Why Believe This Claim?

[POI]

Taken from an exchange here (posting.php?mode=quote&f=8&p=1166484).

It doesn't matter to me what the disciples saw and experienced. I believe they saw and experienced a resurrected Jesus, but the particulars are of little interest to me.

In essence, I'd like to focus here...

For Debate: Why believe that a man laid dead in a tomb for 1 1/2 to 3 days, and then rose again?

[Hfighter30]

Crucifixion was reserved for non-Romans. Further, crucifixion was also reserved for what was deemed as one of the 'worst' crimes against Romans. In this case, Jesus was charged with 'treason.' Makes little sense to charge and execute Jesus for treason, but then bury him respectfully. If Jesus was crucified, he was more likely dumped into a mass grave, with the other two who were also executed along side of him.

You are right to thinkthat mass graves are likely after crucifixions. But, to say a respectful burial is impossible is too strong, i would say. My point about Roman law and custom not being ‘monolithic’ still holds, while mass graves might be a ‘standard procedure’, rules are often bent especially for those with influence. Joseph of Arimathea’s status, as I refered (and you havent refuted), is significant. He wasn't just anyone. He was reportedly a member of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish ruling council and that is political power. And the Gospels state he was wealthy too! Wealth and power open many possibility. While a mass grave was likely, a big exception especially if someone like Joseph intervened, is not impossible

You must also consider Pilate’s motivation. He was a Roman governor and crucifying Jesus was already a politically charged act (which i believed), likely done to appease the Jewish authorities and Roman Government. Allowing Joseph of Arimathea to take the body for a quick and quiet burial might have been seen by Pilate as a way to defuse tension. Who doesnt want to keep a wealthy and influential council member happy? Think about Roman politic too.

This does not fly, as eyewitness testimony. Saul/Paul was not there for the so-called resurrection tour. The average life expectancy was also around 25 years old. We have no idea who he spoke to, and about what. The story speaks more to legend and lore. He likely spoke to some folks who received this information from such circulating oral tradition(s), etc...

I didnt claim he was at the crucifixion itself. My point about detectives and testimony is about considering the sources. Paul's letters are not eyewitness accounts of the earthly Jesus, but they are claim to be based on encounters with the risen Jesus and the testimonies of others who were witness the evnt.
The link I provided (which i presumed you dismissed without reading it directly) argues for the early dating of Paul’s letters, still within a couple of decades of Jesus’s death. Even if average life expectancy was around 25 (a debatable statistic i might say. Read this; https://christiancadre.blogspot.com/200 ... about.html), decades still within living memory of some who were around during Jesus’ ministry. Paul explicitly mention speaking with Peter and also James (Galatians 1), leaders in the early church, who are also eyewitness. He is not just pulling those stories of thin air and his information is not merely a ‘legend and lore.’ It’s based on interactions with people who were closer to the source after the event.

Since we do not know who the '500' were, then you cannot make this claim. As stated prior, many/most may have already been dead, moved away, or were not direct witnesses, but instead received such information from circulating legend and lore. Further, it's not like anyone, in those days, could read or even give a rip as to what Saul/Paul wrote while he was alive -- even if they could read what he had written.

You speculate they could be dead, moved, or unreliable and okay, that is fair enough. But think and consider that Paul is writing to the Corinthian church relatively soon after the resurrection. And he’s making this claim publicly in that community. If this ‘500 witnesses’ claim is a complete fabrication, if it was readily disprovable at that time of coursd, wouldnt it have been easily challenged and discredited then? He iss making this claim to people in a community that could potentially verify it, at least to some degree. In 1 Corithians 15:6, when Paul said "most of whom remain until now", he implicated that they could still provide the testimony themselves. Read this; https://beliefmap.org/1-corinthians/15- ... -witnesses

You say ‘no one cared what Paul wrote’ and ‘few could read’. While literacy rates that time are lower than today, literacy still existed back then. The early Christian communities are growing. Paul’s letters were circulated and read within those communities. They were valued, copied, and preserved. Even if there are some who cannot indeed read, they would certainly ask or hear or cared about what Paul write to them. While the entire Roman Empire might not have ‘cared,’ the growing Christian movement and community certainly did. If i might say, its their perspective and testimony that is relevant here, not the opinion of the average Roman citizen who likely know nothing about Jesus or Paul.

