William Lane Craig (apologist)...

kelly1

Folks, has anyone come across this guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig

Some interesting links on his site that might be worth a look:-

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=content
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=rftools_home

Lots of videos on YouTube too (debates with atheists etc).

God bless,
Noel.

hivizman

I've read a couple of his books, or rather books that are based on his debates (which he seems to go in for a lot). He is one of the leading advocates for the historicity of the resurrection (that is, the resurrection is a genuine event in history rather than a myth or allegory - or an outright fiction). There's a recent debate between Craig and Bart Ehrman here where Craig sets out what he considers to be the historical evidence for the resurrection and Ehrman questions the extent to which this counts as valid and reliable historical evidence - a bit like some of the threads in this forum!

Pompey Magnus

hivizman wrote: »

There's a recent debate between Craig and Bart Ehrman here where Craig sets out what he considers to be the historical evidence for the resurrection and Ehrman questions the extent to which this counts as valid and reliable historical evidence - a bit like some of the threads in this forum!

The debate has actually been put on youtube, its worth a watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhT4IENSwac

Soul Winner

Oh goodie, I love this stuff. Grabs popcorn, settles into chair, will give opinion after viewing. Thanks guys...

Soul Winner

SPOILER WARNING: Don’t read the following if you don’t want to know my opinion of the above before you see it yourself.

Ok popcorn aside, I think that they both sort of kicked each other’s a*se. I give it 10 - 8 in favour of Craig. But in saying that they were both coming at the subject from completely different points of view and both were very convincing in their delivery. The reason I would give it to Craig is because he kept his cool better and answered his questions better. If I was there I would have asked Ehram, why do the only historical conclusions that an historian can come to about these events have to be ones that eliminate any supernatural involvement? His answer I'm sure would be: Because the supernatural explanation is the most unlikely outcome.

To explain away supernatural New Testament texts with an explanation more palatable to the modern mind is surely an abomination to scholarly endeavor. I think his fear of being laughed at outweighs his hunger to search after truth no matter what it is he might unearth and let the chips fall where they may. But in saying that, I do get where he's coming from, from the standpoint of an atheist. Of course from the atheistic perspective one will never be able to accept Craig’s argument, so one must counter with complete hogwash for want of a better word. I agree with Craig that the best plausible explanation to explain the facts that all scholars do accept as true, is the explanation of the resurrection of Jesus rather than all the theories which fail miserably to explain them due to motivational factors and inferences that lie outside the story as a whole.

Believers will never be convinced by the likes of Ehram and atheists will never be convinced by the likes of Craig. No I take that back, maybe they could both win people to their way of thinking given the right set of circumstances. Fair play to both of them for a good debate though and thanks for sharing it.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

If I was there I would have asked Ehram, why do the only historical conclusions that an historian can come to about these events have to be ones that eliminate any supernatural involvement? His answer I'm sure would be: Because the supernatural explanation is the most unlikely outcome.

It is a bit more specific than that. A man rising from the death is a very unlikely outcome, from a historical point of view. I think we can both agree on that. From a Christian theological point of view it is still pretty unlikely.

Soul Winner wrote: »

To explain away supernatural New Testament texts with an explanation more palatable to the modern mind is surely an abomination to scholarly endeavor.

Quite the opposite in fact. To conclude that a man rising from the dead is some how a likely outcome, compared to a raft of non-religious explanation, is an abomination to historical endeavour, which is Ehram point.

What ever the theological arguments, there is no historical argument that it is likely or highly plausible that Jesus came back to life. That isn't to say that it is not possible, but placed side by side of all possible explanations for what is described it comes firmly far far down the list of plausible historical explanations.

Of course Christians such as Craig hate this because so much of their faith is wrapped up in the idea that belief in the resurrection is a perfectly sensible and rational conclusion to the historical facts available.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Of course from the atheistic perspective one will never be able to accept Craig’s argument, so one must counter with complete hogwash for want of a better word.

Again that is his point. To accept Craig's position one has to be a Christian in the first place. An atheist, or a Hindu or a Scientologist, will just look at this and go "Er, that probably didn't happen as it says"

It is fine from the point of view of a Christian theologian to start from the position that Jesus was the "son" of God, and therefore say that it isn't at all unlikely or implausible that he rose from the dead.

