I’m done on Theology Web. I see Dave has taken up the fight. Go get ’em, Dave! Dave is much more patient and tactful than I am so maybe he will have more success.
success is hard to find in discussions like that, no matter the tact, facts presented or logic used. You cant reason with unreasonable people.
For me, it’s seeing that they have nothing. Their grand evidence is summarized as weak and hope. I see what they have to say and just don’t find it convincing.
If the evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus were as good as many Christian apologists claim (“It is the best attested event in ancient history”), then why is it that not one public university in the western world lists the Resurrection of Jesus as an historical fact in its world history textbooks?
And another point: Nick and the other Christians make a big deal about the “Honor-shame society” in the middle-east during Jesus’ time. He infers that it is IMPOSSIBLE that any first century Jew to believe the “shameful” dead/resurrected messiah story unless it REALLY happened.
How can one assume, 2,000 years later, just how “impossible” people’s beliefs were in that time period?
Bottomline: Implausible, maybe. Improbable, possibly. But impossible??
And, which is more improbable:
1. A few uneducated, Jewish peasants would believe a shameful, unheard of belief.
Who would worship a dead and resurrected being? Apparently the Sumerians did:
“One of their top goddesses, Inanna (the Babylonian Ishtar, Goddess of Love and “Queen of Heaven”), was stripped naked and crucified, yet rose again and, triumphant, condemned to Hell her lover, the shepherd-god Dumuzi (the Babylonian Tammuz). This became the center of a major Sumerian sacred story, preserved in clay tablets dating over a thousand years before Christ.” – quote from Richard Carrier
Josephus records some miracles that occur during the time of the 70 AD Jerusalem siege. A cow gives birth to a lamb, chariots are seen in the clouds and some other crazy things.
Christians love to beat skeptics over the head with this statement: “The majority of NT scholars believe that the empty tomb is historical fact.”
It doesn’t seem to matter to them that the majority of NT scholars are already (Christian) believers in this supernatural tale. However, even if we skeptics assent to accept the empty tomb as historical fact, I don’t think this helps their argument much at all. There are MANY possible, more naturalistic, more probable, explanations for an empty tomb other than that an invisible god did it.
I left this comment on Theology Web:
I would like to point out to everyone that although the majority of NT scholars believe that the empty tomb is historical fact, they do not claim that the rest of the details in the Resurrection stories are historical facts. I therefore see no reason why the possible explanations for the empty tomb that I have presented above are not more probable than that an invisible god is responsible for the empty tomb.
Yes, it is within the realm of possibilities that a god, specifically Yahweh, resurrected Jesus. But what I am saying is that within this same realm of possibilities there are other, much more probable, explanations for this one fact. I don’t think my assertion can be proven wrong. The only thing Christians can say is that they believe that Yahweh resurrecting Jesus is a more probable explanation than the explanations I gave above. They cannot rule out my explanations as impossible. Therefore it all comes down to who is right about the probability of each of these events.
I would bet my car’s pink slip that most educated, non-Christians would say that my explanations are much, much more probable than the Christian explanation.
we could argue over whether God doing raising the dead is more probable than any natural explanation for an empty tomb, but we have only to look around and see what happens more often.
Missing persons and missing bodies aren’t uncommon. How many of those do we even suspect as being reanimated and levitated to heaven?
How many times have seen a previously supposed divine event (typhoons, lightning, etc) to be explained succinctly with the natural and the physical?
How may dead men do we see risen from the dead?
I think when we evaluate these questions and others like them, we’d see which is actually more probable – assuming that if something is observed far more often, then it can be defined as being far more plausible or possible or likely… and such is a safe assumption – it’s statistics.
I just do not understand how intelligent, educated Christians can believe that a resurrection/reanimation of dead human flesh, in the very distant past, of one man, is more probable than multiple other naturalistic explanations for the early Christian belief in a Resurrection.
But every time I bring this up to Christians, their response is that I haven’t read enough books written by Christian NT scholars. If I would only read a good sample of NT scholars, I would see just how “overwhelming” the evidence in favor of the bodily resurrection of Jesus really is.
Really??
But I have read Christian NT scholars! I read all 800+ pages of NT Wright’s book, “The Resurrection of the Son of God”. I just didn’t find his argument very good. I have read many articles by Peter Kreeft. I believe that Kreeft gives a good argument, but fails to consider the possibility of the Resurrection belief was based on legend. So many Christians limit the options to: Liar, Lunatic, or Lord. They completely dismiss the fourth option, “Legend”, because they assume that there wasn’t enough time for a legend to develop. Says who? Even if it is highly unlikely that there was enough time for a legend to develop, this very unlikely possibility is still MUCH more probable by the standards of collective human experience, than the possibility that an ancient Hebrew god reanimated dead human flesh 2,000 years ago!
