Debate on the Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs. Gary

[Littlejoe]

Moderated By: Littlejoe

This is the Formal Debate thread for Apologiaphoenix and Gary. Any posts from anyone other Apologiaphoenix or Gary will be deleted summarily without notice. The debate is proposed for Five Rounds. You may start when ready

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

All Comments about this debate can be made here in the Comment thread

[Apologiaphoenix]

herehere

[Gary]

did not

[Apologiaphoenix]

I must say I am surprised by just how lacking Gary's response is. I was expecting some interaction on the points that I presented and the data from valid NT scholars. Unfortunately, none of that took place. While Gary had said elsewhere he does not want to debate metaphysics with me, it looks like in reality he does because pretty much all we have here is metaphysics.

This is all very interesting if true, and in fact, irrelevant regardless. I am not here to debate for a particular sect of Christianity. A Roman Catholic, A Protestant, and an Eastern Orthodox could all affirm what I'm saying here for the most part. (Some might be questionable about James being the brother of Jesus.)

But there are many smaller religious groups in the world, from native folk religions in Africa to the religious beliefs of remote, small, isolated, Indian tribes in the Amazon jungle. Therefore there are thousands if not tens of thousands of religious beliefs, a large percentage of which involve miracle claims.

Again, irrelevant.

So how should we view these thousands of miracle claims? Should we believe them all? We could, but the problem is that some of them are in direct contradiction to others. For instance, fundamentalist Islam says that Allah and the Koran are the only way to God and that all non-Muslims will spend eternity being burned alive in the Muslim Hell. But fundamentalist Christianity makes a similar claim: You must believe in Jesus as the one and only god; worship and obey him, or suffer an eternity burning in the Christian Hell. So it is impossible to be both a good Muslim and a good Christian at the same time. You are forced to choose, and these two religions are not the only exclusivist religions on the planet. There are many.

Now we're getting into more of Gary's problem. It's a way of saying "There are many theories and they all contradict one another, so all of them must be false. That has to be the case for Gary's argument, but how does that follow. Suppose I said the following.

There are many naturalistic theories in evolutionary biology on abiogenesis, the coming of life from non-life. These theories all contradict each other and if one is true, the other is false. How could we investigate all these claims? Therefore, all of these claims must be false.

Or

There are many ideas about there about who murdered Smith and they all contradict one another as they all point to different suspects (And since there are billions of people in the world, there are billions of suspects.). Since we can't investigate all of the claims, we should reject all of them and say no one murdered Smith.

Or

There were many billions of women out there in the world. How could I say I was informed on my decision to marry Allie since by marrying her, I said I would not marry anyone else? Therefore, the wise decision would have been to never marry at all.

If Gary followed his thinking consistently, he'd starve to death since he could never eat or he'd die of sickness since there are many different medications, etc.

This would be relevant if I was arguing Pascal's Wager. In fact, the only statement I recall making about God's existence is that if my position is true, it could lead one to being more open to the existence of a deity, and in fact in this case, the deity of Jesus Christ.

And I agree, which is why I do not argue this method. In fact, years ago I argued against it. Some aspects from there have changed, such as I'd use the ways of Aquinas now to argue for God and I have in fact met Craig since then.

But also, the point is false anyway. Gary lives in an American culture where Christianity is the normative position, and yet he himself is not a Christian. I have known many atheists who say reading the Bible is the best way to become an atheist. My friend Nabeel Qureshi was a Muslim who is now a Christian apologist working for RZIM and wrote the book Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus. My friend David Wood was an atheist when he was in prison and through study came to Jesus. My method is the same. Look at the evidence.

What other option is there: Well, you could investigate each religious belief system, all several thousands of them, investigating in detail every miracle claim, to rule out all the false belief systems until you finally arrive at the one true belief system, if it exists. How long do you think it would take you to do this detective work? I would bet to do a thorough job, it would take you several life times.

Gary isn't being asked to investigate all those claims here. He's being asked to investigate one.

Well you know what they say about the path of least resistance....

There are many methods of trying to understand reality. How is that Gary chose the scientific method? Did he thoroughly study all other ways of knowing? Does he not know that these many ways contradict one another? What makes him so certain that he has chosen the right way? I bet it would take many lifetimes to find that one method is the way. You would in fact have to know a great deal about how reality works prior to know that this is the best way to understand that reality. I suspect Gary does not know the epistemological dilemma he has put himself in.

Gary says to not reject miracle claims because they are impossible but because they are improbable, but we all accept improbable claims. On the face of it, it would have been improbable that I married the one person I did because there were so many billions to choose from, but when you look at the evidence for what happened in our lives and how we met and the fact we have a signed marriage license and a wedding video and live together and have numerous witnesses who saw our wedding, it becomes quite probable that we did marry. It is improbable that a random person would win the lottery, but when you see them on the evening news and living in a new mansion and driving a ferrari, you begin to think that they did.

Examine each claim based on the evidence. I'm asking Gary to examine one. If he has another such claim he wants to investigate, let him see and bring it forward. The problem is that Gary thinks all claims are equally improbable and also have equal evidence, but this is false. Different claims have different degrees of evidence.

Ultimately, Gary's position is scientism. An excellent critique of that is on pages 247-248 of Nicholas Rescher's The Limits of Science.

The theorist who maintains that science is the be-all and end-all---that what is not in science textbooks is not worth knowing---is an ideologist with a peculiar and distorted doctrine of his own. For him, science is no longer a sector of the cognitive enterprise but an all-inclusive worldview. This is the doctrine not of science but of scientism. To take this stance is not to celebrate science but to distort it by casting the mantle of its authority over issues it was never meant to address.

Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote that "We feel that even if all possible scientific questions be answered, the problems of life have still not been touched at all. Of course there is then no question left, and just this is the answer." This austere perspective pivots on the view that scientific issues are the only ones there are---that where no scientific question is at issue, nothing remains to be said, and that factual information is the end of the cognitive line. If this position is adopted, then questions relating to normative and evaluative issues of significance, meaning, and validity---questions relative to beauty or duty or justice, for example---can all be set at naught. Such a response does indeed resolve the problems of life, but only by casting them away into the outer darkness. This scientific positivism is indeed antipathetic to human values as one acute writer has observed:

[Such a doctrine] is an attempt to consolidate science as a self-sufficient activity which exhausts all possible ways of appropriating the world intellectually. In this radical positivist view the realities of the world---which can, of course, be interpreted by natural science, but which are in addition an object of man's extreme curiosity, a source of fear or disgust, an occasion for commitment or rejection---if they are to be encompassed by reflection and expressed in words, can be reduced to their empirical properties. SUffering, death, ideological conflict, social classes, antithetical values of any kind---all are declared out of bounds, matters we can only be silent about, in obedience to the principle of verifiability. Positivism so understood is an act of escape from commitments, an escape masked as a definition of knowledge.