But a historian, who is supposed to be neutral to a specific religious outlook, cannot say that and stay objective to the historical assessment, any more than they could say of course Mohammad was visited by an angel.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I agree with Craig that the best plausible explanation to explain the facts that all scholars do accept as true, is the explanation of the resurrection of Jesus rather than all the theories which fail miserably to explain them due to motivational factors and inferences that lie outside the story as a whole.

And that position is not a historical one, it is purely a theological one.

It is only the "best plausible explanation" if one already accepts that Jesus was a deity and that he could rise from the dead, neither of which are historical positions.

Which is a theological assertion not a historical one. From a historical point of view the idea that Jesus resurrected himself is possibly the lest plausible explanation to the explain the facts. It is hard to think of a less plausible explanation without going into other religions, such as his example of the god Zulu.

Ehrman issue isn't with believers, or people coming from a theological point of view. His issue, much like the scientists with Creationism, is when supporters of this position start pretending that it is something it isn't, start pretending that it is a reasonable rational historical position.

It isn't. It is purely a theological position. It has no historical merit. It doesn't even register in terms of plausible historical positions, let alone offer the most plausible one.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Quite the opposite in fact. To conclude that a man rising from the dead is some how a likely outcome, compared to a raft of non-religious explanation, is an abomination to historical endeavour, which is Ehram point.

What ever the theological arguments, there is no historical argument that it is likely or highly plausible that Jesus came back to life. That isn't to say that it is not possible, but placed side by side of all possible explanations for what is described it comes firmly far far down the list of plausible historical explanations.

Except for the fact that there is no historical evidence that he didn't rise from the dead, is there? Just people setting out with the ready made conclusion, that people can't rise from the dead and trying to work out why the bible writers lied.

It may defy ones knowledge of the world, but one can't say that the historical evidence favours a non-resurrection. One can state that they believe its impossible for it to hapen and no matter what, stand by that notion as a certainty. However, the historical evidence defo rules in favour of the resurrection.

philologos

This guy is one of many great apologists that we have in Christianity at the moment. He's featured in The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel. Great read, and I'd like to read any more that he has done himself after that taster.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Except for the fact that there is no historical evidence that he didn't rise from the dead, is there?

Certainly not, just like there isn't any historical evidence that some unknown person from some unknown date some where in South America in the early 14th century didn't find a portal to another dimension through which he traveled and met alien races and had wonderful adventures.

There isn't historical evidence that most fantastical, supernatural things, that one can imagine might have happened, that is sort of the point of something being supernatural and fantastical.

But then it is kind of a given that people don't rise from the dead since it happens so infrequently, as is it a given that people don't find portals to other worlds inside wardrobes or Amazon jungles.

As we rather frequently find ourselves discussing, the onus is on the evidence that the fantastical claim happened, not evidence that it didn't.

As Ehram says historial is about probability and plausibility. Is it plausible that Jesus rose from the dead. Not really, from a historical position remaining neutral to theological beliefs as historical positions should. One can think of an almost infinite number of more plausible explanations (he put some forward himself) which while not seeming all that likely, are still light years ahead of a supernatural ressurrection in terms of likelihood.

Unless of course one starts from a theological position. Which is fine, but that is not historical study, it is theology.

JimiTime wrote: »

Just people setting out with the ready made conclusion, that people can't rise from the dead and trying to work out why the bible writers lied.

Do people often rise from the dead around your parts Jimi? Is it a frequently occurring phenomena that you are aware of?

JimiTime wrote: »

It may defy ones knowledge of the world, but one can't say that the historical evidence favours a non-resurrection.

One can certainly say that. It is more plausible that everyone in the Bible suffered some form of mass psycotic break all at the same time, all imagining the same thing, than it is to say that a man rose from the dead. It is highly implausible that they did, but that is still more plausible than a man coming back from the dead. You can say that we don't have evidence that he didn't, but then we don't have evidence that this wasn't a mass waking dream that by some cosmic fluke managed to be mirrored by all witnesses. Highly unlikely, but then so is a man coming back to life.

