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?

[1213]

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.

I don't know anyone who worships claims.To me it is not relevant did Muhammad fly to heaven. And to me it is a different matter, because it did not have similar consequences. Disciples of Jesus were killed and persecuted for their beliefs. It is a more difficult to hold ideas that have no consequences than ideas that likely causes many troubles for the person.

[POI]

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.

I don't know anyone who worships claims.To me it is not relevant did Muhammad fly to heaven. And to me it is a different matter, because it did not have similar consequences. Disciples of Jesus were killed and persecuted for their beliefs. It is a more difficult to hold ideas that have no consequences than ideas that likely causes many troubles for the person.

Please recall what you stated:

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

Your response implies it's true because people still believe, to this day. Well, the Quran has just about as many believers, to this day, that a man performed a miracle.

But now, you have completely pivoted. Now, you claim it is because "believers were persecuted for their beliefs. "

(1) Many people martyr and die for beliefs all the time; a) the many recipients in Abu Ghraib, in Iraq, in the early 2000's, b) Islamic believers for their cause (Sirat al-Mustaqeem and Shuhada from the Quran), c) the Hindu Arjuna - whom claimed Krishna informed him to perform martyrdom for the cause; just to name a few.

(2) How do you know the claimed martyred victim did not recant the second they were captured, but were still killed anyways, because during this time period, claims or professed belief in 'false gods' was often punishable by death? Many preached, or voiced their beliefs publicly, or even did not preach publicly at all, but were still harvested for punishment if others were somehow aware of their differing religious position. The claimed disciples would have been blacklisted, as they were already identified as Jesus followers. But who's to say they did not attempt to retract their internal beliefs verbally, to save their skin, but it was already too late, because the law was to kill all non-conformists?

Even the Bible condemns belief in competing gods, as passages suggest death for alternate god claims. Ironically, these moral prescriptions are sighted in the Old Testament. The same text the Orthodox Jews address today, which deny Jesus as a messiah. For all intents and purposes, civilization was simply adhering to Old Testament law, as the New Testament was not written yet. At the time, differing belief to mainstream and accepted worship in the 'wrong god' may result in execution. No reliable documentation for any claims to these individual's death exist regardless, in any true capacity.

(3) No reliable source even discloses 'how' any of the said disciples died; not really much even in the Bible itself. Non-partisan sources, like National Geographic, even states the following, due to the underwhelming and scarce available claimed sources (http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/k ... stles-die/):

'Jesus’ death on the cross, as described in the New Testament, has become one of the most famous events. But what happened to the 12 disciples who were his closest followers? Not as much information has survived about their fates, but here is what’s available from various sources, including the a) New Testament itself, b) apocryphal texts, c) early Christian historians, d) legends and lore.'

*****************************

a) Using the New Testament, to prove the New Testament, is just as circular as using the Quran to validate their claimed Islamic martyrs located in Chapter 3, Verse 169 (and) Chapter 46, Verse 14.

b) Apocryphal means - '(of a story or statement) of doubtful authenticity, although widely circulated as being true.' - Oxford Dictionary

c) A Christian historian will be bias towards their belief, just like a Muslim historian would be towards their beliefs.

D) Legends and lore is most likely the main culprit, as with many growing tales over time. The New Testament Bible was written decades after such claimed events, by way of oral tradition and/or claimed inspiration from god. Repeated story telling leads to fabrication, addition, subtraction, tales, and manipulation. Claims to authors receiving inspiration from god, especially from the anonymous authored sources, rely upon nothing other than faith to be true. Faith is belief in place of, or instead of, evidence. Please also remember we do not even have the original manuscripts.

If willingness to die for belief is the meter stick for it's truth, then the clear winners are radical Islamic extremists.

[POI]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #19]

Not to sound mean, as you would say, but I have formulated my current assessed conclusion about your epistemology regarding this specific topic. To put it bluntly and simply, I think you were or have been duped, -- specifically regarding the claim that rotting corpse(s) rose 2K years ago. It's okay. I was duped for decades. And we all hold to special circumstances regarding some topics over others. I may also hold to an irrational position in politics.

