• 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!

The evidence for the resurection of Jesus

leroy

Well-Known Member
Are you still using your failed resource?

Liberty University is highly biased and not a valid source.
Should I include this assertion in the list of claims that you won’t support?




You cant simply claim that a source is wrong just because the author doesn’t share your own personal view
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Should I include this assertion in the list of claims that you won’t support?




You cant simply claim that a source is wrong just because the author doesn’t share your own personal view
Why would I need to? Seriously, how can you not understand that? I really should not have to prove that 2 + 2 = 4.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Why would I need to? Seriously, how can you not understand that? I really should not have to prove that 2 + 2 = 4.
Imagine how absurd would a YEC sound if the says “ohhhh but that source was written by an old earther” therefore the source is biased and flawed….. (without any justification on why the source fails)


? I really should not have to prove that 2 + 2 = 4
No, what you have to prove is that the source is wrong or fallacious. Explain and justify where the mistakes are.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Imagine how absurd would a YEC sound if the says “ohhhh but that source was written by an old earther” therefore the source is biased and flawed….. (without any justification on why the source fails)

No, I really should not have to explain this to you.

No, what you have to prove is that the source is wrong or fallacious. Explain and justify where the mistakes are.


Two words: Jerry Falwell.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Liberty University was his baby. Anything that relies on using the name Liberty University is going to be very biased since the university is extremely biased.

Try to vet your sources better. That was a worse error than relying on WLC.
Irrelevant, biased doesn’t mean “wrong”………
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Irrelevant, biased doesn’t mean “wrong”………

So what? It does mean "Not reliable". Which means that you did not support your claims. When someone says "What time is it?" And you say 2:05 and hold up a broken watch you might be right, but you did not support that it was 2:05.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
When a document says a one of event Jesus due to first science thesis who has not read that statement?

Not how the ancients resourced power.

What the research and argument today is about. Science machines and resource.

Spirit is a gas. We use gas as a resource in machines today also.

God O the planet human sciences resource.

Theme spirit in heavens. Cannot put it into container. Space supports a gas science relativity.

Science human thesis theorist.

Notice conscious word explanation due to artificial choice says on explanation science as resource human thesis theorist as choice.

Not a human as a thesis or a spirit resource.

We are not a gas.

If science quotes copying bible as a thesis then Stephen Hawking said you are trying to burn us to death.

Any plainer an explanation needed?

Science said gas is a spirit.

Humans live supported by water oxygen heavens. Not a gas.

In the beginning no human thesis existed.

Earth however did
Earths heavens did
Nature garden first mass life form was living.
Then humans owned presence.

Human theories to get spirit says I first have God. The stone.

The science theory about God.

I change stone by Alchemy to get a gas.
Now I have spirit a gas I then build my machine to give it spirit life. By gas.
Now I react Alchemy again by reaction machine.

First Alchemy reaction human applied. The creator of reaction.

Which says. Need a space to do alchemical conversion. Gas emerged burning out if stone cools to become present in a separation conversion application. Between light burning cold non burning.

Resource involves burning the gas.

When a human says when planet earth never existed they already said a planet a heavens as human theorising science.

The planet never not existed in a human life or thought. Why a human wasn't and did not theory how earth was created.

They theoried to have earth mass removed.

Lying the review of human egotism. Man he him is the creator by invention as a human say so.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes around 75% of scholars accept the empty tomb , this was determined by making a survey of scholars that have written and published on this topic.





primary source: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/58822082.pdf
Good, I was expecting this publication to be presented. The problem is that very few if of these scholarly publications are from actual historians. They are from theologians, apologists and priests. Why would the work of seminary trained Christian scholars have any relevance regarding questions of history? They are not historians regardless of their claims. For example the paper points to the work of Raymond Brown, who was a theologian and priest with no degree in history.
Raymond E. Brown - Wikipedia

This problem comes with the writer of this paper too. Wiki calls Gary Habermas a historian, yet all he has is a doctoral degree on the philosophy of religion! Why would the works of a philosopher of religion be considered when discussion history??

Gary Habermas - Wikipedia

So I will tell you again. Find me consensus among ACTUAL historians, and then I will look into it. The work of Christian theologians and philosophers are of no relevance to the topic.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
As a human born a baby I was sick.

I live being ill constantly suffering pain.

I get preached to by humans men history the philosophers that life was sacrificed yet it was also saved.

Rationally I can say....yes I am saved suffering. Just as a female human. Not a male.

I look at life. Lots of humans suffering far worse than my life. Knowing suffering I ask so where is God. A loving father? I never asked to be born. Parents sex formed my life.