[Realworldjack]

I sifted through your response and the quoted part below is the only part which looks to pertain to the debate question, in any capacity.

I can assure you that if one were to tell me a story of a man raising from the dead, I would choose not to believe it. However, when we know for a fact that we have ordinary, uneducated, no count fishermen, who had just witnessed the leader they had been following for some 3 years crucified as a criminal, and these folks go on to continue to proclaim this same man who had been crucified had rose from the dead, with the overwhelming majority of scholars today, who dedicate their life to such study being convinced these folks were truly convinced in what they report, because the evidence is overwhelming, then it is a fact that this sort of evidence needs some sort of explanation.

Is this it? We have other testimonials of all sorts of things which seem to go beyond the realm of what is deemed possible by the laws of 'nature.' Should we then consider them all?

No! One need not consider any of these claims in the least and can simply choose not to believe these claims. However, there is a tremendous difference between choosing not to believe a claim, as opposed to insisting there would be no reason to believe the claim. Can you see the difference? The point is, I have no problem at all with those who choose not to believe the Christian claims. My problem comes in when these same folks go on to want to insist there would be no reason to believe the claims, and or there is no evidence in support of the claims, when they cannot in any way demonstrate this to be the case.

I can go on to tell you that attempting to compare Christianity to these other claims does not in any way tell us anything at all concerning the Christian claims. It is an elementary argument which any thinking person would have thought of long before. One is not making an argument against the Christian claims by demonstrating there are other claims we choose not to believe. The only way in which you can demonstrate there would be no reason to believe the Christian claims, is by dealing with the facts and evidence we can know concerning the Christian claims, and whatever these other claims may be, they would have no bearing upon Christianity. In other words, even if we were to demonstrate all of the other claims were false, this would have nothing to do with the Christian claims, nor would it make the Christian claims more likely to be false.

[POI]

You are right to think that mass graves are likely after crucifixions.

But, to say a respectful burial is impossible is too strong,

I never said it was impossible. Please re-read what I wrote. Further, since we are evaluating claims from ancient antiquity, we have to evaluate what we do have...

My point about Roman law and custom not being ‘monolithic’ still holds, while mass graves might be a ‘standard procedure’, rules are often bent especially for those with influence. Joseph of Arimathea’s status, as I refered (and you havent refuted), is significant. He wasn't just anyone. He was reportedly a member of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish ruling council and that is political power. And the Gospels state he was wealthy too! Wealth and power open many possibility. While a mass grave was likely, a big exception especially if someone like Joseph intervened, is not impossible

You must also consider Pilate’s motivation. He was a Roman governor and crucifying Jesus was already a politically charged act (which i believed), likely done to appease the Jewish authorities and Roman Government. Allowing Joseph of Arimathea to take the body for a quick and quiet burial might have been seen by Pilate as a way to defuse tension. Who doesnt want to keep a wealthy and influential council member happy? Think about Roman politic too.

Then the story still holds little water. If he had influence and power, he would have also had the power to disallow or detour an ordered crucifixion. Crucifixions were reserved for the disrespected. There would exist many ways to kill Jesus without doing it in the manner in which Romans deemed most humiliating. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Again, if Jesus was to be treated with respect, then the respect would not only come after Jesus was killed.

I didnt claim he was at the crucifixion itself.

I know you didn't. My point is that Paul's attestation counts for nothing, as he was not there, and reported what "500" other anonymous people saw. This is NOT eyewitness testimony, not by any stretch of the imagination. You Christians are reaching...

My point about detectives and testimony is about considering the sources. Paul's letters are not eyewitness accounts of the earthly Jesus, but they are claim to be based on encounters with the risen Jesus and the testimonies of others who were witness the evnt.

My point is that you have no credibility to mention '500'. Period! A secondhand account about 500 unnamed and uncorroborated, does not count towards eyewitness attestation at all. Sorry buddy.

