1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured The evidence for the resurection of Jesus

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by leroy, Apr 7, 2021.

  1. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    41,114
    Ratings:
    +24,314
    Religion:
    Atheist
    When we are talking about scholars we are talking about people that publish in professional journals. Apologetics sites are not professional journals. Historians that looked into the time of Luke's nativity investigated the claims and found those errors. They did not have a bias that the Jesus story was true or that it was false. You are accusing others of your sins. When a person approaches the claims of the Bible with an open mind and finds them to be false he is not biased. A person is biased when all of the evidence is against him and that person maintains that false belief.
     
  2. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    3,797
    Ratings:
    +315
    Religion:
    christian
    Are you saying that the 1500 scholar’s that Gary quotes are all people who publish in apologetic sites?....................will you support the claim? Or should we include the claim in the list of random assertions that you don’t support?


    No that is not the definition of bias………………if you want to use that definition then you would have to support your claim that the source is biased…. You would have to show that “all the evidence shows that the “75% scholars accept the empty tomb claim” is wrong” but the author ignores that evidence and publish his conclusions anyway.

    But don’t worry, nobody from this forum is expecting you to support that cliam
     
  3. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    3,797
    Ratings:
    +315
    Religion:
    christian
    How do you know that? Support your assertion.
     
  4. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    41,114
    Ratings:
    +24,314
    Religion:
    Atheist
    LO:L! Let's add bias to the ideas that you do not understand. And you forgot the rules. You need to support your claim first. Your attempt failed. You have still not supported your claims in the OP. You specifically said "historians" and your source used theologians (not historians) and apologists (Liars for Jesus are definitely not historians). Your source faled.

    When you support your claims then you can demand evidence of others. You ducked and dodged too many times to still have that privilege.
     
  5. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    41,114
    Ratings:
    +24,314
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Read the other posts that refuted your claims. That supports my assertion. You do not get to demand any evidence of me until you follow the rules. I asked for evidence first. You failed. You have not met your obligation.
     
  6. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    3,797
    Ratings:
    +315
    Religion:
    christian
    Besides you haven even showed that those 1500 scholars quoted in the article are not historians. It seems to me that you are just guessing.




    No, the OP says scholars* which includes but is not limited to historians

    I succeeded in supporting my claims, for example I supported the claim that 75% of NT scholars accept the empty tomb.



    Are you aware of the fact that you can be both a historian and a theologian?


    Are you going to support your claim that most scholars quoted in the article are theologians without degrees in history?



    Again I supported my claim, “most NT scholars accept the empty tomb.” for example


    A quick summery

    1 I made a claim (say most scholars accept the empty tomb)

    2 you asked for evidence

    3 I provided an article with a poll showing the opinion of 1500 scholars from various religions…. where 75% accept the empty tomb

    4 You said (or implied) that the scholars in the poll where all theologians without degrees in history and liars

    5 I ask for evidence for your claim

    6 You refuse to provide such evidence.
     
    #186 leroy, Apr 14, 2021
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2021
  7. Irate State

    Irate State Äkta människor

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2020
    Messages:
    59
    Ratings:
    +55
    Religion:
    None

    6. Anecdotes aren't evidence.
     
  8. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    41,114
    Ratings:
    +24,314
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Others did. And we do not have to show that the majority of 1500 were not historians. The burden of proof for that lies upon the author of the paper and he failed. He lost all credibility when he included any apologists and theologians. You screwed the pooch again.
     
  9. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    41,114
    Ratings:
    +24,314
    Religion:
    Atheist
    LOL!! There goes another irony meter!
     
  10. joelr

    joelr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,672
    Ratings:
    +542

    His study is bias. He polled more theologians who work from the assumption that the religion is really a message from God.

    He admits up front he is using more theologian type scholars:

    "By far, the majority of publications on the subject of Jesus' death and resur-rection have been written by North American
    authors. Interestingly, my study of these works also indicates an approximate ratio of 3,1 of moderate conservative
    to skeptical publications, as with the European publications. Here again, this signals the direction of current research,^"


    So the papers he's using are 3 to 1 in favor of the author being a believer. Which would mean they are some sort of theologian.
    Because almost 100% of historians view the gospel stories as a mythicized version of a Jewish teachers life.