I think that appraisal correct.

I don't like harming anything including nature. Yet I know we do.

Not easy being caring and loving.

So I read quotes....human.
I read human written stories.
I am told in my era to go to church or religious instruction.

So I did.

I can think for myself.

The reason why so many human ideas are expressed.

And I pondered why anyone would claim spirituality via harm.

Logic. Self a human living the experience.

I have spirit notification. Shadows. Looking like humans. Very scary.

Then I referenced others experience.

Thought about it.

Said I own the life. I die. Human.

Studied why the atmosphere owned human image and voice recording. A human psychic experience.

Knew it real had it occur myself.

Not difficult to just be a human owning a one of self experience.

Who can share that experience with others in similar human experiences.

To quote. Not just a one of claim.

Just like my man brother in history. Sacrificed. Saved living sacrificed. Seen as he lived.

Was that circumstance too difficult to believe as a human. Was saved living suffering for documented stories to be shared by a common group.

Such as those using a group title. Christian suffering sacrifice also?

All human life died. All humans die.

Yet you can witness life suffering. Saved to suffer to see the suffering to discuss it. Cannot discuss a man's life when he is deceased.

The phenomena occurs whilst you live suffering. As a human.

Truly wonder at some humans intelligent advice.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Yes around 75% of scholars accept the empty tomb , this was determined by making a survey of scholars that have written and published on this topic.





primary source: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/58822082.pdf

They do not. Gary Habermas is a Professor of Apologetics and among other pseudo-science thinks near death experiences prove God exists.
He doesn't say that the "scholars" he's citing are likely contemporary theologians and arguments against the empty tomb are ridiculous things like "everyone hallucinated".
Like all apologists he's not considering the fact that the stories could just be fiction and there is no need for an explanation.
So an apologist writing for a Jesus Studies publication is exactly what it sounds like.

The idea that if you actually took 75% of scholars and they would not only be Christians but actually be practicing and believe all the stories is just absurd. I have met many scientists and am yet to meet one who is religious. They obviously exist but your study is ridiculous.
Habermas has lectures on youtube that are full of crank concepts and standard apologetics.


"Sixth, the vast majority of contemporary theologians argue in some sense that
Jesus'
resurrection variously evidences, leads to, or otherwise indicates the truth
of Christian theology."

Ok Gary is completely eliminated from being a rational person and is pretty much showing your stance is likely wrong if this is your source.
The Bible is true because it's true? Hmmm, why are apologetics crank?


But wait, it gets worse. Then he compares 2 scholars ideas on Paul's vision and is trying to assert that Paul saw the actual body of Jesus. Even though he admits:

"Although the Acts accounts claim that Paul saw a luminous vision,"

But because both scholars imagined that Paul saw and heard Jesus this addresses the "bodily" nature of the Cristian claims and so because the resurrection is true this proves Christianity.
Wow.
Then more proof from the disciples and what they claim in the gospels must prove the stories true. Again, the stories are true because they say they are true.
 
Last edited:

leroy

Well-Known Member
So what? It does mean "Not reliable". Which means that you did not support your claims. When someone says "What time is it?" And you say 2:05 and hold up a broken watch you might be right, but you did not support that it was 2:05.
So what? It does mean "Not reliable". Which means that you did not support your claims. When someone says "What time is it?" And you say 2:05 and hold up a broken watch you might be right, but you did not support that it was 2:05.
No, bias doesn’t mean “not reliable” all articles have a bias, both from the author and the institutions that publish the articles.

Obviously an article on quantum mechanics by a scientists like Sean Carol would probably be biased in favor of the many worlds interpretation because he personally favors that interpretation ….. But it would be dishonest to simply drop the article and rejected it just because it was written by a “many worlds interpretation supporter”

Naturally you would expect the skeptic to explain why he thinks the article is wrong, where are the mistakes?



What time is it?" And you say 2:05 and hold up a broken watch you might be right,

But first you would have to show that the watch is broken, you are expected to provide the reasons for why you think it´s broken.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Yeah, we all have our biases. So, Jesus was resurrected and at the 'end of times' he will resurrect you too from dust. Happy?
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Good, I was expecting this publication to be presented. The problem is that very few if of these scholarly publications are from actual historians.

All the publications are form New Testament scholars (Jews, Muslims, atheist, agnostic, Christian etc.)

Which implies that they have a degree in history and have the proper credentials (otherwise they would have been unable to publish)




They are from theologians, apologists and priests.

