In a book review by James Holding and a co-contritutor, James Holding and another contributor said among other things the following:

"After this, Habermas and Licona present their 'Minimal Facts' case for the Resurrection by appealing to 4 facts accepted by virtually everybody, plus one that is granted by a sizeable majority of scholars, yet not as much so as the other 4. These are 1) Jesus died by crucifixion; 2) Jesus' disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them; 3) Paul, an enemy of Christianity, was suddenly changed; 4) James, a skeptic during Christ's earthly ministry, suddenly changed; 5) and the one accepted by according to Habermas, 75% of scholars (not virtually all like the other four; pg. 70), the empty tomb."

Johnny: Regarding item 1, even if true, so what? Regarding item 2, outside of the New Testament no one knows what Jesus' disciples believed. Regarding item 3, we have another example of Holding calling upon the Bible to be its own witness with no independent corroboration whatsoever. Regarding item 4, same answer as in items 2 and 3. Regarding item 5, in another thread I offered Richard Carrier's ample rebutal to Glenn Miller's comments regarding the burial of Jesus.

Habermas is nothing special. In one book he said that he seldom makes reference to the 500 eyewitnesses and yet in another book he devotes an entire chapter to the subject. I have read some of his writings and if necessary I can show that his writings make no more sense than Holding's writings. In particular, 'In Defense of MIracles,' a book co-edited by Habermas and R. Douglas Geivett, is replete with absurd notions and comments.

Originally posted by Johnny Skeptic

In a book review by James Holding and a co-contritutor, James Holding and another contributor said among other things the following:

Boner by you, Johnny. Wildcat wrote 90% of the review including what you quoted. But --

Johnny: Regarding item 1, even if true, so what?

"So what"?

Johnny, you commit so many boners a day that not even Marilyn Savant (IQ 180) can keep track, but I should think it obvious that to defend the resurrection, you need to show that Jesus died first. There are morons out there who say he didn't, you know (i.e., Christ mythers, Muslims, etc.). I mean, come on, get your head out of your pazoo and learn what's out there. Heck, just get literate if you can.

Regarding item 2, outside of the New Testament no one knows what Jesus' disciples believed.

Not quite, Johnny Boy. We have descriptions of core beliefs from Josephus, Celsus, Lucian; bits and pieces here and there that cohere with the whole. So what's your reversal (huh huh huh) showing that the NT isn't accurate in this regard? What's your source? The Gospel of the Holy 12, maybe?

Regarding item 3, we have another example of Holding calling upon the Bible to be its own witness with no independent corroboration whatsoever.

Excuse me? Johnny, haven't you learned anything yet? "The Bible" is not a monolithic source. Paul's letters themselves corroborate it, and Acts is an independent witness. Come on, Johnny, you don't render witnesses non-independent by slapping them between two covers together. Lord Zeus you are dumb.

Regarding item 4, same answer as in items 2 and 3

Sorry, no. Josephus also testifies to James' being a Christian. Oops.

Regarding item 5, in another thread I offered Richard Carrier's ample rebutal to Glenn Miller's comments regarding the burial of Jesus.

"Ample"? Carrier didn't even get finished yet. He's still fudging. the bulk of Miller's article still hasn't been touched -- much less my own response to Richard "Sinking" Carrier.

Please, Johnny, at least make some effort to think before you respond. Then maybe you'll graduate in my book from Complete Waste of Time to Marginal Waste of Time.

"Regarding item 2, outside of the New Testament no one knows what Jesus' disciples believed."

Holding: Not quite, Johnny Boy. We have descriptions of core beliefs from Josephus, Celsus, Lucian; bits and pieces here and there that cohere with the whole. So what's your reversal (huh huh huh) showing that the NT isn't accurate in this regard? What's your source? The Gospel of the Holy 12, maybe?

Johnny: Josephus, Celsus and Lucian did not ever interview the disciples. In addition, what where their sources regarding what the disciples believed? Further, what the disciples believed may not have been true.

"Regarding item 3, we have another example of Holding calling upon the Bible to be its own witness with no independent corroboration whatsoever."