Nothing within or about science demands such a dehumanization of our sensibilities. To take this stance is not to celebrate science, but to distort it.

There are people out there, and I have in fact put on an atheist hat before and debated them, who stand on the street corners and wave their Bibles and say that answers all the questions. Gary does the same except he serves the priesthood of science. Both positions are wrong and both of them end up ignoring the data.

For the last part, consider if the Bible taught YEC and that YEC was in fact true. (I do not hold to either position.) Does that mean the sincere believer in YEC can look at the data evolutionary scientists present and say "Well you need to deal with what the Bible says!" Of course, they should, but the believer needs to deal with the macroevolutionary data. If his position is true, he can find an explanation of it. If not, then it will be much harder. Gary waving science like a magic wand will not deal with the historical data.

And in this case evidence has been presented, but if Gary thinks this would make a better world, I wonder what he thinks about Communists in Russia who imprisoned priests and dynamited churches. Is this all part of a better world? Even if science and reason alone led to a better world and Christianity was false, saying science and reason would lead to a better world does not mean that science and reason are true. I can say following the teachings of Jesus would lead to a better world, and in fact a number of atheists might agree with the teachings of Jesus, but that does not mean Jesus is Lord.

This would be relevant if I had made such a claim. I did say the question was important and the stakes were high, but I made no threats. In fact, this works against Gary as the early church was threatened numerous times to deny Christ.

I would agree with this entirely. You could study fine-tuning all day if it is true and never fall down and say "Jesus is Lord!" I don't even accept the fine-tuning argument as I prefer the metaphysical arguments, but you could study the five ways of Aquinas all day and be convinced of them and they will not tell you Jesus is Lord. That is because Christianity is a historical faith. It is not a philosophy. The five ways and fine-tuning can get you to a general theism consistent with Christian theism, but you need to study the resurrection to answer the question on Christian theism.

And I would argue that it does, based on it being God's vindication of Jesus's claims. That is not the subject though. The subject is if Jesus did rise. Someone like Pinchas Lapide, a Jew with a Ph.D. in New Testament affirms that Jesus rose from the dead but denies that Jesus is the Messiah. He ends his book that saying once with regards to the resurrection, he was a Sadducee. Today, he is a Pharisee.

It would be good for Gary to not just listen, but to interact with it.

1. Appeals to the opinion of biased authorities. How many Christians would believe that Mohammad flew to heaven on a winged horse just because the overwhelming majority of Koran scholars believe it really did happen?

I have to agree that my authorities are all biased authorities. Bart Ehrman is biased. He's a non-Christian who writes popular books arguing against Christian doctrine. E.P. Sanders in his book The Historical Figure of Jesus on page 143 quotes Cicero saying "For nothing can happen without cause; nothing happens that cannot happen, and when what was capable of happening has happened, it may not be interpreted as a miracle. Consequently, there are no miracles...We therefore draw this conclusion; what was incapable of happening never happened, and what was capable of happening is not a miracle." Sanders follows this saying "The view espoused by Cicero has become dominant in the modern world, and I fully share it." Therefore, Sanders is biased. He does not believe miracles can happen. Gerd Ludemann wrote What Really Happened To Jesus? and in that book argues against the resurrection. He is not a Christian scholar. Dale Martin is not a Christian scholar and has even had a dialogue with Mike Licona on the resurrection where Martin took the negative position. John Dominic Crossan thinks Jesus's body was thrown into a common pit and eaten by dogs. That's not a Christian position. Granted, there are some I am not sure of their religious status, like Wilken and Magness, and frankly, I do not care. I care about the data. The data I am giving can be freely accepted by non-Christian scholars. To be suspicious would be like saying you don't think the data for evolution can be used when presented by Richard Dawkins, but when Francis Collins says so it's okay.

Which would have worked if I had said that. I in fact pointed to the people beyond the first witnesses of Christianity who would have had to send fact-checkers to interview the purported eyewitnesses and check and see what they said. We also do know what people would believe back then because of the writings that we have and interaction of scholars today in other honor-shame cultures.

3. Lastly, I have no intention of trying to prove that the Resurrection did not

Gary has said the evidence is poor. In fact, apparently it is so poor, that he does not have a response to it. Not a single claim that I made has been refuted. Gary has not cited a single scholar in the field. For someone who says it only takes a high school education to see this is false, this does not look good on his part. Gary might say that we know dead people don't rise and point to other miracle claims we know better about. Reality check. People knew those back then too. They knew there was a connection between sex and babies. They knew that people don't walk on water. They knew that diseases don't get immediately healed. They knew that dead people stay dead. If Gary wishes to argue that modern science has disproven these, I would like to know very much which science did it and when and how conclusive was it? I would certainly agree that if no one interferes with the events that these don't happen, but the question is did someone interfere?

I also want to add you can be an atheist and investigate these claims. All you have to do is avoid a non-dogmatic stance against miracles. You can say "I am skeptical of all miracle claims, but I will see if there is sufficient reason to believe this one." At this point, I can't help but wonder what would be sufficient reason to convince Gary that Jesus rose. I have said that what I would like to see is simply a better explanation. I have not said anywhere here something like "Show me the bones of Jesus."

If Gary does not have a reasonable piece of evidence that would cause him to change his mind, then we can safely say his position is not formed on the basis of evidence, but on the basis of dogma. Gary has changed his mind on religious matters, but he has not changed his mindset and simply needs to try to read some of the best scholarship out there.

[Gary]

[Apologiaphoenix]

I am abbreviating many of Gary's comments due to post restrictions.

Gary has come in again and really I find myself wondering again what information he has. I don't see any scholars cited whatsoever and while I had thought a post a day would be sufficient, the posts are lacking enough that I'm really not finding it too much of an investment. Thus far, I have presented plenty of material. Let's see how any of it has been refuted.

My previous post...solid evidence.

What if I said this about any other field? "The average person with only a high school education can make a reasonable decision about evolutionary theory without immersing him or herself in the books of scientists and be fully confident that his or her conclusion regarding this claim rests on solid evidence." I could say the same with medical practice or psychology or study of Shakespeare or anything else. Gary would object I am sure. Good. I would want him to. These areas of learning are complex, as is the study of the NT.

