109 replies to this topic

[shifter]

Can you imagine what governments around the world today would do if a man claimed he was the son of God and was the promised '2nd coming of Jesus'?

Would he be branded a threat to Americas 'National Security'?

Would his teachings be considered 'extremism' and himself branded a terrorist?

For the theists only - If all the prophecies came to pass and he asked you to follow him, would you? Do you worry about how the world of today might perceive such a man should he come?

I'm not after Pro Atheist or Pro Theist propaganda here, just want an intelligent discussion. As this is something I've wondered. Maybe he'll just come around after the human race blasts itself back to the bronze age through nuclear war or something anyway so no need to worry just yet

Edited by Lister, 19 April 2013 - 01:14 AM.

[platypus]

Depends if he promises to torture unbelievers eternelly in hell or not, doesn't it?

[Mishael]

bump

Can you imagine what governments around the world today would do if a man claimed he was the son of God and was the promised '2nd coming of Jesus'?

Would he be branded a threat to Americas 'National Security'?

Would his teachings be considered 'extremism' and himself branded a terrorist?

For the theists only - If all the prophecies came to pass and he asked you to follow him, would you? Do you worry about how the world of today might perceive such a man should he come?

I'm not after Pro Atheist or Pro Theist propaganda here, just want an intelligent discussion. As this is something I've wondered. Maybe he'll just come around after the human race blasts itself back to the bronze age through nuclear war or something anyway so no need to worry just yet

This is a good question and it is answered in the bible. The bible teaches that there is a great controversy between Christ (the Son of God) and Satan/Devil (Lucifer the once covering cherub, highest of all the angels). He is referred to as the arch deceiver, snake, liar, roaring lion sending the prey into the mouths of the female lions etc. Here is where it gets interesting. You will know this only if you are a good bible student. There are two theories as to the second appearing of Christ. One says that there is a "secret rapture" followed by seven years and so on this is false. They do some crazy contortions to arrive at their conclusions. What I believe and what the bible teaches is this. Before the real Jesus appears once again the deceiver will impersonate Him first but it will not be according to the biblical description of the second appearing. This impersonation will be followed by miracles and marvelous things and a doing away with the bible. This will be received with open arms by the world for the bible says that "few there be that find it,"(the way, the truth and the life). When the true Jesus comes again it will be for judgement before that point the seven last plagues will have been poured out the seventh being the actual appearing of Jesus. Those wicked not destroyed by the six will die by the seventh.

P.S. The bible does not teach an eternally burning hell with people burning for eternity that is plain ignorance.

Edited by Mishael, 22 January 2013 - 04:10 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Answering this thread depends on who you are talking about. Some will welcome Him with open arms, others will not be happy. Still thers do not believe but this does not mean they will not be affected. No one knows the time and place.

[Mr Serendipity]

Well the 2nd coming is unlike the 1st. Everyone around the globe will know instantly (like lighting from east to west), everyone will be resurrected, and those who are evil or reject Christ will tremble with fear as they try to hide. However the people in this age are incredibly evil as all the Christians will have been murdered by the anti-christ by then. Also the 2nd coming the stars of heaven shall fall and the moon shall not give it's light, so it will be pretty obvious when the real Jesus comes back.

Matthew 24:
26Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. 27For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 28For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
29Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

[Lister]

Likely if Jesus came back, walked on water, turned water to wine, healed the sick and even resurrected a lot of people he would still be mostly ignored. Even with large scale miracles the majority would miss the news, ignore, label it as nonsense or just not care.

In this day and age we perform miracles well beyond much of what is written in the bible. Just think of a 747 flying high than the highest mountain while weighing hundreds of tones and you can start to gauge the scope and depth of today’s miracles.

If there really is a second coming of Jesus and it happens I am almost certain he would not claim to be the son of God or even mention a faith. No, likely he would enact global change on a scale not seen before creating a very obvious rift separating those altruistic, good souls from the rest. Plus if you think about it Jesus doesn’t need to raise the dead or perform any miracles to drastically change the face of the earth; he just has to know what’s going to happen when and make a few key moves both public and private, globally.

Knowledge is vastly more powerful than parlor tricks. In the days of Jesus parlor tricks would have gotten him world wide fame, but now David Blain has him beat in that department.