Holding: Excuse me? Johnny, haven't you learned anything yet? "The Bible" is not a monolithic source. Paul's letters themselves corroborate it, and Acts is an independent witness. Come on, Johnny, you don't render witnesses non-independent by slapping them between two covers together. Lord Zeus you are dumb.

Johnny: Oh my; one New Testament source corroborates another and so on. You call that independent? You might as well say that at a trial of various Mafia defendants that the defendants offered independent corroboration of each other’s testimonies. I suggest that you conduct some research on what the word “independent” really means. New Testament writers could not possibly have been independent corroborative sources because they all shared the same presuppostions regarding heaven and hell.

"Regarding item 4, same answer as in items 2 and 3."

Holding: Sorry, no. Josephus also testifies to James' being a Christian. Oops.

Johnny: It makes no difference whatsoever what James believed, only whether or not it was true.

"Regarding item 5, in another thread I offered Richard Carrier's ample rebutal to Glenn Miller's comments regarding the burial of Jesus."

Holding: "Ample"? Carrier didn't even get finished yet. He's still fudging. The bulk of Miller's article still hasn't been touched -- much less my own response to Richard "Sinking" Carrier.

Johnny: Please provide a link to your comments on Carrier’s article. I will read it and get back to you.

Discussing the events at the tomb are much less important that discussing the 500 eyewitnesses. In your opinion what would be the best possible evidence that there were 500 eyewitnesses? I am hoping that your answer will be TIF. I am quite sure that you are afraid to do that, and for obvious reasons, but if you do, you will get embarrassed for sure. I assume that you will make a hasty exit from this thread since you can now see where it is leading. It is quite possible that initially, meaning for at least the first 100 years following the Resurrection that only a relatively few gullible people believed that Jesus physically rose from the dead. Can you produce evidence to the contrary? After all, you and the New Testaments are claimants here, not me.

Also, in your opinion if Jesus had ascended directly into heaven after rising from the dead, would there be as many Christians in the world as there are today? When I once asked you how Gnosticism fluourished for a number of years in the absence of tangible evidence you said that it is much more difficult to start a religion with tangible evidence than without tangible evidence. If that is true, why the 500 eyewitnesses? J. P. Moreland said that with the 500 eyewitnesses it would have been much more difficult for the early Christian Church to grow. Are you disagreeing with him?

Yawwwn...

Originally posted by Johnny Dumb Bell

Josephus, Celsus and Lucian did not ever interview the disciples.

Oh, PLEASE. Now you're going to some kind of crap out of your hat about there being some discontinuity between what the apostles believed and what later Christians and the NT believed/asserted?!? What are you going to do, get some lunatic to date the Gospel of Thomas to 35 AD for you? COME ON, JOHNNY, GET SERIOUS FOR ONCE.

In addition, what where their sources regarding what the disciples believed?

Gee Johnny. What are the USUAL sources for what people believe? Let's see...I know! It's what they write about it. Worked for Lao Tzu..worked for Confucius...it'll work here, ya think?

Further, what the disciples believed may not have been true.

Further, that is utterly beside the point and just you wasting time with a diversion to score a cheap brownie point with the gullible.


Oh my; one New Testament source corroborates another and so on. You call that independent?

YEP. Because the "New Testament" didn't exist when they were written. They are independent sources. As for your ignorant "Mafia" comparison, we're still waiting for you to explain what crimes Paul, Peter et al committed.

I suggest that you conduct some research on what the word “independent” really means.

I suggest you get your head out of your pazoo. I know what "independent" means and so do scholars, who even with literary dependence theses regard Paul and Luke as independent witnesses.

New Testament writers could not possibly have been independent corroborative sources because they all shared the same presuppostions regarding heaven and hell.

Oh yeah. Find me a scholarly source that says that sharing philsophical suppositions renders two sources "dependent" when it comes to testimony about a historical claim. This should be a hell of a laugh.

It makes no difference whatsoever what James believed, only whether or not it was true.

In other words, you lose the point about no independent testimony about James' conversion. Thank you.

Please provide a link to your comments on Carrier’s article. I will read it and get back to you.

http://www.tektonics.org/vector01.html and it has three parts so don't get lazy on me.