I, myself, also freely admit that I should be a vegetarian. I also still hold to slightly irrational fear of the dark. I possess an irrational fear of heights. The list goes on.... Meaning, we hold to positions which are irrational, even though we are intelligent and function at a very high level in our daily lives.

You freely admit that "the Bible' neither needs to be 1) trustworthy and/or 2) needs to comprise of actual eyewitness attestation. Though I appreciate these earnest admission(s) regarding the viability in acknowledgement for both 1) and 2), I find it quite odd that these two damning admissions still render the claim(s) of risen rotting corpse(s) believable?

For whatever reason(s), you hold to special pleading, for this/these very extraordinary claims. To believe that anyone rose from a rotted grave site would require a lot of hard evidence. And yet, you freely admit that there may only be hints of weak 'evidence' at best. And yet, instead, you re-brand these point(s) as 'facts and evidence' -- as if they are somehow significant?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #0]

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..........

No, I did not pivot at all. Rather, I am pointing out the difference between a serious claim, as opposed to one such as yourself being ridiculous. You know, like when one attempts to make the ridiculous comparisons between Christianity as opposed to Santa. As I said, you know this to be ridiculous because it can be demonstrated to be ridiculous. There are folks who dedicate their whole life to the study of the Christian claims, and the debate has been raging for thousands of years, while there is no one dedicating their life to the study and the debate concerning Santa. Can you imagine why there are those who dedicate their lives to the study of the Christian claims whether Christian or not? That is because there are serious facts and evidence surrounding the claims. And yet, you can be a once convinced Christian who wakes up one day and realizes you did not use reason to come to such a conclusion and now you have all the easy answers. I mean, who would have thought? All one has to do is to use reason to come to the conclusion that dead folks don't walk out of the grave. Your problem is, it ain't that simple.

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

And yet you have failed to give us the first scenario which would explain the facts and evidence we can know which would be likely. Moreover, you will not be able to give us any likely scenario because the folks who dedicate their lives to the study have attempted to do just that, and in the end any and all scenarios they have put forward would be extremely unlikely, to the point some of them have given up on the attempt, because they have come to understand that any scenario will be extremely unlikely. So then, in the end you will end up with the extremely unlikely, and attempting to decide what would you believe to be the most unlikely and eliminating that one is being satisfied with easy answers. But hey, one who freely admits they dedicated their life to a cause which promotes a dead man rising from the dead, who goes on to freely admit they did not use reason, already demonstrates one who is satisfied with easy answers. So then, it is no shock at all to discover, this same one is under the impression there are easy answers involved.

"Extraordinary" claims demand "extraordinary" evidence

And I will say again, this is simply something which sounds good to the ears, but in the end has no substance. While it may be true that one may simply believe one when they claim to have been born in January and demand more evidence to believe a more extraordinary claim, more evidence does not insist the evidence must and has to be extraordinary. The one who came up with this saying more than likely used reason, and the reason was more then likely that they knew it was a catchy saying that sounded good to the ears, and those who do not use reason would take the bait hook line and sinker. However, those who sit down and actually think through the saying come to understand it has no substance.

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.

And here is another weak and sad argument which one would have thought about long ago, and if they were a thinking person it would not take them long to understand that attempting to compare one claim against the other adds nothing to the conversation. I mean, even if you were to demonstrate all the other claims to be false, it would not in any way cause another claim to be false, nor would it even cause it to become more unlikely. What one has to do is to actually deal with the facts and evidence involved in the one claim, understanding that any other claim would have nothing to do with it. So then, this type of argument demonstrates one who is satisfied with easy answers, and catchy sayings like the one above, or they are attempting to avoid having to deal with the actual facts and evidence which are relevant.

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 are confusing terms here. Credulity, indoctrination, faith is not the use of reason. Rather, it is the lack of the use of reason. "Credulity, indoctrination, faith" may be the reason one believes something, but it is not the use of reason. This brings me back to your admission that there are intelligent folk who are Christian. I not only agree, I know for a fact that there are very intelligent people who believe the resurrection. Again, I want to be clear in saying there are extremely intelligent folk who reject Christianity. At any rate, do you want to insist these many intelligent Christians could not have possibly used reason to come to their position? GOOD GRIEF!

