Is faith a reliable path to reality?

[Angry Ukulele Girl]

Hi there!

This is my first post
This is according to Hebrews 11:1
How exactly can "confidence in what we hope for"
and an "assurance about what we do not see"
be a reliable path to reality?
For example,
Would it be advisable to approach my bank account balance in such a way?

Thanks!

[Clownboat]

You have demonstrated this to us by explaining that you were convinced of something which there would be no facts and evidence in order to be convinced.

I agree that there are no facts nor any evidence to justify believing that a dead and decomposing body reanimated to life a couple thousand years ago.

which again demonstrates one who is easily convinced.

You seem truly infatuated and enamored by me. I don't even think about you outside of debate replies.

Please explain how my repeating exactly what you have said about yourself could possibly be an attack upon your character?

That you acknowledge that I was a drunk in the Holy Ghost, street evangelizing missionary for decades is not an attack upon my character.
Again, truly infatuated and enamored it seems. This is kind of embarrassing, but thanks. What else are you curious to learn about me and what I believed and why?

If this is the case, then it would seem that you were attacking your own character by telling us these things about yourself.

More infatuation? What more are you wanting to know about me?

What I know is what you have said about yourself, which would include being a "born again drunk in the holy ghost Christian for over two decades"

I'm flattered by your inability to stop debating me, the person. What else would you like to know about me?

who goes on to tell us they were convinced of something which they now tell us they are convinced there would be no evidence to have convinced them.

Hey readers! Someone doesn't understand how it's possible to at one time be convinced of something that they later become unconvinced of, but this is still all about ME.

Who was it again that is claimed to have resurrected Jesus?

If you read the reports, no one is claimed to have resurrected Jesus.

Then we agree, Jesus never resurrected as a dead and decomposing body cannot reanimate itself.

Rather, the claim was, the tomb is empty, and that Jesus had been raised. The main point here is, Christianity did not begin with a "god concept". Christianity began with a claimed historical event.

Since Realworldjack will not answer debate questions, I pose this to the readers.
Readers, ask yourself what god concepts was credited with sending its only son to die for the sins of humanity to then raise them from the dead.
What the poster here is insisting is that some claimed historical even happened first and no god was behind it even though the god is claimed to have sent the son in the first place. I know what a claimed event is and I know what a historical event is, but what is a claimed historical event? Is a claimed historical event an event we should accept as history? Seems like someone is playing fast and loose with the meaning of words. Adding 'claimed' to a historical event just means it isn't history, just a claim, right? What am I missing?

Please show that the resurrection of Jesus was a historical event (like you claimed it was).

You will have to demonstrate where I have ever claimed the resurrection was a historical event.

Will do.
Copy/paste: "the claim was, the tomb is empty, and that Jesus had been raised." "Christianity began with a claimed historical event."
Perhaps all this confusion is your doing with sloppy language? Perhaps you mean to say that Christianity began with a claim. On that we would agree, but why add 'historical' to what is just in reality a claim? It seems you are trying to prop up a mere claim as more than what it is.

What I have claimed is, Christianity began with what was claimed to be an historical event. Tremendous difference.

Then please amend your thinking. Christianity began with a claim that a god sent its son to die for our sins and that this happened. You need to remove historical. We all can see what you are doing and you're not fooling anyone by adding this word.

As I have said, I do not know about the "god concepts".

Thank you for admitting this. I agree with you. You do not seem to have an understanding about other god concepts.

What I do know is Christianity did not begin with some sort of "god concept".

All religions have at least one god concept to prop them up, yours included. You would know this if you learned about other god concepts. As they say, ignorance is bliss.

Christianity began with a claim of a resurrection, and without this claim there would be no Christianity.

This is true, but ignores that there was a god concept behind the sending of this Jesus to be killed and resurrected. I'm not willing to ignore reality and care not if you do not know that a God is claimed to have sent Jesus to die and be resurrected. I'm not here to teach you about your religion after all. Discount Jehovah and what he is claimed to have done for humanity all you want. I really don't care what you believe, only what you can show to be true.

I do not believe faith to be a reliable path to reality.

On this we agree.

When there are facts and evidence to examine faith is not required.

Please present the facts and evidence that a man that was dead for 3 days reverted its decomposition and reanimated to life without the help of a god concept.

You will know them by their fruits.

Where did the above come from? Oh yeah! That would be the book you claim to be unreliable.

Woops! Your fruits are still known, sorry! There are reliable things in the Bible by the way.

<snipped more of your infatuation with me and my being drunk in the Holy Spirit>
Furthermore, I don't condone anyone getting 'drunk in Holy Spirit' and find it laughable that I'm being asked to defend a position I no longer adhere to.

That there are Christians that do believe and teach such a thing is lost on Realworldjack. I trust it is not lost on the readers.

As far as "the ol make disciples of all men thingy as well" this again was only addressed to the apostles and is not a command to all of us as Christians. If this was a command to all of us as Christians, then why in the world would Paul have gone around planting Churches?

To expand the religion he was endorsing to the Gentiles obviously.

In his letters to these Churches, he is not at all scolding them for not traveling the world preaching the Gospel. Seriously! There is no possible way one could have been a Christian for two decades believing that all Christians are commanded to "make disciples of all nations".

Once again, your ignorance is to blame. That there are denominations that endorse being drunk in the Holy Ghost and making disciples of all men is a reality. I already find your religions to be false, so I have no desire to argue for one denomination being correct over another. That is a Christian thing and not something I am saddled with any longer.

Just yesterday I attended the funeral of a dear friend who had down syndrome. Believe it or not, he lived to be 65 years of age. Do you imagine that he as a Christian is commanded to "make disciples of all nations"?

No, as Christianity seems to be a false religion, like all others as far as I can tell right now. Sorry about your friend.

How many Christians do you actually know who are traveling the globe making disciples of all nations, as opposed to how many Christians have never gone on any sort of mission trip at all? I would suggest the overwhelming majority of Christians have never left their home country in order to attempt to make disciples of another nation.