The link I provided (which i presumed you dismissed without reading it directly) argues for the early dating of Paul’s letters, still within a couple of decades of Jesus’s death.

I did see it. Tell me... If a longer lifespan is 30 years, and Paul's testimony is written 20-25 years after a claimed sighting, then I guess all these witnesses were very small children, or less, when they saw Jesus?

Even if average life expectancy was around 25 (a debatable statistic i might say.

I find it interesting that this statistic is debatable. And yet, your presented claim about 500 unaccounted for eyewitnesses -- to a claimed undead Jesus -- holds more weight?

Read this; https://christiancadre.blogspot.com/200 ... about.html), decades still within living memory of some who were around during Jesus’ ministry. Paul explicitly mention speaking with Peter and also James (Galatians 1), leaders in the early church, who are also eyewitness. He is not just pulling those stories of thin air and his information is not merely a ‘legend and lore.’ It’s based on interactions with people who were closer to the source after the event.

We already know the NT is likely not a trustworthy collection of documents, so pointing to one part of the Bible, to reference another part of the Bible, does little/nothing to validate anything. This is circular reasoning... The Bible is what we skeptics are questioning.

You speculate they could be dead, moved, or unreliable and okay, that is fair enough.

Okay. So, I guess we are done here? Paul's "letter" is not credible and/or trustworthy.

But think and consider that Paul is writing to the Corinthian church relatively soon after the resurrection.

Your use of the phrase 'relatively soon' is doing some very heavy lifting. Maybe it was another miracle, and these folks were still alive

And he’s making this claim publicly in that community. If this ‘500 witnesses’ claim is a complete fabrication, if it was readily disprovable at that time of coursd, wouldnt it have been easily challenged and discredited then? He iss making this claim to people in a community that could potentially verify it, at least to some degree. In 1 Corithians 15:6, when Paul said "most of whom remain until now", he implicated that they could still provide the testimony themselves. Read this; https://beliefmap.org/1-corinthians/15- ... -witnesses

Again, you assume that any of these said OG's were still around. I doubt it. He was likely talking to people who received the stories from circulating oral tradition. And being that these ancients were also likely highly superstitious, it's not far-fetched to surmise alternative conclusion(s) here.

You say ‘no one cared what Paul wrote’ and ‘few could read’. While literacy rates that time are lower than today, literacy still existed back then. The early Christian communities are growing. Paul’s letters were circulated and read within those communities. They were valued, copied, and preserved. Even if there are some who cannot indeed read, they would certainly ask or hear or cared about what Paul write to them. While the entire Roman Empire might not have ‘cared,’ the growing Christian movement and community certainly did. If i might say, its their perspective and testimony that is relevant here, not the opinion of the average Roman citizen who likely know nothing about Jesus or Paul.

Sure, but these writings were just that, writings. As legend and lore grows, so does the religion.

[POI]

No! One need not consider any of these claims in the least and can simply choose not to believe these claims. However, there is a tremendous difference between choosing not to believe a claim, as opposed to insisting there would be no reason to believe the claim. Can you see the difference?

The difference is that I can muster up many claims, in which you and I might both dismiss, which has more 'facts and evidence.' Which begs the question... Why 'choose to believe' this one?

The point is, I have no problem at all with those who choose not to believe the Christian claims. My problem comes in when these same folks go on to want to insist there would be no reason to believe the claims, and or there is no evidence in support of the claims, when they cannot in any way demonstrate this to be the case.

We've exchanged here, ad nauseum. What you consider as 'facts and evidence' I instead call (claims from an ancient book). Period. The million-dollar question remains, is this book trustworthy? I doubt it. You and I have exchanged plenty about this....

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #14]

The difference is that I can muster up many claims, in which you and I might both dismiss, which has more 'facts and evidence.'

First, you really need to speak for yourself. I am not attempting to be mean here, but I am not the type of person to simply "dismiss" a claim of which I have not investigated. If I am not interested in the claim, I may choose not to believe the claim, but I do not then insist there would be no reason to believe the claim. There is a tremendous difference between not being interested enough in a claim to investigate, as opposed to dismissing the claim.