I know I have brought her up before, but one who comes to mind is Rosaria Butterfield. Butterfield was a tenured professor of English at Syracuse University, who was a lesbian, and head of the LBGTQ at the university, and was in the process of writing a paper on the rise of the religious right in America, and it was during this process as she was reading the Bible for this study, she gave up her career, and many lifelong friends to convert to Christianity and she credits her vast knowledge of language. Are you insisting that she, along with the many, many other intelligent Christians could not have employed reason? C'MON man! You really cannot believe this. I understand that you did not use reason to be a convinced Christian. I also understand and know, the overwhelming majority of Christians do not employ reason to arrive to their conclusions. but this does not demonstrate in the least that reason cannot be used.

LOL! I think all intelligent people hold to cognitive dissonance(s).

You cannot blame "cognitive dissonance" for someone like Butterfield, and others who were completely opposed to Christianity, whose cognitive dissonance was leaning away from Christianity. Again, there are those who have cognitive dissonance who are Christian. In fact, I would argue that this would apply to the majority of Christians. But this does not demonstrate in the least that it is the only possible way.

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.

I agree with everything you say here. In fact, I have never voted for a democrat for president until this last election and this had almost cost me to lose close friends because they are not in any way listening to my reasoning but are rather holding on to cognitive dissonance. I am not insisting that anyone or everyone who voted for Trump was not using reason, but what I am saying is most all of my friends who voted for Trump were not willing to engage my reasoning but was willing to end the friendship.

However, the thing is, you clearly seem to have a hard and fast stance as far as Christianity is concerned. This is demonstrated by the fact that you not only reject Christianity but seem to want to insist that it is not possible to use reason to come to such a conclusion. I am not sure if this would be cognitive dissonance, but it surely does not lend to one considering any other argument.

the ones who pick and choose, maybe like you, I label "cafeteria Christians".

This is SO, SO, FUNNY! I mean, it really is. You freely admit to not using reason in order to believe a man rose from the dead, which sort of demonstrates you more than likely did not use reason the whole time while you were able to retain the belief, rather you more than likely simply took the word of others. I can assure you beyond any doubt that you were exposed to extremely reckless theology which means your understanding of Christianity is faulty, and you are using this faulty understanding of Christianity to accuse me of picking and choosing. You cannot make this stuff up!

Well, how about this. How about the idea that I was forced to begin the study of Christianity when I would have really rather not. How about during this almost 3-year study I come to realize that I too was exposed to reckless theology (not near as reckless as the one you were exposed to) and come to realize that much of what I was taught is reckless. I then correct my understanding, to the point I could no longer worship with family and friends, and you come along with an even worse understanding of Christianity and want to accuse someone of picking and choosing because they are not following along with the form of Christianity you were exposed to. I mean, if you cannot see the irony in this then I cannot help you. It's really good stuff! You really have it all figured out, don't you? You can insist it is impossible to use reason to be a Christian, and your version of Christianity is the only one that matters.

And I'm here, being entertained, as I read all the "tap dancing"...

I can assure you that I am the one who is being entertained.

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.

And yet, it is from this same material that the overwhelming majority of scholars are convinced the early followers of Jesus could not have made the story up. You want to talk about entertainment? This is good stuff!

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.

As I have said time, and time again, I am not arguing that the material is trustworthy. You can continue to insist the material is not trustworthy, and I will continue to point out that I am not making that argument. How many times does it take?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #23]

Not to sound mean, as you would say, but I have formulated my current assessed conclusion about your epistemology regarding this specific topic. To put it bluntly and simply, I think you were or have been duped, -- specifically regarding the claim that rotting corpse(s) rose 2K years ago. It's okay. I was duped for decades. And we all hold to special circumstances regarding some topics over others. I may also hold to an irrational position in politics.

