Jesus is Like (But Not Like) Others

[dga471 (Daniel)]

@Faizal_Ali

I am saying that history HAS NOT demonstrated that a man rose from the dead 2000 years ago. This is no accepted by the overwhelming majority of experts in history, and as far as I am aware it is not claimed in any standard university level history textbook.

It remains possible that there COULD HAVE BEEN sufficient historical evidence to demonstrate it had happened. But that is simply not the case.

This is in contradiction with your earlier post, where you openly admitted the following:

@Faizal_Ali

So does this mean that even if claims #1 to #4 were unanimously agreed upon by scholars to have been historical fact, you would still deny the Resurrection could explain them, as that would be contrary to our observations today, that no dead person rises from the dead?

Yes. This is known as “rational thought.” When confronted with a phenomenon which can be explained by stuff that happens, or by something that never happens, choose the former.

Have you changed your mind since then?

@Faizal_Ali

How many historians did Habermas survey? What percentage of the world’s competent academic historians does this represent?

After you’ve figured that out, try defend your position that Habermas is not guilty of cherry picking.

I now remember that we went through this exact topic back in February. In fact I’m feeling some deja vu here, since your arguments are almost identical to the ones you said back then. Last time, I dutifully chased down Habermas’ claim and listed the scholars he likely surveyed. And you didn’t even engage with that, so my work was for naught. Nevertheless, I’m linking it here for the benefit of any observers to our dialog:

https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/daniel-angs-argument-for-the-resurrection/4659/19

As I said a few months ago:

@dga471

However, you don’t even bother to engage with these arguments nor my defenses of Habermas’ claims, instead nakedly asserting that

Faizal_Ali:

The simple truth is it is beyond our capability to go back in time and say with any degree of certainty which particular details of the NT stories are based on fact, and which are made up.

If you were upfront about this, then I wouldn’t have even bothered to look up Habermas’ claims for you, since ultimately you reject that we can know anything certain about the NT, even if a thousand skeptical scholars endorsed it. This is a clear example of arguing in bad faith . I tried to respond to objections seriously, but you simply move the goalposts. There is little utility in sustaining an argument with someone who is not arguing honestly.