As to answer the question of whether I would follow him or not; I honestly don’t think you have a choice. If a rift is made you’ll fall on the side you belong. Though I’m not sure if such things as “Good” and “Evil” really exist; seems like fairy tales told to children to ensure they do what they’re told.

...That would make a good topic “Does “Good” and “Evil” Really Exist?”

You can interpret everything that is said in the bible regarding the resurrection using modern day scenarios that actually make sense to the majority. If for example a man offers a way to kill to live big, or not kill to live humbly this would easily open a rift; though I’m still not sure if that’s a Good/Evil divide or a Weak/Strong divide. Then again there’s weak/strong spiritually or weak/strong mentally, or weak/strong physically.

This is why I’m not religious; I feel like religions don’t do reality justice by calling it simplistic when it’s clearly not. (Good/Evil = Overly simplistic)

[platypus]

How about the death of Jesus - when will that be accepted?

Edited by platypus, 08 April 2013 - 07:09 AM.

[NeuroGuy]

How about the death of Jesus - when will that be accepted?

The brief answer to your question is this: it already has been. The death of Jesus, particularly by crucifixion, has received near ubiquitous acceptance in the scholarly community for some time now. The sheer amount of historical evidence that supports this event makes the life and crucifixion of Jesus seem nearly unquestionable by both atheist and Christian scholars alike. Given the modern progression of historical research into the life of Christ, and in ancient history in general, to deny the existence of Jesus is tantamount to denying the existence of every other well-known figure in antiquity. That is because there is more historical evidence for the existence of Jesus than any other figure in the ancient world.¹

To support my point, let me first reference a well-known liberal scholar, John Dominick Crossan. There are few critics of the orthodox Christian view of Christ as outspoken as Crossan, who played a leading role in the infamous Jesus Seminar, a group criticized even by atheist scholars for its bias against even the possibility of miracles. Yet despite this clear and explicit rejection of orthodox Christianity and the supernatural, Crossan had this to admit, "That Jesus 'was crucified under Pontius Pilate,' as the creed states, is as certain as anything historical can ever be. The Jewish historian Josephus and the pagan historian Tacitus both agree that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea."² This statement by Crossan is pertinent to a former post that I had made in another topic, where I cited a primary quote from the ancient Roman historian Tacitus:

[In response to the denial of ancient Roman sources for the life and death of Jesus]: I'd like to direct you to Publius Cornelius Tacitus, as well as Titus Flavius Josephus. Tacitus was one of the most reputable historians of ancient Rome. In regards to the burning of Rome under Nero, Tacitus had this to say:

"But neither the aid of man, nor the liberality of the prince, nor the propitiations of the gods succeeded in destroying the belief that the fire had been purposely lit. In order to put an end to this rumor, therefore, Nero laid the blame on and visited with severe punishment those men, hateful for their crimes, whom the people called Christians. He from whom the name was derived, Christus, was put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, checked for a moment, broke out again, not only in Judea, the native land of the monstrosity, but also in Rome, to which all conceivable horrors and abominations flow from every side, and find supporters. First, therefore, those were arrested who openly confessed; then, on their information, a great number, who were not so much convicted of the fire as of hatred of the human race. Ridicule was passed on them as they died; so that, clothed in skins of beasts, they were torn to pieces by dogs, or crucified, or committed to the flames, and when the sun had gone down they were burned to light up the night. Nero had lent his garden for this spectacle, and gave games in the Circus, mixing with the people in the dress of a charioteer or standing in the chariot. Hence there was a strong sympathy for them, though they might have been guilty enough to deserve the severest punishment, on the ground that they were sacrificed, not to the general good, but to the cruelty of one man." (Annals XV, 44)

Not only is he a reliable Roman source in regards to the death of Christ under Pontius Pilate, he was explicitly opposed to the new sect within Judaism that emerged, that "pernicious superstition." His reference to the crucifixion of Christ counts therefore as an enemy attestation to Jesus' death, as well as the momentum of nascent Christianity. That is important for obvious historical reasons. The same can be said of Josephus, who was a Jewish historian that underwent a complete post-war defection to the side of his Roman conquerors, and remained a Roman henceforth.