I, myself, also freely admit that I should be a vegetarian. I also still hold to slightly irrational fear of the dark. I possess an irrational fear of heights. The list goes on.... Meaning, we hold to positions which are irrational, even though we are intelligent and function at a very high level in our daily lives.

All of the above is simply wasted time and space. I mean, do you really believe I am simple minded enough to not have thought through all of this? Do you think I am unaware of cognitive dissonance? Do you think I am simple minded enough not to understand that I could be guilty of it? Again, this is something any thinking person would have thought of right off the bat. I mean, it is like you believe you have discovered these things for the first time, and it is an end all, be all argument. I am here to tell you that it is extremely elementary, to the point I would be embarrassed to even bring it up because of the fact that it is so elementary. In other words, I am not going to suppose one is so simple minded as to have not already thought this through.

You freely admit that "the Bible' neither needs to be 1) trustworthy and/or 2) needs to comprise of actual eyewitness attestation.

Correct!

Though I appreciate these earnest admission(s) regarding the viability in acknowledgement for both 1) and 2), I find it quite odd that these two damning admissions still render the claim(s) of risen rotting corpse(s) believable?

Here is where you are incorrect. Freely admitting that "the Bible' neither needs to be 1) trustworthy and/or 2) needs to comprise of actual eyewitness attestation", is not in any way an admission that it is untrustworthy and or does not contain eyewitness testimony. Can you see the difference? The difference is between it does not "NEED" to be. Does not "NEED" to be, is not an admission that it is not. The point is, I do not NEED to make the argument the material is trustworthy, in order to demonstrate there are certain things we can be sure of by reading the material whether it be trustworthy or not.

As an example, historians read the letters to and from Ceasor, and they do not consider the letters to be trustworthy. In fact, they consider some of what is contained to be far-fetched. However, these same historians tell us there are certain events in history that we can be sure about by reading these letters. So you see, we can eliminate the time and space arguing over the trustworthiness of the material, because the material does not have to be trustworthy in order to determine certain things we can be sure about by reading the material.

For whatever reason(s), you hold to special pleading, for this/these very extraordinary claims.

It is not "special pleading" when one such as yourself comes along and insist that the resurrection is extremely unlikely, and I go on to ask you to give me any other scenario which could possibly be likely, and you have nothing at all. The point is, unless one can come up with some sort of scenario which would explain all the facts and evidence we can know, by reading the material, whether trustworthy or not, that would be a likely scenario, we are left with the unlikely either way we go, and unlikely, is unlikely, and it does not matter as to how unlikely it may be.

To believe that anyone rose from a rotted grave site would require a lot of hard evidence.

Or it would require sitting 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 if one was to do so, there is no way they could possibly come away believing that it is as simple as, "the dead don't rise". It is not possible! Unless of course, you have one who was convinced a man rose from the dead without the use of reason, then this one may in fact come to such a simple conclusion. It is what I call "easy in, easy out". Many times, when I point out those who are "easy in, easy out" they want to go on to tell me just how difficult it was to be shed of the belief, and talk about how emotionally draining it was, but this is not what I am talking about in the least. Rather, I am talking about the thinking process which led them in (which was really not a thinking process) along with the thinking process which led them out.

And yet, you freely admit that there may only be hints of weak 'evidence' at best. And yet, instead, you re-brand these point(s) as 'facts and evidence' -- as if they are somehow significant?

I have admitted nothing of the sort. Rather, I believe I have suggested that it is extremely stout evidence when even the scholars who are not Christian, who do not hold the material to be trustworthy, come away understanding the early followers of Jesus could not have possibly made the story up. Now, if you show me one who does not consider this to be stout evidence, I believe I can show you cognitive dissonance.

