tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post420883916092356885..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Why I Don't Believe the Resurrection Happened.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-17804675081161369302010-08-07T08:00:31.789-04:002010-08-07T08:00:31.789-04:00my summary of why joseph of arimathea was a fictio...my summary of why joseph of arimathea was a fictional character.<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwcoWerYTCc<br />and<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YV8H3RkXb0<br /><br />see what you think. though no one will look at this post since it is quite old now...Jonathan MS Pearcehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281228447185474180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-69243565971657925702009-11-22T15:12:43.830-05:002009-11-22T15:12:43.830-05:00There really is quite a lot of evidence outside th...There really is quite a lot of evidence outside the New Testament for the Resurrection of Jesus that can be examined by anyone who is honestly looking for the truth of the matter<br /><br />Here are the facts according to the New Testament: Jesus was crucified, died on a cross, and was buried in a tomb. Three days later the tomb was found empty and many of His followers claim to have seen him in his physical body for a period of 40 days.<br /><br />The Jewish writer, Josephus (Antiquities XXXIII.iii.) mentions Jesus crucifixion<br />Pliny records the corporate worship of Jesus by people in the first century who considered the first day of the week Resurrection Sunday. (Pliny the Younger, Epistles, X96)<br />The Jewish Talmud mentions the crucifixion of Jesus. (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a)<br />The Roman historian Tacitus wrote that Nero inflicted excruciating punishment on Christian in order to put down rumors concerning the burning of Rome. He identifies Christian as followers of Christus, who was executed by Pilate. (Tacitus, Annals, Book XV http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.mb.txt)<br /><br />One argument against the Resurrection is called the “Swoon Theory.” The most compelling argument against this theory is the nature of the scourging that was typical of that time. Typically the instrument of torture that involved a whip with ends containing bone shards, broken glass, and rock shards resulted in wounds that exposed and injured the internal organs and resulted in severe blood loss. Scourging often resulted in death and when the victim survived he was typically marred beyond recognition and severely weakened by blood loss. Being subjected to crucifixion in this weakened condition would make survival miraculous because of the effort that he would need to expend to continue breathing.<br /><br />The “twin theory” suggests that Jesus had a twin who took his place on the cross. It would be extremely odd that this detail would have been missing from Jesus’ family history. There were many compelling reasons for his contemporaries who were adversaries to His cause to bring such a possibility to light but they did not. <br /><br />The “stolen body” argument is the one that was argued by the Jews of the Sanhedrin who wanted to put down the news of His resurrection that was being noised about. This theory that the disciples stole the can actually be dated back to the first century and is mentioned in the Bible where it is noted as a false claim. This theory does not account for the behavior of the disciples who, except for John suffered and died rather than recant their faith in Jesus. This must be considered in the context of their preceding reaction to his death by crucifixion. When Jesus was arrested he was abandoned by his disciples. When Mary came to them with the news of His Resurrection they refused at first to believe. They had sequestered themselves for fear of the Jews because they were terrified until Jesus appeared to them. Fifty days later we find them preaching publicly. <br /><br />The “hallucination theory” claims that a group of 500 disciples simultaneously experienced a group hallucination of the resurrected Jesus. Hallucinations are internal to the mind and the likelihood of 500 people having the same hallucination would in itself be miraculous.<br /><br />The conversion of Saul of Tarsus is another compelling reason for the resurrection. Saul, a devout Jew, considered the early Christians heretics until he came face to face with the resurrected Jesus on his mission to persecute the believers. Paul’s conversion is authenticated in that he was beheaded in Rome by Nero AD 64-65 for his faith in the risen Lord. Prior to that time he had suffered greatly because of his faith in the risen Jesus.