I am hoping that your answer will be TIF. I am quite sure that you are afraid to do that, and for obvious reasons,

That I don't enjoy the smell of doo doo in the morning? Yes, that's the reason. I've already done all that needs doing on that one.

Also, in your opinion if Jesus had ascended directly into heaven after rising from the dead, would there be as many Christians in the world as there are today?

Duh, no, there wouldn't be any at all because then it would have been assumed that he just ascended, not resurrected, dum dum.

J. P. Moreland said that with the 500 eyewitnesses it would have been much more difficult for the early Christian Church to grow.

HUH???

Oh brother. Please quote that one. I just know you've mangled something on that.

I will probably respond to the rest of your post tomorrow. For now I will respond to the following:

"J. P. Moreland said that with the 500 eyewitnesses it would have been much more difficult for the early Christian Church to grow."

James Holding: HUH??? Oh brother. Please quote that one. I just know you've mangled something on that.

Johnny: I meant to say "without" the 500 eyewitnesses instead of "with" the 500 eyewitnesses. Now that I have charified what I said please tell us what you meant when you said in another thread that it is much harder to start a religion with tangible evidence than without tangible evidence.

Um, the title of this thread is a little misleading....

You had me worried there for a minute......

*shudder*

"Josephus, Celsus and Lucian did not ever interview the disciples."

Holding: Oh, PLEASE. Now you're going to some kind of crap out of your hat about there being some discontinuity between what the apostles believed and what later Christians and the NT believed/asserted?!? What are you going to do, get some lunatic to date the Gospel of Thomas to 35 AD for you? COME ON, JOHNNY, GET SERIOUS FOR ONCE.

Johnny: Regardless of what the disciples may or may not have beleived, the only real issue here is whether or not what they believed was true. To the best of my knowledge comments by Josephus, Celsus and Lucian can only be found in copies of documents that do not predate 200 A.D. If such is in fact the case, who knows what alterations might have been made subsequent to the original writings.

"In addition, what where their sources regarding what the disciples believed?"

Holding: Gee Johnny. What are the USUAL sources for what people believe? Let's see...I know! It's what they write about it. Worked for Lao Tzu..worked for Confucius...it'll work here, ya think?

Johnny: Same answer as before.

"Further, what the disciples believed may not have been true."

Holding: Further, that is utterly beside the point and just you wasting time with a diversion to score a cheap brownie point with the gullible.

Johnny: It most certainly is not besides the point. What could be more important regarding Bible apologetics than whether or not New Testament miracles are true? Your article touts a consensus among scholars. The consensus is meaningless if it cannot be reasonably proven that Jesus physically rose from the dead.

"Oh my; one New Testament source corroborates another and so on. You call that independent?"

Holding: YEP. Because the "New Testament" didn't exist when they were written. They are independent sources. As for your ignorant "Mafia" comparison, we're still waiting for you to explain what crimes Paul, Peter et al committed.

Johnny: The sources were not independent because they all believed that the Old Testament was factual, and therefore they had hope for a Messiah.

"I suggest that you conduct some research on what the word “independent” really means."

Holding: I suggest you get your head out of your pazoo. I know what "independent" means and so do scholars, who even with literary dependence theses regard Paul and Luke as independent witnesses.

Johnny: I still maintain that sources who all believed that the Old Testament was factual and who had hope for a Messiah were not independent sources.

"New Testament writers could not possibly have been independent corroborative sources because they all shared the same presuppostions regarding heaven and hell."

Holding: Oh yeah. Find me a scholarly source that says that sharing philsophical suppositions renders two sources "dependent" when it comes to testimony about a historical claim. This should be a hell of a laugh.

Johnny: The Old Testament is the foundational source for the New Testament. The Gospel writers did not consider the Old Testament to be "philosophical suppositions." They considered it to be factual.

"It makes no difference whatsoever what James believed, only whether or not it was true."

Holding: In other words, you lose the point about no independent testimony about James' conversion. Thank you.

Johnny: I did not lose the point at all for the aforementioned reasons.

"Please provide a link to your comments on Carrier’s article. I will read it and get back to you."

Holding: http://www.tektonics.org/vector01.html and it has three parts so don't get lazy on me.

Johnny: I will read it and get back to you.

"I am hoping that your answer will be TIF. I am quite sure that you are afraid to do that, and for obvious reasons."