This topic is not about how great of a Christian I was compared to others.

you are the one who has freely told us that you were a "born again drunk in the holy ghost Christian 3 countries for 2 decades"

These words are true. Irrelevant to this debate, but still true.

and have also gone on to tell us you had no reason to be a Christian.

I had my reasons. Is this what you are infatuated with? Why I believed what I once believed?

I have simply repeated what you have said about yourself. Moreover, we have demonstrated above that one was "drunk in the holy ghost" based upon passages from the Bible which has nothing whatsoever to do with being a command to Christians to be "drunk in the holy ghost". We also had one who was traveling the globe based upon a command which was given to the 11 apostles and could not have possibly been a command to all Christians. What this tells us is that you wasted 2 decades of your life, and want to blame Christianity for this, when the authors of the NT never commanded Christians to behave in such a way. What we have seen is, you were a "drunk in the holy ghost Christian" based upon passages which have nothing whatsoever to do with teaching Christians to be "drunk in the holy ghost" and you were traveling the globe attempting to make disciples of the nations, when it can be easily demonstrated, this command was given to the eleven disciples. How in the world is Christianity to blame here?

Christianity is not to blame. REALWORLDJACK is the only one to blame for continuing to be infatuated with my prior beliefs and why they think I held them. I'm embarrassed as you never even cross my mind outside of forming these replies, but you cannot seem to stop thinking/speculating about me.

You continue to talk about folks who believed claims others have made, and comparing this to folks who are claiming to have witnessed Jesus alive after death. Can you see the difference?

There is no real difference. Folks who believe a claim others have made are similar to folks that believe that other folks actually claimed to have witnessed Jesus after death. Claims are not evidence, sorry.
ev-i-dence
/evd()ns/
noun
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid

No, these folks were claiming to have witnessed Jesus with their own eyes, and we have enough evidence for this that we have scholars today who tell us we can know from this evidence these early followers were truly convinced they had seen Jesus alive after death.

Thank you for spelling out your faith. I believe you. You have faith in the scholars that share in your religious belief. You would make a good Muslim if only you had been born elsewhere I would guess.

My friend, there is no comparison at all between Islam and Christianity as far as the historical evidence is concerned. Islam has its main character who makes a claim with no other witnesses and there are those who believe the claim made. On the other hand, the main character of Christianity leaves us nothing in writing himself, and it was his followers who claim to have witnessed him alive after death, and it is this claim which has gone out into all the world to the point that this Jesus who left us nothing in writing himself has become one of the most, if not the most significant figures the world has ever known. I don't care who you are! That is extraordinary.

No, it really isn't, but alas, you already admit you don't know about god concepts and can be ignored here.

[TRANSPONDER]

I applaud you dealing with all of that. You did pose a question which I'll look back at, but there was the old appeal to belief in a resurrection on which Christianity was built, which I think is undeniable.

But I do question that it really happened. Don't stop me if you me heard me tell this one before, and of course, it is 'just a theory', but the way it works in theist apologetics is, it is taken as true, or at least valid, until it is 100% debunked. And I don't think it can be as it actually explains the problems and fits the evidence better than Jesus solid - body three days resurrection.

It started of course with Jesus crucified and apparently dying on the cross. Now, it so happens that the Gabriel stone (which popped up on the board not too long ago) suggests that the messianic rebel Simon, killed in the Jordan area (probably by Varus) was buried and there was a prophecy that he would be raised in three days. (translation disputed, of course ) but that together with the Talpiot graffiti of Jonah emerfing from the fish as a symbol of resurrection, indicates that a three day resurrection was a belief even before Jesus' mission.

Thus, I already thought that the disciples got the idea that Jesus' messianic spirit had Risen even if he was taken stone cold back to Galilee, as the gospels suggest. But there is now the suggestion that three - day resurrection was already a belief.

2nd stage is the disciples all having mental visions of Jesus as Paul records in 1 Cor. and which he equates with his own vision. These in no way support a solid body resurrection as in the gospels.

3rd stage is the Greek gentile churches, already working at turning Paul's man - messiah into a god, felt they had to improve on Jesus' spirit ascending. It was the body itself that had to arise, which is what Pharisee Judaism believed. Even now, the raising of Jesus and resurrection at the last days is seen as the same mechanism, even though Jesus was a one - off taking the messiah back to heaven, which is not what the resurrection of the dead to eternal life on earth said was going to happen at the Last days.

This glaring contradiction, utterly and totally ignored, it seems has led to the contradictory idea that people will go to heaven for judgement after death, while there is also the belief they will come out of the graves to be judged at the last days. I have never heard this asked, let alone answered. Anyway, the obvious thing to do was claim the tomb was empty, so the body must have walked. 'Who says so?' Well, obviously, someone must have found it open and empty. Who? I suggest that the women going to attend the body after a hasty burial (and damn' don't that look fishy? ) is an obvious choice, so they find the tomb empty and run away and say nothing, or that seems to be the original story, and that is what we get in mark (never mind the add - ons). So while this remained the original story in John, (never mind his invented additional narration) the synoptic original planted an angel there to explain everything.

After that, more and more had to be explained, most notably with Luke, who learned from Paul's letters that the early church was more complicated than the disciples preaching everywhere, and Luke had to explain that Paul's hi - jacking of the Nazorene resurrection was a divine mission, happily endorsed by Jesus' followers.

The rest is history.

I think this is more than just an idea that works. I am convinced this is how it was, while Paul and the disciples belied their messiah had resurrected, that is nothing much to do with the walking corpse of the gospels.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #91]

I agree that there are no facts nor any evidence to justify believing that a dead and decomposing body reanimated to life a couple thousand years ago.