However, this is really not the main point here. The main point is the fact that many continue to point to these other claims and the fact that many simply dismiss the claims, as if this would have any bearing at all upon the Christian claims. It has no bearing whatsoever. Again, even if we were to demonstrate all these other claims to be false, it would have nothing at all to do with Christianity, nor would it even cause the Christian claims to be more unlikely. The fact is this is not an argument at all. Moreover, I cannot imagine any thinking person not already considering the fact that there are other religious claims and going on to acknowledge the fact that these other claims would not have a thing in the world to do with it. You cannot demonstrate Christianity to be false by studying other claims and determining how likely they are to be true. The only way in which to demonstrate Christianity to be false, is by dealing with the actual facts and evidence we can know. You may come to one conclusion, while I may come to a completely different conclusion but we cannot insist each other do not have reasons to hold to the position we have unless we can demonstrate this to be the case.

Which begs the question... Why 'choose to believe' this one?

I can assure you that I do not "choose to believe the Christian claims." I cannot imagine anyone who truly understands it choosing to believe it. I mean, the phrasing of the question sort of demonstrates one's mindset. Do you really choose to believe things? I would rather think one examines the facts and evidence and comes to a conclusion based on the evidence, whether they would like to believe what they believe or not. It's like I may rather believe a certain way, but the facts may lead me to a different conclusion than I would like. Like my father-in-law used to say, "the truth hurts sometimes".

We've exchanged here, ad nauseum. What you consider as 'facts and evidence' I instead call (claims from an ancient book). Period.

Which goes on to demonstrate your lack of knowledge of what you call a "book." None of the claims you are referring to were made "from an ancient book." Rather, these claims were made long, long before any sort of book. However, from what you call an "ancient book" the overwhelming majority of scholars tell us we can know the early followers of Jesus were truly convinced they witnessed Jesus alive after death. If this is something we can know from what you call an "ancient book" then it seems as if we have solid evidence contained in what you call an "ancient book." Of course, this fact we can know, does not demonstrate a resurrection, but it certainly a fact which demands some sort of explanation, and if one were to sit down in order to determine what all would have to be involved in order for this to be a fact, they would have to come to the conclusion that there are no easy answers to be had. In other words, there are going to be no easy answers which would explain how all these folks were convinced they witnessed Jesus alive after death, unless of course one is satisfied with easy answers.

The million-dollar question remains, is this book trustworthy? I doubt it.

Again, this demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of what you call a "book." The "book" does not say anything at all. Rather, it would be the authors contained in the book, and these authors wrote these things long before any sort of book and had no idea that what they were communicating to audiences at the time would be contained in a book. The fact is the authors contained in the NT were addressing audiences at the time, and had no idea, nor any concern as to anyone else ever reading what they wrote other than the intended audience. This means, they were not attempting to convince you, me, nor anyone else with these writings, since the audience they were addressing were already believers. There is nothing contained in the NT one can point to an insist it was intended for the unbeliever.

Therefore, the question is not, "is this book trustworthy" but rather, since we can know these folks truly believed they had encountered the risen Christ, what would have caused them to be convinced of such a thing? You see, these are the facts you must deal with and appealing to other claims you dismiss is not going to answer these facts we can know.

[1213]

For Debate: Why believe that a man laid dead in a tomb for 1 1/2 to 3 days, and then rose again?

It is the best explanation for why we have the Bible still.

Why do you say this?

Because you asked, why believe.

[POI]

First, you really need to speak for yourself. I am not attempting to be mean here, but I am not the type of person to simply "dismiss" a claim of which I have not investigated.

And I too do not wish to be mean here, but I'm going to call bologna here. You would be the only earnest person I have ever come across who claims they have never dismissed a claim without investigation.

If I am not interested in the claim, I may a) choose not to believe the claim, but I do not then b) insist there would be no reason to believe the claim. There is a tremendous difference between not being interested enough in a claim to investigate, as opposed to dismissing the claim.

I guess this means you must elect for option a) if someone told you they were abducted by aliens, probed anally, and then returned Or how about if I told you I can throw a football 150 yards? The claims are pretty much infinite, to where you would opt for option b) over a).