<br /><br />The Resurrection of Jesus is the one fact that validates who He is and is therefore the doctrine that is under the most severe attack.RosaleneShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06045840923100735968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-39158892413798279992009-11-03T02:16:20.964-05:002009-11-03T02:16:20.964-05:00I believe you all are idiots. This is ONE man'...I believe you all are idiots. This is ONE man's ridiculous THEORY (need I explain what a theory is?), and we all know that just because someone has enough time on their hands to compose a very unconvincing science-fiction paper for their class at their liberal college, it does not make it true. My problem is not with "Why I don't believe...", (that's your right to believe you evolved from monkeys if you wish) my problem is with the title above, "Debunking Christianity". Just as much as people without hope need something to believe in, those with dirty deeds in their hearts need to not believe in God and hell. After tragedies such as 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, and millions of other catastrophes that have occurred in recent times (that keep getting more frequent and more disastrous, just like it was prophesied in Revelations), I have heard from so many people "WHY would GOD allow this to happen? WHY????" Well, I will tell you why. Our once land of the free, one nation under God, has worked tirelessly to erase His name...out of schools, out of the news, out of the Pledge Of Allegiance ( heck, we even have a president that won't salute our flag or show any reverence at all to it), and it's to the point where the only time we hear His name is when it's used as a prefix to "dammit". So, I think God just stepped back and said, "Okay. You want me out, I'm out." America was once a prosperous country, and now we are swimming in debt, crime, and we hardly even shudder anymore when our neighbors are raped and murdered. It is an every day occurrence. And it is because of things like this post that our youth are becoming weaker and weaker minded. At least when the generations before us grew up in the faith of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, they had standards because they had something to believe in. This country prospered because of citizens like them. They worked and fought for what they believed in. But look at this weak-minded country now. God help us, if it's not too late.<br /><br />Now, I am going to go punch myself in the face for actually reading this post.John 3:16noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-90363426614740489612008-06-07T08:28:00.000-04:002008-06-07T08:28:00.000-04:00Hi Matthew,Thanks for your post. Very Interesting ...Hi Matthew,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your post. Very Interesting stuff, well presented and argued. <BR/><BR/>I do have some questions for you however, <BR/><BR/>(1) If you require supernatural evidence to validate supernatural claims then would not your supernatural evidence given violate you axioms of an objective world external to yourself? And if so would not the requirements for the evidence become redundant? <BR/><BR/>(2) If the supernatural evidence required does not violate the axioms you describe in your post then would not the supernatural evidence required be superseded by the axioms argued for by the external objective world? <BR/><BR/>(3) Did not the disciples and the Apostle Paul himself receive this personal supernatural evidence you require?<BR/><BR/>In addition to your comments about reliable historians <BR/><BR/>(1)<BR/><BR/>"What we have today are four canonical gospels. Each of the gospels are anonymous although names have been subsequently attached to them. Our gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John do not claim to be critical histories written by the highest-ranking, world-class, top-notch, best educated, reputable historians of antiquity, nor do the gospels discuss their methodology in any detail as such reputable historians would."<BR/><BR/>Does not Luke, the author of our third Gospel, give you what you require?<BR/><BR/>1Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, <BR/><BR/>2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, <BR/><BR/>3it seemed good tome also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, <BR/><BR/>4that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. <BR/><BR/>(English Standard Version)<BR/><BR/>Luke fits the bill on all accounts.<BR/><BR/>(2) Your attacks on the Greek word "ginomai" are interesting but do they not boil down to translators attempts to reconstruct the account? I noticed a good article in these comments the disagree and offer an alternate explanation! Cannot we offer the same attacks towards your post with grammatical and punctuation problems also present within your own work? <BR/><BR/>Perhaps you may find some arguments better presented on my own blog?