|
Post by Kirby on Jul 29, 2009 20:19:14 GMT -8
Why did they believe it happened? These guys were running scared. Did someone tell them that Jesus rose from the dead and then suddenly He becomes someone they are willing to die for? Were they martyred? Or just murdered? Martyr is a term we ascribe to them.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 29, 2009 22:23:23 GMT -8
great interchange from infidels.org, kirby.
i hope to explain the minimal facts approach soon... maybe I'll begin tomorrow, but I was hoping to clear away as much doubt as to the "5 facts" as possible.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 31, 2009 16:41:34 GMT -8
BTW, please note the amendment (in blue) that I made to my original post after reading further in the book.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 31, 2009 16:48:31 GMT -8
Okay, with that squared away, Habermas and Licona make a simple statement:
"Shortly after Jesus' death, his disciples believed that they saw him risen from the dead. They claimed that he had appeared to individuals among them, as well as to several groups. Two of those who once viewed Jesus as a false prophet later believed that he appeared to them risen: Paul, the church persecutor, and James, the skeptic and Jesus' brother. Both of them became Christians as a result. Therefore, not only do we have the testimony of friends, we have also heard from one enemy of Christianity and one skeptic. Finally we have the empty tomb. These facts point very strongly to Jesus' resurrection from the dead, which accounts for all five facts very nicely"
So, now, I submit this line of thinking to your scrutiny. What about this analysis to you disagree with?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 18, 2009 7:52:56 GMT -8
Kirbstomp, did I lose you on this thread?
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Aug 18, 2009 9:02:42 GMT -8
I'm here. Give me time.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 18, 2009 9:27:50 GMT -8
What? Do you mean people actually have to work in the summer???
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Aug 26, 2009 12:47:32 GMT -8
I'll concede that these facts strengthen the argument, but I cannot accept it as proof of the resurrection. I have heard a lot of people who have witnessed UFO's, ghosts, crypto-zoological beasts, etc. And while it may strengthen an argument that these things exist, and make their presence known to humans, I still have to have faith in them to believe they exist.
I guess I think this argument only bolsters a pre-existing faith (which is certainly beneficial to the one who has the faith) but it does little in convincing the faith-less. It is a backwards approach, IMO, since it requires some element of faith in the first place. Let's see if I can re-word the argument:
Jesus rose from the dead. Several historical figures believed this, in fact, they witnessed him after he had rose from the dead. So it must be true.
As I said, eyewitness testimony from unrelated people surely bolsters the argument. BUt there are thousands of unrelated people that believe 9-11 was an inside job, or that JFK was assasinated by Castro, etc. but that does not make it true.
To convince me, and other skeptics, I think you would have to start from a neutral point of view.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 26, 2009 13:54:24 GMT -8
I'll concede that these facts strengthen the argument, but I cannot accept it as proof of the resurrection. This intention was never to "prove" it. The intention is, as I stated earlier: the idea is to demonstrate that the resurrection is a valid historical conclusion about the events of Easter Sunday using facts that are virtually undisputed by all stripes of scholars.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 26, 2009 14:02:12 GMT -8
I still have to have faith... Well, yes, but, again, we have to have "faith" to believe a lot of things. It's a question of how much faith or faith based on what? And I can't answer how much faith it might take a given individual (some more some less I'll warrant), but it can be shown that it is faith based on good evidence. Or it helps the skeptic see that Christian faith is not simply based on wishful thinking but on concrete evidence that can be sifted through and that gives weight to it's claims. I don't think your rewording captures the argument. The argument doesn't start with Jesus rising from the dead. It starts with the claims that he rose from dead and the claims that he appeared to witnesses. It then examines the quality of the witnesses and sources (friendly, hostile, and indifferent), and then concludes that the claim has solid substantiation. not conclusive proof. How does this argument not start from a neutral point of view? In what ways is it begging the question?
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Aug 26, 2009 14:26:03 GMT -8
I guess because I assume you already believe in the resurrection, and you are the one presenting the argument. I know this opens up a can of worms, since I am assuming, and most, if not all arguments are made starting from a certain point of view.
True, and I guess it could be helpful, but I do not view historical perspective as beacause, as I quoted earlier from Horner on infidels:
Based on the above, you are begging the question because this argument bolsters your own faith, maybe, but does little to convince me. "The resurrection happened because people said it happened." Is what it sounds like to me.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 26, 2009 16:41:37 GMT -8
Based on the above, you are begging the question because this argument bolsters your own faith, maybe, but does little to convince me. The resurrection happened because people said it happened." Is what it sounds like to me. The argument can be divorced from me, and in fact, I've been careful to do so. It's not even my own argument. Did you read the connected links substantiating the arguments for how we know that the disciples claimed that Jesus had been raised and appeared to them, and also the arguments for how we can know they really believed those claims? Because "people said it happened" doesn't come close to a synopsis of the argument. That makes it sound like the argument didn't even bother to take stock of the trustworthiness of the claimants. Another angle to approach this topic from would be for you to put forward an alternate explanation for the events of Easter Sunday and the subsequent Christian claims, and for us to analyze that/ those alternatives and compare them to the positive evidence for the Christian claims. I have been very impressed by the inability of alternative explanations to even remotely satisfy all the facts.
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 26, 2009 16:44:57 GMT -8
To quote Former President Reagan "Facts are stupid things." He would probably agree with the idea of keeping "facts" and "knowables" to a minimum. He would seek out the truthiness of the matter.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 26, 2009 16:52:00 GMT -8
Umm, well, what is meant by "facts" in this argument is outlined in the first thread and I have no qualms considering these 5 facts facts indeed, as do virtually all scholars.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 26, 2009 16:54:34 GMT -8
I want some genuine argumentation about any of these "facts", not repetitive expression of distrust in "facts" in general. That's the lazy man's historical method. !
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Aug 26, 2009 17:18:30 GMT -8
True, it did not originate from you, but it is the point you are taking, at least in this debate, is it not? No. I suck. I point you back to the Horner quote. History is just weak science for providing concrete evidence for such a claim. Regarding Josephus (from wikipedia): I also am bothered by the "virtually all scholars" attitude, because, at one time, virtually all scholars thought that the world was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, and that black men were inferior to white men etc. I realize it may be the best we have to this point, but my point is that is why history is not to be trusted. I'm afraid I'm much to lazy to do that. I'll work on it. Let's start with the Josephus stuff above. His 2 references to Jesus may not be authentic.
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 26, 2009 18:09:37 GMT -8
Wow, Jesus is mentioned a few times in several thousand year old books. From the amount of sources that you have cited my friend, I think we can also conclude that Atlantis is historical fact. To further ad to this argument, I am an Atlantan! Now I am not an "Atlantean" but its pretty damn close.
|
|