Why can’t they see this???
I left this follow up comment:
I would appreciate if you (Nick the Christian apologist) would kindly do the following: List in order of strength the evidence that you believe supports the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and, for each piece of evidence, mention whether or not you believe that there could POSSIBLY be other explanations for the evidence other than the miracle claim made by the gospel authors and Paul.
Let me save you some time and give my list of what I THINK you will list, and maybe then you will only need to add to it:
1. A very shameful belief arising/occurring in an Honor-Shame Society.
2. This shameful belief persisting and not dying out even under severe persecution.
3. The appearance claims listed in the early Creed mentioned in I Corinthians 15.
4. Paul’s personal testimony of Jesus’ appearance to him.
5. Paul’s change in behavior due to the alleged appearance by Jesus to him.
6. The change in the disciples behavior.
7. The appearance stories in the Gospels.
8. The empty tomb.
9. The disciples would not die for a lie.
10. Papias’ statements regarding the authorship of the gospels.
If I have left any out or have them in an order of strength that you would change, please do so. Again, do you believe that any of these pieces of evidence could be explainable by a non-miracle explanation, and if no, why not.
It is my position that there are several possible, and much more probable, explanations, for each piece of evidence listed above other than a miracle claim of the resurrection of three-day-dead prophet. The big question is, Nick, even if YOU personally do not believe that there are any other possible explanations, can you prove that?
I think it all comes down to personal opinion, because even if you say that it is impossible for this belief to have arisen and survived in an Honor-Shame Society, I don’t think you can prove that. You can claim implausibility, but you can’t claim impossibility. That would be no different than a skeptic saying that the supernatural or miracle claims are “impossible”. I don’t think that either position can be proven “impossible”.
I just popped over to the comment thread in the theologyweb. Damn you have stamina. I would have gave up long ago. I guess that makes you a much better person than I am, or maybe you are just a fanatic lol.
Anyway, I really chuckled when I saw the reply “you have a fertile imagination”. This coming from someone that believes that Jesus + 500 other zombies were resurrected and could talked and move (I wonder if any of those 500 resurrected zombies have any issues with their wives remarrying their brothers. I’m sure there’s gonna be at least one)
The irony is so thick you can slice it with a butter knife.
I think that comment was well put Gary and I’ll be interested to see Nick’s reply. I think he will either claim it would be too difficult to put all of his reasons in a list, or he will create a much longer list using lots of scholarly names.
I think I’m done trying to push my argument that the empty tomb story could be a later invention. I still see it as a plausible scenario, but I don’t think any of the Christians on tweb see it that way.
Here are my simple explanations for the list of evidences you’ve proposed:
1. A very shameful belief arising/occurring in an Honor-Shame Society.
– It wasn’t shameful because they believed Jesus was alive and they actually gained a lot of honor by sharing their possessions with each other.
2. This shameful belief persisting and not dying out even under severe persecution.
– They were focused on eternal rewards, not earthly ones
3. The appearance claims listed in the early Creed mentioned in I Corinthians 15.
– Dreams, illusions, mistaken identity, group encouragement
4. Paul’s personal testimony of Jesus’ appearance to him.
– I think Paul was lying, he needed an appearance to gain credibility among the apostles.
5. Paul’s change in behavior due to the alleged appearance by Jesus to him.
– He was a charismatic person and had several good ideas for his version of the gospel.
6. The change in the disciples behavior.
– They really thought Jesus was still alive and they kept preaching his message.
7. The appearance stories in the Gospels.
– Most of these are exaggerated oral traditions and some are invented by the authors.
8. The empty tomb.
– Mark or his source could have invented this story to fill in a gap. The other gospel authors copy from Mark and then add some of their own improvements. Paul never mentions an empty tomb and Acts does not have any new converts going to check it out.
9. The disciples would not die for a lie.
– Everyone was convinced they were doing God’s will and were preaching his words. The persecution stories could also be overblown.
10. Papias’ statements regarding the authorship of the gospels.
– I don’t really trust anything this man wrote down
My persistence is probably due to having a few loose screws. 🙂
Dave,
You make some excellent points! PLEASE copy and paste what you wrote above and put it as a comment on Theology Web.