And yet you were so convinced of this very thing that it consumed your life for some 2 decades to the point you were a "drunk in the holy ghost Christian" traveling the globe. I mean, we have one here who is freely admitting that their life was completely consumed with something there would be no reason to believe, which demonstrates beyond doubt that such a one is easily convinced, who now wants to convince us they are a solid thinker? You cannot make this stuff up. I'm thinking that since you admit that it did not take a whole lot of thinking to convince you that something was true when there would be no facts and evidence in support, then it did not take a whole lot of thinking in order to convince you that it was false. Again, it is what I call, "easy in, easy out". And when I say "easy in, easy out" I am not at all talking about how emotionally difficult it may have been. In other words, I am not talking about how it may have been "the most difficult thing you ever had to do".

I cannot even imagine how in the world someone can freely admit to being so convinced of something which consumed their life for 2 decades, to the point they were a globetrotting drunk in the holy ghost Christian who now freely admits there would be no reason to believe what they were once convinced of. I mean, it would be one thing for one to be convinced of something and after further thinking come to a different conclusion, who understands they are indeed reasons to be convinced as they once were, as opposed to one who freely admits to being convinced of something to the point it consumes their life, who now wants to insist 'there is no reason for anyone at all to believe such things.

You seem truly infatuated and enamored by me.

I will have to admit that I am indeed fascinated with how in the world one can be so convinced of something which has such an enormous impact on their life for decades, who now wants to insist there is no reason to believe what they were once convinced of that consumed their life for decades, and then seems to believe that this tragic life experience is some sort of an argument. I'm just telling you, it is hard for me to wrap my mind around such a thing.

I don't even think about you outside of debate replies.

I certainly hope not. That would be weird.

That you acknowledge that I was a drunk in the Holy Ghost, street evangelizing missionary for decades is not an attack upon my character.

Agreed! So then, what have I said which would be an attack on your character?

Again, truly infatuated and enamored it seems.

Again, I think the correct word would be "fascinated". Not fascinated with you per se, but rather fascinated with how one could be so convinced of something which consumed their life in such a way for decades, when there would be no reason to be convinced.

This is kind of embarrassing, but thanks.

I agree whole heartedly that it should be "embarrassing" and even humiliating to have to admit one was so consumed with something for decades when there would be no reason to believe it. However, you seem to wear it as a "badge of honor". Really, no need to thank me. It is all your own doing.

What else are you curious to learn about me and what I believed and why?

I think we all know, all we need to know.

I'm flattered by your inability to stop debating me, the person. What else would you like to know about me?

Really! There is no need for flattery. It has nothing at all to do with you as a person, I do not even know you. Rather, the fascination is with your life story. I just cannot get over how one can be so convinced of something which goes on to consume decades of their life, who now insists there would be no reason to believe such things. Seriously! I have believed certain things based upon the facts and evidence which were not true, and more than likely we all have, but I have never believed something which was not true, which had such an enormous impact upon my life for decades, which I now insist there would be no reason to believe such things. Moreover, if I had such an experience I would not be under the impression that my story would be some sort of argument against what I was once convinced of.

Hey readers! Someone doesn't understand how it's possible to at one time be convinced of something that they later become unconvinced of, but this is still all about ME.

Again, it is not about you. I understand how one can be convinced of something which is not true. What I cannot wrap my mind around is, how one can be convinced of something which there would be no facts, evidence, and reasons to believe? But it does not stop there. It is not simply that one is convinced of something there would be no facts, evidence, and reasons to believe, but rather the fact that, it consumes their whole life. Allow me to give you an example.

At one time most folks were convinced the earth was stationary, and the sun traveled around the earth. At that time, were there facts, evidence, and reasons to believe this to be the case? Yes, there was. When more information came in, these folks could change their mind based upon this new information, but they would not insist there would have been no facts, evidence, and reasons to believe as they once did. Can you see the difference? It is one thing to be convinced of something based upon the facts and evidence one has available at the time. It is quite another for one to be convinced of something there would be no facts, evidence, nor reasons to believe and then this belief goes on to consume decades of their life.

Then we agree, Jesus never resurrected as a dead and decomposing body cannot reanimate itself.

I'm afraid not. As it is reported, those who were reporting the empty tomb, only reported upon the empty tomb. They were not at that time reporting that God had raised Jesus. The fact of the matter is, we have scholars today who dedicate their life to the study of such things, who are not Christian, who are convinced by the facts and evidence you claim we do not have, that these early followers of Jesus were somehow convinced they had truly encountered the risen Christ. I mean, think about what I am saying? It is your claim that there are no facts, evidence, nor reasons, but these scholars who do not believe the resurrection claims are convinced by the facts, evidence, and reasons that these folks were somehow convinced they had encountered the risen Christ. Now, you can certainly disagree with the scholars, but we have enough evidence to demonstrate that if these folks were not truly convinced this to be the case, then they were proclaiming this event to be true, knowing it to be a lie. My friend, this alone demonstrates there are facts, evidence, and reasons to believe what you were once convinced of. Moreover, it demonstrates that Christianity did not begin with a "god concept". Christianity began with a claimed historical event.

Since Realworldjack will not answer debate questions, I pose this to the readers.
Readers, ask yourself what god concepts was credited with sending its only son to die for the sins of humanity to then raise them from the dead.

This was only after the claimed historical event. You need to think about what you are saying. It is true the god concept came first, and it can be demonstrated this god concept promised a Messiah who would bring in the Kingdom of the Jews. The early followers of Jesus were convinced Jesus was the Messiah, but they were also convinced He would bring in the promised Kingdom of the Jews. When Jesus is crucified, this would be the end of the story just like it was with other historical figures who claimed to be the Messiah. However, this is not the end of the story in the least. rather it is simply the beginning, and the beginning of Christianity is the claim of the resurrection. Moreover, there is no debate at all that this claim of the resurrection has indeed had one of the most, if not the most significant impacts upon the history of the world. I mean, just look at the impact this claim has had upon your own life. And all of this has taken place concerning an event which there are no facts, evidence, nor reasons to believe. GOOD GRIEF!

