[Wondergirl]

So why you could not have done that days ago is just a mystery. But since His Father was fully able to do so, then I would think feeding a bunch of animals on the ark would have been a piece of cake.

Or was it simply an allegory, a teaching moment to let people know that God's in charge and will do whatever is needed to help and protect His creatures?

[jlisenbe]

It was possibly an allegory, though it is never treated that way in any other place in the Bible. Still, it is also possible that it happened just as described. I just don't think your mocking post was justified.

Fundamentalist/evangelical taking the path of least resistance: "You ask, how did Noah feed all those animals on the ark for over a month? My answer: Doesn't matter. God took care of it."

It's quite possible that looking at it as allegorical is more the path of least resistance.

[Wondergirl]

My post was not mocking. It was an example of, as I had posted, "Nothing sadistic and hateful, just no critical thinking." And thus no discussion.

[jlisenbe]

taking the path of least resistance

Was hardly complimentary,

[Wondergirl]

Was hardly complimentary,

Please explain.

I was born and raised fundie/evangelical.

[jlisenbe]

You claim that this (taking the path of least resistance) was not mocking of fundamentalists or evangelicals. Well, it certainly was no compliment, so what was it intended to be?

[Athos]

how did Noah feed all those animals on the ark for over a month? My answer: Doesn't matter. God took care of it."

God raising Jesus from the dead makes all other events in the Bible possible.

This is the typical answer Jl gives to many questions about the absurdity of taking Biblical allegories as literal. When he is questioned about a talking snake, he answers with God can do anything. So much for critical thinking.

With this comment of his, "God raising Jesus from the dead makes all other events in the Bible possible". Jl travels 100% into the never-never land of complete acceptance of the most fantastic fables found anywhere in the Bible - "...all other events n the Bible are possible". Critical thinking is not remotely on the horizon.

As Jl should know, the logic of his statement depends on the premise being demonstrated before the conclusion can be made.

The resurrection can be taken on faith, and is by Christians, but there is no empirical proof of its occurrence which therefore renders his conclusion false.

It is a common answer by fundies/evangelicals when trapped in a corner from which there is no escape. "God can do anything".

[jlisenbe]

The resurrection can be taken on faith, and is by Christians, but there is no empirical proof of its occurrence which therefore renders his conclusion false.

There is no empirical evidence for practically all of ancient history. That doesn't mean we deny it happened. There are actually many very good historical reasons to believe the resurrection.

What happened to the Athos who was advocating for civil discussions???

[Athos]

There is no empirical evidence for practically all of ancient history. That doesn't mean we deny it happened.

There is no need for empirical evidence of a resurrection in ancient history (or modern history, for that matter), since no resurrection occurred.

There are actually many very good historical reasons to believe the resurrection.

List them.

What happened to the Athos who was advocating for civil discussions???

Here I am.

[jlisenbe]

There is no need for empirical evidence of a resurrection in ancient history (or modern history, for that matter), since no resurrection occurred.

After two years of fearfully avoiding that question. you are now on record as having answered it. You have thus placed yourself in a camp completely apart from DW and, I suppose, WG.

I do hope you learned that mentioning "empirical evidence" in relationship to the events of history was a mistake.

List them? We can start here.

1. The Empty Tomb
One of the most fully substantiated facts surrounding Jesus’ resurrection is the empty tomb. New Testament scholars widely agree on the authenticity of the gospel claim that witnesses found Jesus’ tomb empty on that first Easter morning. This report has a very early date and fits well with what is known of the times archaeologically and culturally. If the Jews or Romans had produced Jesus’ body, Christianity would have been disproved immediately; yet the resurrection was never challenged, let alone refuted, by Jesus’ contemporary enemies.

2. Post-crucifixion Appearances
Numerous accounts affirm that people had intimate, empirical encounters at various times and places with Jesus Christ after His death on the cross. Witnesses claimed to have seen, heard, and touched the resurrected Christ. These physical appearances were reported soon after the actual encounters and cannot reasonably be dismissed as mythical or psychological in nature.

3. The Apostles’ Transformation
The Book of Acts describes a dramatic and enduring transformation of eleven men from terrified, defeated cowards immediately after Jesus’ crucifixion into courageous preachers and, eventually, martyrs. Such radical and extensive change deserves an adequate explanation, for human character and conduct do not transform easily or often.