Holding: That I don't enjoy the smell of doo doo in the morning? Yes, that's the reason. I've already done all that needs doing on that one.

Johnny: You have already done nothing at all, and neither have any of your supporters. A few statements have been made by your supporters, but nothing of substance. You have not told us even one single time what your "non-numeric" evidence is regarding the size of the early Christian Church. I've got you on this one and you know it. The simple truth is that TIF, your admittedly flagship essay, depends lock, stock and barrel upon the assumption that during say the first 100 years following the Resurrection more than a relatively few gullible believed that Jesus physically rose from the dead. The New Testament is a past master at the numbers game, i.e. the feeding of the 5,000, the feeding of the 4,000, the 3,000 people that got saved after hearing teachings by Peter, the entire town that became Christians after hearing teaching by Peter and John, and the implication that thousands of Syrians were joyous over Jesus' healing of a number of Syrians. My commendations to you. You are a quick study regarding the numbers game. The problem is, that's all that it is, a game. As I have said in the past, I will make sure that tens of thousands of people at the Secular Web, at my web site and elsewhere know of your cowardice regarding this issue. You are a disgrace to Bible apologetics. No Christian that I know of would fail to defend his writings, especially his flagship essay. The other Christians at the Theology Web do not hesitate to defend their positions. At least there are some Christians with the cajones to stand up for their beliefs.

"Also, in your opinion if Jesus had ascended directly into heaven after rising from the dead, would there be as many Christians in the world as there are today?"

Holding: Duh, no, there wouldn't be any at all because then it would have been assumed that he just ascended, not resurrected, dum dum.

Johnny: None at all? Well, regarding part of your last sentence in TIF, "they (Christians) was just stupid" after all, primarily you. What would have been wrong with just an ascension? It was enough for the Gnostics. Why did your version of the truth prevail? Simple. Consider the following that I posted in another thread some time ago:

Elaine Pagels: “For nearly 2,000 years, Christian tradition has preserved and revered orthodox writings that denounce the gnostics, while suppressing – and virtually destroying – the Gnostic writings themselves. Now, for the first time, certain texts discovered at Nag Hammadi reveal the other side of the coin: how gnostics denounced the orthodox. The ‘Second Treatise of the Great Seth’ polemicizes against orthodox Christianity, contrasting it with the ‘true church’ of the gnostics. Speaking for those he calls the sons of light, the author says: ‘……..we were hated and persecuted, not only by those who are ignorant (pagans), but also by those think they are advancing the name of Christ, since they were unknowingly empty, not knowing who they are, like dumb animals.’”

Tom Harpur: “To make sure this story stuck, all Pagan opposition was quelled with an unequalled fury. Mystery schools and philosophical academies were closed down, libraries of books were burned, and anathemas were hurled at all who dared to raise objections. Those who risked everything by pointing out that the Christians had taken over all the old Pagan myths, rites, and ceremonies but transformed them by literalizing everything were either banished or killed.”

Richard Carrier: “All other religions but Judaism were outlawed under pain of death throughout the Mediterranean and Europe by 395 AD.”

Larry Taylor: “How does this apply to the story of Jesus? Simply that all of the early critics are dead. Skeptical opinions were banned. Christian opinions, other than those of the establishment, were banned. Books were destroyed, and later, heretics were burned.”

Pagels has said "The victors rewrite history, their way." There is no doubt whatsoever that the New Testament Canon was the result of the awful aforementioned tactics on the part of your wonderful, peaceful Christian ancestors, and let's not forget the evil practice of colonization by Christian nations who conquered the largest colonial empire in history under a single religion by means of murder and confiscation of property, often fighting among themselves for the spoils of victory. This history of the Christian Church is a travesty. The Greeks gave us a version of democracy long before Christians embraced it. In addition, Buddha gave us a version of the Golden Rule centuries before Christ.

If it could be reasonably proven that Jesus was crucified, died and was buried in a tomb guarded by Roman soldiers, and when the tomb was opened sometime on Sunday morning, Jesus was gone and the graveclothes were still there, would that not have been good evidence, without the appearances, that he had triumphed over death and the grave?