If any of you are bored of the conversation on Theology Web, I am also engaged in an interesting discussion on Christian NT scholar, Dan Wallace’s blog. Some Christian apologist (Bass) had a recent debate with atheist and former pastor Dan Barker (?), tearing into him for not having read all the “scholarly” literature.
You know it is almost they don’t even do the basic background checks – Former minister, never read scholarly literature. Suuuuuuure…. Whatever that floats their boat I guess.
i have a problem and need help. i keep getting back on that theology forum with Gary and Dave and I cant seem to stop. I’ll back away, but then somehow find myself “just peaking back in” only to fall back into stupid discussions.
i just looked agian, but kept myself from replying.
I feel like it gets dumber and dumber.
They criticize Gary for being a “fundy” literalist, yet at nearly every turn they insist upon rigid interpretations of what someone has just posted, make absurdly narrow choices in eventualities: “if Hell is too severe a punishment, then all punishments are bad…”
if these guys cant understand or arent willing to engage in simple rational discussions, then nothing I can say would be meaningful to them, as they they seemingly dont care for reason.
it makes discussions pointless, and childlike as all you need is “nuh-uh, you’re wrong just be’cuz.”
I understand your frustration, William, but I actually think that we (You, Dave, and me) have hit a nerve. I believe that we are making progress with them. Most of us did not deconvert after just one conversation online.
If you enjoy the discussion and have the time, what’s the harm? You just may help rescue one of these poor suckers from the grip of their supernatural cult.
Finding Truth 
No sense of humor!
LikeLike
I literally lol’ed when I read the zombie comment. Not a good thing when one is working in the office.
LikeLike
I’m done on Theology Web. I see Dave has taken up the fight. Go get ’em, Dave! Dave is much more patient and tactful than I am so maybe he will have more success.
LikeLike
success is hard to find in discussions like that, no matter the tact, facts presented or logic used. You cant reason with unreasonable people.
For me, it’s seeing that they have nothing. Their grand evidence is summarized as weak and hope. I see what they have to say and just don’t find it convincing.
LikeLike
Notice that no one has commented on this point:
If the evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus were as good as many Christian apologists claim (“It is the best attested event in ancient history”), then why is it that not one public university in the western world lists the Resurrection of Jesus as an historical fact in its world history textbooks?
LikeLike
And another point: Nick and the other Christians make a big deal about the “Honor-shame society” in the middle-east during Jesus’ time. He infers that it is IMPOSSIBLE that any first century Jew to believe the “shameful” dead/resurrected messiah story unless it REALLY happened.
How can one assume, 2,000 years later, just how “impossible” people’s beliefs were in that time period?
Bottomline: Implausible, maybe. Improbable, possibly. But impossible??
And, which is more improbable:
1. A few uneducated, Jewish peasants would believe a shameful, unheard of belief.
or
2. Dead human tissue really can be reanimated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Who would worship a dead and resurrected being? Apparently the Sumerians did:
“One of their top goddesses, Inanna (the Babylonian Ishtar, Goddess of Love and “Queen of Heaven”), was stripped naked and crucified, yet rose again and, triumphant, condemned to Hell her lover, the shepherd-god Dumuzi (the Babylonian Tammuz). This became the center of a major Sumerian sacred story, preserved in clay tablets dating over a thousand years before Christ.” – quote from Richard Carrier
More info at: http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/improbable/crucified.html
LikeLike
is there an extra-biblical miracle of any sort that has basically the same historical backing as the Resurrection?
LikeLike
I have milk drinking Hindu Idols… anything else?
LikeLike
good read:
http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/lecture.html
LikeLike
Virgin Mary appearances. There was one in Egypt seen by tens of thousands and then of course the one in Fatima.
LikeLike
Josephus records some miracles that occur during the time of the 70 AD Jerusalem siege. A cow gives birth to a lamb, chariots are seen in the clouds and some other crazy things.
http://www.josephus.org/causeofDestruct.htm#start
I don’t know if he is the only source or not.
LikeLike
Christians love to beat skeptics over the head with this statement: “The majority of NT scholars believe that the empty tomb is historical fact.”
It doesn’t seem to matter to them that the majority of NT scholars are already (Christian) believers in this supernatural tale. However, even if we skeptics assent to accept the empty tomb as historical fact, I don’t think this helps their argument much at all. There are MANY possible, more naturalistic, more probable, explanations for an empty tomb other than that an invisible god did it.