4. The Deaths Of The Apostles
Many people have died for something they believed that was untrue, but not many people are willing to die for something they know for certain is a lie. If the early followers of Jesus had made up the story about Jesus being alive again, don’t you think at least some of them would have changed their story when faced with death?
But this did not happen. According to early church history, all the apostles died for their faith except John (He was exiled, but not killed.). Despite persecution and facing death, these men stood firm in their belief in the risen Jesus.


5. Emergence of the Christian Church
Within 400 years from the time of Jesus’s crucifixion, Christianity dominated the entire Roman Empire and, over the course of two millennia, virtually all of Western civilization. Christianity developed a distinct cultural and theological identity apart from traditional Judaism in a brief window of time—and amid intense, sometimes deadly, resistance. The fact of Jesus Christ’s resurrection is the only reasonable explanation for the emergence of the unique Christian faith

6. The Rapid Growth Of The Church
In the early days of the church, the Jews attempted to stop the spread of the resurrection story by persecuting the apostles. Yet a wise Jewish leader noted, “Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail” (Acts 5:38). His words have since been proven true.
In 30 A.D., there was no church. By the next century, churches existed across the Roman Empire and beyond. By the fourth century, Christianity had become the official religion of the Roman Empire. This was more than a social movement, but rather a supernatural spread of the message of the risen Jesus.

7. Sunday as a Day of Worship
The Jewish day of worship, or Sabbath, began at sundown Friday and ended at sundown Saturday. However, the early Christian church gradually changed the worship day. Sunday commemorated Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, an event that transformed worship and distinguished the Christian faith from traditional Judaism. Apart from the resurrection, no reason existed for early followers of Jesus to view Sunday as having any enduring significance.

8. The Tomb was not Venerated by the Jews. If the body of Christ had remained in the tomb, then there would be evidence that the tomb had immediately gained status as a site of veneration for a dead, in their view, prophet, and yet there is no evidence that ever happened. It was treated as what it was, the empty tomb of Joseph of Arimathea.

9. The Brothers Of Jesus
John 7:5 says even the brothers of Jesus did not believe in Him. Yet after the resurrection, both James and Jude were leaders in the church and wrote books in the New Testament. Why the sudden change? 1 Corinthians 7:7 says the risen Jesus appeared to James. Seeing Jesus alive again was what led to dramatic change in his life.

10. The Conspiracy Of Christ’s Enemies.
The enemies of Jesus never claimed, “We’ve found the body!” Instead, they spread the rumor that the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus. When Matthew wrote his gospel years later, he noted “this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day” (Matthew 28:15).
If the body had been available, His enemies could have quickly silenced those who claimed Jesus was alive. The problem was that His body could not be found.

11. Our Changed World
Christianity is the world’s largest religion. The Bible is the world’s most popular book, available in more translations and more copies than any other book in the world. Its words mark the foundations of Western civilization, are responsible for countless schools, hospitals, orphanages, and other life-changing works, and its values continue to change lives today.

12. The Testimony of Ancient Historians.
Historians such as Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny the Elder, amongst others, recorded the existence of the early church and the fact that they believed in a resurrected Christ. That's not to say those men considered the story to be true, but it does show that the early church believed in it sufficiently to die for it.

13. Five Written Historical Accounts.
Matthew, Mark, Luke (2), and John all wrote extensive accounts of the resurrection based upon eye-witness testimony. These accounts were written within the lifetimes of many individuals who could have easily pointed out the historical fact of the dead body of Jesus having been seen by thousands of people. If that had been the case, the church would have been laughed out of existence early on and never heard from again.

14. The Testimony of the Apostle Paul.
The incredible events of the life of Saul of Tarsus give great reason to believe in the resurrection. A man who went from being the most passionate opponent of the Gospel to its most fearless advocate would not have done so knowing full well that the whole story was an easily falsifiable myth.

Five Reasons to Believe in the Resurrection - Reasons to Believe.

7 Reasons You Can Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus - JA Show Articles

[Athos]

After two years of fearfully avoiding that question. you are now on record as having answered it. You have thus placed yourself in a camp completely apart from DW and, I suppose, WG.

Sorry, JL, as usual you misread what was written. The reference to a resurrection not having occurred was in ANCIENT HISTORY! The discussion was about ancient history compared to Christian belief in the resurrection. I made that very clear. Any reader not as obsessed as you are will get it. Your glee in "outing" is comical, especially since no one cares about my beliefs except you.

As for your list, another trap you have fallen into. Now THAT'S occasion for laughter. A quick scan reveals an easily debunked list, but it will have to wait. I will return later - don't hold your breath.

