We're Baaack!

SteveB

Well-known member
Well this is a new look.
I suppose we'll see how it goes.

So, the bible is still an historical text, and it is historically verifiable.
 

The Pixie

Member
Good to see CARM up and running again.
Well this is a new look.
I suppose we'll see how it goes.

So, the bible is still an historical text, and it is historically verifiable.
Some of it can be historically verified, but not all, and it is the parts that cannot hat are most important. For example, in the NT we can verify that Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, but not the resurrection. Clearly the important claim is the latter.
 

Nouveau

Active member
Well this is a new look.
I suppose we'll see how it goes.

So, the bible is still an historical text, and it is historically verifiable.
Yes, it's good to be back.

The Bible is a religious text, with some historically verifiable information. But its supernatural claims are no more verifiable than those of the Koran or the Book of Mormon.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Good to see CARM up and running again.

Some of it can be historically verified, but not all, and it is the parts that cannot hat are most important. For example, in the NT we can verify that Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, but not the resurrection. Clearly the important claim is the latter.
And how do you know that only some of it can be historically verified?
It's rather ironic that the resurrection is the most historically verified event in history.

It's a rather lengthy document, but it's a PhD dissertation on the resurrection.

And another article on the resurrection.

That said, if you can actually prove the resurrection did not take place, you knock the only legitimate lynch pin out of Biblical Christianity, and the whole thing comes crumbling down, and like the movie scenes where they use liquid nitrogen, and then smash the thing frozen. It explodes into a million tiny pieces.

Do you have the fortitude to actually do it, or do you really think just making an unsupported claim can succeed, where hundreds of others have failed?



Even Paul the apostle, the writer of 13 of 27 of the NT's texts recognized that much.

12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. 16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.


So..... how about it.
Do the research, back to the beginning, examine all the claims, the various documents, down through history.

If you actually do this, and actually prove that the resurrection is a fraud.... you'd clear this place out, and clear out churches all over the world.
Imagine being hailed as the savior of t he human race, freeing them from pointless religion.
 

The Pixie

Member
And how do you know that only some of it can be historically verified?
It is something that has been debated a huge amount here. If it was historically verified, there would be no debate.

It's rather ironic that the resurrection is the most historically verified event in history.
To imagine the resurrection is better verified than, say WW2, is ludicrous, and really only serves to undermine your own credibility.

It's a rather lengthy document, but it's a PhD dissertation on the resurrection.
I only had a quick look, but I am familiar with Habermas' "Minimal Facts" theory, and it looks like that is, at least to some degree, a development of his thesis. His claim of the resurrection is based primarily on the Empty Tomb (besides other less contentious claims). What is his evidence for the Empty Tomb? The Bible said there was an empty tomb! I appreciate it is a little more nuanced than that, but to consider that to be "verified history" is setting the bar very low indeed.

It is not really about the resurrection, but about what scholars believe. That is important because the evidence Habermas uses is quite different.

If the article concluded that all (or virtually all) scholars believe the resurrection happened, that would support your point, but Habermas seems to only consider Christian scholars. Towards the end of page 80 he notes the position of what he calls "skeptical schlars", naming Norman Perrin and Helmut Koester. Koester was a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. I am not sure about Perrin, but I get the impression he too was a Christian. To be sure, both had unorthodox views that perhaps differed from Habermas, but they both believed in the resurrection.

The only conclusion is that Habermas' paper is a review of Christian scholass, ranging from the liberal, such as Perrin and Koester, to the conservative. And surprise, surprise! They all think the resurrection actually happened.

That said, if you can actually prove the resurrection did not take place...
I never said that. I said it had not been verified.

So..... how about it.
Do the research, back to the beginning, examine all the claims, the various documents, down through history.
You are the one claiming it was verified. The burden of proof is on you to support the claim.
 

Tercon

Member
Good to see CARM up and running again.

Some of it can be historically verified, but not all, and it is the parts that cannot hat are most important. For example, in the NT we can verify that Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, but not the resurrection. Clearly the important claim is the latter.
How do YOU know "Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea"?
 