<BR/><BR/>https://christianityversusatheism.blogspot.com<BR/><BR/> I welcome the dialogue.<BR/><BR/>Regards, Phillip BrownReverend Phillip Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066146652758132098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-32833907413593118892008-03-31T12:57:00.000-04:002008-03-31T12:57:00.000-04:00Paging Doubting John to this thread: http://www.sh...Paging Doubting John to this thread: http://www.sheezyart.com/forum/topic/113407/Lord DoomRaterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02904826454282023281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-5885596147632104772008-03-29T08:41:00.000-04:002008-03-29T08:41:00.000-04:00Evan"Paul never mentions Jesus of Nazareth."How on...Evan<BR/><BR/>"Paul never mentions Jesus of Nazareth."<BR/><BR/>How on earth it that Paul not mentioning "Jesus of Nazereth" evidence that he is not refering to the same Jesus of Nazereth? Yours is argument from silence.<BR/><BR/>"Paul's death is not attested to in non-Christian records and Acts is a product of the 2nd century, removed at least 75 years from the events it narrates."<BR/><BR/>As I mentioned in my earlier post, at what line do you dismiss historical records? When they are 10% Christian? 20% Christian? I really am interested in how you work this out, and why at all you dismiss records once it is deemed Christian? It all seems like an illogical conclusion to make. What are you exactly saying: that any historical evidence that has a breath of Christianity is actually some sort of grand conspiracy, and thus warrants a blanket dismissal? If so, where is your evidence for that? Who conspired? and why?<BR/><BR/>The book of Acts is actually believed, within secular and Christian sources, to be written between 1st and 2nd century (80 - 130 AD)<BR/><BR/>http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/acts.html<BR/><BR/>And there is internal evidence that it may have been written before Paul and Peter's death. Acts mentions the martyrdom of Stephen and James. WHy does it not mention Paul's death? Or Peter's? To say it does not mention their deaths because it may have disencouraged the early Christian community (as some have mentioned) does not live up as a good explanation. Christians knew they would be in trouble for their conversion (from Jewish religous authorities and others, and any trouble is reason to be disencouraged). Hence, a plausible reason why the death of Paul & Peter may not be mentioned in Acts is because neither of them had died when it was written, placing it's original date well before 65AD. SOme think this reasonable, some not. However to give Acts a straight forward 2nd century dating (as you do) shows you are missing some of the facts, and that you have not refuted any oral tradition either (and don't use the Chinese whispers argument to show oral tradition is unacceptable, it just doesn't work!)<BR/><BR/>"Again, I've given you examples of group delusions, which you said never happened.<BR/><BR/>Which is more likely, a group delusion (something we've observed and which Peter does NOT specifically address, even if you accept Acts) or a man rising from the dead, who had no problem appearing to people in the past to prove he was risen, but refuses to do the same for believers today?"<BR/><BR/>The 2nd option. And apparently, Jesus does still appear to many people in countries where there is a lack of Christian evangelism etc M.E. <BR/><BR/>Some number of muslims from M.E. convert to Christianity because they say they saw Jesus alive in front of them. <BR/><BR/>Besides, to ascribe the post-resurrection appearnces of Jesus to a group delusion means you do not know how group delusions really work, or you have not studied the Resurrection in enough detail, or both.<BR/><BR/>God Bless<BR/><BR/>Mr. Patel<BR/><BR/>P.s sorry for any typo errors!<BR/><BR/>Have a nice weekend.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-28136583645553840792008-03-29T08:03:00.000-04:002008-03-29T08:03:00.000-04:00Evan: "Hi Austin,I have a very simple question for...Evan: "Hi Austin,<BR/><BR/>I have a very simple question for you to consider for us; if Jesus did not resurrect, why would Peter and the other witnesses say He did, and then die for something they KNOW is a lie?<BR/><BR/>I have a very simple question for you to consider. What non-Christian source do you have for the story of Peter's death?"<BR/><BR/>Why do the sources have to be non-Christian? <BR/><BR/>Your question seems to demonstrate that as soon as a piece of historical evidence is deemed "Christian" it is no longer of any historical use. This reasonong is non-sequitur.