I left this comment on Theology Web:
I would like to point out to everyone that although the majority of NT scholars believe that the empty tomb is historical fact, they do not claim that the rest of the details in the Resurrection stories are historical facts. I therefore see no reason why the possible explanations for the empty tomb that I have presented above are not more probable than that an invisible god is responsible for the empty tomb.
Yes, it is within the realm of possibilities that a god, specifically Yahweh, resurrected Jesus. But what I am saying is that within this same realm of possibilities there are other, much more probable, explanations for this one fact. I don’t think my assertion can be proven wrong. The only thing Christians can say is that they believe that Yahweh resurrecting Jesus is a more probable explanation than the explanations I gave above. They cannot rule out my explanations as impossible. Therefore it all comes down to who is right about the probability of each of these events.
I would bet my car’s pink slip that most educated, non-Christians would say that my explanations are much, much more probable than the Christian explanation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
FYI: Gary and nonsupernaturalist are the same person. I don’t know why WordPress sometimes uses one and at other times the other when I post comments.
LikeLike
we could argue over whether God doing raising the dead is more probable than any natural explanation for an empty tomb, but we have only to look around and see what happens more often.
Missing persons and missing bodies aren’t uncommon. How many of those do we even suspect as being reanimated and levitated to heaven?
How many times have seen a previously supposed divine event (typhoons, lightning, etc) to be explained succinctly with the natural and the physical?
How may dead men do we see risen from the dead?
I think when we evaluate these questions and others like them, we’d see which is actually more probable – assuming that if something is observed far more often, then it can be defined as being far more plausible or possible or likely… and such is a safe assumption – it’s statistics.
LikeLike
You are exactly right, William!
I just do not understand how intelligent, educated Christians can believe that a resurrection/reanimation of dead human flesh, in the very distant past, of one man, is more probable than multiple other naturalistic explanations for the early Christian belief in a Resurrection.
But every time I bring this up to Christians, their response is that I haven’t read enough books written by Christian NT scholars. If I would only read a good sample of NT scholars, I would see just how “overwhelming” the evidence in favor of the bodily resurrection of Jesus really is.
Really??
But I have read Christian NT scholars! I read all 800+ pages of NT Wright’s book, “The Resurrection of the Son of God”. I just didn’t find his argument very good. I have read many articles by Peter Kreeft. I believe that Kreeft gives a good argument, but fails to consider the possibility of the Resurrection belief was based on legend. So many Christians limit the options to: Liar, Lunatic, or Lord. They completely dismiss the fourth option, “Legend”, because they assume that there wasn’t enough time for a legend to develop. Says who? Even if it is highly unlikely that there was enough time for a legend to develop, this very unlikely possibility is still MUCH more probable by the standards of collective human experience, than the possibility that an ancient Hebrew god reanimated dead human flesh 2,000 years ago!
Why can’t they see this???
I left this follow up comment:
I would appreciate if you (Nick the Christian apologist) would kindly do the following: List in order of strength the evidence that you believe supports the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and, for each piece of evidence, mention whether or not you believe that there could POSSIBLY be other explanations for the evidence other than the miracle claim made by the gospel authors and Paul.
Let me save you some time and give my list of what I THINK you will list, and maybe then you will only need to add to it:
1. A very shameful belief arising/occurring in an Honor-Shame Society.
2. This shameful belief persisting and not dying out even under severe persecution.
3. The appearance claims listed in the early Creed mentioned in I Corinthians 15.
4. Paul’s personal testimony of Jesus’ appearance to him.
5. Paul’s change in behavior due to the alleged appearance by Jesus to him.
6. The change in the disciples behavior.
7. The appearance stories in the Gospels.
8. The empty tomb.
9. The disciples would not die for a lie.
10. Papias’ statements regarding the authorship of the gospels.
If I have left any out or have them in an order of strength that you would change, please do so. Again, do you believe that any of these pieces of evidence could be explainable by a non-miracle explanation, and if no, why not.
It is my position that there are several possible, and much more probable, explanations, for each piece of evidence listed above other than a miracle claim of the resurrection of three-day-dead prophet. The big question is, Nick, even if YOU personally do not believe that there are any other possible explanations, can you prove that?
I think it all comes down to personal opinion, because even if you say that it is impossible for this belief to have arisen and survived in an Honor-Shame Society, I don’t think you can prove that. You can claim implausibility, but you can’t claim impossibility. That would be no different than a skeptic saying that the supernatural or miracle claims are “impossible”. I don’t think that either position can be proven “impossible”.
Thanks.
