The Evidence Skeptics would like to see for the Resurrection Claim

[Meh Gerbil]

My life is dedicated to debunking one of the most deadly superstitions known to mankind: conservative/fundamentalist Christianity.

'By one of the most' you mean 'left in the dust by atheism':
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post310194

Atheism slaughtered more people during a short 50 year period in the 20th century than all three Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) combined in the previous 2000 years.
Maybe the robe in your avatar is red to hide the splatter?

[Meh Gerbil]

Until you guys accept that the evidence shows that Jesus was most likely not buried in a tomb but in an unmarked hole in the ground.

I accept the evidence that most crucifixion victims weren't buried in a tomb.
I accept the evidence that all things being equal that it would be unlikely that Jesus would be buried in a tomb.
However, none of that excludes that possibility that he was buried in a tomb.

Unlikely means 'it can happen' and the evidence (eye witness testimony recorded in the Bible) suggests that it did happen.

[Adrift]

I accept the evidence that most crucifixion victims weren't buried in a tomb.
I accept the evidence that all things being equal that it would be unlikely that Jesus would be buried in a tomb.
However, none of that excludes that possibility that he was buried in a tomb.

Unlikely means 'it can happen' and the evidence (eye witness testimony recorded in the Bible) suggests that it did happen.

And, the majority of Biblical scholars, 75%, accept the historicity of the empty tomb. Gary claims to accept the majority opinion of relevant scholarly opinion, you know, except when he doesn't (which is often and regular).

[One Bad Pig]

What a joke. So since New Testament scholar Ehrman's expertise is textual criticism, he is not an authority on other issues related to the New Testament.

Correct.

Silly and ignorant.

Says someone who refuses to read scholars...

[Meh Gerbil]

And, the majority of Biblical scholars, 75%, accept the historicity of the empty tomb. Gary claims to accept the majority opinion of relevant scholarly opinion, you know, except when he doesn't (which is often and regular).

I'm not perturbed at Gary doubting the resurrection of Christ.
It is a fantastic claim and I appreciate that people don't believe it.
No problem.

What bothers me is his attempt to turn 'unlikely' into 'proof didn't happen'.
I hate goofy word play unless I'm torturing other people with it.

[Adrift]

I'm not perturbed at Gary doubting the resurrection of Christ.
It is a fantastic claim and I appreciate that people don't believe it.
No problem.

What bothers me is his attempt to turn 'unlikely' into 'proof didn't happen'.
I hate goofy word play unless I'm torturing other people with it.

Eh, acceptance of the empty tomb by itself is not synonymous with belief in the resurrection. I don't take issue with people who do not accept the resurrection, I take issue with hypocrites who claim to accept majority expert opinion, and then backpedal when it hurts their agenda. Either don't tell me you accept majority opinion, or don't be a hypocrite.

Also, since you're unfamiliar with him, Gary loves playing with unrealistic possible/plausible/probable scenarios, and measuring percentages of certainty. So, for instance, though he calls himself a non-supernaturalist, he claims to accept the "possibility" of the existence of the miraculous, while simultaneously ridiculing it and arguing against that same possibility. More likely than not, he'll entertain the quibbling over words like "likely" and "unlikely" for as long as you'll let him, and then some.

[Meh Gerbil]

Eh, acceptance of the empty tomb by itself is not synonymous with belief in the resurrection. I don't take issue with people who do not accept the resurrection, I take issue with hypocrites who claim to accept majority expert opinion, and then backpedal when it hurts their agenda. Either don't tell me you accept majority opinion, or don't be a hypocrite.

Also, since you're unfamiliar with him, Gary loves playing with unrealistic possible/plausible/probable scenarios, and measuring percentages of certainty. So, for instance, though he calls himself a non-supernaturalist, he claims to accept the "possibility" of the existence of the miraculous, while simultaneously ridiculing it and arguing against that same possibility. More likely than not, he'll entertain the quibbling over words like "likely" and "unlikely" for as long as you'll let him, and then some.