<BR/><BR/>And you still didn't answer Austins question<BR/><BR/>God Bless<BR/><BR/>Mr. PatelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-22893586489992173122008-03-28T10:23:00.000-04:002008-03-28T10:23:00.000-04:00Austin, Paul never mentions Jesus of Nazareth. Pau...Austin, <BR/><BR/>Paul never mentions Jesus of Nazareth. Paul's death is not attested to in non-Christian records and Acts is a product of the 2nd century, removed at least 75 years from the events it narrates. <BR/><BR/>Again, I've given you examples of group delusions, which you said never happened.<BR/><BR/>Which is more likely, a group delusion (something we've observed and which Peter does NOT specifically address, even if you accept Acts) or a man rising from the dead, who had no problem appearing to people in the past to prove he was risen, but refuses to do the same for believers today?Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-56582875633460545652008-03-28T05:34:00.000-04:002008-03-28T05:34:00.000-04:00Evan,Honestly, I amnot sure whether you are seriou...Evan,<BR/>Honestly, I amnot sure whether you are serious or playing a prank. There is a problem with your point namely; the links and examples you posted are contextually irrelevant.<BR/>The biggest logical problem I find with those that would explain AWAY many of the realitites of the early Christian church is always that they fail to base any interpretation at the time and place of the events they try to explain.<BR/>Maybe you do not recal, but Peter had to answer this exact charge - there were also Sceptics and Cynics in those days - and here is what happened: "12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? 13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine. 14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: 15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day."<BR/>I appreciate the nature of these Disciples as SIMPLE men that would and could not devise an elaborate scam merely a few days after the man they believed was the WARRIOR king had been squashed by the might of the Roman empire. The Christian movement is the only belief system that was founded AFTER its main proponent died!<BR/>Why would there be a Christian faith if Jesus did not resurrect? What business would Paul have sacrificing his life for a man he never even met? A man killed by his friends in the Sahendrine and fellow Pharisees?<BR/>Evan, what in your mind would be the most logically consistent explanation for these historical facts?<BR/>Have a great day,<BR/>Austin Amadasun (Lagos, Nigeria)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16330702976748256583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-28024261576810206902008-03-27T17:56:00.000-04:002008-03-27T17:56:00.000-04:00Austin, you ask me if I have ever heard of a group...Austin, you ask me if I have ever heard of a group deluision.<BR/><BR/>Yeah <A HREF="http://books.google.com/books?id=3SQrtpnHb9MC&pg=PA334&lpg=PA334&dq=delusion+297.3&source=web&ots=XcF0W3nHUw&sig=7F01_K0F1FXv9OckTK3KAoSviXs&hl=en" REL="nofollow">I have</A>.<BR/><BR/>In fact, while I was in medical school I was at a hospital where <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Ramirez" REL="nofollow">one happened</A>.<BR/><BR/>Do you have any additional arguments?Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-65833663878394018072008-03-27T13:31:00.000-04:002008-03-27T13:31:00.000-04:00Hello Evan,I believe you missed the significance o...Hello Evan,<BR/>I believe you missed the significance of the emphasis in my post.<BR/>Maybe not Peter; maybe others (SOMEPEOPLE did die throughout the Romam empire for believing in the resurrection as secular historians have recorded).<BR/>So according to you, there were deluded - ALL OF THEM!<BR/>You ever heard of a group-delusion?<BR/>Deception, maybe...but delusion?<BR/>We are talking here about fishermen and prostitutes ... simple folks that had no prior ulterior motive to deceive or commit mass-suicide-by-the-torturer.<BR/>Evan, come off it please.<BR/>They died because they KNEW or at least THOUGHT they knew!<BR/>And I believe their witness more than the plenty words I have read here.<BR/>I conclude with this quote from Pliny The Younger "Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome."<BR/>Regards,<BR/>AustinUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16330702976748256583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-71052357795352837332008-03-27T12:56:00.000-04:002008-03-27T12:56:00.000-04:00Hi Austin,I have a very simple question for you to...Hi Austin,<BR/><BR/><I>I have a very simple question for you to consider for us; if Jesus did not resurrect, why would Peter and the other witnesses say He did, and then die for something they KNOW is a lie?</I><BR/><BR/>I have a very simple question for you to consider. What non-Christian source do you have for the story of Peter's death?