SteveB

Well-known member
It is something that has been debated a huge amount here. If it was historically verified, there would be no debate.
You clearly don't understand just how desperate the desire to escape culpability for one's sin is....
[/QUOTE]

To imagine the resurrection is better verified than, say WW2, is ludicrous, and really only serves to undermine your own credibility.
We're not talking world war two. But you go ahead.
I only had a quick look, but I am familiar with Habermas' "Minimal Facts" theory, and it looks like that is, at least to some degree, a development of his thesis. His claim of the resurrection is based primarily on the Empty Tomb (besides other less contentious claims). What is his evidence for the Empty Tomb? The Bible said there was an empty tomb! I appreciate it is a little more nuanced than that, but to consider that to be "verified history" is setting the bar very low indeed.
A quick look.... well. Gee. I suppose that makes it easy then, doesn't it!
I had a quick look at your background. It doesn't work.
Try again.


It is not really about the resurrection, but about what scholars believe. That is important because the evidence Habermas uses is quite different.
No. It's entirely about the resurrection. It doesn't mean jack what people believe if the resurrection didn't actually take place. Anymore than your opinion matters if you don't actually exist.

If the article concluded that all (or virtually all) scholars believe the resurrection happened, that would support your point, but Habermas seems to only consider Christian scholars. Towards the end of page 80 he notes the position of what he calls "skeptical schlars", naming Norman Perrin and Helmut Koester. Koester was a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. I am not sure about Perrin, but I get the impression he too was a Christian. To be sure, both had unorthodox views that perhaps differed from Habermas, but they both believed in the resurrection.
So, you're telling me that you're not able to definitively prove the resurrection didn't take place?
What good is your opinion then?

The only conclusion is that Habermas' paper is a review of Christian scholass, ranging from the liberal, such as Perrin and Koester, to the conservative. And surprise, surprise! They all think the resurrection actually happened.
Well, if that's all you have, then I want my $5 back. I'm going to buy my coffee somewhere else.

I never said that. I said it had not been verified.
And clearly you don't know. So, again, please give me my $5 back. The coffee is better elsewhere.

You are the one claiming it was verified. The burden of proof is on you to support the claim.

No. Paul is the first to document the claim that it's been verified. Mark's may have been earlier.

So.... since you don't know, and clearly lack the mental fortitude to prove it hasn't taken place, I think you've just ruined a perfectly good discussion with your refusal to take on so massive a task to save billions of people.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
I claimed it had been verified, not that I had seen any evidence or KNOW it for sure.
See.... this is the problem....

You're taking the claims of others, without having done so yourself.
While it's been 41 years, I actually got to see the plaque, in Caesarea.
Not in a museum casement, but standing on a rock, out in the open, for all to see.
So..... do yourself a favor--- stop taking the claims of others at face value, just because they're convenient, and start doing what's needed to know for yourself.
 

The Pixie

Member
You clearly don't understand just how desperate the desire to escape culpability for one's sin is....
So no actual evidence then.

We're not talking world war two. But you go ahead.
You claimed "the resurrection is the most historically verified event in history". I suggest WW2 is rather better verified. I guess this is as close to you admitting you were wrong as we will ever see.

A quick look.... well. Gee. I suppose that makes it easy then, doesn't it!
Have you read it? Can you summarise his argument?

You are the one who claimed the resurrection is verified history. Make the argument. Or admit you cannot.

I had a quick look at your background. It doesn't work.
What does that mean?

No. It's entirely about the resurrection.
It is a sketchy survey of trends in what scholars believe about the resurrection. It in no way verifies the resurrection - or even claims it is verified.

Perhaps you should read it yourself?

It doesn't mean jack what people believe if the resurrection didn't actually take place. Anymore than your opinion matters if you don't actually exist.
So?

So, you're telling me that you're not able to definitively prove the resurrection didn't take place?
I can no more do that they you can prove it did happen.

However, you claimed it was "verified" history. Why are you making zero effort to support that claim? Because you cannot.
 

Mr Laurier

Active member
"And how do you know that only some of it can be historically verified?
It's rather ironic that the resurrection is the most historically verified event in history."


Its not verified. Only claimed.
And it is NOT necessary for any of the good ideas attributed to Jesus to be valid.
The few things that are directly attributed to Jesus, are all found in older philosophical documents. But they are no less valid for being borrowed.
The idea that we should love one another, is still a good idea, even if Jesus did not originally come up with the idea.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Well howdee Mr L.
Welcome back.
Oh, it's verified. You're more than welcome to do your own investigation. Although, I have to say--- make sure it's not a biased investigation. Atheists nowadays have a nasty practice of only examining those things which agree with their views.
 

