Book Plunge: Can Christians Prove The Resurrection?

[Gary]

Because if we comprehended, we would readily just agree with everything.

You ever heard of these things called "books"?

My god you are dense.

Please explain to me why we are correct to assume that there is a natural explanation for the missing body of Jimmy Hoffa---without any evidence to confirm that assumption---but we cannot do the same with Jesus.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Drink!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]13194[/ATTACH]

[Gary]

Drink!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]13194[/ATTACH]

Typical behavior of someone who has been cornered: divert attention away from your predicament.

Tell me, Nick, why it is reasonable to assume that the missing body of Jimmy Hoffa is due to natural causes, without evidence to support that assumption, but we must accept the "supernatural" claim about the missing body of Jesus, ignoring many possible natural explanations, just because there is no evidence to support a specific natural explanation?

Man up and answer the question.

[One Bad Pig]

Typical behavior of someone who has been cornered: divert attention away from your predicament.

...which is precisely what you just did with your "Hoffa" comparison.

[Gary]

...which is precisely what you just did with your "Hoffa" comparison.

Nice spin. You guys are cornered and you know it.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Someone is suffering from delusions of adequacy

[One Bad Pig]

Nice spin. You guys are cornered and you know it.

Don't give up your day job.

[Gary]

Someone is suffering from delusions of adequacy

As I said previously, "checkmate".

Your silly "Honor-Shame Society" Argument has been ripped to shreds. Why don't you just admit the obvious, Nick: You believe this silly, ancient, magical, tall tale because you desperately WANT to, not because of evidence. Your entire world would collapse if you admitted you have been wrong. It would be devastating.

It's too scary for you to face, isn't it, Nick?

[Apologiaphoenix]

In other news, Kent Hovind has destroyed evolution!

[Gary]

Because if we comprehended, we would readily just agree with everything.

You ever heard of these things called "books"?

Since I agree with EVERY position regarding early Christian beliefs and practices held by the majority of NT scholars, exactly which books do I need to read, Nick, to sway me to your position? How about these:

1. Casper the Friendly Ghost; how ghosts ARE real, folks
2. Land of the Living Dead; dead bodies can walk and talk
3. Case Studies of Virgins impregnated by Ghosts; It's true, it's true!
4. You too Can Walk on Water; just really, really BELIEVE!
5. Walking, Talking Dead Bodies, Ascensions, and Space Travel

Why don't you just admit it, Nick. No NT scholar, or his book, is going to give me the answer you so desperately want me and every other non-Christian to accept: MAGIC IS REAL!!!

So, keep churning out the "spin", Nick. It only makes you look silly and ignorant.

[Apologiaphoenix]

No. You read books not to confirm what you already know.

You read to learn what you don't know.

This is why most of us are just getting tired of it. Your arguments aren't so strong. They're so weak. You speak as someone who doesn't know the times and culture at all and will come up with anything to avoid a miracle even if you have no evidence.

[psstein]

Let's see. How many scholars actually hold to the "body moved" explanation?

James Tabor, and he's the only one I know of. Frankly, I think the best argument against the Resurrection is James Crossley's, which has other issues.

[Gary]

No. You read books not to confirm what you already know.

You read to learn what you don't know.

This is why most of us are just getting tired of it. Your arguments aren't so strong. They're so weak. You speak as someone who doesn't know the times and culture at all and will come up with anything to avoid a miracle even if you have no evidence.

I, nor anyone else, needs to know ANYTHING about the times and cultures of ANY people who have EVER lived on planet earth to know that an exception to a generalization regarding the beliefs and practices of ANY people is much, much more probable than that a dead body walked out of his sealed tomb, ate broiled fish with his former fishing buddies, and shortly thereafter, ascended into the clouds to eventually sit on a throne, somewhere in the clouds...outer space...or in another dimension!!!

THAT is the issue, Nick: PROBABILITIES!

None of your scholars is an expert in the probability of supernatural events, Nick. None. Nada. Not one.

I fully admit that it would have been a very rare, odd event for a Jew to have moved the body. I fully admit that the Christian teaching was very shameful and unheard of (except to anyone who had been listening to Jesus for the previous three years) to the Jewish people. BUT...the probability that an exception to these generalizations is the cause of the early Christian belief in a Resurrection far exceeds the probability of a flying-into-the-clouds, dead-but-but-now-alive, first century, Jewish preacher, Nick. You just can't seem to get that.

THERE ARE NO SCHOLARS IN THE REALITY OF MIRACLES/THE SUPERNATURAL!

and THAT, Nick, is your con. You try to disguise your attempt to get us to believe in magic/the supernatural by appealing to scholars who are NOT experts in magic/the supernatural.

GIVE
UP
THE
CON
JOB,
NICK!

Admit the truth: Your real purpose in getting us to read your scholars is to accept the reality of magic...a subject of which your scholars know no more than anyone else!

[Apologiaphoenix]

Okay Gary. You want to debate miracles? Alright.

First, feel free to give an argument against theism to show there is no agent capable of causing miracles.

If not that, then feel free to give an argument against the possibility of miracles.

Apparently, you're happy to remain ignorant of cultures other than your own.

It is a fool who wants to speak without knowledge.

[Gary]

Okay Gary. You want to debate miracles? Alright.

First, feel free to give an argument against theism to show there is no agent capable of causing miracles.

If not that, then feel free to give an argument against the possibility of miracles.

Apparently, you're happy to remain ignorant of cultures other than your own.

It is a fool who wants to speak without knowledge.

In all seriousness, Nick, once again you are missing the point or just not listening.

I DO NOT claim to know if a Creator God (or Gods) exists or does not exist. Therefore since I do not know of his/her/their/its existence or non-existence, I do not deny the existence of such a being or beings. The same is true of miracles. I do not deny the possibility of miracles, just as I do not deny the possibility of demons and angels (or fairies or leprechauns, etc.). But my point is this: How many alleged miracles have been confirmed by neutral observers and scientists? Not many, if any. How often do we see an exception to a generalization in our lives? Answer: Fairly frequently.

So when we are confronted by thousands of supernatural claims in our world, religious and other, how do we determine if they are true or not? Do we take the time to study each and every one of them, in depth, reading all the "scholars" on that particular claim, or do we use a short cut: our judgment regarding the probability of a never-heard-of-before event, such as a resurrection, and compare that claim against the probability that this belief developed from a misperception or mistake regarding a natural process, that may have been a rare exception to a generalization.

That's the issue, Nick.

In our culture, the overwhelming majority of people believe that an exception to a generalization is more probable than a miracle/supernatural event by the very definition of a miracle. I cannot prove that the Resurrection, or any other miracle, did NOT happen. But I can show that the probability of such an event is very, very low compared to other possible, natural explanations.

Your miracle is possible, Nick, it is just highly improbable. I hope you will someday realize that.