<BR/><BR/>In addition, do you believe it is possible for people do delude themselves into believing something that is not true? Is it possible for someone to have a hallucination and then believe it was real?<BR/><BR/>Finally -- if someone is willing to die for something, is that always to be taken as evidence in favor of the truth of that thing?Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-953128489141021862008-03-27T12:34:00.000-04:002008-03-27T12:34:00.000-04:00Hi Mathew, I have a very simple question for you t...Hi Mathew, <BR/>I have a very simple question for you to consider for us; if Jesus did not resurrect, why would Peter and the other witnesses say He did, and then die for something they KNOW is a lie?<BR/>I await your response.<BR/>In Africa, we have a saying that a lot of words sometimes hides more than it reveals.<BR/>Regards,<BR/>Austin (Lagos, Nigeria)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16330702976748256583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-51956001013522167872008-03-25T15:16:00.000-04:002008-03-25T15:16:00.000-04:00Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth...Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. John 17:17<BR/><BR/>All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 2 Timothy 3:16 NIV<BR/><BR/>These are a few of the scriptures used to defend Biblical inerrancy. A recent Pew poll determined that 26% of Christians are the Evangelical type (according to NYT, the Pew survey found they (Protestants) now make up about 50 percent. Evangelical Christians account for a slim majority of Protestants). So if this is the case then your viewpoint would seem to be in the minority.<BR/>I wonder why you would even bother mentioning it since an errant Bible is one of the reasons I don't find it relevant. When I first found an error I knew immediately that I would then have to rely on myself to determine which scripture was true and which was a lie. What good is a Bible if it can't be relied on and if I'm going to be the one who determines truth then I would have to get a powerful good education to help in the effort and that means reason and the scientific method would be put on a higher plane than the Bible. So, I tossed the Bible. Never have I regretted the decision.Trouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10728387496683503438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-80299660798844928922008-03-24T22:54:00.000-04:002008-03-24T22:54:00.000-04:00Jim Holman writes:“Well, but you're changing the c...Jim Holman writes:<BR/><BR/>“Well, but you're changing the conditions of the argument to include universes we can't observe. If you want to do that, then you end up with the same problem with the resurrection. Maybe there are other parallel universes in which resurrections are the norm.”<BR/><BR/>I’m not really Jim. What I’m saying is the analogy compares two things that cannot be compared on equal terms. One (the Big Bang) we are unable to assign a probability to – as an aside, if one wanted to wax philosophical, we could assign it a probability of 1.00, as we are here and the universe exists – and the other we can assign a probability to (based on the number of human deaths, a reanimation would have an extreme low probability).<BR/><BR/>All of that aside, I believe your argument of requiring a reasonable amount of verifiable evidence for any event to be the best strategy. However, I also agree with Mathew that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-74940239311648805922008-03-24T21:08:00.000-04:002008-03-24T21:08:00.000-04:00trou writes: The issue of inerrancy is addressed ...trou writes: <I>The issue of inerrancy is addressed early on...</I><BR/><BR/>There are a couple of things that I find interesting about the doctrine of biblical inerrancy:<BR/><BR/>1) it's not clear what the doctrine even entails. Some say it means that "everything in the Bible is true," but that would even include things such as the words of Satan, and so on. Others say that it is true "in all that it affirms," but there are no easy criteria for understanding what it "affirms."<BR/><BR/>2) more importantly, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is itself not a biblical doctrine. So it is odd to hear people talk about "sola scriptura," on the one hand, and biblical inerrancy on the other. There's nothing in the Bible that says that it is inerrant. The is no list of canonical books in the Bible. Thus, to hold that the Bible is inerrant is to hold an unbiblical point of view.Jim Holmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14854720105702925980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-34136254101082849092008-03-24T14:16:00.000-04:002008-03-24T14:16:00.000-04:00"In its intention there is no errors in the Bible ..."In its intention there is no errors in the Bible (at least that I know of)..."