The issue Christians who try to make Jesus' story historical have is that they want a certain out come. So you can say that it is nonsense that they all suffered some waking dream that happened to be exactly the same in each individual (I would agree, highly unlikely to the point of implausibility) but then embrace the idea that a man rose from the dead (equally unlikely to the point of implausibility)

This is what Christians seeking a historical basis for the story aren't prepared to do, judge all fantastical explanations, including the ressurection, equally. They view the ressurrection as a special case because it fits their religious/theological beliefs, where as the other fantastical explanations don't.

But again that is not historical study, that is theology. The ressurrection is only more plausible to you because you have a religion based around it.

--amadeus--

JimiTime wrote: »

Except for the fact that there is no historical evidence that he didn't rise from the dead, is there?

Can I introduce you to Smokey? Smoley is my pet dragon. He lives in my garage. He's 250' long usually but shrinks and grows at will to get in and out of teh garage, sleep there comfortably, etc. He eats Fairies and daffodils. He's also invisible and very shy. So shy in fact that he hides when anyone comes near him. Several thousand years ago Smokey had a huge fight with an evil dragon and they rolled the length of Ireland, wrapped together at a huge size wresstling. After Smokey won the track of the fight filled with water and became teh river Shannon.

I utterly believe this. I have physical proof that the dragon exists (the river Shannon, the lack of faries in my garden, the fact the daffodils never last past spring even though other flowers do). You have an alternative explanation (for the river it may be something about water and erosion, or a god creating it or whatever) but frankly Smokey is the hypothosis that best fits the physical circumstances as I find them

Now if you can prove that Smokey doesn't exsist I'll agree that there is a case for the resurection.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Do people often rise from the dead around your parts Jimi? Is it a frequently occurring phenomena that you are aware of?

Wicknight, you've lost the point. If it occurred frequently, it would be "natural" not "miraculous".

Pompey Magnus

Jakkass wrote: »

Wicknight, you've lost the point. If it occurred frequently, it would be "natural" not "miraculous".

But if an event like the dead raising back to life occurs so rarely as to be unobserved by anyone alive today then it can't be considered historical. Historians have no privileged access to the supernatural realm, they can work only on the natural world. A historian's conclusion should be accessible and acceptable to people of all points of view, they can't use their own Christian biases to come to a conclusion which a Jewish or Muslim or atheist or agnostic historian could not come to. A historian can attempt to reconstruct the probable events of Jesus' life and death, they can't tell you that Jesus really died for the sins of mankind.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Certainly not, just like there isn't any historical evidence that some unknown person from some unknown date some where in South America in the early 14th century didn't find a portal to another dimension through which he traveled and met alien races and had wonderful adventures.

There isn't historical evidence that most fantastical, supernatural things, that one can imagine might have happened, that is sort of the point of something being supernatural and fantastical.

But then it is kind of a given that people don't rise from the dead since it happens so infrequently, as is it a given that people don't find portals to other worlds inside wardrobes or Amazon jungles.

Not really getting your Amazon portals etc We have historical accounts however, from various people, that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead. Now we can start conclusively that such an event is impossible and look for alternatives to the story. This does however go against the available documental evidence. The only evidence against it happening, is the stand that 'It can't happen'. Which is a fair enough starting point. But it does go against the documental evidence.

As we rather frequently find ourselves discussing, the onus is on the evidence that the fantastical claim happened, not evidence that it didn't.

As i said, all we have are testimonies. What you are asking is to prove the testimonies are true. The answer being, no. Once one concludes that God exists, then such things are not outlandish testimonies, but highly plausible claims.

As Ehram says historial is about probability and plausibility. Is it plausible that Jesus rose from the dead. Not really, from a historical position remaining neutral to theological beliefs as historical positions should. One can think of an almost infinite number of more plausible explanations (he put some forward himself) which while not seeming all that likely, are still light years ahead of a supernatural ressurrection in terms of likelihood.

As I said, fair enough. However, but there is no histrical evidence to this position other than the conclusion 'People can't rise from the dead, God doesn't exist'. Historically, all the evidence, which is testimonial, is in favour of the resurrection.