There is a story in Buddhism...could we examine?

Gary makes a fundamental mistake here of saying "Well we can't really examine this miracle claim this well, so how about the other miracle claims out there? They must all be equally false." I would freely agree that there are many claims in ancient history we cannot possibly test, including some miracle claims. We have to go on a general reliability of the author for these. Is it possible Jesus turned water into wine at Cana. I believe that because I believe John is a reliable author, but I could not demonstrate that through historiography entirely because we only have one account and no social settings we can test. I have shown that this is not the case for the resurrection.

Gary unfortunately uses a standard of history that would not work at all. There are many events we accept without contemporary attestation. For instance, Carrier has responded to a claim comparing the crossing of the Rubicon to the resurrection saying the evidence for the resurrection is just as good. Carrier tells his audiences that every major historian of the age mentions Caesar crossing the Rubicon such as Cassius and Plutarch. What does he not tell you? That if we took the earliest of these being Plutarch and had them start writing at the age of 30 about the event, which is still generous, that that's a distance of 125 years. More on that here.

In 79 A.D. Vesuvius erupted killing a quarter of a million people. Surely this would be an event worth mentioning! Well, no. While we have allusions to it elsewhere, the only historical record comes in a letter Pliny sent to Tacitus and this is just an off-the-cuff remark. Pliny's uncle had died in the eruption and Tacitus just wanted some details. Pliny only tells us about Pompeii. It's not until Cassius that we read about Herculaneum being destroyed in the blast as well. Other historians did not mention this massive event.

If we want to know about Hannibal, the great Carthaginian general who nearly conquered the Roman Empire, we will search in vain through contemporary records. Hannibal is only referred to decades later and even still no one disputes the general thrust of the account that I know of. A similar story could be said of Queen Boudica.

If we want to know about Messianic figures in the time of Jesus, we go to Josephus. They aren't talked about elsewhere, despite what David Fitzgerald might lead you to believe. These often involved Roman armies going out to squelch uprisings. Despite the Roman armies being sent out, Roman sources do not mention these events.

But what was to be mentioned? A no name Jewish preacher who never went to school, led an army, ran for office, etc. and who was crucified on a cross and this only after a small mob was needed to arrest him. These events were not talked about but that one, that should be talked about.

"But Jesus did miracles and was the Son of God!"

Or so it was claimed. I can show you several figures today claiming to be God. How many of them are you going to investigate? I can show you several figures who claim to do miracles. How many of them do you investigate? Roman writers would have taken the exact same approach to Jesus, especially knowing He was crucified. What amazes me is not how few non-Christian sources of the time talked about Jesus. What amazes me is that any at all did.

Four anonymously written manuscripts, each describing the event with many minor and a couple major discrepancies. We are able to date these manuscripts to have been written at least three, probably four decades after the alleged event. We are also told by writing experts that two, and possible three, of the manuscript authors borrowed heavily from the first manuscript in writing their stories.

I previously pointed out to Gary what E.P. Sanders said about the idea of being anonymous. It looks like Gary didn't learn from it. To return to Sanders,

The authors probably wanted to eliminate interest in who wrote the story and to focus the reader on the subject. More important, the claim of an anonymous history was higher than that of a named work. In the ancient world an anonymous book, rather like an encyclopedia article today, implicitly claimed complete knowledge and reliability. It would have reduced the impact of the Gospel of Matthew had the author written 'this is my version' instead of 'this is what Jesus said and did.' - The Historical Figure of Jesus by E.P. Sanders page 66.

Furthermore, these writings would not be delivered to their recipient and be told "Well I don't know who wrote them. It's a mystery." The writer would have been known and could have even had his name on the scroll. Church tradition itself is practically unanimous with the authorship, save that John is thought to be by a John but disputed on which John it was. They were also attributed to figures who were not necessarily as well known in the accounts, save for John.

As for decades later, I also pointed out to Gary that this isn't a problem and as I showed above, applies to much ancient history. Suppose you live in this time. You have a message to get out. There are two ways. You can tell other people and let oral tradition do its work. Oral tradition is reliable (As people have much better memories), costs nothing, and gets the word out to people who can't read. Or you can write. Writing is timely, expensive, and reaches people who can read only. Which will you choose? Gary lives in a time of what is called the Gutenberg Galaxy where it is thought "Well surely if you want to spread a story you write it down." That is projecting his time onto the social context. It doesn't work. The person interested in more can consult Walton and Sandy's The Lost World of Scripture. Much of this is moot anyway since my argument relied on the creed found in 1 Cor. 15.

Gary's analogy is simply a straw man. He has no parallel whereas Paul himself was a scholar's scholar. Anyone wanting to paint Paul as if he was some uneducated simpleton would have no idea what he was talking about. Even if Paul came to Christianity for false reasons, this would not undercut his passing on of the creed.

The writings of one Buddhist man living 90-100 years after the alleged event who stated that undisclosed sources told him that at least two of the four anonymous manuscripts were most likely written by the original farmers who heard the water buffalo talk.

It's unclear what Gary is referring to here since I made no such claims about the Gospels. Why is Gary so obsessed with them?

No. I chuckle to myself because Gary thinks this is a valid analogy and he doesn't realize that I'm not even blinking in all of this. Gary is just doing a great job exposing he's a fundamentalist.

If Gary is trying to make an analogy to miracles, again, he knows that I have suggested that he read Craig Keener's Miracles on this topic. I am sure he will not. For me, the story of water buffalo talking would not really convince me of anything about the Buddha. It's a non-issue for me. It would be helpful for Gary to concentrate on the miracle in dispute and deal with the evidence presented for it.

Would be if I had said such a thing, but let's suppose that miracles weren't happening today. Would this prove a miracle had not happened in the past? Not at all. The data still stands. The data must be explained.

To complete Gary's illustration, all he needs then is to give this more plausible naturalistic scenario that explains all the data. Gary made several attempts elsewhere to do this. I shot down every single one with about five or six reasons every time why it wasn't one that could stand up. Never were these charges answered and it appears we have more of the same. This does not mean there can be no naturalistic scenario, but until Gary presents it, then he's simply wanting us to take on faith his main claim despite evidence to the contrary. Isn't this an odd position for a "man of reason"?

Now, Reader,...naturalistic, events.

Gary says they are not. Well isn't that cute? Does he have more than his say so on this? Can he give an explanation of the event that would explain data accepted by even non-Christian NT scholars?