However, this is really not the main point here. The main point is the fact that many continue to point to these other claims and the fact that many simply dismiss the claims, as if this would have any bearing at all upon the Christian claims. It has no bearing whatsoever. Again, even if we were to demonstrate all these other claims to be false, it would have nothing at all to do with Christianity, nor would it even cause the Christian claims to be more unlikely. The fact is this is not an argument at all. Moreover, I cannot imagine any thinking person not already considering the fact that there are other religious claims and going on to acknowledge the fact that these other claims would not have a thing in the world to do with it. You cannot demonstrate Christianity to be false by studying other claims and determining how likely they are to be true.

As stated, prior, to conclude that a 3-day-old rotting corpse rose and went of a resurrection tour is the most extraordinary conclusion, as opposed to the many alternatives less extraordinary conclusions. Starting with the high probability that the Gospels are not trustworthy documents to begin with...

I can assure you that I do not "choose to believe the Christian claims." I cannot imagine anyone who truly understands it choosing to believe it. I mean, the phrasing of the question sort of demonstrates one's mindset. Do you really choose to believe things?

No. I was quoting you. I do not think belief, or being convinced, is a choice. The question then becomes... What reason(s) propel the belief or the convincing? Is it credulity, indoctrination, faith, other?

I would rather think one examines the facts and evidence and comes to a conclusion based on the evidence, whether they would like to believe what they believe or not. It's like I may rather believe a certain way, but the facts may lead me to a different conclusion than I would like. Like my father-in-law used to say, "the truth hurts sometimes".

Yes, this is likely why many do not really like to probe too deeply about some of their most cherished wishes. For example, whether or not a partner is remaining faithful. Sometimes, ignorance is bliss. I reckon most who hold their position, in their faith, have rarely taken the time to do a deep dive to test its actual veracity. Many do. And many, including the ones who hold to an alternative set of religious faith claims, remain in their faith. Which then begs the question, are these reason(s) rational? If someone truly believes they will rule their own planet after they die, I bet you and I agree the rationale would be lacking, even though they have <reason(s)> to believe.

Which goes on to demonstrate your lack of knowledge of what you call a "book." None of the claims you are referring to were made "from an ancient book." Rather, these claims were made long, long before any sort of book.

Nice strawman. I'm completely aware that the "NT" contains 27 'books, many of which, were comprised after only decades of unfettered and unfiltered oral traditions. The rest, which was almost half, came from one dude who had a vision by himself in the desert. Most of the rest were written by ---(remains to be known). which means we cannot possibly know of the possible bias and/or motivation(s)?

However, from what you call an "ancient book" the overwhelming majority of scholars tell us we can know the early followers of Jesus were truly convinced they witnessed Jesus alive after death. If this is something we can know from what you call an "ancient book" then it seems as if we have solid evidence contained in what you call an "ancient book." Of course, this fact we can know, does not demonstrate a resurrection, but it certainly a fact which demands some sort of explanation, and if one were to sit down in order to determine what all would have to be involved in order for this to be a fact, they would have to come to the conclusion that there are no easy answers to be had. In other words, there are going to be no easy answers which would explain how all these folks were convinced they witnessed Jesus alive after death, unless of course one is satisfied with easy answers.

The answer is quite easy. Rotting corpses don't rise again. The Gospels are corrupt. They are not trustworthy. We've been through this all too many times.

Again, this demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of what you call a "book."

book - "a written or printed work consisting of pages glued or sewn together along one side and bound in covers."

I've also already explained above.

these authors wrote these things long before any sort of book and had no idea that what they were communicating to audiences at the time would be contained in a book.

Yes, they did. When you compare Mark to Luke, some of the content is word-for-word. Which means "Luke" used "Mark" as some or all of its direct reference.

The fact is the authors contained in the NT were addressing audiences at the time,

Yes, which is why they are called the "synoptic Gospels". Case/point, One of the reasons "Luke" was written was to perform damage control for the Romans. We've been over all of this already in another thread.