Unless of course one starts from a theological position. Which is fine, but that is not historical study, it is theology.

Well, as I said, the testimonial evidence is all about his resurrection.

Do people often rise from the dead around your parts Jimi? Is it a frequently occurring phenomena that you are aware of?

Gary Barlows Career! QED.

One can certainly say that. It is more plausible that everyone in the Bible suffered some form of mass psycotic break all at the same time, all imagining the same thing, than it is to say that a man rose from the dead. It is highly implausible that they did, but that is still more plausible than a man coming back from the dead. You can say that we don't have evidence that he didn't, but then we don't have evidence that this wasn't a mass waking dream that by some cosmic fluke managed to be mirrored by all witnesses. Highly unlikely, but then so is a man coming back to life.

Again, I'm saying fair enough. Start with that conclusion. However, the historical eveidence, which again is testimonial, is that he did rise from the dead.

This is what Christians seeking a historical basis for the story aren't prepared to do, judge all fantastical explanations, including the ressurection, equally. They view the ressurrection as a special case because it fits their religious/theological beliefs, where as the other fantastical explanations don't.

But again that is not historical study, that is theology. The ressurrection is only more plausible to you because you have a religion based around it.

Again, the evidence is testimonial. You start with the conclusion, 'God doesn't exist, people don't rise from the dead', so you write off all the historical documentation as garbage. Fair enough. Some don't.

Galvasean

JimiTime wrote: »

Not really getting your Amazon portals etc We have historical accounts however, from various people, that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead. Now we can start conclusively that such an event is impossible and look for alternatives to the story. This does however go against the available documental evidence. The only evidence against it happening, is the stand that 'It can't happen'. Which is a fair enough starting point. But it does go against the documental evidence.

Didn't Mary fail to recognize him when he came back? If so, could that be 'documental' evidence that the guy claiming to be Jesus revived was an impostor?

edit: I forgot to mention 'prove it didn't happen' is a bad argument. The burden of proof is always on the one trying to prove unlikely things happened. Hence why Smokey the dragon is not considered fact.

JimiTime

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Can I introduce you to Smokey? Smoley is my pet dragon. He lives in my garage. He's 250' long usually but shrinks and grows at will to get in and out of teh garage, sleep there comfortably, etc. He eats Fairies and daffodils. He's also invisible and very shy. So shy in fact that he hides when anyone comes near him. Several thousand years ago Smokey had a huge fight with an evil dragon and they rolled the length of Ireland, wrapped together at a huge size wresstling. After Smokey won the track of the fight filled with water and became teh river Shannon.

Could you give me a specific time that this happened? So that I may look into the time period and scrutinise the claim.
Also, are there any other witnesses to this?
Was there anyone who came before these dragons who predicted this fight and the creation of the river?
Are there historical documents detailing this event? If so, is there more than a couple?
Is it only you who see's this Dragon, or are there others?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Not really getting your Amazon portals etc We have historical accounts however, from various people, that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead.

And you have "historical" accounts of people in the Amazon walking through portals, because I just gave you one.

I'm making mine up of course, but then it is pretty easy to see that because I'm talking of such fantastical and implausible things. Plus how the heck would I know if someone in the Amazon walked through a portal?

JimiTime wrote: »

Now we can start conclusively that such an event is impossible and look for alternatives to the story. This does however go against the available documental evidence.

You keep introducing the straw man of "impossible".

It isn't about being impossible, it is about being plausible. Is it plausible that Jesus rose from the dead, from a historical point of view (not a theological one).

The answer is of course no. It is highly highly implausible that Jesus rose from the dead? Impossible? Not really when one considers that really anything is possible. Plausible? Not in the slightest.

Even a Christian would admit that it is not plausible that people come back from the dead. They say it is plausible that Jesus though came back from the dead because he was the son of God, but that is theological assertion, not a historical one. A Hindu historian, or a Taoist historian doesn't think he was the son of God and therefore the exception for Jesus evaporates.

JimiTime wrote: »

The only evidence against it happening, is the stand that 'It can't happen'.