To argue that the person of Jesus is a myth, that he never actually lived (and hence died), is simply an indefensible and unfounded position. As a final note, I leave you with a quote from the historian and philosopher Dr. Gary Habermas, whose research led to a collection of "minimal facts" concerning Jesus that nearly all germane scholars accept:

"Of all the events in Jesus' life, more ancient sources specifically mention his death than any other single occurrence. Of the 45 ancient sources, 28 relate to this fact, often with details. Twelve of these sources are non-Christian, which exhibits an incredible amount of interest in this event. Not only is Jesus' death by crucifixion of major concern to these authors, but 14 of 28 sources give various details about the crucifixion, from medical observations to political information concerning the current rulers, to historical specifications of the times in which Jesus died, to religious details about the reason for his death. These data witness to the facticity of Jesus' death by crucifixion, regarding both the reality of the event itself, as well as numerous details surrounding it. It is fair to assert that this is one of the best-attested facts in ancient history."³

Footnotes
1. J. Ed. Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer and Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 2006), 105-106.

2. John Dominic Crossan and Richard G. Watts, Who is Jesus?: Answers to Your Questions about the Historical Jesus (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999), 96.

3. Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (Joplin, Missouri: College Press, 1996), 252.

Edited by NeuroGuy, 08 April 2013 - 02:53 PM.

[platypus]

So when do people accept that the great spiritual teacher Jesus, a human being, died and is never coming back? Cults are cults but this thing has really got out of hand a loong time ago.

[shadowhawk]

So when do people accept that the great spiritual teacher Jesus, a human being, died and is never coming back? Cults are cults but this thing has really got out of hand a loong time ago.

We are talking about evidence.

[Lister]

Neuro! Your writing is too high level! You even have references! Haha no I tease – probably best to drive the level of conversation up on Longecity considering the majority of the subjects.

It’s pretty tough to deny that Jesus existed, though it’s not so difficult to deny that he was the son of God or God himself. Just as we cannot deny the unknowns of DNA but can deny that these unknowns conclusively prove something about the existences of God or a creator. The rough line that one crosses when they conclude a religious truth (such as Jesus’s predicted return or the rapture) is where things tend to go wrong in these sorts of conversations.

I would argue that there is no harm in entertaining the idea of Jesus returning as the son of God (or God themself). As long as we don’t assume a truth and start making social decisions based on that “truth” then why not?

According to the evidence a person named Jesus (or named Jesus after the fact) existed and was very well known and respected. That person is said to be the son of an all knowing entity called “God” (or is known to be “God” themselves). This person was nailed to a cross and died. It is said that this person will return one day and that will signal the end of the world. If this did occur and all of this was true, how would the world accept it?

Perhaps this is a tad clearer position to comment from… that is unless you have an underlying motive O_O!

[platypus]

So when do people accept that the great spiritual teacher Jesus, a human being, died and is never coming back? Cults are cults but this thing has really got out of hand a loong time ago.

We are talking about evidence.

Yes, and there is only evidence that Jesus, like many others, thought that he was a god or at least a demigod.

[NeuroGuy]

Neuro! Your writing is too high level! You even have references! Haha no I tease – probably best to drive the level of conversation up on Longecity considering the majority of the subjects.

I chuckled at this. My wife was just picking on me the other day for including footnotes in our budget planning; force of habit I guess.

It’s pretty tough to deny that Jesus existed, though it’s not so difficult to deny that he was the son of God or God himself. Just as we cannot deny the unknowns of DNA but can deny that these unknowns conclusively prove something about the existences of God or a creator. The rough line that one crosses when they conclude a religious truth (such as Jesus’s predicted return or the rapture) is where things tend to go wrong in these sorts of conversations.

On the contrary, I would contend that for those who take a sincere and objective look at the data, it is difficult to deny that Jesus was the son of God. The data I refer to are the minimal facts espoused by Dr. Gary Habermas, facts concerning the details surrounding the resurrection event that share the same level of scholarly consensus as does the existence of Jesus. It has to be remembered that the logical case for Jesus being the son of God rests entirely on the resurrection event; if you can prove that Christ did not rise from the dead, then the rationality of Christianity crumbles. In order to make an effective case against the resurrection, one must either refute the minimal facts themselves, or present an alternative theory that grants the minimal facts legitimacy; no other route is tenable from an academic standard. At present, there is no scholarly, cogent refutation of the minimal facts, and the competing theories that attempt to explain the minimal facts (including group hallucinations and the like) do not hold the same explanatory power as the resurrection theory: that Christ actually came back to life.