Therefore, the question is not, "is this book trustworthy"

We already know it is not trustworthy. Hence, it really is no longer a question, except maybe a rhetorical one...

since we can know these folks truly believed they had encountered the risen Christ, what would have caused them to be convinced of such a thing? You see, these are the facts you must deal with and appealing to other claims you dismiss is not going to answer these facts we can know.

Since this collection of books is not trustworthy, the question then is really nothing more than a non-starter...

Why believe a rotting corpse rose from the grave? Is it because of the book?

[POI]

Because you asked, why believe.

Then by your own admission, the most rational reason to believe Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse is because we still have millions/billions who worship the claims from the Kuran.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #0]

And I too do not wish to be mean here, but I'm going to call bologna here. You would be the only earnest person I have ever come across who claims they have never dismissed a claim without investigation.

What I am talking about is any sort of serious claims. I am not referring to the invisible green monster in your back yard. With these sorts of claims I do not even bother. You know like, I do not dismiss the claim that the election in 2020 was stolen, but I am waiting on some sort of evidence in support. I do not dismiss any of the other religions, I simply do not have the interest to investigate. In fact, I had no interest in the investigation of Christianity, but I had no choice in the matter.

I guess this means you must elect for option a) if someone told you they were abducted by aliens, probed anally, and then returned

This my friend is what I would categorize as a claim which is not serious, and it is ridiculous for you to even attempt to compare what we have as far as the Christian claims to such a ridiculous claim. There is no way in which you could possibly believe the two are on the same plane. This is what folks do who cannot deal with the actual facts we have. I know, you know, and everyone else knows, no serious scholar would ever make such a comparison because they would be laughed out of a career. We can have a serious conversation, or you can continue to demonstrate you are not serious in the least. I mean, it really is comical! Here we have someone who freely admits to being a convinced Christian at one time, which more than likely impacted much of your life, and now you would like to convince us that you were totally convinced of something which would be on par with something so ridiculous. GOOD GRIEF!

As stated, prior, to conclude that a 3-day-old rotting corpse rose and went of a resurrection tour is the most extraordinary conclusion, as opposed to the many alternatives less extraordinary conclusions.

Why don't you give us some of these "many alternative less extraordinary conclusions"?

Starting with the high probability that the Gospels are not trustworthy documents to begin with...

You need to stop with the probabilities of the Gospels not being trustworthy, because I am not making the argument that they are trustworthy. My argument is, even if they are not trustworthy, there are certain things we can be sure of by reading this material, whether it is trustworthy or not.

What reason(s) propel the belief or the convincing? Is it credulity, indoctrination, faith, other?

Would you like me to go through the whole over 2-year process here? I am just telling you; I was not interested at all in the study but had no choice. I am not attempting to convince you to become a believer, rather I am simply demonstrating that one can use reason and come to a different conclusion than you have concerning Christianity, while you continue to bring in the ridiculous. I mean, seriously! You tell us you were a convinced Christian at one time, and now want to convince us it was the use of the mind which caused you to reject Christianity, and now you simply assume that anyone else who is convinced in the way you were, could not possibly be using reason. As you have pointed out, there are extremely intelligent Christians who use the mind. There are also extremely intelligent folks who are opposed to Christianity, and this would cause most folks to realize that reason must be able to be used on both sides. However, we seem to have those who were once convinced one way, who now want to convince us that reason is only on the side they now hold. It's incredible.

Yes, this is likely why many do not really like to probe too deeply about some of their most cherished wishes.

I agree with this and know this to be the case, but I do not see what this would have to do with the Christian claims? It is like you were a convinced Christian at one time who comes to realize you did not use reason, and you go on to realize that most other Christians do not use reason, and this somehow convinces you that Christianity must and has to be false. If this is not the case, then you really do not need to bring it into the conversation, because it has nothing to do with it in the least. It is a fact that most Christians did not use reason to become Christian, but this adds nothing to your argument.

I reckon most who hold their position, in their faith, have rarely taken the time to do a deep dive to test its actual veracity. Many do. And many, including the ones who hold to an alternative set of religious faith claims, remain in their faith.