I know what a claimed event is and I know what a historical event is, but what is a claimed historical event?

Allow me to help you out. You see, these folks were not simply claiming that Jesus rose again in their heart. In other words, this was not something mysterious. Rather, these folks were claiming that Jesus rose again outside of them in real time space and history, with facts, evidence, and reasons to believe this to be the case, and they continued to make such a claim in the face of those who would have had every reason to stop the claims, and the life of Paul demonstrates this to be the case. This is the exact reason you have scholars today who dedicate their life to the study of such things, who are not Christian, who are forced to admit these folks were truly convinced they had encountered Jesus alive after death, because the facts and evidence we have dictate this to be the case. So then, a claimed historical event, is an event which is claimed to have occurred in real time, space, and history, with facts, evidence, and reasons.

Is a claimed historical event an event we should accept as history?

Absolutely not! Rather, as with any claim, one should analyze the facts and evidence surrounding the claims and come to a conclusion based upon the facts and evidence we have. Some folks will look at the facts and evidence and come to one conclusion, while another may look at the same facts and evidence and come to a different conclusion. However, there are some folks who simply deny there are any facts and evidence at all in the face of the facts and evidence. This denial allows folks to believe as they wish, without having to bother thinking through all the facts and evidence. There are others in denial of the facts and evidence, because when they sit down to actually analyze the facts and evidence, they become overwhelmed with the facts and evidence going against what they would rather believe, and therefore they are forced to commit intellectual suicide, by claiming we can know nothing at all.

Seems like someone is playing fast and loose with the meaning of words. Adding 'claimed' to a historical event just means it isn't history, just a claim, right? What am I missing?

Explained above in that these folks were not making some sort of mysterious claim which could not be investigated. As I said, we have enough facts and evidence to convince those who dedicate their life to the study of such things to be convinced these folks were convinced they had encountered Jesus alive after death.

Will do.
Copy/paste: "the claim was, the tomb is empty, and that Jesus had been raised."

Do you see the word "claim"? How in the world does this translate into my claiming the resurrection was a historical event?

Perhaps all this confusion is your doing with sloppy language? Perhaps you mean to say that Christianity began with a claim. On that we would agree, but why add 'historical' to what is just in reality a claim? It seems you are trying to prop up a mere claim as more than what it is.

Again, this was explained above in that the claim was not a mysterious claim. Allow me to give you another example. There is a hymn with the words, "you ask me how I know He lives, He lives within my heart". You see, this is a mysterious claim which cannot be investigated. A historical claim is one in which is claimed to have occurred outside of oneself, with facts, evidence, and reasons to believe.

Then please amend your thinking. Christianity began with a claim that a god sent its son to die for our sins and that this happened. You need to remove historical. We all can see what you are doing and you're not fooling anyone by adding this word.

Your argument is defeated here in that there are mysterious claims, and there are historical claims. Mysterious claims are claims which cannot be investigated, while historical claims can be investigated, and again, the fact that we have scholars who are not Christian who investigate the facts and evidence we have surrounding the resurrection claims, demonstrates this to be a historical claim as opposed to a mysterious claim.

Thank you for admitting this. I agree with you. You do not seem to have an understanding about other god concepts.

Right! And I do not have to know a thing about any of the "god concepts" in order to determine if there are facts, evidence and reasons to believe the claims of the resurrection. These "god concepts" you are referring to has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

All religions have at least one god concept to prop them up, yours included. You would know this if you learned about other god concepts. As they say, ignorance is bliss.

You are demonstrating one who is in denial. No one sat around and dreamed up some "god concept" and then decided to have this "god concept" to have Jesus raised from the dead. What the facts and evidence demonstrate clearly is that these folks were living their life as they followed Jesus while he was alive on this earth. Completely out of their control, and against their will, this Jesus was crucified. You would think this would be the end of the story, but for some strange reason these folks began to report that the tomb was empty, and that they had witnessed this same Jesus alive after the crucifixion. My friend, we are talking about real historical events which can be analyzed, and studied. I can tell you this, when one actually sits down in order to determine what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false, one thing I can assure you of is the fact that no one would ever come away from this analyzation with the idea that there are simple answers. In other words, it is not as simple as a lot of Christians make it out to be when they say, "the Bible says it I believe it and that settles it", but it is also not as simple as some opposed make it out to be in that the whole thing was made up. I can assure you the facts and evidence we have which you claim we do not have will not allow this to be the case.

However, when we have those who can be convinced of something they claim there would be no facts and evidence to support, it is not shocking at all that this same person can be under the impression that there are easy answers. It is simply amazing how it was all so simple when one was a convinced Christian, and now that they have changed the mind it is just as simple. No one who has actually sat down in order to study the facts and evidence we have could possibly come away believing that it is all so simple. But some folks do.

Please present the facts and evidence that a man that was dead for 3 days reverted its decomposition and reanimated to life without the help of a god concept.

This is all explained above. There are indeed reasons to believe the resurrection occurred. This does not in any way mean that there would be no reasons to doubt the claim. However, for one to claim there are no reasons to believe the claim, is for one to be in complete denial of the facts and evidence we have, and you have demonstrated that you are indeed in denial of the facts and evidence. When one does such a thing, they do not even have to bother with the facts and evidence.

Woops! Your fruits are still known, sorry! There are reliable things in the Bible by the way.

Exactly what fruit am I producing? Am I to simply stay quite as you rant and rave about your former life and how it was Christianity, which was at fault, when it was you who were believing something for no reason? GOOD GRIEF!

Furthermore, I don't condone anyone getting 'drunk in Holy Spirit' and find it laughable that I'm being asked to defend a position I no longer adhere to.

