[Misc] Christians seem to be really good people

[kuzushi]

There is not 'ample evidence' that the Apostles believed that he rose from the dead. That is an assertion you have made and not backed up with evidence from any impartial source. There is biblical evidence and Christian apology, but this is not 'ample evidence'.



In the absence of this, we cannot get to a point where we can decide whether or not to accept the testimony of those reported to have seen him, because we don't have their testimony. We have reports of their testimony written by third parties after the event: What a court of law would call hearsay evidence. - Mostly inadmissable. Not always inadmissible, but let's be clear about the true nature of the evidence available.



My question to you and to all Christian Apologists would be - Your religion is based on faith. Why concern yourself with rationality? Do you lack the faith not to search for rational explanations?



If this is the case, that is a personal matter for you. Good luck to you.

If it is not the case then for whom is the appeal to rationality intended? The use of seemingly Socratic method, not to seek knowledge together, but to impart a previously assumed position strikes me as an underhand way of proselytizing. As stated before, I don't care what people believe, just that they argue honestly.
What

 

[kuzushi]

Who do you think spread the gospel in the beginning?

 

[Stato]

I'm confused. Did you mean to quote my post with just the word 'What' added, or was that posted in error?

 

[Bold Seagull]

Who do you think spread the gospel in the beginning?

His followers. However the gospels are widely acknowledged to have been written much later are were maintained through oral tradition for 40 to 100 years before they became written form. Even then there is some disagreement over Mark for example and whether a revised ending was added much later. You have the decades of oral tradition, the start of the original texts, the translations and versions, more translations, lost texts, various authors and contributors etc.

It's compelling historical evidence of Jesus existing, preaching, creating a following, and his execution, but it falls short of what can be taken as indisputable fact and what is in all probability.

 

[kuzushi]

I'm confused. Did you mean to quote my post with just the word 'What' added, or was that posted in error?

I'm having trouble with my phone

 

[Insel affe]

I'm having trouble with my phone

That is not the only thing your having trouble with.

 

[pastafarian]

Of course I would like it if you all started believing in Jesus and decided to follow him, but even if you don't, even if you reject Jesus, I'll accept that as long as you do so based on the established facts, ie. the facts that most scholars agree on. I've mentioned Bart Ehrman quite a bit in this thread. That's because he's an example of someone who knows the New Testament very well (he is one of the leading NT scholars in the world), and accepts the facts relating to the resurrection for which we have clear evidence. He does not however believe that Jesus actually did rise from the dead, since he has his own explanation of the facts. I'd say there are two reasons that lead me to disagree with him. That's where I stand on it.

I agree that we don't want to be going round in circles, but if we are to progress, we have to establish what we can of what is true and what is not. Once we've done that, we can discuss what remains of where we do not agree.

What are we agreed on so far?
To establish where we are, I'd like to ask everyone if I may the following questions:

1. Do you agree that Jesus was a real person?
(I think we are pretty much agreed on that)

2. Do you agree that he was crucified?
(I think we are all pretty much agreed on that, too)

3. Do you agree that his disciples believe that he rose from the dead? (I'm not asking whether you believe that they were right in this belief, just whether you accept that this is what they believed)

IF we can agree on all of the above, then it boils down to how we explain the fact of the third point.
I think we all agree on the first two anyway. Some people might not know enough to be able to have a strong opinion about the third point, and that's okay, too. They can do some research on it, but it's worth being aware that scholars, who do know a lot about it, broadly speaking accept the third point, too.









'The sincere belief of the Twelve that Jesus appeared to them alive after his death is widely accepted as historical bedrock by almost all scholars and is a key fact in what Gary Habermas calls a “minimal facts argument” for the resurrection of Jesus.' https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/62/62-2/JETS_62.2_341-51_Breitenbach.pdf Dr. Zach Breitenbach is the Director of the Worldview Center at Connection Pointe in Brownsburg, IN and the former Associate Director of Room For Doubt.

Astonishing post

 

[Blues Guitarist]

People don't have to accept it any more than they have to accept the holocaust (unless they are in Austria), or that the earth is a sphere, but don't mock the one who is holding the correct (in terms of expert consensus) opinion on the matter, and if he sticks to his opinion, don't accuse him of arrogance, or being mad or an idiot or intransigence.

Please cut out the racism.

 

[Blues Guitarist]

The only facts that I'm claiming are that Jesus lived, was crucified, and that his disciples believed that he rose from the dead. These are established facts.
I admit that everything else is my interpretation of those established facts.

My aunt believed she was the queen. I believe that she believed that she was the queen. That doesn’t mean she was the queen.

 

[Blues Guitarist]

It is abusive.
My response was not inaccurate. He made an unsupported assertion.

The bible supports his assertion.

 

[kuzushi]

Please cut out the racism.

Racism? Wow, you must be getting desperate

 

[kuzushi]

My aunt believed she was the queen. I believe that she believed that she was the queen. That doesn’t mean she was the queen.

True.

 

[kuzushi]

True.

But the correct answer to the question of whether or not that is what she believed would be yes, she did.

 

[Blues Guitarist]

Racism? Wow, you must be getting desperate

You made a racist accusation about Austrians. Please cut it out.

 

[kuzushi]

You made a racist accusation about Austrians. Please cut it out.

I believe it is illegal to dispute the holocaust in Austria. It's not a racist comment. It's just a fact.

 

[Insel affe]

I believe it is illegal to dispute the holocaust in Austria. It's not a racist comment. It's just a fact.

probably the only "fact" you have put forward in this thread

 

[Stato]

You made a racist accusation about Austrians. Please cut it out.

To be fair, I think he was just making reference to the fact that Holocaust denial is a criminal offence in Austria, so you are not free to make such statements in that country. Although true, his exception is not completely accurate as many other countries also have laws against Holocaust denial. The law in Austria is perhaps more known about in the UK following the arrest, trial and imprisonment of David Irving. I certainly didn't read his statement as being a slight on the Austrians.

 

[Blues Guitarist]

To be fair, I think he was just making reference to the fact that Holocaust denial is a criminal offence in Austria, so you are not free to make such statements in that country. Although true, his exception is not completely accurate as many other countries also have laws against Holocaust denial. The law in Austria is perhaps more known about in the UK following the arrest, trial and imprisonment of David Irving. I certainly didn't read his statement as being a slight on the Austrians.

As you say, many countries have Holocaust denial laws. Why did he pick on Austria?

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

As you say, many countries have Holocaust denial laws. Why did he pick on Austria?

Possibly because it was The only country he knew of having laws about the Holocaust, and possibly for the added nugget that Hitler was Austrian.

 

[kuzushi]

@Blues Guitarist
I don't see why referring to a fact about a country is racist. Austria is a country, not a race. I just happen to remember the David Irving case a few years ago. We don't have such laws in the UK. Austria is the only country I know about having laws like that, which I became aware of because of the case.