Well this is nice. It's about time.

Let me...which they did.

Well at least we don't have mythicism going on here, but even still Gary is quite lacking. Sanders on pages 10-11 of the book cited above lists several facts beyond dispute about Jesus. These include born around 4 B.C. (He says B.C.E.), grew up in Nazareth, baptized by John the Baptist, had disciples, taught in towns and villages in Galilee, preached the Kingdom of God, went to Jerusalem around the year 30 for Passover, caused a disturbance in the Temple, had the Last Supper, was arrested and interrogated by the Jews, and was executed by order of Pilate. He adds that equally secure facts about the aftermath of the life of Jesus are that his disciples fled at first, saw Him in some sense after his death, believed that He would return to found the Kingdom, and formed a community to await and tell others He was the Messiah. (And Jesus did not ask to be crucified)

Beyond that,....about him.

Why should Philo? Philo wasn't even in Jerusalem at the time and Jesus was a flash in the pan kind of figure. One can hardly say he caused a huge ruckus since Roman armies didn't even need to come down, and when the Roman armies did come down to deal with Messianic figures, Philo doesn't mention those either.

Not this one. Gary needs to really learn my position before he argues against it. I despise conspiracy theories.

Congratulations Gary. You take the exact same position as most anyone in the Roman Empire would have at the time of Jesus. They would have questioned his importance and his miracle claims, and yet you wonder why hardly anyone wrote about Him.

Three hours...Come on.

Assuming this was a historical event, though I think it could just as easily refer to the land, it is possible that Phlegon and Julius Africanus citing Thales does in fact refer to the eclipse. But suppose someone like Mike Licona is more right in this one and these are special effects that are not meant to be taken literally. Suppose the worst case scenario and this is simply an error. So what? My data still stands.

Nick believes...empty tomb.

Sure reader. Picture this. An orthodox Jewish member of the Sanhedrin is on Sabbath, the day you are supposed to do no work, go to a tomb that he had just spent time burying Jesus in and handle a dead body, unclean by Jewish standards, on the Sabbath day and toss it into an unmarked hole in the ground. The only reason Gary says this is that he has no clue how Jewish society works. If the women showed up and saw an empty tomb, they would not think Jesus was risen. That would be one of their last thoughts. Even if they had, why would the disciples believe women? Their testimony was unvalued in a court of Law.

In addition,...Nowhere.

And why should it? Dale Allison in fact suggests that the argument from silence can be turned on its head in his book Resurrection. Allison says that if the scoffers of resurrection in Corinth wanted to make an argument, they would say Jesus's body was still in the tomb and Paul would be compelled to answer. This Paul did not do. Still, Paul is a good Pharisee. For him, resurrection means bodily resurrection. I again recommend Gundry's Soma in Biblical Greek. The burial of Jesus was a shameful burial and was not worth mentioning. Why should he? If you have a resurrection, you don't spend all your time talking about the burial. The only reason the death is talked about is because that is part of the atonement.

This would be relevant if I had said such a thing. I didn't. Legends can in fact pop up instantly. What does not happen is that legend destroys the whole historical core. Gary makes much of this showing up four decades later. (Though if Crossley is right, Mark can be dated to the 40's, but then again, Crossley is a born-again evangelical....wait. He isn't. He's a non-Christian who argued against Michael Bird on the resurrection and yet Crossley's dissertation was dating Mark to the 40's.) Gary is taking a "Prove that it's not a legend" claim. I have instead given the data that shows that it is accurate such as multiple attestation and the criterion of embarrassment. The burden is on Gary to show where it is wrong. If it is a legend because it shows up late, then maybe we should say Alexander the Great is a legend. His biographies are four centuries later and that's plenty of time!

No matter...flesh.

Not improbable based on the evidence that I've given. Again, the improbable only matters before the evidence has been given. As new evidence enters the picture, probability changes.

What about...miracle experience??

Okay Gary. Go ahead then.

Prove they didn't see anything.

You see, your claim here is that we know these accounts are false because they didn't see anything. We know they didn't see anything because these kinds of things don't happen. That's just begging the question. I would have no problem with these sightings. For me, they could be demonic appearances. Also, do we have record that everyone at these events saw them? There are cases where someone has suggested something and everyone goes along with it. Paul meanwhile encouraged people to go and talk to people who can give an eyewitness account.

Unfortunately, with this you can demonstrate anything. Most scholars think the accounts have a high degree of independence since they are so vastly different. It's amazing Gary starts off talking about how different the accounts are, and then when they're the same says they just copied one another. Could it be they all say the same general story because that is the general story that happened? Are we to believe Matthew, Luke, and John wrote their accounts without doing any research of their own into the subject matter? This is especially so in the case of Luke.

Nick frequently...years ago??

We should believe it was different for one reason. It was. THese people were living in an honor-shame society where novelty was shunned and tolerance was not the norm. Live and let live was not their way of thinking. Not so in modern individualistic societies where doing your own thing and not caring what other people is praised or where we do practice live and let live. You believe what you want as long as you don't hurt me. The ancient system was quite different. Gary is in fact imposing on the rest of the world and history his modern Western value system instead of studying their own value system.

Christians seem...very erroneous.

Does Gary even read? Observe what I said at the start.



I am not asking that the Bible be accepted as the Word of God or an inspired document. I am pointing to the facts accepted by scholars in the field. I think Gary is telling us more about himself than about my argument.

Gary apparently didn't research me enough to know that I'm an orthodox Preterist so when I hear talk about their thinking Jesus would soon return, I just have to chuckle a bit.

But as...not true.

Again, does Gary not read? In my first post I said the following:



Yes. There are grief hallucinations, but that would have confirmed that Jesus was dead. These appearances did just the opposite. Something about them had to be powerful enough to convince skeptics. Something had to be powerful enough about them to get the disciples to start in Jerusalem itself challenging the people of the time to go see that Jesus was risen and his tomb was empty. If you were starting a false religion, the last place to do it would be where the evidence could most easily be turned against you.

Regarding Paul...to occur.