I wouldn't call the entire current understanding of physics, chemistry and biology "only"

JimiTime wrote: »

Which is a fair enough starting point. But it does go against the documental evidence.

Yes it does. Which means the documentary evidence is most likely wrong.

It is more plausible that a man cannot rise from the dead and the documentary evidence is wrong that it is that a man can rise from the dead and the documentary evidence is correct.

You seem to think that just because someone asserted something that some how this really means something. It doesn't, as I was hoping to demonstrate with my example of Amazon portals. Just because I claim something exists doesn't off strong plausibility that it does, particularly when I am talking about something fantastical.

The early Christians claimed (decades after the event) that Jesus rose from the dead. That really doesn't mean a whole lot. They could be wrong, they could be lying, they could be mass hallucinating. All those scenarios are more plausible than a man actually coming back to life after dying.

JimiTime wrote: »

Once one concludes that God exists, then such things are not outlandish testimonies, but highly plausible claims.

And that is the central issue, because that is a theological argument, not a historical one.

To a non-Christian historian who hasn't concluded that God exists it is not highly plausible at all. In fact it is deeply implausible.

As Charco says historical assessment is religion neutral (as science is). Saying this historical theory only works well if we first accept that Zeus exists would be historical nonsense.

JimiTime wrote: »

Historically, all the evidence, which is testimonial, is in favour of the resurrection.

All the testimonial evidence is in favour of a resurrection, but that doesn't mean a whole lot. If historical study simply went solely on what people said our view of history would be very different to what it is today.

One doesn't throw out everything we know about the world when studying history and simply go on what people claimed. Such a way of studying history would lead to some very peculiar history books :pac:

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Wicknight, you've lost the point. If it occurred frequently, it would be "natural" not "miraculous".

Er, that is the point. If it was frequent it would be plausible

Historians could say it is plausible that Jesus rose from the dead. but it isn't, it is highly implausible.

JimiTime

Galvasean wrote: »

Didn't Mary fail to recognize him when he came back? If so, could that be 'documental' evidence that the guy claiming to be Jesus revived was an impostor?

She did recognise him, just not at first. As a)She thought he was dead, b)It says it was dark and she was weeping. She certainly recognised him though:

From John:
Jesus said to her, "Mary." She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, "Rabboni!" (which means Teacher).

edit: I forgot to mention 'prove it didn't happen' is a bad argument. The burden of proof is always on the one trying to prove unlikely things happened. Hence why Smokey the dragon is not considered fact.

I never asked anyone to prove it didn't happen, though thats what folk seem to be suggesting. I said that the historical evidence, which is testimonial, favours the resurrection.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Could you give me a specific time that this happened? So that I may look into the time period and scrutinise the claim.
Also, are there any other witnesses to this?
Was there anyone who came before these dragons who predicted this fight and the creation of the river?
Are there historical documents detailing this event? If so, is there more than a couple?
Is it only you who see's this Dragon, or are there others?

No, there is only testimony evidence. All the evidence is testimony, from amadeus. That is it.

And surely when there is only testimony historically you have to say that this is what happened, right?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I said that the historical evidence, which is testimonial, favours the resurrection.

That isn't true. The testimonial historical evidence favours the resurrection, but that doesn't really mean anything (as my post above with Smokey is pointing out). One doesn't make a historical assessment based simply on what people say or claim. If we did history would be largely nonsense.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

And you have "historical" accounts of people in the Amazon walking through portals, because I just gave you one.

Ok, well that was easy to show as rubbish.
but then it is pretty easy to see that because I'm talking of such fantastical and implausible things. Plus how the heck would I know if someone in the Amazon walked through a portal?

I know you think this is a point well made, but I don't, so forgive me if I don't deal with it any more. Not trying to be contentious, its just that I don't want to have to delve in to why its a non-point. Again, you probably have your reasons why it is, but I wont be arguing it. Again, said in the nicest possible way.

You keep introducing the straw man of "impossible".

It isn't about being impossible, it is about being plausible. Is it plausible that Jesus rose from the dead, from a historical point of view (not a theological one).

That wasn't intentional. Implausible works for me.