<BR/><BR/>I'm reading the book written by Hector Avalos entitled "The End of Biblical Studies". The issue of inerrancy is addressed early on and the point is made that translations vary not only due to things like word meaning and cultural differences (as you would expect) but due to actually changing the text so as not to "confuse" the layman or to preserve a preconceived notion of what the Bible means. In other words, the Bible has been changed in places at the whim of a translator by deliberately falsifying earlier texts in order to present a more pleasing translation.<BR/>We know this has happened repeatedly from the beginning and many have written books on the subject. I just thought that if you wanted to eliminate your ignorance in this regard then this book could help you understand that the translation that you are reading is likely compromised more than you know and reading it would be a good place to start learning just how errant your Bible is.Trouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10728387496683503438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-2092751978763989652008-03-24T11:43:00.000-04:002008-03-24T11:43:00.000-04:00Although I too am skeptical, I have a few issues w...Although I too am skeptical, I have a few issues with your presentation. First, the Greek word that you use, transliterated as ginomai does not mean was. It is a deponent - a word with passive spelling but active in meaning and it means "I become or I am" - not was. <BR/>Second, your argument seems to collapse on the grounds of solipsism - the thought that if "I" cannot verify an event through empirical evidence, then that event did not happen. This argument is based on self and upon experience. No human is subject to or able to experience the entire "human condition".<BR/>Third, that the world we inhabit is not based upon the objective - and even if it were, you would not be able to interpret it as such, as your subjective lens of observation seems to skew your interpretation in that direction. I do this as well - welcome to the human condition.<BR/>Fourth, the law of uniformity is not upon which I would want to hang my hat upon, logically speaking. This law does not allow for obvious anomalies - the Ice Age for example - nor what the effects of those anomalies might have upon the world.<BR/>Overall, you present a lucid case, but those areas listed above, to me, are quite problematic and weaken your arguments significantly.Jeffrey Crawfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14672340537501101687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-51363514297832466932008-03-24T00:28:00.000-04:002008-03-24T00:28:00.000-04:00Hi Matthew great post!I’ve just seen Fox News inte...Hi Matthew great post!<BR/><BR/>I’ve just seen Fox News interviewing a 9/11 Conspiracy theorist. ( If it can be called an interview. Really just 2 minutes of pouring scorn. ) So if Resurrection occurred today how would the media address it? Would witnesses be treated like alien abductees for instance?<BR/><BR/>You mention “Scientific Community for the Investigation of the Paranormal”<BR/>Is this CSICOP? ( James Randi & his crowd )<BR/>They would insist it was replicated on the White House lawn!<BR/><BR/>I wonder what the world would be like if the ebionites ( who actually knew Jesus ) won the “battle for minds”, not Saul of Tarsus ( who saw a vision, but knew he was right! )<BR/>Would Mithra or Sol Invictus be worshipped?<BR/>What would the Bible belt be called?<BR/><BR/>What does it say about humans that we are derisive about something reported today but believing of something that is reported 2000yrs ago?<BR/>Rod McKenzieRod McKenziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12538784786574566329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-764808092959272772008-03-23T22:58:00.000-04:002008-03-23T22:58:00.000-04:00In addition we can see the physical residuals of t...In addition we can see the physical residuals of the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence" REL="nofollow">Big Bang</A>, but we have no physical evidence of the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_appearances_of_Jesus" REL="nofollow">resurrection</A>.Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-11156128360401133392008-03-23T16:36:00.000-04:002008-03-23T16:36:00.000-04:00m.tully writes: Due to technological constraints,...m.tully writes: <I>Due to technological constraints, it is impossible for us to assign a probability to the Big Bang. It may be, as you called it, a unique event. But then again it may have occurred with a very high frequency in the past or it may currently be occurring with a very high frequency outside of our observable universe. In which case it would be a very high probability event.