Strange things happen. Unfortunately, Gary hasn't even given us a name of this person that he points to and wants to say "Well it happened, so that's that!" Does Gary just believe claims like this this easily? What does Gary think would drive Paul to do this? Why would he stake his identity on a man who was seen as a traitor to the Roman Empire and a blasphemer to YHWH both? Look at the list in 2 Cor. 11. Think Paul gained anything out of this? One would think after the first flogging he would say "You know, maybe I got it wrong." Yet we see no indication of this. We see no indication of grief in Paul or guilt that he was wrestling with. (I am prepared to deal with Romans 7 if Gary thinks otherwise.) Besides, do we want to say "Strange things happen" just as an answer. How well would this work? "Yes honey, I know that's lipstick on my neck and you haven't kissed me, but strange things happen! Maybe it's a mark from the sun!" "Yes officer, I know your device said I was going 80 in a 55 MPH zone, but strange things happen. Can you prove it's not malfunctioning?" In the case of strange things, we want to know why they happened.

As for James...Resurrection.

Again, the same problem arises. We are to believe that James, who from all of our accounts was an extremely devout man, would sell out his faith system because he wanted money and would gain this by claiming to be Jesus's successor? First off, we have zero record of James making such a claim. Second, we have no record of anyone else making such a claim which actually argues in my favor. Had Jesus been seen as a failed Messiah, it would be quite logical to look to his brother next. There is no indication that the followers of Jesus changed the plan after his crucifixion, contrary to all other Messianic movements. Third, in doing this, James would be putting himself on the outs with both YHWH and the Roman Empire not to mention his fellow Jews. Gary gives a "just-so" story, but unfortunately the just-so story has no evidence for it and all this to reject a story with evidence!

Right! He didn't say that, but it's not just several non-Christian scholars but that this is accepted across the board. I in fact clearly said Sanders does not accept the miracle, but he does accept the data still. Why? Because there's good evidence of the data.

And I love it...My goodness.

This would be relevant if I said such a thing. I didn't. I nowhere said scholars like Neusner and Vermes are to be rejected. Had I had such an attitude, why would I quote non-Christian scholars? My point was there must be some solid evidence to bring about such a conviction, and this especially since Lapide is a rare Jew with a Ph.D. in New Testament.

The truth is...easily see.

Nowhere did I say anything about God-hating atheists. It is amusing that Gary wants to point to God-hating atheists as a straw man, but refuses to accept claims of god-loving Christians as he would say because they're biased. If Gary wants to say the evidence is unconvincing, well he's free to make a better case that explains the data. He has not done so so far. His arguments are weak and lacking. I would recommend before his next response he go to a library and read some books. That he is responding so quick shows he is not interacting with the subject matter. If one wants to say the same for me, the difference is I have interacted with the material prior and know it well enough. I could just as well say there are thousands of educated people all over the world who don't believe in many claims. There are thousands of evolutionary biologists I am sure who believe in evolution but do not accept naturalistic evolution. There are thousands of people who don't accept moral absolutism, so is Gary going to reject that because there are noted philosophers who reject it? What matters is the data. Who does or doesn't accept it can be an interesting discussion, but it does not change the data.

In my...farmers.

In my opinion, Gary does not know the subject matter well at all. For one who claims about a high school education being enough, perhaps a reader could wonder about Gary's own studies at this point. This is unfortunately what happens when someone enters a field while not reading the best minds on both sides in that field. It becomes apparent they just don't know what they're talking about.

[Gary]

Why do I choose the scientific method and reason as my worldview for determining reality? Answer: Because that is the primary worldview in western culture for evaluating truth claims, including claims regarding ancient history. For example, we don't need to resort to philosophy to know if there is evidence for the biblical exodus story. We use science. We are able to study archeological evidence, genetic evidence, etc. to come to the conclusion that the biblical account of several million Hebrews living in Egypt for several hundred years as slaves is unsubstantiated and therefore almost certainly not true. We can also use the scientific method to study medicine (I am a physician, by the way) and learn that the reanimation of dead human tissue is NOT biologically possible.

The scientific method has an excellent track record. Instead of believing that angry gods are responsible for droughts, floods, and lightning, we now know, due to the scientific method, that none of these events are caused by tempermental gods, but due to natural, scientifically testable, phenomena.

Let me be clear. You don't have to agree with my worldview or use it...except maybe in your occupation...unless you are a priest, pastor, rabbi, or mullah. I can't say that my worldview is better than your supernatural-based worldview, but it is better for ME, and it seems better for most people in our society. I support your right to believe that the Tooth Fairy or some other invisible being controls our planet, just don't try to force this belief on society as a whole, pushing it into public school curricula and using your superstitions to discriminate against people who have the same rights as you do to the pursuit of happiness, ie., marriage. That's all I ask.

All of Nick's evidence rests on what biased Christian "experts" believe, and that a few non-Christian experts believe that the early Christians had resurrection EXPERIENCES. I would like to see Nick explain why the overwhelming majority of Jewish scholars, experts in the Hebrew Bible, for two thousand years, have rejected any Christian interpretation of the Hebrew Bible that suggests ANY prophecy about Jesus, and, why these same scholars believe that the resurrection claim is ridiculous and preposterous.

Let me close with the following story:

There once was an emperor who was very vain.


One day, two clever, very quick-witted fellows arrived in the imperial city announcing that they were professional tailors, and, that they had discovered the most luxurious, finest thread ever known to mankind; thread with which they could spin the finest, rarest clothing that only the most refined could appreciate...at a hefty price, of course. The town was a buzz with excitement.


The vain emperor heard of the tailors' rare thread and summoned them to the palace. The tailors quickly convinced the emperor, using very complicated, sophisticated, tailor terminology, that no other tailor in the world could spin a finer suit of clothing for him than they.


The tailors worked furiously in a closed-door room for days, making all kinds of impressive grunts and other sounds as they spun their spinning wheels and sliced and sliced with their specialized scissors. Finally, a week later, the royal suit was finished! The emperor was called to the dressing room to try on his new clothes. The two tailors handed the emperor a beautifully wrapped package and asked him to step into the fitting room while they dressed him in his new suit. The emperor removed his old clothing, and watched as the tailors opened the box. With great fan fare the two men pulled objects out of the box, one after another, asking the emperor to push his arm through here, and to stick his leg through there...but the emperor saw nothing coming out of the box! The tailors then asked the emperor to stand in front of the mirror and tell them what he thought of his new, rare, very luxurious clothing.


The emperor stepped in front of the mirror...and gasped! He was completely naked. He could not see one stitch of clothing on him!


"How dreadful!" he thought to himself. "If I say that I see nothing they will think me unrefined and lacking in the latest style and taste." "It's exquisite!" he proclaimed to the delight of our clever, slick-tongued tailors.