What is "laughable" is the fact that one could have been carrying on in such a way for decades, when Christianity never teaches such a thing. Do you see what I am saying? You claimed to have been a convinced Christian, but have very little knowledge of what Christianity really has to say, and then want to convince us there would be no reason to believe what you have very little knowledge of. Seriously! You have used verses from the Bible which have nothing whatsoever to do with the way in which you were behaving.

That there are Christians that do believe and teach such a thing is lost on Realworldjack. I trust it is not lost on the readers.

You are correct, but the fact is, it does not take a whole lot of thought at all as one actually reads the Bible to come to the conclusion that it is complete nonsense which has nothing to do with Christianity. In other words, being "drunk in the holy ghost" is nowhere mentioned in the Bible. Moreover, simply because the Bible reports on the apostles speaking in tongues does not in any way suggest that all Christians speak in tongues. I'm just telling you, you do not want to get into a debate with me concerning what the Bible has to say, because I can assure you that you are not prepared.

To expand the religion he was endorsing to the Gentiles obviously.

This is to avoid the point that we are not commanded as Christians to go into all the world and preach the gospel.

Once again, your ignorance is to blame. That there are denominations that endorse being drunk in the Holy Ghost and making disciples of all men is a reality. I already find your religions to be false, so I have no desire to argue for one denomination being correct over another. That is a Christian thing and not something I am saddled with any longer.

Again, you are correct, but again, as I have demonstrated, it does not take a whole lot of thinking to know this could not possibly be correct. This is the whole problem. Folks simply take the word of others instead of doing the work themselves, and then want to blame it on Christianity.

No, as Christianity seems to be a false religion, like all others as far as I can tell right now. Sorry about your friend.

Well, you see I have no problem at all with your conclusion that Christianity is false. We can get along and discuss and debate our differences. The problem comes in when you want to insist there would be no reasons to believe. I am not the one insisting there would be no reason to be opposed to the position I hold. That is coming from one who was so convinced Christianity was true that they were traveling the globe "drunk in the holy ghost" which the Bible never mentions, who now wants to insist those of us who are Christians have no reasons to believe as we do. I mean, it is simply amazing to me! It was all so simple when you were a Christian, and now it is just as simple, when the fact is, there is no way anyone can sit down and examine the facts and evidence involved and come away believing it is all so simple.

This topic is not about how great of a Christian I was compared to others.

My point has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the fact that even those Churches who insist that we all should be "going into all the world preaching the Gospel" as they are sitting on their rumps in their local Church and not traveling the globe making disciples of the nations, which demonstrates the fact that they really do not believe this to be a command to all Christians.

I had my reasons. Is this what you are infatuated with? Why I believed what I once believed?

It more than likely had a lot to do with taking the word of others. However, we are not talking about your faulty thinking here. Rather, we are talking about the fact that you now want to insist there would be no reason at all to believe the Christian claims. So, let's not confuse the issue.

Christianity is not to blame. REALWORLDJACK is the only one to blame for continuing to be infatuated with my prior beliefs and why they think I held them. I'm embarrassed as you never even cross my mind outside of forming these replies, but you cannot seem to stop thinking/speculating about me.

You are correct in that I am truly fascinated with the idea one could somehow be so completely convinced of something to the point they were traveling the globe drunk in the holy ghost for some 2 decades, who now wants to insist there would have been no reason to believe what they were once convinced of. Two decades is a lot of life to throw away on something with which there would have been no reason to believe. I have no doubt whatsoever that you had no reason to be convinced as you were. The problem is, simply because you did not have reasons to believe as you did, does not in any way demonstrate there would be no reason to be convinced.

There is no real difference. Folks who believe a claim others have made are similar to folks that believe that other folks actually claimed to have witnessed Jesus after death. Claims are not evidence, sorry.

My friend, there is a tremendous difference between me claiming to believe someone is guilty of a crime, as opposed to me claiming to have witnessed the person committing the crime. With this being the case, there is a tremendous difference between the main character of Islam claiming to have rode on a winged horse and folks believing the claim, as opposed to the main character of Christianity leaving us nothing at all, but it was rather folks later who were claiming to have witnessed Him alive after death. One is folks simply believing an event, as opposed to the other being folks who witnessed the event. Moreover, claims are indeed evidence. In fact, eyewitness testimony is the most common form of evidence used in a court of law.

Thank you for spelling out your faith. I believe you. You have faith in the scholars that share in your religious belief. You would make a good Muslim if only you had been born elsewhere I would guess.

No, it is not scholars who agree with me. The fact of the matter is, most all scholars agree that the early followers of Jesus were convinced they had witnessed Jesus alive after death whether they are Christian or not. Moreover, I have allowed for disagreement with the scholars in that if this is the case, we are left with enough evidence to know that if this is not the case, then we are left with those making the claims knowing it to be false. The only option one has left is denial in that we cannot really know anything at all. Again, when there are facts and evidence involved, no faith is required.

[Clownboat]

I'm going to cut out your seeming infatuation with me, my previous beliefs and the reasons for why I held them. This will help to shorten up this reply by quite a bit.

As you continue to demonstrate, there is no evidence that a decomposed body reanimated to life. There is evidence that some people, not the Jews mind you, believed a resurrection claim or at least that a tomb was empty.
I acknowledge that people both now and in the past believe claims like this. Unlike yourself, I am not impressed with what others choose to believe or not, therefore I acknowledge their belief and continue to seek evidence for the event. That some people believe a thing is not a valid reason to also believe a thing and you know it.

Santa doesn't become real just because children believe the claims of their parents after all. It doesn't even matter if scholars were to dedicate their life to showing that these children really, and I mean really do believe in Santa. All this confirms is that people hold a belief. It tells us nothing as to if the said belief is true or not, but when it is the best you got, it's the best you got.

Your continued lie that I had no reasons to hold the beliefs I once held is just that, a lie. I had my reasons and your dishonesty is the fruit I allude to as how we know your character here.

My friend, there is a tremendous difference between me claiming to believe someone is guilty of a crime, as opposed to me claiming to have witnessed the person committing the crime.