LikeLike
@Gary,
I just popped over to the comment thread in the theologyweb. Damn you have stamina. I would have gave up long ago. I guess that makes you a much better person than I am, or maybe you are just a fanatic lol.
Anyway, I really chuckled when I saw the reply “you have a fertile imagination”. This coming from someone that believes that Jesus + 500 other zombies were resurrected and could talked and move (I wonder if any of those 500 resurrected zombies have any issues with their wives remarrying their brothers. I’m sure there’s gonna be at least one)
The irony is so thick you can slice it with a butter knife.
LikeLike
I think that comment was well put Gary and I’ll be interested to see Nick’s reply. I think he will either claim it would be too difficult to put all of his reasons in a list, or he will create a much longer list using lots of scholarly names.
I think I’m done trying to push my argument that the empty tomb story could be a later invention. I still see it as a plausible scenario, but I don’t think any of the Christians on tweb see it that way.
Here are my simple explanations for the list of evidences you’ve proposed:
1. A very shameful belief arising/occurring in an Honor-Shame Society.
– It wasn’t shameful because they believed Jesus was alive and they actually gained a lot of honor by sharing their possessions with each other.
2. This shameful belief persisting and not dying out even under severe persecution.
– They were focused on eternal rewards, not earthly ones
3. The appearance claims listed in the early Creed mentioned in I Corinthians 15.
– Dreams, illusions, mistaken identity, group encouragement
4. Paul’s personal testimony of Jesus’ appearance to him.
– I think Paul was lying, he needed an appearance to gain credibility among the apostles.
5. Paul’s change in behavior due to the alleged appearance by Jesus to him.
– He was a charismatic person and had several good ideas for his version of the gospel.
6. The change in the disciples behavior.
– They really thought Jesus was still alive and they kept preaching his message.
7. The appearance stories in the Gospels.
– Most of these are exaggerated oral traditions and some are invented by the authors.
8. The empty tomb.
– Mark or his source could have invented this story to fill in a gap. The other gospel authors copy from Mark and then add some of their own improvements. Paul never mentions an empty tomb and Acts does not have any new converts going to check it out.
9. The disciples would not die for a lie.
– Everyone was convinced they were doing God’s will and were preaching his words. The persecution stories could also be overblown.
10. Papias’ statements regarding the authorship of the gospels.
– I don’t really trust anything this man wrote down
LikeLike
Hi Powell,
My persistence is probably due to having a few loose screws. 🙂
Dave,
You make some excellent points! PLEASE copy and paste what you wrote above and put it as a comment on Theology Web.
If any of you are bored of the conversation on Theology Web, I am also engaged in an interesting discussion on Christian NT scholar, Dan Wallace’s blog. Some Christian apologist (Bass) had a recent debate with atheist and former pastor Dan Barker (?), tearing into him for not having read all the “scholarly” literature.
Here is the link:
http://danielbwallace.com/2015/08/01/fact-checking-dan-barker-from-our-recent-debate-june-6-2015/#comment-44638
LikeLike
lol fact checking Dan Barker.
You know it is almost they don’t even do the basic background checks – Former minister, never read scholarly literature. Suuuuuuure…. Whatever that floats their boat I guess.
LikeLike
i have a problem and need help. i keep getting back on that theology forum with Gary and Dave and I cant seem to stop. I’ll back away, but then somehow find myself “just peaking back in” only to fall back into stupid discussions.
I really want to stop, I do.
LikeLike
i just looked agian, but kept myself from replying.
I feel like it gets dumber and dumber.
They criticize Gary for being a “fundy” literalist, yet at nearly every turn they insist upon rigid interpretations of what someone has just posted, make absurdly narrow choices in eventualities: “if Hell is too severe a punishment, then all punishments are bad…”
if these guys cant understand or arent willing to engage in simple rational discussions, then nothing I can say would be meaningful to them, as they they seemingly dont care for reason.
it makes discussions pointless, and childlike as all you need is “nuh-uh, you’re wrong just be’cuz.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
I understand your frustration, William, but I actually think that we (You, Dave, and me) have hit a nerve. I believe that we are making progress with them. Most of us did not deconvert after just one conversation online.
If you enjoy the discussion and have the time, what’s the harm? You just may help rescue one of these poor suckers from the grip of their supernatural cult.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Have you considered a 12-step program?
LikeLiked by 1 person
12-step program? Like the ones that involve recognizing a higher power, like a God, that we need ti help us?
I may be interested, tell me more.
LikeLike