The emperor ordered that all his court assemble in the Great Hall so that he could parade his new suit of clothing in front of everyone. However, when he stepped into the hall accompanied by the tailors, there was an audible gasp from the entire assembly.


"My god! The emperor is buck naked! I can't see one stitch of clothing on him," thought each adult present. "But if I say that, everyone else will think that I am unrefined and lacking in good taste and knowledge of the latest styles."


"Gorgeous!" "Splendid!" "Amazing!" they all cried.


However, as the emperor reached the half way point in the great hall, one small child stepped out from behind his mother's dress and shrieked, "The Emperor is naked! He's not wearing any clothes!"


"Why you stupid, silly child!" exclaimed the tailors. "You obviously have no training in the world of suit-making and fine thread! We have extensive training and very difficult to obtain degrees from the finest institutions of cloth making in the world. In addition, we have many, many famous scholars and experts whom we can quote who confirm our conclusions regarding the exquisite quality of our thread. Yes, it is invisible to the common man...or child, but to those who take the time to thoroughly study thread, and are willing to expand their minds with sophisticated, philosophical theories regarding the properties of thread, then and only then will one see that the Emperor's clothing is the finest in the world!"


"There's no such thing as invisible thread!" said the child, as he ran off to the courtyard to play.

Moral: You don't need a scholar to know that the bodies of dead Jewish prophets cannot be magically reanimated...except in science fiction flicks.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Well this will end quickly. Even though I'm wanting to finish my book. I might as well do round four to sooner put Gary out of his misery frankly.

Why do I choose the scientific method and reason as my worldview for determining reality? Answer: Because that is the primary worldview in western culture for evaluating truth claims, including claims regarding ancient history.

Ah. So you see, you choose this method, because you were born here. If you were born in an Aborigine culture, you would not be using the scientific method. If you were born in a Hindu culture, you would be using a different method and having a different worldview. You see, your choice is just a matter of where you were born. Did you take the time to properly examine all other methodologies for understanding reality? If not, then I suggest we have no reason to choose your method over others.

For example, we don't need to resort to philosophy to know if there is evidence for the biblical exodus story. We use science. We are able to study archeological evidence, genetic evidence, etc. to come to the conclusion that the biblical account of several million Hebrews living in Egypt for several hundred years as slaves is unsubstantiated and therefore almost certainly not true. We can also use the scientific method to study medicine (I am a physician, by the way) and learn that the reanimation of dead human tissue is NOT biologically possible.

Who said to use philosophy to study history? You can use philosophy of history, but you still need the historical detail. Now I've answered you elsewhere enough on the Exodus, which you seem to have some bizarre hang-up over, so I have no need to do so elsewhere. You say that you are a doctor, which I have no reason to doubt, and the reanimation of dead human tissue is NOT biologically possible.

Are you aware that ancient people knew dead people didn't come back to life? They buried their dead.



This isn't new knowledge. Every Christian and every atheist would agree with you here. Without outside interference, yes, dead people don't come back to life. The question is is there outside interference. You have ruled it out already. I have stated "Let's be open and see if there could be outside interference."

The scientific method has an excellent track record. Instead of believing that angry gods are responsible for droughts, floods, and lightning, we now know, due to the scientific method, that none of these events are caused by tempermental gods, but due to natural, scientifically testable, phenomena.

Ah yes. What a track record. Nothing like comparing ancient theology to modern science. That's a fair comparison. Perhaps I should compare modern theology to ancient science instead. At any rate, we can also say there are people who today will say that the love of a man for a woman is nothing more than a chemical process. How far will it go? Science can deliver the goods. Perhaps it can, but perhaps it can also deliver an atomic bomb to Hiroshima or produce biological warfare. Also, while science can answer many questions, and it is great at that, the most important questions about life will not be answered. I do not consider the knowledge of what causes a flood nearly as important as the knowledge of virtue or the knowledge of how to love my wife. Perhaps you should consider what Bertrand Russell said in "A Free Man's Worship."

Such, in outline, but even more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which Science presents for our belief. Amid such a world, if anywhere, our ideals henceforward must find a home. That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins -- all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built.

Keep in mind I am not anti-science. I love science. I am anti-scientism. I am anti science being seen as the end all and the answer to every question and by the way, I hold religion and philosophy in the same regard.

Let me be clear. You don't have to agree with my worldview or use it...except maybe in your occupation...unless you are a priest, pastor, rabbi, or mullah. I can't say that my worldview is better than your supernatural-based worldview, but it is better for ME, and it seems better for most people in our society. I support your right to believe that the Tooth Fairy or some other invisible being controls our planet, just don't try to force this belief on society as a whole, pushing it into public school curricula and using your superstitions to discriminate against people who have the same rights as you do to the pursuit of happiness, ie., marriage. That's all I ask.

You know Gary, you're the one who said you didn't want to debate philosophy. All you've debated with me is philosophy. I would much rather debate history. Still, at this, you are just being absurd, as if a theistic reality who is the ground of being is somehow on par with the Tooth Fairy. This could also be turned the other way around "I support your right to believe in magic matter, but don't try to force it on society as a whole pushing it into public school curricula and using your secular agenda to silence the freedom of people of a religious persuasion.

All of Nick's evidence rests on what biased Christian "experts" believe, and that a few non-Christian experts believe that the early Christians had resurrection EXPERIENCES.

For the most part, my experts have been non-Christians. It's amazing in your last post you said we should not dismiss all the Jewish scholars, but you want to dismiss all the Christian scholars. I also did not back everything on the experiences, though they are an important part of the argument.

I would like to see Nick explain why the overwhelming majority of Jewish scholars, experts in the Hebrew Bible, for two thousand years, have rejected any Christian interpretation of the Hebrew Bible that suggests ANY prophecy about Jesus, and, why these same scholars believe that the resurrection claim is ridiculous and preposterous.

How far does this kind of thing go?

I would like to see Gary explain why the majority of Christian scholars have rejected an evolutionary account of our origins. (Well they're biased.)

I would like to see why a majority of Muslim scholars have rejected claims that the Koran is not an accurate recitation of what Muhammad was given. (Well they're biased.)

We could go on and on. In every field you will find people who believe certain things and yes, not everyone will be persuaded by evidence for the resurrection for any number of reasons. Not everyone is persuaded the world exists outside of our mind. Not everyone is persuaded that truth exists. Not everyone is persuaded of absolute morality.

Why other people believe other things is interesting, but if Gary followed this through, he'd destroy all belief entirely. What Gary is doing is just a lazy way to avoid dealing with the data.

