Mark?? It is simply outrageous.

And Paul, the only eyewitness testimony that we have, only says he saw and heard a talking bright light! That's it!

You have zero proof that ANYONE saw the actual face of a resurrected Jesus or that anyone touched the resurrected body. None. Grieving family and friends have "seen", "spoken with" and "touched" their dead loved ones for thousands of years. Why should we believe that the family and friends of Jesus experienced anything different?

And what about the "five hundred" claim? Ask any Roman Catholic and they can point out numerous instances of large numbers of people "seeing" the Virgin Mary all at once. People who believe in the supernatural "see" what they want to see.

[Gary]

No. I don't think either one of your theories work. The issue is that, as one scholar said, they didn't see a glimpse of someone's face or a ghost of some type. What they saw was Jesus.

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.

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

"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]

"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.

"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.

[Leonhard]

Gary do you just press the quote button and then proceed to write a reply. I think you accidentally quoted yourself.

[Adrift]

You only have four books

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

Ask any Roman Catholic and they can point out numerous instances of large numbers of people "seeing" the Virgin Mary all at once.

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.

"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

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.