As long as we don’t assume a truth and start making social decisions based on that “truth” then why not?

You have an excellent point here, and philosophers are very keen on this very fact. Yet ironically, this is exactly what most individuals do when dealing with the case for the resurrection of Jesus. They presuppose that miracles are impossible, a presupposition that is only legitimate if one first assumes a certain truth, namely, that God does not exist. If miracles are impossible, then Jesus couldn't have been brought back to life from biological death. If Jesus wasn't resurrected, then his claims concerning himself were not justified, and therefore, it cannot be said that God exists. Do you see the circular reasoning here? If one does not first assume that "God does not exist," miracles are then a possibility. With that possibility, if one then analyzes the minimal facts, it becomes evident that the resurrection of Jesus is the most plausible explanation regarding what actually happened.

So when do people accept that the great spiritual teacher Jesus, a human being, died and is never coming back? Cults are cults but this thing has really got out of hand a loong time ago.

We are talking about evidence.

Yes, and there is only evidence that Jesus, like many others, thought that he was a god or at least a demigod.

I mean no disrespect platypus, but once again you're incorrect in your conclusion. It is true that many others, both before and after Jesus, have considered themselves to be a god or demigod. However, no other claimant in history has held the type of historical evidence that Jesus has in supporting his justification for his claim to divinity: his own resurrection, something he claimed would occur numerous times throughout his ministry prior to his death. If you were to make a claim against the evidence for his resurrection, namely, by presenting an alternative theory that addresses the minimal facts, or to refute the facts themselves, that would be credible. But to claim that there is no evidence for the resurrection is an untenable position.

Edited by NeuroGuy, 09 April 2013 - 06:38 PM.

[shadowhawk]

So when do people accept that the great spiritual teacher Jesus, a human being, died and is never coming back? Cults are cults but this thing has really got out of hand a loong time ago.

We are talking about evidence.

Yes, and there is only evidence that Jesus, like many others, thought that he was a god or at least a demigod.

I don’t want to take away from NeuroGuy’s excellent case and evidence. At least you accept Christ thought he was God and others thought He was God also. Given this, would you also accept the minimal facts concerning the resurrection of Christ?
http://www.longecity...st/#entry574323

- Fact 1: Jesus died by crucifixion
- Fact 2: Individuals and groups had visions of Jesus after his death
- Fact 3: Paul, a skeptic and an enemy, had an appearance of Jesus that converted him
- these facts are agreed to atheist scholars, liberal scholars, etc.
- virtually 100% of scholars agree with these three facts

[platypus]

I mean no disrespect platypus, but once again you're incorrect in your conclusion. It is true that many others, both before and after Jesus, have considered themselves to be a god or demigod. However, no other claimant in history has held the type of historical evidence that Jesus has in supporting his justification for his claim to divinity: his own resurrection, something he claimed would occur numerous times throughout his ministry prior to his death. If you were to make a claim against the evidence for his resurrection, namely, by presenting an alternative theory that addresses the minimal facts, or to refute the facts themselves, that would be credible. But to claim that there is no evidence for the resurrection is an untenable position.

Texts written after the fact don't "prove" even that the tomb was empty, let alone that a "resurrection" happened. Come on guys.

- Fact 1: Jesus died by crucifixion
- Fact 2: Individuals and groups had visions of Jesus after his death
- Fact 3: Paul, a skeptic and an enemy, had an appearance of Jesus that converted him
- these facts are agreed to atheist scholars, liberal scholars, etc.
- virtually 100% of scholars agree with these three facts

So where are the miracles? And what proof of 2 is there, except hearsay?

[Lister]

Texts written after the fact don't "prove" even that the tomb was empty, let alone that a "resurrection" happened. Come on guys.

I have to somewhat side with platypus on this point. Text does not prove something conclusively regardless of how popular said text is. True, scientific papers contain text though their results can be mostly replicated. The resurrection of Jesus and much of what is in the bible is history and cannot be replicated (unless we figure out how to make a time machine).

You view the bible and holy texts as hard evidence and that is where our views differ. To me these texts are stories containing possible truths. If you eliminate the bible/holy texts as being hard evidence you can see where it is possible to deny the link between Jesus and God.