[jlisenbe]

There is no need for empirical evidence of a resurrection in ancient history...since no resurrection occurred.

The statement stands for itself. You are on record. Predictably, you are already trying to escape from it, but it won't work. It illustrates perfectly why you avoid answering questions.

BTW, it is a sad comment to suggest that no one cares about your beliefs. It is true that I do, but not for the reasons you suspect.

[Athos]

To cite the Bible as proof or evidence of something in the Bible itself is not a valid proof. Much of the Bible has been and continues to be validly proven by archaeology and its related disciplines. None of the miracles including the resurrection have ever been validly proven.

Accepting scripture as evidence of its own literal accuracy is the error of self-validation. "The Bible is the word of God because it says so right here in the Bible".

However, to BELIEVE in the miracles is legitimate and considered a valid theological or spiritual approach. This post is about refuting the list of “proofs” offered by Jl for the resurrection claiming that “there are many good historical reasons for believing the resurrection”. There are no extra-Biblical historical reasons for his claim as I will point out in this post.

In his list, numbers 1-4 are all taken from the Bible. For that reason, they are not valid for historical proof. Numbers 8, 9. 10, 13, and 14 are also taken from the Bible. None are valid for historical proof.

List them? We can start here.

1. The Empty Tomb
2. Post-crucifixion Appearances
3. The Apostles’ Transformation
4. The Deaths Of The Apostles
8. The Tomb was not Venerated by the Jews.
9. The Brothers Of Jesus
10. The Conspiracy Of Christ’s Enemies.
13. Five Written Historical Accounts.
14. The Testimony of the Apostle Paul.

Number 5 - The Emergence of the Christian Church

Jl claims the resurrection is the only reasonable explanation for this emergence. There are many reasons for the emergence of Christianity becoming the “dominant religion of the Roman Empire”. The chief reason is the Emperor Constantine making Christianity the official state religion in 325 AD. From that point it spread to the rest of the Roman Empire.


Number 6 – The Rapid Growth of the Church

Jl claims, “By the next century, there were churches across the Roman Empire and beyond”. Misleading, at best. There were Christians who gathered in homes in several cities - none beyond the Empire - but the first actual church building would not be erected for two more centuries. Jl further claims that this growth was supernatural and caused by the message of the risen Jesus. It is fine to believe this, but it is not proven.


Number 7 – Sunday as a Day of Worship

The claim here is that Sunday commemorates the day Jesus rose from the dead. That is not a proof of the resurrection.


Number 11 – Our Changed World

That Christianity is the world's largest religion is not a proof of the resurrection.


Number 12 – The Testimony of Ancient Historians

Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny the elder reported the belief in the risen Jesus, but in no way does the reporting constitute proof of the resurrection. In fact, none of the three believed in the resurrection.

The two links contain the above numbered arguments.


Some words on knowledge and belief:

Knowledge is empirically known information (facts). Belief is firmly held opinion requiring no empirically known information as in knowledge. Knowledge is based in the intellect. Belief is based in faith.

When a religious person says “I know God can do such-and-such...”, he is mistaken. What is meant is “I believe God can do such-and-such”. To know requires empirical demonstration; to believe does not.

Believing is a valid theological or spiritual position. It is not a valid empirical demonstration of an historical fact. The resurrection is a valid belief, but not a valid empirical proof. That requires evidence.

Believing in the Bible is legitimate and fruitful. Claiming the Bible to be historically true in all its parts is a literal understanding which is not true, although much of the Bible can be demonstrated to be historically true by archaeology, ancient and modern scholarship, culture, tradition, exploration, and other means.

[jlisenbe]

Knowledge is empirically known information (facts).

Then the vast part of history must be discounted as but little of it is based on empirical data. The great part of history is based upon observational data, not experimental data.

I would agree that belief in the resurrection, which you claim not to have, is indeed based upon a belief in the accuracy of the NT accounts. However, there are a number of good reasons to believe those accounts are accurate.

The three historians I noted, and there are others as well, reported events quite consistent with an early church that believed in the resurrection, including a group of people who willingly died for that belief. Is that concrete proof? No, but it is very persuasive.

As to the Gospel accounts, they were written within just a few decades of the events they claimed to have happened and in the same part of the world. It would have been an easy job to have shown them to be foolish if that was the case. No one ever undertook to do that so far as is presently known.