[POI]

No, I did not pivot at all. Rather, I am pointing out the difference between a serious claim, as opposed to one such as yourself being ridiculous. You know, like when one attempts to make the ridiculous comparisons between Christianity as opposed to Santa. As I said, you know this to be ridiculous because it can be demonstrated to be ridiculous. There are folks who dedicate their whole life to the study of the Christian claims, and the debate has been raging for thousands of years, while there is no one dedicating their life to the study and the debate concerning Santa. Can you imagine why there are those who dedicate their lives to the study of the Christian claims whether Christian or not? That is because there are serious facts and evidence surrounding the claims. And yet, you can be a once convinced Christian who wakes up one day and realizes you did not use reason to come to such a conclusion and now you have all the easy answers. I mean, who would have thought? All one has to do is to use reason to come to the conclusion that dead folks don't walk out of the grave. Your problem is, it ain't that simple.

Rising rotting bodies is/are no longer a serious claim either, to anyone who actually unbiasedly investigates the claim(s), regardless of your given attempt(s) to suggest otherwise. So yes, we can now categorize the claim of a risen Jesus in the same exact category as the other claims for which we both now deem 'ridiculous' -- which also includes any other deemed ridiculous religion claims from any other competing religion as well... (fill-in-the-blank).

One of the reason(s) there actually still exists debate about the claim(s) to a risen Jesus, is because tradition/faith to the assertion in this particular claim still holds reign over authority in parts of the world. I've told others, maybe including you, that if many were not going around attempting to preach the "veracity" of this particular 'extraordinary' claim, I would not spend any time debating it. Just like virtually no one debates claims to old Greek gods any longer. They are no longer relevant to debate, even though these claims too are also unfalsifiable. Christianity still holds to much of the civilized world, which makes it relevant to debate.

And yet you have failed to give us the first scenario which would explain the facts and evidence we can know which would be likely. Moreover, you will not be able to give us any likely scenario because the folks who dedicate their lives to the study have attempted to do just that, and in the end any and all scenarios they have put forward would be extremely unlikely, to the point some of them have given up on the attempt, because they have come to understand that any scenario will be extremely unlikely. So then, in the end you will end up with the extremely unlikely, and attempting to decide what would you believe to be the most unlikely and eliminating that one is being satisfied with easy answers. But hey, one who freely admits they dedicated their life to a cause which promotes a dead man rising from the dead, who goes on to freely admit they did not use reason, already demonstrates one who is satisfied with easy answers. So then, it is no shock at all to discover, this same one is under the impression there are easy answers involved.

Oh, but I have...

- A Jesus likely was not respectfully buried at all, as it is a contradiction to the entire premise surrounding the act of "crucifixion".
- As you admit, the Bible is not trustworthy -- (I created an entire thread about it, in your honor).
- As you also admit, outside of Saul/Paul, we have no corroborated eyewitness attestation to anything "supernatural," which would be necessary to substantiate a one-time claimed event from antiquity.
- Rotting corpse(s) don't rise, period.

And I will say again, this is simply something which sounds good to the ears, but in the end has no substance. While it may be true that one may simply believe one when they claim to have been born in January and demand more evidence to believe a more extraordinary claim, more evidence does not insist the evidence must and has to be extraordinary. The one who came up with this saying more than likely used reason, and the reason was more then likely that they knew it was a catchy saying that sounded good to the ears, and those who do not use reason would take the bait hook line and sinker. However, those who sit down and actually think through the saying come to understand it has no substance.

You missed my point entirely. The saying implies that you need a lot of hard evidence to believe such a ridiculous claim. You have presented none, and yet, you still believe. Special pleading and cognitive dissonance are all that presents here.

And here is another weak and sad argument which one would have thought about long ago, and if they were a thinking person it would not take them long to understand that attempting to compare one claim against the other adds nothing to the conversation. I mean, even if you were to demonstrate all the other claims to be false, it would not in any way cause another claim to be false, nor would it even cause it to become more unlikely. What one has to do is to actually deal with the facts and evidence involved in the one claim, understanding that any other claim would have nothing to do with it. So then, this type of argument demonstrates one who is satisfied with easy answers, and catchy sayings like the one above, or they are attempting to avoid having to deal with the actual facts and evidence which are relevant.

You have presented no hard evidence to the ridiculous claims that rotting bodies rose 2K years ago. Sorry. I guess this is one of the reasons the Bible props up 'faith.'