So where are the miracles? And what proof of 2 is there, except hearsay?

See I believe miracles are a matter of perspective. If you were to visit an island that had never been visited before and were to find an untouched civilization with zero modern knowledge you could easily perform many miracles in their eyes. Even someone like God may view their actions as simple and easy to explain whereas we would view them as miraculous.

Miracles are not an issue of “Do they or do they not exist?” Miracles are almost certainly based on the point of view of the witness. This though is the same as saying that everything can be explained logically which I feel is just as plausible a view as claiming that there are things that cannot be explained. Either view cannot be proven as we would need to know all there is to know.

Shadow and Nero, you two have spent a lot of time rehashing the same debates over and over and you always find yourself in the same dead ends. This is why I suggested we look at the resurrection of Jesus as an assumed truth to discuss the reaction of his return. Delving too far into this will really only result in driving the thread off topic.

[NeuroGuy]

Shadow and Nero, you two have spent a lot of time rehashing the same debates over and over and you always find yourself in the same dead ends. This is why I suggested we look at the resurrection of Jesus as an assumed truth to discuss the reaction of his return. Delving too far into this will really only result in driving the thread off topic.

I was concerned that my last few posts might be viewed as going off on a tangent. My reasoning for still including them is that the original topic regarding "the reception of Jesus at his second coming" is intimately linked to the historicity of the events of his first coming, so it seemed pertinent to the original discussion. I have no desire to hijack the thread, and I trust that what I'm contributing is relevant and facilitative to the original topic's development. That said, the spot that we've arrived at is in no way at a dead end, and I'd like to address that point before moving on.

I have to somewhat side with platypus on this point. Text does not prove something conclusively regardless of how popular said text is. True, scientific papers contain text though their results can be mostly replicated. The resurrection of Jesus and much of what is in the bible is history and cannot be replicated (unless we figure out how to make a time machine).

You view the bible and holy texts as hard evidence and that is where our views differ. To me these texts are stories containing possible truths. If you eliminate the bible/holy texts as being hard evidence you can see where it is possible to deny the link between Jesus and God.

I'm afraid that the texts that you refer to are being inappropriately dismissed, when there isn't sufficient grounds for dismissal. That might be what is driving some of the redundancy here, the "rehashing of the same debates" that you mentioned previously. The case I've presented does not rely on the assumption that "the Bible" is authoritative or hard evidence. The case merely relies on the (widely accepted) assumption that there are certain historically reliable segments within certain documents contained within that anthology otherwise known as the Bible. This position is defensible, and is accepted, as I've stated a few times now, by the vast majority of scholars (including both atheists and Christians) who specialize in the history of that time frame. As such, the acceptance of these facts does not rely on the "popularity" of said texts, but on the scholarly consensus that certain facts within these documents can be assumed to be historically reliable, namely, the aforementioned minimal facts. Please understand that this is not a case of "Christians appealing to their holy text," which seems to be the grounds for dismissing the minimal facts rather than addressing them. As such, this remains an on-going, viable debate, and it represents the most "cutting edge" research into the historical Jesus.

Texts written after the fact don't "prove" even that the tomb was empty, let alone that a "resurrection" happened. Come on guys.

Platypus, this is a straw man fallacy. Nowhere have I said that texts ''prove" that the resurrection happened, nor am I defending that the resurrection can be "proven" with said texts. The case I've been presenting has been that the resurrection theory provides the most explanatory power for addressing the minimal facts, facts that are derived from disparate sources that enjoy wide acceptance and scholarly credence as historically reliable. The fact that these disparate sources can be derived from certain texts does not in any way undermine their historicity or authenticity. Moreover, I have never been arguing for a position of absolute certainty, but one of reasonable probability; this last point I may not have said explicitly, so for that I will give you the benefit of the doubt. What I mean by this is that the various other theories (stolen-body theory, the swoon theory, the twin theory, vision theory, etc.) are refuted by the minimal facts. As such, the theory that "Christ actually rose from the dead as he claimed he would" has the most explanatory power among competing theories, which makes it the most reasonably probable conclusion. Again, I am arguing for reasonable probability, and it is obviously impossible (and unreasonable) to expect absolute certainty for any historical event.