Again, not trying to be mean, but the above is a lot of wasted space because it adds nothing to the conversation. There are folks who believe without reason, there are folks who were Christian at one time who reject, there are atheists and unbelievers who convert, there are folks who convert to a completely different religion, none of this has a thing in the world to do with the facts and evidence we can know surrounding the Christian claims.

Which then begs the question, are these reason(s) rational?

The many, many Christians who do not use reason to come to their conclusions are not rational, but this has nothing to tell us concerning the facts and evidence surrounding the Christian claims.

If someone truly believes they will rule their own planet after they die, I bet you and I agree the rationale would be lacking, even though they have <reason(s)> to believe.

Which again, is not dealing with the facts and evidence surrounding the Christian claims.

Nice strawman. I'm completely aware that the "NT" contains 27 'books, many of which, were comprised after only decades of unfettered and unfiltered oral traditions. The rest, which was almost half, came from one dude who had a vision by himself in the desert. Most of the rest were written by ---(remains to be known). which means we cannot possibly know of the possible bias and/or motivation(s)?

And it is from this material the overwhelming majority of scholars have become convinced that the early followers of Jesus were not making the story up.

The answer is quite easy. Rotting corpses don't rise again. The Gospels are corrupt. They are not trustworthy. We've been through this all too many times.

None of this has a thing in the world to do with the facts and evidence surrounding the resurrection claims. I am not arguing that the NT is trustworthy, I am not arguing that a rotting corpse can rise. I fully understand the impossibility of a resurrection. I can go on to assure you that those who were making the claims were not making the argument that a resurrection is possible. Rather, they clearly seem to be proclaiming, the impossible has occurred. What we can know according to the scholars, is that these folks truly believe that they, with their own eyes, witnessed Jesus alive after death. What explanation do you have for this that would be considered likely?

book - "a written or printed work consisting of pages glued or sewn together along one side and bound in covers."

I've also already explained above.

I do not need a definition of the word book. What I need is for you to understand that the authors contained in what you call a book, never intended to be contained in the book you are referring to. I also need you to understand that the authors were addressing believing audiences at the time, and had no concern, nor any idea that any of us would be reading what they had to write, thousands of years later.

Yes, they did. When you compare Mark to Luke, some of the content is word-for-word. Which means "Luke" used "Mark" as some or all of its direct reference.

Even if Luke used Mark, how in the world would this demonstrate that they knew what they were writing would end up in the Bible?

Yes, which is why they are called the "synoptic Gospels". Case/point, One of the reasons "Luke" was written was to perform damage control for the Romans. We've been over all of this already in another thread.

I do not care how many times you have been through this, you have not demonstrated in the least that Luke is anything other than a communication to someone by the name of Theophilus.

We already know it is not trustworthy. Hence, it really is no longer a question, except maybe a rhetorical one...

And it does not matter since I am not making the argument that it is trustworthy. The thing is though, there are certain things we can be sure of by reading the material.

Why believe a rotting corpse rose from the grave? Is it because of the book?

I am not asking you, nor anyone else to come to such a conclusion. Rather, what I am doing is to demonstrate one can use reason and come to such a conclusion.

[POI]

What I am talking about is any sort of serious claims. I am not referring to the invisible green monster in your back yard. With these sorts of claims I do not even bother. You know like, I do not dismiss the claim that the election in 2020 was stolen, but I am waiting on some sort of evidence in support. I do not dismiss any of the other religions, I simply do not have the interest to investigate. In fact, I had no interest in the investigation of Christianity, but I had no choice in the matter.

....................................

This my friend is what I would categorize as a claim which is not serious, and it is ridiculous for you to even attempt to compare what we have as far as the Christian claims to such a ridiculous claim. There is no way in which you could possibly believe the two are on the same plane. This is what folks do who cannot deal with the actual facts we have. I know, you know, and everyone else knows, no serious scholar would ever make such a comparison because they would be laughed out of a career. We can have a serious conversation, or you can continue to demonstrate you are not serious in the least. I mean, it really is comical! Here we have someone who freely admits to being a convinced Christian at one time, which more than likely impacted much of your life, and now you would like to convince us that you were totally convinced of something which would be on par with something so ridiculous. GOOD GRIEF!