Mr Laurier

Active member
Well howdee Mr L.
Welcome back.
Oh, it's verified. You're more than welcome to do your own investigation. Although, I have to say--- make sure it's not a biased investigation. Atheists nowadays have a nasty practice of only examining those things which agree with their views.
Lol.
You mean "atheists" from church basement movies.
My own investigation started in the 1980s, when I was still a christian.
The resurrection is only documented in the bible. Not in the records of the reign of Tiberius. Nor the records of the scholars in Alexandria, who BTW documented a two headed calf born in Jaffa.
People tended to record unusual things. And the Roman empire tended to be very obsessive about documenting everything.
So the oldest reports of the resurrection of Jesus, date from late in the first century, and trace to Greece and Asia Minor. Not Palestine.
And they come from the bible.
There are no independent accounts.
A modern tourist attraction is not a historical document.
Again, The validity of christianity does not rest on the supposed resurrection. It rests on the ideas attributed to Jesus.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Lol.
You mean "atheists" from church basement movies.
No. real world atheists. People who think they've found the chink in Christianity's armor, and have found the one thing that nobody else has seen, so they feel like they have a crusade to mount, and expose it for all the world to see....
It's these who are the sadliest and most amusing.
pssst...... You haven't found anything we've previously heard of, and seen.
My own investigation started in the 1980s, when I was still a christian.
What kind of a christian was that? The social kind that grew up in an institution, and then decided you'd better take a once through, and see if you actually bought any of it?

The resurrection is only documented in the bible. Not in the records of the reign of Tiberius. Nor the records of the scholars in Alexandria, who BTW documented a two headed calf born in Jaffa.
So, some nondescript nazarene, in some backwoods outpost, which was more an inconvenience and like gnats on the rumps of camels is going to receive time from a Roman emperor, and academics in other countries?
Curious..... did you think this up all by yourself, or did someone feed you this?
Israel was viewed as a boil on the rump of rome's interests. Even Pilate did not like being there. So, telling me that a two-headed cow was of interest to academics 60 miles away is no surprise.
Another itinerant teacher..... in a long list of itinerant teachers.... I find myself thinking..... yeah? And?

People tended to record unusual things. And the Roman empire tended to be very obsessive about documenting everything.
It's ironic that it shows up in Tertullian's and Josephus' writings then, but not in the daily tabloid. Maybe you didn't get the right edition of the right paper. I've seen that happen a lot. One article, published once, on a date you'd miss, if someone didn't tell you about it, or it didn't show up in the right conversation, with the right people.

So the oldest reports of the resurrection of Jesus, date from late in the first century, and trace to Greece and Asia Minor. Not Palestine.
And they come from the bible.
There are no independent accounts.
you're still not reading the right documents. Which makes me wonder-- I'd trust your opinion..... why?
A modern tourist attraction is not a historical document.
Again, The validity of christianity does not rest on the supposed resurrection. It rests on the ideas attributed to Jesus.
Says someone who does everything they can to discount christianity.
the ideas attributed to Jesus are no different than the ideas attributed to buddha, confucious mohammed, krishna, etc...., if there's no resurrection.
Just some guy, who had some interesting ideas, and who died as a criminal, at the hands of the government.

dead teachers are a penny a million. No, make that a penny for every 10 million.
 

Whatsisface

Active member
you're still not reading the right documents. Which makes me wonder-- I'd trust your opinion..... why?
But, you haven't said what the right documents are, which is odd. So what are the right documents, and what will they show?
 

Mr Laurier

Active member
No. real world atheists. People who think they've found the chink in Christianity's armor, and have found the one thing that nobody else has seen, so they feel like they have a crusade to mount, and expose it for all the world to see....
So not atheists then. Got it.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
But, you haven't said what the right documents are, which is odd. So what are the right documents, and what will they show?
Actually, they've been provided dozens of times before. Did you not pay attention to all those years? 2009 is a long time to be on a forum and ignore what others explain to you, while claiming to be paying attention.
 
Top