I understand as I enjoy that sort of nonsense from time to time myself.
Thanks for the heads up.

[Raphael]

As long as you're on the case I don't need to worry.
Question: How often will this need to be repeated for the ridiculous claims to stop?

Including other threads, he's been given that piece of evidence atleast 4 times now (could be more, the one thread is over 200 pages).

I remember watching a History Channel documentary in crucifixion in general (it was this that alerted me to the information in #154). And all of their historians said that the Biblical account of Jesus' crucifixion is the best historical record we have of the Roman practises around crucifixion. Nothing else we have in the Roman histories records in detail what their methods were.

It would be odd for the Gospels to be historical accurate on this part of the crucifixion and suddenly be wrong when it says that Pilate allowed Joseph of Arimathea to take the body.

[Meh Gerbil]

Including other threads, he's been given that piece of evidence atleast 4 times now (could be more, the one thread is over 200 pages).

I remember watching a History Channel documentary in crucifixion in general (it was this that alerted me to the information in #154). And all of their historians said that the Biblical account of Jesus' crucifixion is the best historical record we have of the Roman practises around crucifixion. Nothing else we have in the Roman histories records in detail what their methods were.

It would be odd for the Gospels to be historical accurate on this part of the crucifixion and suddenly be wrong when it says that Pilate allowed Joseph of Arimathea to take the body.

The fact it lists the names of the people involved seems to speak to it's credibility.
If you had a question about the account you could ask Pilate or Joseph of Arimathea.

Regardless, I'm finding the whole line of reasoning bizarre.
The fact he was put in a tomb is the least astonishing detail of the entire account.

[shunyadragon]

I'm not perturbed at Gary doubting the resurrection of Christ.
It is a fantastic claim and I appreciate that people don't believe it.
No problem.

What bothers me is his attempt to turn 'unlikely' into 'proof didn't happen'.
I hate goofy word play unless I'm torturing other people with it.

I agree, but the problem exists on both sides. Some apologists propose that if something is possible it therefore did happen. There is no proof either way in these types of claims as in the case in the miraculous events in all religions.

Case in point: The execution of the Bab. Despite the documentation and witnesses including Russian Diplomats, the miraculous nature of this event is not proven.

[Meh Gerbil]

I agree, but the problem exists on both sides. Some apologists propose that if something is possible it therefore did happen. There is no proof either way in these types of claims as in the case in the miraculous events in all religions.

True.

[Raphael]

I agree, but the problem exists on both sides. Some apologists propose that if something is possible it therefore did happen. There is no proof either way in these types of claims as in the case in the miraculous events in all religions.

Case in point: The execution of the Bab. Despite the documentation and witnesses including Russian Diplomats, the miraculous nature of this event is not proven.
*snip cite due to length*

Question for you Shunya. Do you believe the miraculous nature of this event?

[shunyadragon]

Question for you Shunya. Do you believe the miraculous nature of this event?

Actually, not the question for the thread. My belief would not be convincing to any skeptic concerning religious claims of miraculous events. The point is the skeptics would not likely accept any 'historical evidence for miraculous claim of an event in the past including the one I cited, which is probably the best historical documented religious miracle on record.

I believe in the Baha'i Faith. I am agnostic either way to the miraculous claims such as the Resurrection of Christ and the miracle of the execution of the Bab.



Simple, If there is a possibility of a natural explanation, skeptical ontological naturalists will reject any claim of a miraculous event.

[Adrift]

Question for you Shunya. Do you believe the miraculous nature of this event?

You had to know it wasn't going to be a simple yes or no answer.

[Meh Gerbil]

You had to know it wasn't going to be a simple yes or no answer.

I would take 'agnostic to it' as a pretty firm 'No'.
He has that luxury because his faith system isn't entirely dependent upon a miracle.