Let me close with the following story:

There once was an emperor who was very vain.


One day, two clever, very quick-witted fellows arrived in the imperial city announcing that they were professional tailors, and, that they had discovered the most luxurious, finest thread ever known to mankind; thread with which they could spin the finest, rarest clothing that only the most refined could appreciate...at a hefty price, of course. The town was a buzz with excitement.


The vain emperor heard of the tailors' rare thread and summoned them to the palace. The tailors quickly convinced the emperor, using very complicated, sophisticated, tailor terminology, that no other tailor in the world could spin a finer suit of clothing for him than they.


The tailors worked furiously in a closed-door room for days, making all kinds of impressive grunts and other sounds as they spun their spinning wheels and sliced and sliced with their specialized scissors. Finally, a week later, the royal suit was finished! The emperor was called to the dressing room to try on his new clothes. The two tailors handed the emperor a beautifully wrapped package and asked him to step into the fitting room while they dressed him in his new suit. The emperor removed his old clothing, and watched as the tailors opened the box. With great fan fare the two men pulled objects out of the box, one after another, asking the emperor to push his arm through here, and to stick his leg through there...but the emperor saw nothing coming out of the box! The tailors then asked the emperor to stand in front of the mirror and tell them what he thought of his new, rare, very luxurious clothing.


The emperor stepped in front of the mirror...and gasped! He was completely naked. He could not see one stitch of clothing on him!


"How dreadful!" he thought to himself. "If I say that I see nothing they will think me unrefined and lacking in the latest style and taste." "It's exquisite!" he proclaimed to the delight of our clever, slick-tongued tailors.


The emperor ordered that all his court assemble in the Great Hall so that he could parade his new suit of clothing in front of everyone. However, when he stepped into the hall accompanied by the tailors, there was an audible gasp from the entire assembly.


"My god! The emperor is buck naked! I can't see one stitch of clothing on him," thought each adult present. "But if I say that, everyone else will think that I am unrefined and lacking in good taste and knowledge of the latest styles."


"Gorgeous!" "Splendid!" "Amazing!" they all cried.


However, as the emperor reached the half way point in the great hall, one small child stepped out from behind his mother's dress and shrieked, "The Emperor is naked! He's not wearing any clothes!"


"Why you stupid, silly child!" exclaimed the tailors. "You obviously have no training in the world of suit-making and fine thread! We have extensive training and very difficult to obtain degrees from the finest institutions of cloth making in the world. In addition, we have many, many famous scholars and experts whom we can quote who confirm our conclusions regarding the exquisite quality of our thread. Yes, it is invisible to the common man...or child, but to those who take the time to thoroughly study thread, and are willing to expand their minds with sophisticated, philosophical theories regarding the properties of thread, then and only then will one see that the Emperor's clothing is the finest in the world!"


"There's no such thing as invisible thread!" said the child, as he ran off to the courtyard to play.

Moral: You don't need a scholar to know that the bodies of dead Jewish prophets cannot be magically reanimated...except in science fiction flicks.

And with this, Gary is just ultimately embarrassing himself. When confronted with evidence against his position, he does not go off and research the claims and study them. Instead, he just sticks with his worldview that he has presupposed and said "Nothing will convince me to the contrary." (In fact, I have asked what evidence would persuade him and received no reply, contrary to what I have stated for my own position.) Gary is much like the Christian creationist who says "If humans came from apes, then why are there still apes?" While to the Christian, this might seem like a powerful defeater, the evolutionary biologist, Christian or non, is rolling their eyes stunned at the ignorance. Now as a non-evolutionary biologist, do I know the answer to the question? No. I do not. But what I do know is that if my opposition that is informed does not consider an opposition a serious argument, I should probably go elsewhere.

I can't help but remember that Churchill is said to have said that men often stumble over the truth, but pick themselves up and run off like nothing happened. Indeed, this has to be the shortest formal debate I have ever done here because my opponent has brought nothing to the table, has not responded to any refutations of his position other than repeating a mantra of science, and has refused to investigate any claims that have been brought forward or cited any scholars in the field.

Conclusion: Gary is still a fundamentalist who places dogma before the evidence and will not change his mind based on the evidence. If a man will not change his mind based on evidence and cannot give evidence that would be presented that would lead to a mind change, I have to wonder if his beliefs really are based on evidence.

Final round is next, though I could probably just start it now since nothing has been said.

[Gary]

No, Nick. You have not presented one thread (hee hee) of evidence. Not one. Not for the question at hand which is: Is there sufficient evidence for a reasonable, educated person living in the 21st century to believe that the body of a dead, first century Jewish prophet was reanimated by an invisible, Bronze-age, Canaanite god to walk out of his grave to eat a broiled fish sandwich with his former fishing buddies, to later levitate from a mountain into outer space, to never be seen or heard of again?

No. No amount of conjecture, assumptions, and biased, Christian expert opinion is going to convince the majority of educated, 21st century, unbiased (non-Christian) people to believe this ancient, superstitious, childish, supernatural nonsense. That is why the membership numbers, worship attendance rates, and baptism numbers in all Christian denominations in the United States, Canada, and Europe are plunging. Educated people just don't buy this stuff anymore. Religion's last best hope is in the third world where much of the population is uneducated, poor, and desperate for hope...any hope...including a belief in a reanimated dead Jewish prophet who promises them a mansion in outer space, a jewel studded crown, and streets lined with gold.

You don't have any evidence for your supernatural, two thousand year old claim, Nick. It's magic. It isn't real. Open your eyes, my friend, and see the real truth instead of insulating yourself in superstitions and philosophical theories that serve no purpose other than to make you think you are smarter than the average man...or child...who just so happens to know that there is no such thing as invisible thread, or, reanimated dead bodies...except in children's books and science fiction flicks.

[Gary]

I just noticed in the comment thread that the moderator, Little Joe, has stated that I have given my final statement. From what Nick said in his last statement, I thought I had one more. So if I don't, I want to add the following to my "final statement":

Imagine that my debate with Nick had not been about the Christian magic claim of a reanimated dead Jewish prophet, but about a secular magic claim of a literal Tooth Fairy. And imagine that Nick had argued in favor of the proposition and I had argued against it. And imagine that Nick has quoted numerous eyewitnesses who claim to have seen the Tooth Fairy, to have felt the effects of the Tooth Fairy in their lives, and even some who claim that the Tooth Fairy has taken up residence inside their bodies in an invisible compartment.