About the only point you made worth noting was the fact that you consider the NT historical accounts to be untrustworthy. I would agree that if I believed that as well, then I would take your approach in disbelieving the resurrection. However, as I said earlier, there are very good reasons for believing in those accounts. That being the case, I stand by all of those evidences I listed and suggest you reconsider your objections.

Bible can be demonstrated to be historically true by archaeology, ancient and modern scholarship, culture, tradition, exploration, and other means.

Not exactly true. It can, like all of ancient history, be shown to have reliable data supporting its accuracy, but none of it can be "demonstrated to be historically true".

[Athos]

Then the vast part of history must be discounted as but little of it is based on empirical data. The great part of history is based upon observational data, not experimental data.

Any history that claims resurrection requires proof. Other history can be taken at face value as one decides.

I would agree that belief in the resurrection, which you claim not to have,

I never claimed non-belief in the resurrection. Even when your error is explained to you, you hold on to your mistaken belief like a dog on its bone. This has been a common error on your part - the refusal to understand clearly expressed language.

is indeed based upon a belief in the accuracy of the NT accounts. However, there are a number of good reasons to believe those accounts are accurate.

Another example of your inability to grasp the plain language of why the Bible cannot be used to prove itself. Please read my pertinent comments on the difference between BELIEVING and KNOWING.

The three historians I noted, and there are others as well, reported events quite consistent with an early church that believed in the resurrection, including a group of people who willingly died for that belief. Is that concrete proof? No, but it is very persuasive.

Persuasion is not enough to prove Jesus rose from the dead. It may or may not be enough to persuade someone. In any case, persuasion is never proof.

As to the Gospel accounts, they were written within just a few decades of the events they caimed to have happened

No, you imply that a few decades after the events, there are complete copies. Not remotely true. A few decades is time enough for the accounts to be edited and dependent on different memories.

More importantly, there are no copies from those early days - only fragments. By the time complete copies are made, centuries have passed.

It would have been an easy job to have shown them to be foolish if that was the case. No one ever undertook to do that so far as is presently known.

You are completely wrong. Any understanding of the early church shows that there were many disagreements among Christians. Some are Gnosticism, Montanism, Monarchiasm (disagreement over 3 persons in 1 God), Arianism, Monophysitism, Pelagianism, Nestorianism, Circumcision, Christ's Nature, and several others.

As to the Gospels, there were so many that the Council of Nicea had to declare which ones were to be believed and part of the canon.

About the only point you made worth noting was the fact that you consider the NT historical accounts to be untrustworthy.

Amazing how you can so readily misread what I wrote. In point of fact, I made no such point. I even stated that much of the Bible IS historically accurate!! SMH. My contention is that the events describing stories that are not a natural occurrence require demonstrable proof, which is lacking in every case.

I would agree that if I believed that as well, then I would take your approach in disbelieving the resurrection.

You have no idea what I believe. You desperately want to know and that has led you into a fog of confusion as consistently shown by your replies. That begs the question - WHY do you need to know what my beliefs are? I'm quite sure it is so that you can find something of mine you think is wrong according to your own beliefs.

However, as I said earlier, there are very good reasons for believing in those accounts.

Your own key word is BELIEVING. Believing is never proof. After all this time, you still don't get that basic fact.

I stand by all of those evidences I listed and suggest you reconsider your objections.

Belief and/or persuasion are NOT evidence. Every single one of your so-called "evidences" has been rebutted by me. Your beliefs are your own, but you cannot insist that others believe as you do without proof that doesn't exist.

You can persuade and try to convince, but not by claiming proof. Every Christian since day one has known that basic fact. Christians persuade by the example of their lived lives - not by spurious claims of proof.

[jlisenbe]

I never claimed non-belief in the resurrection.

Yeah, you did. "There is no need for empirical evidence of a resurrection in ancient history (or modern history, for that matter), since no resurrection occurred." As I said before, it shows why you so fear answering questions. You don't like having your beliefs being made a matter of record, much preferring to live in a grey area of indecision so as to prevent you from being put on the spot. Well, it's too late for this one. But if, perhaps, you expressed your belief poorly, then you can now correct that.

No, you imply that a few decades after the events, there are complete copies. Not remotely true. A few decades is time enough for the accounts to be edited and dependent on different memories.

That they do not exist now does not mean they did not exist then. Of course Luke, for instance, existed when Luke wrote it. As to the changes, you need evidence of that and not just wild claims.