This has to be addressed. You offer NOTHING but a claim in each regard and this is where you fail. No evidence is being supplied, just claims and claims are not evidence.

most all scholars agree that the early followers of Jesus were convinced they had witnessed Jesus alive after death

Argument from authority, but let's investigate it further anyway to see where it might lead.
Bart Ehrman, an agnostic New Testament scholar, says that the earliest followers believed Jesus had returned to life in a body with real characteristics that could be seen, touched, and heard. However, Ehrman also notes that this doesn't prove that Jesus was resurrected.

I'm sorry that this is the best you can produce at the moment.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #94]

The point is, either way we go, we are left with the extraordinary. With this being the case, you are only exchanging one extraordinary tale for another and going with the one you believe to be the least extraordinary. Again, there is no way in the world anyone can sit down in order to determine what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false, and come away believing there are easy answers, and this is exactly what you are attempting to sell. Again, it was all so simple when you were a Christian, and now that the mind has changed it continues to be all so simple, when the reality is, it is not that simple at all. One would have to be in a complete dream world in order to believe there are easy answers concerning the claims of the resurrection, or they are in complete denial. So then, you tell me? Are there easy answers concerning these claims? Is it easy to figure out?

There is evidence that some people, not the Jews mind you, believed a resurrection claim or at least that a tomb was empty.

No, my friend! There is evidence that there were Jews who believed they had encountered the risen Jesus, not simply that they "believed a resurrection claim" made by others. In other words, we have enough evidence to convince most all scholars that the early followers were not believing a claim but were rather convinced they had encountered Jesus alive after death, and they were the ones making the claim, not simply believing a claim made by others. Now, I am not appealing to authority in order to insist they must and have to be correct. However, and again, if the scholars are not correct, we have enough evidence to know these folks were making a claim they would have known to be false. I'm just telling you, there is no way you can go here in order to make this thing simple, and that is exactly what you are attempting to put forth. In other words, you act as if it is a "no brainer" in that there is nothing to think about at all. The fact of the matter is, we all know you have thrown away at least 2 decades of your life thinking in this way.

I acknowledge that people both now and in the past believe claims like this.

Again, it is not as though there were folks "believing like this". Rather, there were folks who were convinced they had encountered Jesus alive after death, or there were those who were proclaiming this to be the case, knowing it to be a lie, in the face of those who you are now admitting would have had every reason to stop the claims, but not only did they not stop the claims, these claims go on to have one of the most, if not the most significant impacts the world has ever known, and all of this has occurred with absolutely no facts and evidence in support. GOOD GRIEF!

I acknowledge that people both now and in the past believe claims like this.

I cannot stress enough the fact that we are not dealing with those who "believe a claim like this". Rather, we are dealing with those who were making the claim, with enough facts and evidence to convince most all scholars that these folks were truly convinced of what they were proclaiming. If the scholars are correct, then this needs some sort of explanation. If they are not correct, then this leaves us with those making the claims knowing it to be a lie, in the face of those who would have had every reason to stop the claims, but not only did they not stop the claims, these claims these folks were making knowing it to be a lie, has one of the most, if not the most significant impacts upon the history of the world. Now, if you do not agree that either way we are dealing with the extraordinary, then I would like you to give an explanation of these facts which would not include the extraordinary.

Unlike yourself, I am not impressed with what others choose to believe or not

Let me attempt to help you out again, because I might be beginning to see the problem. It has nothing to do with whether you or I am "impressed". This is more than likely what occurred when you were at one time a convinced Christian. You were simply "impressed" rather than "convinced". What matters is when one sits down in order to determine what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, and when one does such a thing, it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether one is impressed or not, but the fact that no one can do such a thing and come away with the idea there are easy answers involved.

That some people believe a thing is not a valid reason to also believe a thing and you know it.

You are absolutely correct in that I do know that. However, the thing is, this is not what I am arguing in that I have never made the argument that we should believe the claims because "some people believed a thing" and you know this. The argument is, these folks did not simply "believe a thing" but were the ones making the claims, with very strong evidence they were convinced they did in fact witness Jesus alive after death. Again, you know this, but you continue to put this straw man argument out there and go on to debate an argument of your own making, knowing full well this is not the argument being made.

Santa doesn't become real just because children believe the claims of their parents after all.

You are doing yourself no favors by attempting to compare the resurrection to Santa. In reality all you are doing is to disqualify yourself from the conversation. There are no serious students of this matter who would dare make such a comparison, because they understand this would be to commit intellectual suicide.

All this confirms is that people hold a belief. It tells us nothing as to if the said belief is true or not, but when it is the best you got, it's the best you got.

You are continuing to say the same thing over, and over in different ways, arguing against a straw man you have created because no one is making such an argument. You are doing this because you have nothing left to do. In other words, you have no argument, and you cannot deal with the real facts and evidence and are therefore forced to create straw man arguments.

Your continued lie that I had no reasons to hold the beliefs I once held is just that, a lie. I had my reasons and your dishonesty is the fruit I allude to as how we know your character here.

I do not know what sort of reasons you would have had to be convinced, but when you yourself freely admit that you were convinced of something for which there would be no facts and evidence in support, then I would suggest that this would at least be admitting that you had no good reasons to be convinced. Now, if you want to call it a lie because I may have omitted the word "good" then that is fine, but I'm thinking that would be what is called "overkill".

This has to be addressed. You offer NOTHING but a claim in each regard and this is where you fail. No evidence is being supplied, just claims and claims are not evidence.

My friend, the fact that there are those who attempt to give alternative explanations for the facts and evidence we have, demonstrates there are facts and evidence to be had, which demand an alternative explanation. Moreover, the fact that we have scholars who are opposed today, who refuse to even attempt to give alternative explanations, because they understand that no other explanation would explain all the facts and evidence we have, demonstrates the facts and evidence. I can tell you we do not have scholars dedicating their life to the study of the facts and evidence we have for Santa, but we do indeed have those scholars who have dedicated their life to the study of the facts and evidence concerning the resurrection.