    Now a real life not apologist study we have about 20% believing in a God with little doubt at the high level of scholarship. Take out the scholars who are Hindu, Islamic or another religion and you do not have remotely close to 75%. It would be somewhere under 20%.

    "Research by Neil Gross and Solon Simmons done on more than 1,400 professors from 20 disciplinary fields and religiosity found that the majority of professors, even at "elite" universities were religious believers. As a whole, university professors were less religious than the general US population, but it is hardly the case that the professorial landscape is characterized by an absence of religion. In the study, 9.8% were atheists, 13.1% were agnostic, 19.2% believe in a higher power, 4.3% believe in God some of the time, 16.6% had doubts but believed in God, 34.9% believed in God and had no doubts. At "elite" doctoral universities 36.5% were either atheists or agnostics and 20.4% believed in God without any doubts. Furthermore the authors noted, "religious skepticism represents a minority position, even among professors teaching at elite research universities."[5] They also found that professors at elite doctoral universities are much less religious than professors teaching in other kinds of institutions with more atheists and agnostics in numbers."


    Again, academia is not running around trying to tell you your churches are teaching made-up stuff. They mostly respect tradition. But they usually do not believe myths. Had Habernas used only historians he would have about 1% supporting the empty tomb. This paper is meaningless. We already know theologians accept the religions teachings without questioning the evidence or accept apologetics as truth. Yet we have just seen apologetics uses illogical circular arguments.

    What do historians think?


    "When the question of the historicity of Jesus comes up in an honest professional context, we are not asking whether the Gospel Jesus existed. All non-fundamentalist scholars agree that that Jesus never did exist. Christian apologetics is pseudo-history. No different than defending Atlantis. Or Moroni. Or women descending from Adam’s rib.

    No. We aren’t interested in that.

    When it comes to Jesus, just as with anyone else, real history is about trying to figure out what, if anything, we can really know about the man depicted in the New Testament (his actual life and teachings), through untold layers of distortion and mythmaking; and what, if anything, we can know about his role in starting the Christian movement that spread after his death. Consequently, I will here disregard fundamentalists and apologists as having no honest part in this debate, any more than they do on evolution or cosmology or anything else they cannot be honest about even to themselves."
    Historicity Big and Small: How Historians Try to Rescue Jesus • Richard Carrier



    So do you have any evidence besides a completely bias argument to popularity that literally says it's using a 3:1 ratio of believers of some sort over skeptics?

    You probably don't. I just watched Trent Horn debate Matt Dillahunty on the resurrection and Trent's best evidence was "we can't say for sure it didn't happen"? Right. Or maybe Hercules was the one actually real demigod? Or maybe all demigods are just made-up stories?
     
    #190 joelr, Apr 15, 2021
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2021
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. sayak83

    sayak83 Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    9,097
    Ratings:
    +8,689
    Religion:
    Pluralist Hindu
    The point is the research on Jesus history in NOT done by historians at all but Christian theologians. They run this journal and call it "history", but it's not. It's simply about their theological studies and beliefs. It would be very similar to temple trained Hindu theologians running a journal on historicity of Krishna and publishing papers on it. Why would anybody but a Hindu believe them?
    Also... look up the credentials of these people. They DO NOT have a degree in history.
    Even the ppl who say Jesus did not resurrect in their work (like John D. Crossan) does not have a degree in history. I do not care about the conclusion, but I do care that I see no one here who is actually a historian.

    Example. NT Wright. Please find his degree in history..

    N. T. Wright - Wikipedia
     
    #191 sayak83, Apr 15, 2021
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2021
    • Winner Winner x 1
  12. paarsurrey

    paarsurrey Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    18,681
    Ratings:
    +2,246
    The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus

    Jesus did not die on the Cross to start with and we find clues/arguments very much from the 4-Gospels itself to that affect, so there is no question of Jesus' resurrection. Right?
    Pauline-Christianity is based on a made-up vision of Paul (and the credulous Pauline-Christians, mislead by him believe it) with below mentioned false creeds, I understand:
    1. Jesus s/o Mary died a cursed death on the Cross (with no reliable eyewitness to narrate it)
    2. to lift the burden of the sins of the Christians including Paul and the disciples and or the Apostles
    3. Jesus s/o Mary rose from the dead, (it is false concept), as he did not die on the Cross to start with, (it was crafted to make Jesus God, which is never true).
    4. And then Jesus s/o Mary secretly traveled to Galilee (a wrong pretext, if Jesus s/o Mary was God then he needed not to move about secretly)
    5. and from Galilee Jesus s/o Mary ascended to the skies (another wrong claim, if Jesus was God he would have ascended to skies right from Golgotha where he was put on the Cross)
    6. (What facility is there in Galilee that made it easier for Jesus to ascend to sky from Galilee that was not available in Golgotha)
    7. And Jesus sat on the right hand of God-the-Father and the "spectators" saw him seated (none mentioned by names and other verifiable antecedents of them)
    8. (And none of them mentioned as to how long did they see Jesus in the sky and then he disappeared from the sky, and why can’t they see him now seated there.)
    Paul in a way made confession about it later:

    1 Corinthians 15:13-15
    13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is worthless, and so is your faith. 15 In that case, we are also exposed as false witnesses about God.”

    1 Corinthians 15:14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is worthless, and so is your faith.

    Yes, Paul is exposed that he made the vision and corrupted the Gospels to fit his Anti-Christ ideas (agenda). Right, please?
    This is the basis of the Pauline-Christianity whatever their denomination.
    I am an ordinary man in the street with no claim of any piety or any scholarship, correct/convince me if I am wrong, please.
    I am an Ahmadiyya peaceful Muslim.

    Regards
     
  13. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    3,797
    Ratings:
    +315
    Religion:
    christian
    Irrelevant given that my claim (and therefore my burden proof) is that the majority of NT Scholars accept the empty tomb and I succeeded in support my claim.

    And yes sure I failed at proving that the majority of historians that are atheists, non theologians, and that work for universities that you personally approve, accept the empty tomb but I never made such a claim….so I have no burden proof.

    The author is not obligated to apply your own irrelevant and arbitrary filters. The author is not obligated to exclude scholars that have different religious views that you do, the author is not obligated to exclude people with degrees that you personally don’t like, the author is not obligated to exclude universities that you personally disapprove,
     
  14. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    41,114
    Ratings:
    +24,314
    Religion:
    Atheist
    When did you do that? I only saw the failed article from Liberty University. I must have missed the post where you found a valid source.
     
  15. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    3,797
    Ratings:
    +315
    Religion:
    christian
    Granted, I failed to provide a source that fits your own personal and arbitrary standards.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  16. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    41,114
    Ratings:
    +24,314
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Not my arbitrary standards. By your own standards. You claimed "NT Scholars". Apologists are not NT Scholars, theologians are not NT Scholars. If you had included those as the "majority" that believe from the start no one would have opposed you. They would also have said "So what?" since biased approval is not worth very much. You failed by the standards that you claimed.
     
  17. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    3,797
    Ratings:
    +315
    Religion:
    christian


    How do you know that? seems to me that you are just guessing.



    Really ¿ can you support your claim?


    NT scholars like MT wRigth by definition have a degree in history.[/QUOTE]
     
    #197 leroy, Apr 15, 2021
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2021
  18. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    41,114
    Ratings:
    +24,314
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Do you realize how easy it is to go back to that post to see how you quote mined it?

    "They run this journal and call it "history", but it's not. It's simply about their theological studies and beliefs."
     
  19. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    9,605
    Ratings:
    +7,473
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Every claim you made in the OP.
    Just about everybody that responded has pointed this out to you.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    9,605
    Ratings:
    +7,473
    Religion:
    Atheist
    When you bring a claim concerning something medical for example, and as your "support" you quote a blog post written by a car mechanic, would you then really go to great lengths to dissect this blog post and point out how the car mechanic is wrong concerning the medical claim?

    Or would you rather just dismiss it at face value followed by "bring me a paper that is actually written by a medical professional, preferably one that was published in a well respected medical journal"?

    I say you would do the latter.

    It is what @Subduction Zone is doing here as well.

    The "university" is a joke. A bad joke.
     
Loading...