As to the rest of your comments, you must come to understand that there is no such thing as "proof" regarding historical accounts. History is based upon written observations, and where it can be found, archaeological finds. No one can "prove", for instance, that Jefferson wrote the Declaration, but the evidence from written accounts is so strong that it is assumed to be true. That's how history works. It is not science. So it comes down to a question of whether or not the historical accounts of the NT should be believed. I believe they should, and you believe they should not. And that's where it stands. Those accounts unanimously claim that Jesus was raised from the dead. I listed a number of very good reasons why that claim is a very strong one.

The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, makes a wide array of startling claims about the history of the Americas. There is not a shred of evidence to support those claims, and so they are generally disregarded. That is not at all true of the NT. The supporting evidence is very good.

By the time complete copies are made, centuries have passed.

By the time complete copies are MADE??? See my comment above. Even if you meant "discovered", that's still untrue. Much of the NT is in second century manuscripts. The Bodmer Papyri, dated third century and possibly as early as late second, contains practically all of John and most of Luke, and what is missing is only due to deterioration over centuries, so your statement is simply not correct. But even if true, it still would demonstrate nothing other than the fact that ancient manuscripts are difficult to find, and that is true for all of ancient literature.

Papyrus 75 - Wikipedia

Bodmer Papyri - Wikipedia

[Athos]

Yeah, you did.

Nah, I didn't.

There is no need for empirical evidence of a resurrection in ancient history (or modern history, for that matter), since no resurrection occurred."

For the final time - this refers to resurrections occurring in ANCIENT HISTORY, not the resurrection being discussed. No resurrection occurred in ancient history. The very clear meaning is that occurrences like a claimed resurrection that are against nature require PROOF. What is so hard to understand about that?

if you expressed your belief poorly, then you can now correct that.

The real question is, Why in the world do you give a tinker's dam about my beliefs? You come across as an Inquisitor.

you must come to understand that there is no such thing as "proof" regarding historical accounts.

The issue is rising from the dead. To take it on faith is fine. To claim it is provable is false. The rest of your comment on history is irrelevant.

The final sentence of yours says the "supporting evidence" for the NT is "very good". Very good? Do I detect a touch of reasonable doubt in that? In your frantic zeal, you manage to condemn the Book of Mormon as "disregarded". You deny the Mormons their beliefs yet you insist on your own beliefs. There's a word for that.

By the time complete copies are MADE???

Yes, made!!! Do you think the complete copies sprang up out of thin air? Of course they were made - they are the earliest existing canonical copies from the many Gospels and Gospel-like books floating around at the time. These non-approved materials include Thomas, Magdalene and Peter among many others.

[jlisenbe]

The very clear meaning is that occurrences like a claimed resurrection that are against nature require PROOF. What is so hard to understand about that?

Depends on what you mean by "proof".

Very good? Do I detect a touch of reasonable doubt in that?

No. You detect an understanding of the nature of historical accounts.

Yes, made!!! Do you think the complete copies sprang up out of thin air?

You are confused. Luke was a complete copy when it was MADE by Luke. It was complete from the beginning. Do you have evidence otherwise?

I would like to ask you a question. What are you so angry about? There is obviously a "burr under your saddle" about something with me. What irritates you so much? I believe the serpent spoke in Genesis and you do not. So? That's hardly a major issue. What bothers you so much about all of this?

[waltero]

Depends on what you mean by "proof"

I found it a bit confusing too.

there is no empirical proof of its occurrence

"Proof" - As in a fact or piece of information (Scriptures, Israelites, born again Christians) that shows that something exists or is true?

there is no empirical [evidence] of its occurrence

Empirical evidence for a proposition is evidence.


I forget who said: "No religion, new or old, is subject to empirical proof, so what we have is a contest between faiths."

Science, quantum physics - "Our belief in what is possible might actually create those possibilities." God tells us what is possible. - Jesus, being the only faith/belief that brings life.

[jlisenbe]

"No religion, new or old, is subject to empirical proof, so what we have is a contest between faiths."

But that's not to suggest that faith is not based on evidence. The evidence for the historicity of the Bible is very good, and that is certainly true for the resurrection.

Two terms which need defining. 1. proof. 2. empirical evidence. There is a lot of debate concerning the meaning of the second. I like this one. "Evidence which is capable of being verified or disproved by direct observation or experiment." If we go with that, then it becomes obvious that it does not generally apply to history, so any plea for empirical evidence to support the resurrection is misguided.