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, but you're changing the conditions of the argument to include universes we can't observe. If you want to do that, then you end up with the same problem with the resurrection. Maybe there are other parallel universes in which resurrections are the norm. Or maybe there have been previous universes, spawned by previous big bangs, in which resurrections were common. So you end up with the same problem. <BR/><BR/>I just don't think that arguments against the resurrection work very well. More importantly, the skeptic does not even have to "argue against" the resurrection. The burden of proof is on the side making the positive claim.<BR/><BR/>I personally don't believe in the resurrection because I am not compelled by the evidence, end of story. I don't have to deny the possibility of the miraculous. I don't have to calculate probabilities. I don't have to worry about whether the gospel stories are completely consistent or not. <BR/><BR/>In other words, I think the stronger position for the skeptic is to insist that the believer make a compelling case for the resurrection based on the historical evidence. I don't think that such a case can be made. If it could be made, then most all of us would already believe in the resurrection. I mean, in a sense, if such an argument could be made, it wouldn't have to be made, because the conclusion would be obvious. <BR/><BR/>For example, nobody tries to prove that Abraham Lincoln was president of the United States. Why not? Because it's obvious to any rational person that he was.<BR/><BR/>Sam Harris made a similar point. I don't recall the exact language, but it was basically that if it were obvious that Christianity were true, then there wouldn't be a <I>religion</I> of Christianity. There would be a <I>science</I> of Christianity. There wouldn't be any good reason to doubt it.Jim Holmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14854720105702925980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-55025736062414569632008-03-23T14:10:00.000-04:002008-03-23T14:10:00.000-04:00Jim,An interesting post, but I don’t think the Big...Jim,<BR/><BR/>An interesting post, but I don’t think the Big Bang - Resurrection analogy holds up well.<BR/><BR/>Due to technological constraints, it is impossible for us to assign a probability to the Big Bang. It may be, as you called it, a unique event. But then again it may have occurred with a very high frequency in the past or it may currently be occurring with a very high frequency outside of our observable universe. In which case it would be a very high probability event.<BR/><BR/>Human death however, is an easily observable event and based on a huge number of observations we can assign it a probability – 1.00. Now consider a human reanimation 3 days after death. Of all the human deaths we have observed, what percentage resulted in a resurrection? That question can be answered with a statistical probability.M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-18764690368648406852008-03-23T13:31:00.000-04:002008-03-23T13:31:00.000-04:00Hi Jim,For example, whatever happened that brought...Hi Jim,<BR/><B><I>For example, whatever happened that brought the universe into existence -- big bang or otherwise -- was also a unique event.</B></I><BR/>the details are dubious, but the results are not. all the evidence converges into like the first billionth of a second. before that we can't see so anything regarding that is dubios. We can replicate and make predictions based on the concepts of the big bang so it has precedents and things that we can predict and control for.<BR/><BR/>you have created a slippery slope.<BR/><BR/>the fact remains there is more evidence discounting a resurrection than there is for the big bang.<BR/><BR/>I'd like to address the rest of your comment, but I was able to rebut part of it anyway. gotta go.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-61777215199090959532008-03-23T10:40:00.000-04:002008-03-23T10:40:00.000-04:00lee randolph writes: It is unique, so according t...lee randolph writes: <I>It is unique, so according to most day to day applications of principles of reasoning it should be considered dubious until it is replicated.</I><BR/><BR/>I think there's a problem with that line of reasoning. For example, whatever happened that brought the universe into existence -- big bang or otherwise -- was also a unique event. So by your reasoning it seems we would conclude that belief in the existence of the universe is dubious until the big bang, or whatever, could be replicated.