The answer is of course no. It is highly highly implausible that Jesus rose from the dead? Impossible? Not really when one considers that really anything is possible. Plausible? Not in the slightest.

If something is implausible to the extent of 'not in the slightest', would impossible not be an acceptable word? Anyway, lets not get into that, I'm happy to work with not the slightest bit of plausability.

Even a Christian would admit that it is not plausible that people come back from the dead.

Actually, I wouldn't agree with that. Implausible that people come back from the dead of their own accord maybe.

They say it is plausible that Jesus though came back from the dead because he was the son of God, but that is theological assertion, not a historical one. A Hindu historian, or a Taoist historian doesn't think he was the son of God and therefore the exception for Jesus evaporates.

I'm not disputing that you think its implausible. I'm just saying, that the historical evidence, which is testimonial, is 'for' the resurrection. If you wish to have a starting position of 'well he didn't raise from the dead, so that didn't happen', fair enough. Thats not what the historic evidence says though, which of course is testimonial.

I wouldn't call the entire current understanding of physics, chemistry and biology "only"

Yes it does. Which means the documentary evidence is most likely wrong.

again, a point I'm not disputing. You wish to start with the conclusion that the resurrection did not happen. Ok. I'm just saying the historical evidence, which is testimonial, says it did.

You seem to think that just because someone asserted something that some how this really means something. It doesn't, as I was hoping to demonstrate with my example of Amazon portals. Just because I claim something exists doesn't off strong plausibility that it does, particularly when I am talking about something fantastical.

Again, i'm not trying to prove it happened. I'm just saying the evidence, which is testimonial, says it happened.

The early Christians claimed (decades after the event) that Jesus rose from the dead. That really doesn't mean a whole lot. They could be wrong, they could be lying, they could be mass hallucinating. All those scenarios are more plausible than a man actually coming back to life after dying.

Fair enough. We examine the evidence available, and form a conclusion. this is yours.

And that is the central issue, because that is a theological argument, not a historical one.

actually, its both.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't true. The testimonial historical evidence favours the resurrection, but that doesn't really mean anything (as my post above with Smokey is pointing out). One doesn't make a historical assessment based simply on what people say or claim. If we did history would be largely nonsense.

Again, there is testimonial evidence from many sources, which means alot more than testimonial evidence from one source. Like the smokey source.

Galvasean

JimiTime wrote: »

Except for the fact that there is no historical evidence that he didn't rise from the dead, is there?

JimiTime wrote: »

I never asked anyone to prove it didn't happen, though thats what folk seem to be suggesting.

In other words you pretty much did. By saying there is no historical evidence that he didn't rise from the dead you are pretty much inviting others to come and display evidence saying he didn't.

Quick question, why does historical evidence (which amounts to little more than ancient hearsay) seem to amount to more than the evidence of physics, chemistry and biology to you?

Galvasean

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't true. The testimonial historical evidence favours the resurrection, but that doesn't really mean anything (as my post above with Smokey is pointing out). One doesn't make a historical assessment based simply on what people say or claim. If we did history would be largely nonsense.

True. There is probably more testimonial evidence for the Loch Ness Monster than Jesus.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Again, there is testimonial evidence from many sources, which means alot more than testimonial evidence from one source. Like the smokey source.

There isn't testimonial evidence from many sources. In fact there is no testimonial evidence from any primary sources at all. What there is is claims of testimonials from eye witnesses.

Which is a bit like me claiming that amadeus claimed he had a talking dragon. Even if that is true (it is) it still has no reflection on whether amadeus' claim is true.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm not disputing that you think its implausible. I'm just saying, that the historical evidence, which is testimonial, is 'for' the resurrection. If you wish to have a starting position of 'well he didn't raise from the dead, so that didn't happen', fair enough. Thats not what the historic evidence says though, which of course is testimonial.

Yes but you are implying that the historical evidence is the testimonial evidence and nothing more. It isn't. The testimonial evidence is the testimonial evidence. But when assessing history one does not simply go on what people say.