"J. P. Moreland said that with the 500 eyewitnesses it would have been much more difficult for the early Christian Church to grow."

Holding: HUH??? Oh brother. Please quote that one. I just know you've mangled something on that.

Johnny: I responded to that in a previous post. I accidently said "with" instead of "without." Now that I have clarified my position I just can't wait to read your response, that is if you aren't conveniently planning to go on a vacation. I hear that the Mediterranean is nice this time of year.

Originally posted by Johnny Skeptic

" If such is in fact the case, who knows what alterations might have been made subsequent to the original writings.

Oh dear, Johnny is backed into the "I don't have any actual evidence that Joseph was a hopped up drug crazed maniac" corner yet again.


It most certainly is not besides the point

It most certainly was, given the oiriginal subject matter of your post. If you can't keep on track, don't drag others into your confusion.

The sources were not independent because they all believed that the Old Testament was factual, and therefore they had hope for a Messiah.

There it is again! The old "I don't have an answer so I'll just repeat myself" routine from Johnny Boy. Three times in fact, and he can't even name a scholar who follows the same view. My dog made a better agrument in the yard this morning! I'll skip all the repeated doggy doo....

None at all? Well, regarding part of your last sentence in TIF, "they (Christians) was just stupid" after all, primarily you. What would have been wrong with just an ascension?

Duh, Johnny, YOU are the one who whined, pitched a fit, and cried because Jesus didn't stay longer! I told you what was "wrong" with an ascension: It leaves the door open for an idea that there was NOT a resurrection. The two ideas are mutually exclusive. GET A GRIP!

It was enough for the Gnostics. Why did your version of the truth prevail?

Because Gnosticism in Jewish Palestine didn't exist, Johnny boy. You need a belief that is contiguous with what was held there. Gnosticism wasn't it, and that's a matter Pagels wisely avoids in her quest for political correctness. Get it?

What happened in the times Harpur, Carrier et al refer to is irrelevant to this point. A Gnostic Jesus emerging in Jewish Palestine isn't a viable option. Live with it. No amount of begged questions about history being rewritten "by the winners" (and it's also complained about by the losers!) will change that.

The Greeks gave us a version of democracy long before Christians embraced it.

Yeah, a version in which only wealthy landowners of male persuasion took part. Rock on, Johnny.

In addition, Buddha gave us a version of the Golden Rule centuries before Christ.

So, what?

I responded to that in a previous post. I accidently said "with" instead of "without.

You had a lot more accidents than that, Johnny boy. It's not too hard: When someone claims that their religion is based on something you can't check on, how hard is it to keep it from being disproved?

I hear that the Mediterranean is nice this time of year.

I hear Tampa is a good place to go if you need a sanitarium.

Originally posted by Johnny Skeptic

Johnny: Regarding item 1, even if true, so what? Regarding item 2, outside of the New Testament no one knows what Jesus' disciples believed. Regarding item 3, we have another example of Holding calling upon the Bible to be its own witness with no independent corroboration whatsoever. Regarding item 4, same answer as in items 2 and 3. Regarding item 5, in another thread I offered Richard Carrier's ample rebutal to Glenn Miller's comments regarding the burial of Jesus.

Habermas is nothing special. In one book he said that he seldom makes reference to the 500 eyewitnesses and yet in another book he devotes an entire chapter to the subject. I have read some of his writings and if necessary I can show that his writings make no more sense than Holding's writings. In particular, 'In Defense of MIracles,' a book co-edited by Habermas and R. Douglas Geivett, is replete with absurd notions and comments.

Let me guess, this is another collection of books you haven't read because you are to ill. Convenient.

Jason

Jason: Let me guess, this is another collection of books you haven't read because you are to ill. Convenient.

Johnny: I have copies of the two books that prove Habermas' inconsistences, which are 'In Defense of Miracles' and 'The Case for Christ.' I read his inconsistences for myself. Why don't you deal with my arguments here instead of me. Just please respond to my arguments in thread.

Originally posted by Johnny Skeptic

I read his inconsistences for myself.

Will wonders never cease.

Why don't you deal with my arguments here instead of me.

Because you make a habit of building arguments on top of things you have not even bothered to read. So I don't see why I should take them seriously.

Jason