You are confusing terms here. Credulity, indoctrination, faith is not the use of reason. Rather, it is the lack of the use of reason. "Credulity, indoctrination, faith" may be the reason one believes something, but it is not the use of reason. This brings me back to your admission that there are intelligent folk who are Christian. I not only agree, I know for a fact that there are very intelligent people who believe the resurrection.

Yes. Now all you now need to do is to place yourself in that camp as well. Acceptance is half the battle.

Again, I want to be clear in saying there are extremely intelligent folk who reject Christianity. At any rate, do you want to insist these many intelligent Christians could not have possibly used reason to come to their position? GOOD GRIEF!

I find little to no logical intelligent reason(s) to uphold to a rationally concluded belief that rotting bodies rose 2K years ago. Sorry.

I know I have brought her up before, but one who comes to mind is Rosaria Butterfield. Butterfield was a tenured professor of English at Syracuse University, who was a lesbian, and head of the LBGTQ at the university, and was in the process of writing a paper on the rise of the religious right in America, and it was during this process as she was reading the Bible for this study, she gave up her career, and many lifelong friends to convert to Christianity and she credits her vast knowledge of language. Are you insisting that she, along with the many, many other intelligent Christians could not have employed reason?

Yup! (Emotion > logic) demonstrates here.

I understand that you did not use reason to be a convinced Christian.

I trusted authority around me, and I did not do the work myself for decades. Never blindly trust authority, whether it be in politics, religion, the government, or any other easily corruptible and corrupted institution. When investigating the creation of 'the Bible', it is clearly corrupt. See my other thread, dedicated in your honor!

I also understand and know, the overwhelming majority of Christians do not employ reason to arrive to their conclusions. but this does not demonstrate in the least that reason cannot be used.

Yes, it does. Even folks like Dr William Craig admits he would believe no matter how much evidence presents to the contrary. This is a tacit omission that faith/belief is not based upon reason.

You cannot blame "cognitive dissonance" for someone like Butterfield, and others who were completely opposed to Christianity, whose cognitive dissonance was leaning away from Christianity. Again, there are those who have cognitive dissonance who are Christian. In fact, I would argue that this would apply to the majority of Christians. But this does not demonstrate in the least that it is the only possible way.

I'm afraid they can all be lumped into the same exact category. We all possess cognitive dissonance in some categories or another. My hypothesis is that to hold to Christianity requires at least some dissonance. I created an entire thread upon it. Which has yet to be challenged. All I have to do is bring up 'slavery', and it's 'dead-man-walking' for anyone who wishes to argue they possess no cognitive dissonance, while holding to the tenets of Christianity, as you must accept it all or nothing.

I agree with everything you say here. In fact, I have never voted for a democrat for president until this last election and this had almost cost me to lose close friends because they are not in any way listening to my reasoning but are rather holding on to cognitive dissonance. I am not insisting that anyone or everyone who voted for Trump was not using reason, but what I am saying is most all of my friends who voted for Trump were not willing to engage my reasoning but was willing to end the friendship.

In politics, you can choose the lesser of two perceived evils. So, you did. With Christianity, it's all or nothing. You do not have the same luxury. HUGE difference here.

However, the thing is, you clearly seem to have a hard and fast stance as far as Christianity is concerned. This is demonstrated by the fact that you not only reject Christianity but seem to want to insist that it is not possible to use reason to come to such a conclusion. I am not sure if this would be cognitive dissonance, but it surely does not lend to one considering any other argument.

Leading Christian scholars, like Dr. Craig, openly have admitted they do not hold to the position by using reason. He possesses dissonance. It is as simple as that. Just like all others who are forced to accept (all or nothing propositions) from a collection of claims. Namely, holy books....

This is SO, SO, FUNNY! I mean, it really is. You freely admit to not using reason in order to believe a man rose from the dead, which sort of demonstrates you more than likely did not use reason the whole time while you were able to retain the belief, rather you more than likely simply took the word of others. I can assure you beyond any doubt that you were exposed to extremely reckless theology which means your understanding of Christianity is faulty, and you are using this faulty understanding of Christianity to accuse me of picking and choosing. You cannot make this stuff up!