Nick has also presented numerous quotations from numerous, highly educated Tooth Fairy scholars, all of whom have come to the conclusion, after extensive Tooth Fairy research, as recorded in their many volumes of Tooth Fairy books, that the Tooth Fairy is not a figment of the imagination of children, but a real, literal, being with whom we adult humans can interact and converse.

How many of you readers would expect me to comply with Nick's prodding to research the books and research papers of these Tooth Fairy scholars and experts before coming to the conclusion that Nick's position is false? I doubt many would expect me to spend even a half hour looking at this "evidence".

Why?

Answer: Because the claim itself is stupid.

Dear Christians, I am not trying to be mean, but many, many educated people today are coming to the same conclusion about your reanimated dead Jewish prophet story: It just isn't believable. There is no need to research the "evidence". There is no need to research the evidence because the claim itself is nonsensical and silly.

[Littlejoe]

Moderated By: Littlejoe

I apologize Gary, You are correct. You have one more round remaining. AP will begin the final round with his next post and you will have one last post.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[Apologiaphoenix]

I would like to say there was something of Gary's to respond to, but no. There has not been a single reply to what I said. There has not been any interaction with the evidence. There have just been cries of guilt by association and bias.

Consider it like this. Imagine taking a friend of yours to a museum of evolutionary history. You go through and see all the exhibits and hear talks from scholars in evolutionary history on what you are seeing and read all the little signs and such along the way. Then you get out and start talking to your friend.

You: So what'd you think?

Friend: It was really a fascinating exhibit.

You: So are you going to take evolution more seriously now?

Friend: No.

You: Why not?

Friend: No one was there. We don't know what happened. All we have are these bones and stuff that comes from them. No real hard data. No eyewitnesses of any of this stuff.

You: But we don't expect eyewitnesses. This is how science works. This is the data that we have. The data is there for all to see.

Friend: Yes. Data from sources that are biased. It's obviously God-hating atheists so naturally they're going to go with a theory to avoid creation.

You: But this museum is largely staffed by Catholics.

Friend: Oh but they're in on it too. They've compromised with the ways of the world. Besides, we all know the Catholics are in league with the Illuminati.

You: The Illuminati.

Friend: Why yes. So all you've got is an attack on God-loving Christians by biased sources with ulterior motives who can't be trusted.

You: Are you serious?

Friend: Quite. I hope you have real evidence next time. Meanwhile, would you like to join me at a museum next week? I hear there's a thoroughly convincing one in Kentucky....



Gary is an exemplar of the kind of fundamentalist mindset we talk about around here. It is the mindset that says because I am a person who believes the truth, I am an authority on everything I say. It exists on all sides. There are Christians who will stand out on street corners and wave Bibles and demand the world repent, but they do not have a clue what they are speaking about and I am convinced do more harm to the cause of Christ than they do good. Meanwhile, there are atheists who say "Because I am an atheist, I am a man of reason and therefore, all my opinions will be reasonable." Many of us have seen this with certain new atheists who decided to refer to themselves as "brights." I am thankful there are atheists who are willing to say "Please do not associate me with those people."

Gary has said his position is the position of reason, but the position he is affirming does not have much people around here would dispute. None of us think that if we bury grandma, that within a week, she'll just randomly rise from the dead again and life will go on. No one in the ancient world thought that either. They all knew that resurrections don't just happen and many of them were sure they did not happen. Yet Gary plays this as a trump card. He does this without even investigating modern miracle claims, such as those found in Keener. (I understand Eric Metaxas has written on this recently, but I have not got a chance to read that yet.)

Gary had said he did not want to debate metaphysics, but all he has done is debated metaphysics. He has not debated the question of the historical data at all. He has instead decided to present bogus analogies that avoid dealing with the real data. One deals with a case by one method. One looks at the evidence for that case. His mentioning of the Tooth Fairy is frankly ludicrous. I don't know a single adult who believes in the tooth fairy, but I know many who believe in Jesus and would give their lives for Him now. I also know many that come to Jesus from atheism in adulthood.

In the end, I think people looking at this debate who even disagree with my position would say "Well Nick, I disagree with your position. I think you're wrong, but I will give you this. You have reasons for what you believe and I can at least see why you find them to be compelling reasons. You are not being stupid for believing in this and are within your rational rights. I just don't agree with either the data or your interpretation of it."

Despite what Gary thinks, there are smart people on every side. There are really smart people who don't believe in the resurrection. There are really smart people who don't believe in evolution. There are really smart people who don't believe that there are moral absolutes. There are really smart people who believe we're living in a computer simulation. On each side there are also really dumb people. There are really dumb people who believe in the resurrection. There are really dumb people who believe in evolution. There are really dumb people who believe in moral absolutes. Every side has them.

My request of the reader is to consider the claim. That is all. I would recommend you read the best scholars on both sides in studying the NT. Those who argue without reading the scholarship are like, well, look at how my opponent did. This is in fact why I do not debate evolution with someone. I am not a scientist and I do not read the scientific material and while I can have an opinion, there's no need to take it seriously. Do I consider myself a smart man? Yes. Educated? Yes. Authority on some topics? Yes. That does not mean I can speak on everything. He who does not read should not speak.

Finally, if you do look at the evidence for Jesus and become convinced He is who He said He is, that is the start of the journey just like saying "I do" is the start of the marriage. What follows then is a lifetime of learning who Jesus is more and more and bowing before Him and calling Him Lord. It is realizing that He is your master and you are the servant. For that, I would recommend some books by N.T. Wright like Simply Jesus and The Challenge of Jesus. With the latter, Jesus is still a challenge today. We all have to ask what we do with this. Who do you say He is? Gary apparently says he's a failed Jewish teacher whose body rotted long ago. That is quite diametrically opposed to my "He is the Messiah, the second person of the Trinity, the hope of Israel, and my Lord and Savior who is returning to judge the living and the dead and establish the Kingdom fully on this Earth."

Choose by all means, but be as informed as you can in your choice.

[Gary]

[b][b]

[Gary]

17. Saul/Paul would have also known that the witness of women in the first century was not accepted in court, so the fact that Christians were using women as the first witnesses in their story should have weighed heavily in favor of the truthfulness of their story in Saul's mind, right?

Obviously not.

Saul still needed a personal appearance from Jesus (in a "heavenly vision") to believe this tale. All this "cumulative" evidence did not sway him, including women being used as the first witnesses to the empty tomb.

[Littlejoe]

Moderated By: Littlejoe

The debate is now closed. No further posting please

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.