<BR/><BR/>But more than that, you're saying that "unique" events have to be "replicated" .... which means that they aren't unique. Right? In other words, you're setting up a condition of belief that contradicts the very nature of the potential object of belief. In effect you're saying that no one should ever believe in a unique event. But why is that?<BR/><BR/>I think this is also a problem with the "principle of uniformity" as presented in the article:<BR/><BR/><I>This axiom, the principle of uniformity, is one that I assume a priori in my approach to studying history but it must be recognized that it is an axiom that is probabilistic in nature. That is, the principle of uniformity is about the uniformity of probability.</I><BR/><BR/>Under that principle, the probability of there having been a "big bang" or other similar event is so tiny that it could hardly be measured -- the probability would be almost zero. In fact, it would be the same probability as any other unique event -- such as the resurrection. Yet we know with complete certainty that the big bang or something like it happened, because the universe does in fact exist.<BR/><BR/>In other words, the fact that a unique event has almost zero probability of happening is not a reason to believe that it didn't happen.<BR/><BR/>The Christian could use the same argument for the resurrection -- that yes, there was virtually no probability that it would happen, but it did in fact happen.<BR/><BR/>As far as supernatural claims requiring supernatural evidence -- the article states <I>That Jesus Christ appeared to Saul of Tarsus is a supernatural claim and I would have to have supernatural evidence to validate such as the risen Jesus appearing to me to provide supernatural evidence for this claim.</I><BR/><BR/>Christians would claim that this is exactly what happened -- that the evidence you require is exactly the evidence that was provided. Jesus rose from the dead. He then appeared to a number of individuals in such a convincing manner that those individuals reoriented their entire lives around that evidence -- and not only that, but that they also in many cases put themselves at great personal risk including beatings, imprisonment, and even execution, based on that evidence. Even Saul, an active enemy of Christianity was convinced by the evidence. <BR/><BR/>But the thing is that you want that evidence <I>for yourself</I>. But it seems to me that would be an unreasonable requirement. In other words, it seems that in your view the resurrection would have to be repeated in front of every community in every generation, and be verified by all the best minds in that community. <BR/><BR/>In that situation it's not even clear how many resurrections would be required to make it convincing. Perhaps the resurrection would have to be a kind of Cirque du Soleil, traveling around the world and giving regular performances, with Jesus being crucified and rising from the dead every night, with weekend matinee performances attended by the relevant scholars and scientists. Of course this same kind of performance would have to be available to every generation so that they would have their own convincing evidence.<BR/><BR/>Of course the Christians would say that such a show is not necessary because you can in fact experience the resurrected Jesus in your own life. It's just that that kind of experience can't be verified by a scientific committee. Nonetheless hundreds of millions of Christians around the world claim to have that very experience.<BR/><BR/>As far as lack of scientific evidence, people routinely believe all sorts of metaphysical things without scientific evidence. They believe that they are "persons," not biological machines. They believe that murder is "wrong" and kindness is "right." They believe that rainbows are "beautiful." Many believe that they have a "destiny" or a "purpose." If you want to make science the arbiter and validator of all experience, then you have to account for all of these very ordinary and non-scientific beliefs that most people have. <BR/><BR/>Personally, I'm not a Christian, but I think there are some holes in your argument that need to be worked on.Jim Holmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14854720105702925980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-8597436754338249442008-03-23T09:34:00.000-04:002008-03-23T09:34:00.000-04:00In Luke 24:9 the time of day is very early in the ...In Luke 24:9 the time of day is very early in the morning and there are 11 disciples, in John 19-24, there are 10 disciples and it is the EVENING.<BR/><BR/>There's not really much else to say. Why does Matthew seem to think that this is a 'logical contradiction' or that there is no explanation that is 'remotely likely'. How about this: Thomas left the room during the course of the day.Claudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16705428441316701050noreply@blogger.com