You sure pivoted fast. Here is what you stated prior:

I am not attempting to be mean here, but I am not the type of person to simply "dismiss" a claim of which I have not investigated. If I am not interested in the claim, I may choose not to believe the claim, but I do not then insist there would be no reason to believe the claim. There is a tremendous difference between not being interested enough in a claim to investigate, as opposed to dismissing the claim.

Anywho, you do you boo. The point is that 'extraordinary' claims get dismissed all the time. "Rotting bodies rising" would certainly fall within that category. No less or more than claims to Big Foot sightings, Santa Claus sightings, etc etc etc..........

Why don't you give us some of these "many alternative less extraordinary conclusions"?

ANY/ALL conclusions/possibilities which do not favor the claim for the 'extraordinary.' You know, like rotting bodies actually rising.

You need to stop with the probabilities of the Gospels not being trustworthy, because I am not making the argument that they are trustworthy. My argument is, even if they are not trustworthy, there are certain things we can be sure of by reading this material, whether it is trustworthy or not.

I know you hate this saying, but it seems fitting here. "Extraordinary" claims demand "extraordinary" evidence. What you are advocating for, thus far, sounds like anything but 'extraordinary.' To instead make special concessions to account for an 'extraordinary' conclusion for Jesus, presents mere special pleading, unless you too believe all sorts of other "extraordinary' claims which involve mere ordinary evidence to support these claims to the supernatural -- for which you likely dismiss with or without any investigation at all.

Would you like me to go through the whole over 2-year process here? I am just telling you; I was not interested at all in the study but had no choice. I am not attempting to convince you to become a believer, rather I am simply demonstrating that one can use reason and come to a different conclusion than you have concerning Christianity, while you continue to bring in the ridiculous. I mean, seriously!

As stated, prior, 'reason' can involve credulity, indoctrination, faith, other other other. Applying the word 'reason' does not necessarily mean the 'reasons' are 'good' ones.

You tell us you were a convinced Christian at one time, and now want to convince us it was the use of the mind which caused you to reject Christianity, and now you simply assume that anyone else who is convinced in the way you were, could not possibly be using reason. As you have pointed out, there are extremely intelligent Christians who use the mind. There are also extremely intelligent folks who are opposed to Christianity, and this would cause most folks to realize that reason must be able to be used on both sides. However, we seem to have those who were once convinced one way, who now want to convince us that reason is only on the side they now hold. It's incredible.

LOL! I think all intelligent people hold to cognitive dissonance(s). Whether it be in politics, religion, abortion acceptance, vegetarianism, and/or other. This is why I try not hold to a hard position in politics, for instance. I'm in the middle somewhere. To take an extreme side, required dissonance. The same goes for the Bible, or any other holy book. To hold to the belief looks to at least require some dissonance. the ones who pick and choose, maybe like you, I label "cafeteria Christians". Which is quite convenient -- as Christians are not allotted to pick and choose, to taste, like they can in politics. In politics, you can be a moderate, or in the middle somewhere. Alternately, to be a moderate Christian is likely just "blasphemous." It's all or nothing... Which is, in part, why "Christian apologetics" was born and necessary. And I'm here, being entertained, as I read all the "tap dancing"...

Even if Luke used Mark, how in the world would this demonstrate that they knew what they were writing would end up in the Bible?

My point is that "Luke" is likely not independent of Mark, but instead a duplicate/revision of an existing writing to make the Romans look better. The fact that both made it in is just poor "church" management.

I do not care how many times you have been through this, you have not demonstrated in the least that Luke is anything other than a communication to someone by the name of Theophilus.

Well, you dismissed an entire thread dedicated in your honor. "Luke" is not trustworthy, by even the lowest of standards. Neither is 'Mark' for that matter,.. Sorry buddy. Deal with it. Nothing 'extraordinary' to evaluate.

And it does not matter since I am not making the argument that it is trustworthy. The thing is though, there are certain things we can be sure of by reading the material.

Right... And this is plenty to believe that a rotting corpse, or rotting corpses, rose -- back in the day.