Yep. Which is why often these discussion break down to what you consider “rational” basic beliefs. Often in my discussions with atheists, it all goes down to whether you intuit if there is a need for an external explanation for the existence of the universe. If you are determined to take it as a brute fact, then no amount of discussion about the cosmological argument will convince you.
4 Likes
You mean inclusivism?
Physical fragments are far from the only evidence for the dating of an ancient text. Good thing, too: there’s much longer gaps between the time of the events and the earliest manuscripts for most of our textual information about the ancient world.
Ah, the old “ancient people are gullible” argument. I actually don’t think there’s any good indication people in 1st century Palestine were any more gullible than people in our “scientific, modern” society. Nor is there any evidence for a “stage trick” or similar explanation for the Resurrection.
Extraordinary evidence can look ordinary if you dismiss the details out of hand.
4 Likes
That is precisely the problem going on here.
1 Like
That would be a good start!
Perhaps you could explain what he meant.
Hmm, yeah, that view isn’t exactly uncommon in Eastern Orthodox Church. I’m an inclusivist (and hopeful universalist) myself, but let’s not get into that. Just wanted to make sure I followed all conversations here, is all.
Why not?
The gospels say it, you believe it. What more is there to this?
- The uniqueness of the historical situation for the Resurrection : Jesus’ resurrection is unique in that a confluence of factors seem to conspire to make the alternative hypotheses contrived and/or implausible. 1) One cannot simply explain Jesus’ resurrection as a magic trick or sleight-of-hand:
Sure I can. I don’t have to do it, but it is trivial. The crucifixion was staged: A handful of roman soldiers were in on it(paid off by Jesus), he didn’t really die. They pretended to hammer nails through his hands and feet with some simple stage magic tricks and used goat blood for effect, but he was tied, not actually nailed to the cross. Then after lots of dramatic acting, he’s carried away “dead”.
it is well-established that Jesus was crucified and died.
No, it isn’t. It’s believed strongly by lots of people, and people like you who hear about it and believe it without having seen any of it yourself is how the story survived and spread. It isn’t established in the least though that he actually died. His gullible followers primed to believe anything he says witnessed the dramatic performance, not suspecting any mischief, simply reported what they managed to see: What looked like a man being crucified and tortured. What stuck in their mind was the apparent visage of a man being nailed to a cross and then tortured. No reason for them to remember or record that, also, his hands and feet were actually tied to the cross.
- It is also difficult to posit an intentional conspiracy by the disciples to steal the body and lie about it
I don’t have to.
: many disciples died for their belief in the Resurrection without ever recanting, indicating that they sincerely believed it, even if they were deluded.
I agree, it is possible to sincerely believe something that didn’t actually happen, and to see something appear to happen which is actually just a rather simple trick.
- Other religions’ miracle claims are not necessarily false : While to be honest, I haven’t closely examined miracle claims in many other religions, I don’t discount the possibility that some of them might be genuine.
You should. What does it take to convince someone that a miracle happened? Their parents. Often times merely the claim itself, and the apparent sincerity of the person relaying the story. In particular if people are already convinced that God exists, they will believe a miracle story instantly upon hearing it.
Here you are, you believe it because it says so in a book. Millions upon millions of christians never invest the slightest moment even looking into their faith the way you apparently have, and they believe it anyway. Why? They were raised to, and it says so in the book. That’s it. That’s all it takes. People will willingly go to their deaths in sincerity believing in something they read in a book, or their parents told them when they were young.
I mean, look at this:
Somebody somewhere wrote or said it, Mark now finds it plausible it’s a genuine miracle, or demonic magic.
Somehow I am being asked to explain how it is possible that a handful of people come to believe a man was resurrected in pre-scientific, bronze-age palestine?
Like that, it’s possible like that. Somebody says it happened, a theist hears it and believes it. Done, case closed.
Doesn’t really matter if the person is tied or nailed to the cross. The cause of death is shock or asphyxiation.
There’s a difference between evidence presented to a complete skeptic and evidence for someone who is already committed to a certain set of presuppositions. It is much easier to explain away Jesus’ healings as a possible sleight-of-hand, which is why I don’t bring that up to skeptics as evidence that Jesus is divine. It’s different for the case of R.
That’s not what I meant. Of course you can invent contrived scenarios to explain away any sort of evidence. But in the process of doing so you have to posit a host of ad hoc hypotheses without evidence. In this case, for example:
- Jesus had enough money to pay off Roman soldiers
- It’s likely that Roman soldiers would accede to such a request (given that there were severe penalties for disobedience for Roman soldiers, you would probably have to pay off higher-ups all the way to Pilate…)
- Faking such crucifixions is not unheard of the ancient world, and Roman soldiers had the skill to do it
- It’s possible for a person to be tied to a cross for hours (or days) and not die…and look convincing enough to trick his disciples into believing that he was resurrected, as opposed to needing medical attention. This is basically the swoon theory here.
- Jesus, as a 1st century Jew, would think that this is a good way to achieve his goals of being seen as a Messiah (given that R violates Jewish cultural expectations)
It’s much simpler to posit that Jesus was actually crucified.
I trust the consensus of historians and scholars (including skeptical ones) on this.
That’s an simplistic and grossly inaccurate way of characterizing my beliefs, @Rumraket. I expect better from you in this discussion. You’re trying to fit me into your pre-conceived categories of how religious people believe, and it’s not working.
6 Likes
Yeah, @John_Harshman, I have faith in Jesus and work miracles all the time. You should come over sometime, I think you’d be pretty impressed. 
No, I just meant that Christ can work miracles through people. As to who he chooses to do that through, well, I’m not sure how he chooses. I’m not one of them.
Also, does anyone here know of any reputable NT scholar who doesn’t think Jesus was crucified? Other than the Jesus mythicists, who are sort of the equivalent to YEC’s in NT testament studies. Pretty sure even the Jesus seminar people agree on this.
4 Likes
You might benefit from looking at your fellow skeptic’s book on Jesus’ existence by Bart Ehrman. He would cue you in to how to make a responsible argument against Christianity because you are not making any. If you want to be a skeptic, be a good one like Ehrman.
LOL
The cause of death is shock or asphyxiation.
Now you’re simply assuming he’s put on the cross and killed. The whole point was to suggest that this can be staged in rather simple ways that allows a man to “pretend” to be hanging nailed to the cross, but actually isn’t.
This is what Muslims claim and I’m not aware od one NT scholar who thinks this is plausible.
1 Like
That seems a reasonable argument to me.
Many people in our “scientific, modern” society are extremely gullible. This comparison does not help your case at all.
But all the Islamic scholars do. And they believe in God.
Hundreds of people claim to have seen David Copperfield make the statue of Liberty disappear. Staging a crucifixion is childs play.
But look at this in context. You have a newfound and amazing level of skepticism towards the idea that a crucifixion can be staged to look convincing, yet you find it more plausible that a man was literally supernaturally resurrected by a divine being.
You do realize most victims of crucifixion were actually tied to the cross, not nailed, right?
There have been actual studies done on how people were crucified.
Sure, many are. But not everyone. And the same held back then. How do you know the early Christians were the gullible ones?
Some people have been sawn in half on stage. Others shot. Still others drowned. And they were later seen alive (both halves connected) at the next show.
1 Like
Why? What does that have to do with miracles or the lack thereof?