Bart Ehrman, an agnostic New Testament scholar, says that the earliest followers believed Jesus had returned to life in a body with real characteristics that could be seen, touched, and heard. However, Ehrman also notes that this doesn't prove that Jesus was resurrected.

Again, this is an argument of your own making, because no one is making that argument but you. I have never even suggested that this would prove Jesus was resurrected. Rather, it is you who is attempting to make the argument that there would be no facts and evidence surrounding the resurrection claims, and the fact that Ehrman, who is not a Christian is convinced by the facts and evidence that the early followers were convinced they had witnessed Jesus alive after death, demonstrates very strong evidence. But, since you bring up Ehrman, lets look at what he has to say. Ehrman is correct to say this does not prove the resurrection, but the thing is, he will not even take a stand on the issue. In fact, according to the scholar you are citing. after examining the facts and evidence he concludes you are left with one of two options,

There are basically two options about what happened. Either Jesus really appeared to his disciples after his crucifixion, or they were seeing things.

My friend, I don't care who you are, that is mighty strong evidence. The scholar you are citing is claiming the evidence is so strong that you are left with one of two options, and one of those options would be the resurrection and Ehrman admits this is a legitimate option.

If you think the visions were veridical, then you think Jesus was really raised. You can take that view.

He says "you can take that view: because it is a legitimate view with the facts and evidence we have. But the thing is, Ehrman is insisting that he is not taking a stand either way,

Im not taking a stand on whether the visions were veridical or not. Thats my entire *point*. Im not taking a stand.

He is not taking a stand, and the reason he is not taking a stand, is because he realizes that any of the alternative explanations one were to come up with, is not going to explain all the facts and evidence we have. Allow me to share with you the last sentence of this article authored by Ehrman,

. If the visions were veridical, then Jesus was raised from the dead.

So, let's review what Ehrman (the scholar you are citing) is actually saying. Ehrman agrees with most all scholars in that the facts and evidence demonstrate the early disciples were convinced they had witnessed Jesus alive. If the scholars are correct, then this would mean that the early disciples were not responsible for the empty tomb. The fact of the matter is that possibility is actually eliminated by what all would have to be involved in order for this to occur. At any rate, Ehrman is going on to say, this leaves us with one of two options. In other words, since we know the disciples were convinced, they had witnessed Jesus alive the only two options are, they were hallucinating, or Jesus did in fact rise from the dead. If the scholar you are citing is correct, this means we have enough facts and evidence to know Jesus was crucified, Jesus was dead and buried, the tomb was found empty, and there were those who were somehow convinced that this same Jesus appeared to them after death. Let us go on to remind ourselves that this scholar of yours is not even willing to take a stand on the issue but admits that landing on the side of the resurrection can be done. Ehrman is correct that this does not prove the resurrection took place, but the fact that he and others are not willing to take a stand, speaks volumes! And I am just here to tell you that the reason most scholars will not take a stand, is because they understand that there is no alternative explanation which can explain all the facts and evidence you continue to insist, we do not have.

You come on this site, proudly proclaiming how you were a once convinced Christian, going on to tell us just how committed you were, as if this somehow demonstrates you are some sort of expert. However, what I have demonstrated over the last couple of months is the fact that you know very little at all concerning what Christianity actually has to teach. From our conversation I can absolutely assure you that you do not want to get into a debate with me concerning what the authors contained in the Bible have to say. You know this, which is exactly why you are avoiding the content I have provided, and your only argument is that other Christians believe and teach such things. Your lack of knowledge as far as Christianity is concerned, is shared by many, many, Christians, and therefore, when you converse with these Christians who are on the same knowledge level as you are, your arguments may well win the day. However, when you come up against one who has far more knowledge concerning Christianity, your weak arguments are not going to hold up. Come to think of it, you really seem to have only one argument, and that seems to be the argument that there are no facts and evidence concerning the resurrection. My friend, that argument is defeated by the scholar you cited.

[Difflugia]

The point is, either way we go, we are left with the extraordinary.

You keep saying this, but it's not true.

What we have is the story of someone that was resurrected. There are broadly two explanations:

1. The story is true in a historical sense. We know of no other cases where something similar has happened. That, by definition, makes it extraordinary.
2. The story is not true in a historical sense. We know of many, many stories that are fictional or mistaken in their details. One more is not extraordinary at all.

I cannot stress enough the fact that we are not dealing with those who "believe a claim like this". Rather, we are dealing with those who were making the claim, with enough facts and evidence to convince most all scholars that these folks were truly convinced of what they were proclaiming.

You keep making this claim and thereby misrepresenting the scholars. Even if Habermas (the main proponent of the "minimal facts" apologetic approach) is correct that the early Christians believed in some sort of resurrection, he stops short of claiming that they believed in a physical resurrection. That's because scholars in general don't claim that.

A mystical story that credulous people believe in a mystical way was neither extraordinary then nor is it extraordinary now.

[Goose]

You keep making this claim and thereby misrepresenting the scholars. Even if Habermas (the main proponent of the "minimal facts" apologetic approach) is correct that the early Christians believed in some sort of resurrection, he stops short of claiming that they believed in a physical resurrection. That's because scholars in general don't claim that.

"Very surprisingly, while the supernatural internal category (the old "objective vision theory") was the most popular among scholars through the middle to late twentieth century, it has been relegated to a minority response in recent years, in favor of bodily appearances of the risen Jesus (more than three to one)." - Gary Habermas

Mapping the Recent Trend toward the Bodily Resurrection Appearances of Jesus in Light of Other Prominent Critical Positions

[Goose]

...[Habermas] stops short of claiming that they believed in a physical resurrection.

Not sure where you got that idea.