Like it or not the physical implausibility of a man rising from the dead is part of the historical evidence and makes up the historical assessment. It contradicts the testimonial evidence, but then that isn't that shocking, since people often do claim crazy untrue things.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but you are implying that the historical evidence is the testimonial evidence and nothing more. It isn't. The testimonial evidence is the testimonial evidence. But when assessing history one does not simply go on what people say.


Like it or not the physical implausibility of a man rising from the dead is part of the historical evidence and makes up the historical assessment. It contradicts the testimonial evidence

I don't dispute this. There is no historical evidence that it didn't happen, but much that it did. Albeit testimonial. The only thing that works against it, is the fact that man can't rise from the dead, so then one must see if God exists. If you conclude he doesn't, then you have to assume that a man didn't rise from the dead. If you conclude God does exist, then you open up the testimony to beyond that of science and its very much plausible.

Its really one of 2 biases. God exists, God doesn't exist. Whatever the conclusion however, we have testimonies of jesus rising from the dead, and none saying that he didn't.

JimiTime

Galvasean wrote: »

In other words you pretty much did. By saying there is no historical evidence that he didn't rise from the dead you are pretty much inviting others to come and display evidence saying he didn't.

But there isn't historical evidence that he didn't rise? There is a scientific reason to say people in general can't rise from the dead, but no historic eveidence contradicting the acounts of Jesus doing just that. Its just down to Atheistis or theistic bias. If one has concluded either, its going to influence how one interprets the evidence.

Galvasean

JimiTime wrote: »

But there isn't historical evidence that he didn't rise? There is a scientific reason to say people in general can't rise from the dead, but no historic eveidence contradicting the acounts of Jesus doing just that.

Very well, but now answer my follow up question:

Why does historical evidence (which amounts to little more than ancient hearsay) seem to amount to more than the evidence of physics, chemistry and biology to you?

JimiTime

Galvasean wrote: »

Very well, but now answer my follow up question:

Why does historical evidence (which amounts to little more than ancient hearsay) seem to amount to more than the evidence of physics, chemistry and biology to you?

Its your conclusion that its all just hearsay, thats why I refrained from answering. The conclusion that those you are talking to, i.e. Me, are so dim as to believe in ancient hearsay. I'm not here to convince you that the resurrection happened, just that there is no contrary testimony to the event. Why do I believe it happened even though science would dictate that man cannot rise from the dead? Because i don't believe science is our sole base of knowledge. iBased on many things, of which I wont go into, I concluded long ago that God existed. So Physics and biology, while being very useful tools, are not the be all and end all for me. Though I respect them very much.

Soul Winner

Galvasean wrote: »

The burden of proof is always on the one trying to prove unlikely things happened. Hence why Smokey the dragon is not considered fact.

Wrong! For one, the Gospel writers are not trying to prove anything, theirs is a testimony about a Person and you either believe their testimony or you don't. And there is nothing wrong with either until you decide to say that the story is false. If you have an objection to this story then the burden of proof is always on the objector to prove it to be false or at least not what it says it is. If you accuse me of smashing your window or robbing your car and bring me to court, then the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove me guilty with the facts. It is not up to me to prove myself innocent, that is a given before we even go to court even though I might be as guilty as hell.

You might be right in not believing the story but, not believing the story is not what makes it false, just like believing it makes it true. It is either true or false and the best explanation for the facts that are assumed by the resurrection of Jesus (i.e. empty tomb, preaching of the gospel etc) is the resurrection story itself. No other explanation comes close to explaining these other facts. When you lay the other explanations down they can explain one or two of the facts but not the all of them at the same time, only the resurrection does that. Does that make it true? No. But it makes it more probable than the other explanations. Even Bart says that he doesn't believe any of the other explanations, he just says they are more probably, but only because he does away with the supernatural explanation going out the gate. Of course any other explanation would be plausible, once you get rid of the first one that was passed down to us. The resurrection story itself.

History must apply the best explanation no matter what the theological implications are. If it cannot be biased toward one religious view simply because the facts are presented as such then why assume that all historical accounts should fit in with the atheistic view of things? If you don't know then you don't know, but don't turn around and say that the explanation cannot be supernatural simply because you base your approach to such studies on an atheistic philosophical standpoint. That is also biased to one set of beliefs, atheism.