It's all reckless theology, as the book itself posts up "faith." You have no hard evidence to believe such a ridiculous claim that rotting bodies rose.

Well, how about this. How about the idea that I was forced to begin the study of Christianity when I would have really rather not. How about during this almost 3-year study I come to realize that I too was exposed to reckless theology (not near as reckless as the one you were exposed to) and come to realize that much of what I was taught is reckless. I then correct my understanding, to the point I could no longer worship with family and friends, and you come along with an even worse understanding of Christianity and want to accuse someone of picking and choosing because they are not following along with the form of Christianity you were exposed to. I mean, if you cannot see the irony in this then I cannot help you. It's really good stuff! You really have it all figured out, don't you? You can insist it is impossible to use reason to be a Christian, and your version of Christianity is the only one that matters.

You have absolutely no idea of my experience, other than the very limited information I provided. However, what I do now know is that there IS NO hard evidence to suggest a ridiculous claim is actually true. This is where faith is required.

And yet, it is from this same material that the overwhelming majority of scholars are convinced the early followers of Jesus could not have made the story up. You want to talk about entertainment? This is good stuff!

I demonstrated that many things were completely made up, in the other thread. This thread provided many receipts. You ducked out of the thread and are instead now attempting to rely upon no one actually attempting to investigate your given claim.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #23]

Not to sound mean, as you would say, but I have formulated my current assessed conclusion about your epistemology regarding this specific topic. To put it bluntly and simply, I think you were or have been duped, -- specifically regarding the claim that rotting corpse(s) rose 2K years ago. It's okay. I was duped for decades. And we all hold to special circumstances regarding some topics over others. I may also hold to an irrational position in politics.

I, myself, also freely admit that I should be a vegetarian. I also still hold to slightly irrational fear of the dark. I possess an irrational fear of heights. The list goes on.... Meaning, we hold to positions which are irrational, even though we are intelligent and function at a very high level in our daily lives.

All of the above is simply wasted time and space. I mean, do you really believe I am simple minded enough to not have thought through all of this? Do you think I am unaware of cognitive dissonance? Do you think I am simple minded enough not to understand that I could be guilty of it? Again, this is something any thinking person would have thought of right off the bat. I mean, it is like you believe you have discovered these things for the first time, and it is an end all, be all argument. I am here to tell you that it is extremely elementary, to the point I would be embarrassed to even bring it up because of the fact that it is so elementary. In other words, I am not going to suppose one is so simple minded as to have not already thought this through.

In my many years of debating theists, I recognize that when I'm clearly being gaslighted, my debate opponent has immediately admitted defeat.

You freely admit that "the Bible' neither needs to be 1) trustworthy and/or 2) needs to comprise of actual eyewitness attestation.

Correct!

Aces!

The point is, I do not NEED to make the argument the material is trustworthy, in order to demonstrate there are certain things we can be sure of by reading the material whether it be trustworthy or not.

In this case, you do. We are talking about a very ridiculous claim here. The entire body of evidence admittedly rests upon a house of cards, best-case-scenario for you...

As an example, historians read the letters to and from Ceasor, and they do not consider the letters to be trustworthy. In fact, they consider some of what is contained to be far-fetched. However, these same historians tell us there are certain events in history that we can be sure about by reading these letters. So you see, we can eliminate the time and space arguing over the trustworthiness of the material, because the material does not have to be trustworthy in order to determine certain things we can be sure about by reading the material.

Sure, each situation is unique. Kind of like how it is one thing to assert that Alexander the Great lived, conquered territories, and died of fever. But it's ANOTHER thing altogether to also assert that Alexander really was the son of Zeus! You know, ridiculous claims! But in this case, all you have is the collection of books in question. And we know they are corrupted. So yes, maybe it is reasonable to just not question or press the assertion that Jesus was a homeless preacher who was killed for 'blasphemy/treason.' Maybe he was and maybe he wasn't? But to also believe he rose again, after rotting for 1-3 days in a respected tomb, is asking quite a bit more. So, what exactly do you have beyond, 'most/all scholars accept the conclusion that these close followers believed what they saw'? You cannot have your cake and eat it too buddy. Scholarly concession, even if this is the scholarly concession, is not only important when it suites your personal narrative.