Habermas and Licona's book The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus has an entire section, Heavenly Vision or Bodily Appearance? (Part 4.9 pages 154 - 165), where they argue for a physical resurrection.

[TRANSPONDER]

You keep making this claim and thereby misrepresenting the scholars. Even if Habermas (the main proponent of the "minimal facts" apologetic approach) is correct that the early Christians believed in some sort of resurrection, he stops short of claiming that they believed in a physical resurrection. That's because scholars in general don't claim that.

"Very surprisingly, while the supernatural internal category (the old "objective vision theory") was the most popular among scholars through the middle to late twentieth century, it has been relegated to a minority response in recent years, in favor of bodily appearances of the risen Jesus (more than three to one)." - Gary Habermas

Mapping the Recent Trend toward the Bodily Resurrection Appearances of Jesus in Light of Other Prominent Critical Positions

Call me Mr No - scholar, but that link is not scholarship, but a rehearsal of invalid Christian apologetics.

The bottom line I'd put forward is twofold, and quite simple

(1) the list of witnesses to a resurrected Jesus is not confirmation of the gospel accounts; they differ and are equated by Paul with his own evidently mental vision. Thus the disciples may have died for what they believed in, though there is no reliable record of how or why any of the
m died, but what they firmly believed in may have been no more true than than the reasons some cult followers have ended up dead.

(2) the contradictory nature of the resurrection - accounts is very good reason to suppose they were separately and individually made up, Mark representing the original form of the empty tomb story. The tomb was empty and the women ran away and said nothing and did not see Jesus, and nobody did. Moreover John has Mary Magadalene hearing no angelic explanation and has no idea what has happened to Jesus.

If Bible scholarship argues that there is compelling evidence or good reason to think the Resurrection - claim factual or reliable, then Bible scholarship is, to quote Dickens, "An ass, a idiot".

Like a number of Bible claims, like the Flood and now Exodus, the Scholarship that accepts the Resurrection as reliable, is going to need as much of a clean - out as the supreme Court.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #96]

You keep saying this, but it's not true.

What we have is the story of someone that was resurrected. There are broadly two explanations:
1. The story is true in a historical sense. We know of no other cases where something similar has happened. That, by definition, makes it extraordinary.
2. The story is not true in a historical sense. We know of many, many stories that are fictional or mistaken in their details. One more is not extraordinary at all.

Oh, but it is indeed extraordinary either way you go. Because, you see, we have enough facts and evidence to know this is not a fictional tale. We know this because we have most scholars today who are convinced the early disciples truly believed they had encountered the risen Christ. If these scholars are correct, and Jesus did not rise from the dead, this would mean all these folks were somehow deceived into believing that He did in fact rise from the dead, and these folks go on to proclaim this as being fact, in the face of those who would have had every reason to put a stop to the claims, and these claims by these deceived folks, goes on to have one of the most, if not the most, significant impacts in world history. I'm just telling you; I do not care who you are, that is indeed extraordinary. Moreover, let us think about the fact that if the scholars are correct, then this would mean there was indeed an empty tomb, and the disciples could not have been responsible for it being empty. We know this because all one would have had to do to stop the claim in its tracks would be to go to the tomb and produce the body. I mean, it simply continues to become ever more extraordinary in that we now have those who were convinced they had truly encountered the risen Christ, when this would not have been the case, and we have an empty tomb to go along with it, with no explanation, and this empty tomb, along with folks truly believing they had encountered the risen Christ, goes on to have one of the most, if not the most significant impacts the world has ever known.

However, let us suppose the scholars are not correct, and that the early followers were not at all convinced they had encountered Christ alive after death, and it was a made-up story. This would seem to mean the early disciples had just watched their leader crucified, dead, and buried, and instead of being crushed by this event, these folks come up with a tale, and continue to proclaim this tale, and this tale from 2000 years ago, continues to have an enormous impact upon the world. I mean, do you realize what all would have to be involved for this to be the case? Because you see, it is not as though these folks could have simply come up with some sort of tale. Rather, they would have had to get rid of the body, and go on to live out the rest of their life as if the tale they come up with was true, and none of this explains the life of Paul, whom we know was out to put a stop to this movement, only to convert to become the biggest champion of the movement he was out to stop, who we know spent the rest of his life traveling the known world at the time planting Churches, and spending years in prison for doing so. My friend, no matter how you slice it, we are dealing with the extraordinary. What I would like you to do is to give us some sort of explanation of the facts and evidence we have which would not include the extraordinary, and simply referring to other tales which folks have believed is not going to cut it. The thing is, we are dealing with facts and evidence in this case, which has most scholars convinced these folks truly believed they had encountered Jesus alive after death, and if they are correct this leaves us with two options, and one of those options would be all these folks were hallucinating, but this does not in any way explain the empty tomb. What I can tell you is, we do indeed have the facts and evidence, and these facts and evidence are so strong they demand some sort of explanation.

You keep making this claim and thereby misrepresenting the scholars. Even if Habermas (the main proponent of the "minimal facts" apologetic approach) is correct that the early Christians believed in some sort of resurrection, he stops short of claiming that they believed in a physical resurrection. That's because scholars in general don't claim that.

How in the world am I "misrepresenting the scholars"? I have not made the claim the scholars believe the resurrection. In fact, I have gone out of my way to ensure that I have made clear that many of them who hold the position that the early disciples were convinced in what they saw are not Christian. In fact, I have stop short of claiming a resurrection took place. I am simply making the case there are fact, evidence, and reasons to believe, and the fact that there are scholars who are not Christian who are convinced by the evidence we have that the early followers truly believed they had encountered Christ alive after death demonstrates this to be the case.

As far as Habermas is concerned, I have consumed very little by him, and he may have indeed come up with what is called "the minimal facts approach" but I can tell you that long before I had ever heard of Habermas I was saying that all I need is the letters of Paul, along with the letters addressed to Theophilus, and I can give you facts, evidence, and reasons to believe.