That are also new testament scholars that have passed the peer review process




This problem comes with the writer of this paper too. Wiki calls Gary Habermas a historian, yet all he has is a doctoral degree on the philosophy of religion! Why would the works of a philosopher of religion be considered when discussion history??

Because he also has a degree in history


Besides the author is just responsible for making the poll and reporting the resoults, you dont need to be a historian to do that.

So I will tell you again. Find me consensus among ACTUAL historians, and then I will look into it. The work of Christian theologians and philosophers are of no relevance to the topic.

That simply shows your bias against people that have a different world view than you (Christians)

Besides the poll includes Christian and non-Christian NT scholars. So aia don’t really see your point.

But in any case, my claim was that most NT Scholars accept the empty tomb and I succeeded in supporting my claim…………….If you what to add an extra filter and exclude all the scholars that don’t share your world view then that’s your problem, the burned proof is on you. You would have to show that most scholars reject the empty tomb (after applying the filter) and then you have to show that it´s necessary to apply that filter for a better understanding of truth.


Imagine that I ask you to support that most scholars accept evolution (common ancestry)

Then you succeeded in providing a poll that shows that most scholars accept evolution

Then I say “ohhhhh but some scholars in the poll are athest.”

Would you say that my objection is a valid objection? Honestly would you accept that (in red letters as a valid objection?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
No, bias doesn’t mean “not reliable” all articles have a bias, both from the author and the institutions that publish the articles.

Obviously an article on quantum mechanics by a scientists like Sean Carol would probably be biased in favor of the many worlds interpretation because he personally favors that interpretation ….. But it would be dishonest to simply drop the article and rejected it just because it was written by a “many worlds interpretation supporter”

Naturally you would expect the skeptic to explain why he thinks the article is wrong, where are the mistakes?





But first you would have to show that the watch is broken, you are expected to provide the reasons for why you think it´s broken.
Fail. Read the other posts explaining your failure to you.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
They do not. Gary Habermas is a Professor of Apologetics and among other pseudo-science thinks near death experiences prove God exists.
He doesn't say that the "scholars" he's citing are likely contemporary theologians and arguments against the empty tomb are ridiculous things like "everyone hallucinated".
Like all apologists he's not considering the fact that the stories could just be fiction and there is no need for an explanation.
So an apologist writing for a Jesus Studies publication is exactly what it sounds like.

The idea that if you actually took 75% of scholars and they would not only be Christians but actually be practicing and believe all the stories is just absurd. I have met many scientists and am yet to meet one who is religious. They obviously exist but your study is ridiculous.
Habermas has lectures on youtube that are full of crank concepts and standard apologetics.


"Sixth, the vast majority of contemporary theologians argue in some sense that
Jesus'
resurrection variously evidences, leads to, or otherwise indicates the truth
of Christian theology."

Ok Gary is completely eliminated from being a rational person and is pretty much showing your stance is likely wrong if this is your source.
The Bible is true because it's true? Hmmm, why are apologetics crank?


But wait, it gets worse. Then he compares 2 scholars ideas on Paul's vision and is trying to assert that Paul saw the actual body of Jesus. Even though he admits:

"Although the Acts accounts claim that Paul saw a luminous vision,"

But because both scholars imagined that Paul saw and heard Jesus this addresses the "bodily" nature of the Cristian claims and so because the resurrection is true this proves Christianity.
Wow.
Then more proof from the disciples and what they claim in the gospels must prove the stories true. Again, the stories are true because they say they are true.


Irrelevant Gary Habermas is just the messenger, he is just reporting that out of 1500 scholars (Jews, Muslims, atheists, agnostic, Christian etc.) 75% accept the empty tomb.

His personal believes have no bearing on the validity of his poll. He could have been a flatt earher anti vaccine and a conspiracy theorists who thinks that the president is an evil reptilian alien that what’s take over the world … and that wouldn’t challenge the validity of his poll.

Besides the conclusions are testable and repeatable, any skeptic can do the same test and verify if the 75% is correct.

Plus I can’t ignore the intellectual hypocrisy of internet atheist (not talking about you personally) they say things “most scholars say that Luke was wrong with the census thing” and they don’t accept answers like “ohhhh but many of these scholars are non-christians”
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Jajajaja your unequivocal sign that you are cornered and can’t respond. “ go to my other posts I already explain it to you”
Wrong again. Please do not make false statements about others. I explained to you why your source failed. Others went into more details. Frankly you are not worth the effort for me. I know that you cannot face reality. Your source did not rely on historians for its claims, they made the mistake of counting Liars for Jesus and other poor sources.
 
Top