[BrotherBerry]

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

I believe because I want to. I believe Jesus loves me and died for my sins because he wanted to. I believe he rose from the dead because he wanted to.

* mic drop *

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #26]

Rising rotting bodies is/are no longer a serious claim either, to anyone who actually unbiasedly investigates the claim(s), regardless of your given attempt(s) to suggest otherwise. So yes, we can now categorize the claim of a risen Jesus in the same exact category as the other claims for which we both now deem 'ridiculous' -- which also includes any other deemed ridiculous religion claims from any other competing religion as well... (fill-in-the-blank).

I am afraid it is just not that easy for you, my friend. I wish it were. Again, your problem is the fact that even the critical scholars agree that we have enough evidence in the material, whether it is trustworthy or not, to know the early followers were not making the reports up. I can give you all sorts of quotes from the critics, but here is one from a critical scholar who was not Christian,

The evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity.

Pretty stout my friend, especially from one who was never a Christian. As I said, I can continue on giving you these sorts of quotes from critics of Christianity, some of which tell us we can know with almost certainty that the early followers could not have possibly made up the story. This is mighty strong evidence which demands some sort of explanation, and it is this which causes the study and debate, because the evidence is there in support. Let's look at this again, "the evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It's OUTSTANDINGLY different in quality and QUANTITY". Again, this is coming from a critical scholar, who spent his life studying these sorts of things, who was actually an atheist, who never converted to Christianity, and he is saying that the evidence is "OUTSTANDINGLY different" while you are insisting there is no evidence. Do you wonder why I am the one being entertained?

Again, I could continue on with these sorts of quotes and we can listen to these folks who have dedicated their lives to the study of such things, or we can listen to one who freely admits they committed their life for DECADES to a movement which was promoting a corpse being raised from the dead, who goes on to freely admit that they did not use reason in order to make such a life decision, who now wants to insist there is NO EVIDENCE in support of what they once were convinced of, while we have actual critics who dedicate their life to such things telling us the evidence for the resurrection is, "OUTSTANDINGLY different" not only in "quality" but also in "QUANTITY".

So then, I am not thinking we can lump Christianity into the same category as things such as Santa, and the like, because according to this critical scholar, who was never a Christian, the claims of the resurrection is in a category by itself concerning other religions, much less the ridiculousness you continue to bring into the conversation. So then, we have a critical scholar who dedicates his life to such things, assuring us the evidence for the resurrection is "outstandingly different", while we have you wanting to assure us there is no evidence at all. Now, you tell me. Which one would you listen to?

I can tell you this. I am not listening to him, because I already knew this to be the case. I can go on to tell you that I am certainly not putting a whole lot of stock into what someone who dedicated their whole life to the idea that a man rose from the dead, who goes on to freely admit they did not use reason to make such a life decision, which very well may not simply affect his life, but very well could affect the life of his family. That my friend is GLARINGLY opposed to you. On the other hand, I clearly understood my family would be exposed to such things, and understood I had no choice in the matter, and went on a study that I would have much rather not undertake, and I did so in order to protect my family from being exposed to that which I was not convinced of.

I would love to continue on, and I will when I arrive back home, but at this time my wife and I are heading to a concert.

[lifelongseeker]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Our OT was produced by Masorete Jews 1000 years after Christ called them sons of Satan.

Our NT is pseudepigraphical (forgery) manuscripts written 300 years after Christ. Ordered into cannon by...for...
____________
Masoretes -"𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛". Masoretic Text - "𝑡𝑒𝑥𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛" (Jewish Tanakh, from 1008BC) is our Old Testament.
Jeremiah 8:8 

Many ancient manuscripts have been found. Mystic, Gnostic, another messiah...