Given all of the above reasoning, the following conclusion is derived: to not base one's conclusion concerning the resurrection of Jesus on reasonable probability via the analysis of the known facts, facts that ultimately suggest that the resurrection of Christ is the most reasonable explanation for the variables surrounding his death, is to merely hold a confirmation bias in order to favor a secular worldview. Thus, when Christ returns (and the above suggests that he will return), I expect that he'll be accepted with great joy by those who have been waiting for him.

Edited by NeuroGuy, 10 April 2013 - 02:48 PM.

[platypus]

Texts written after the fact don't "prove" even that the tomb was empty, let alone that a "resurrection" happened. Come on guys.

Platypus, this is a straw man fallacy. Nowhere have I said that texts ''prove" that the resurrection happened, nor am I defending that the resurrection can be "proven" with said texts. The case I've been presenting has been that the resurrection theory provides the most explanatory power for addressing the minimal facts, as the various other theories (stolen-body theory, the swoon theory, the twin theory, vision theory, etc.) are refuted by the minimal facts. As such, the theory that "Christ actually rose from the dead as he claimed he would" has the most explanatory power among competing theories, which makes it the most reasonably probable conclusion. I'm not arguing for absolute certainty, and it is obviously impossible (and unreasonable) to expect as much for any historical event.

The "resurrection theory" of course has most explanatory power within the Christian mythology, but not elsewhere. If you think the hearsay collected into biblical texts is reliable you do not understand humans very much. I recommend you familiarize yourself with the cult of John Frum and reflect what it tells us about humans:

https://en.wikipedia.../wiki/John_Frum
http://www.smithsoni...s/10021366.html

Given all of the above reasoning, the following conclusion is derived: to not base one's conclusion concerning the resurrection of Jesus on reasonable probability via the analysis of the known facts, facts that ultimately suggest that the resurrection of Christ is the most reasonable explanation for the variables surrounding his death, is to merely hold a confirmation bias in order to favor a secular worldview. Thus, when Christ returns (and the above suggests that he will return), I expect that he'll be accepted with great joy by those who have been waiting for him.

John Frum is coming back too, I'm sure he is :D

[NeuroGuy]

Texts written after the fact don't "prove" even that the tomb was empty, let alone that a "resurrection" happened. Come on guys.

Platypus, this is a straw man fallacy. Nowhere have I said that texts ''prove" that the resurrection happened, nor am I defending that the resurrection can be "proven" with said texts. The case I've been presenting has been that the resurrection theory provides the most explanatory power for addressing the minimal facts, as the various other theories (stolen-body theory, the swoon theory, the twin theory, vision theory, etc.) are refuted by the minimal facts. As such, the theory that "Christ actually rose from the dead as he claimed he would" has the most explanatory power among competing theories, which makes it the most reasonably probable conclusion. I'm not arguing for absolute certainty, and it is obviously impossible (and unreasonable) to expect as much for any historical event.

The "resurrection theory" of course has most explanatory power within the Christian mythology, but not elsewhere. If you think the hearsay collected into biblical texts is reliable you do not understand humans very much. I recommend you familiarize yourself with the cult of John Frum and reflect what it tells us about humans:

https://en.wikipedia.../wiki/John_Frum
http://www.smithsoni...s/10021366.html

Given all of the above reasoning, the following conclusion is derived: to not base one's conclusion concerning the resurrection of Jesus on reasonable probability via the analysis of the known facts, facts that ultimately suggest that the resurrection of Christ is the most reasonable explanation for the variables surrounding his death, is to merely hold a confirmation bias in order to favor a secular worldview. Thus, when Christ returns (and the above suggests that he will return), I expect that he'll be accepted with great joy by those who have been waiting for him.

John Frum is coming back too, I'm sure he is :D

Platypus, you're now committing the fallacy of ignoring the counter-evidence. I'm not sure if you're aware, but your posts are actually supporting my case. Rather than actually addressing the minimal facts with a tenable counter-theory, you repeatedly evince your confirmation bias through a continued denial of the minimal facts as "hearsay." If you had an expert opinion on the various sources used to compile those minimal facts, I wouldn't be able to make this assertion. But, assuming your giving an opinion as a lay person (and I apologize if that assumption is incorrect), you're essentially arguing against the prevailing academic consensus. That requires a good deal of research to support your point, and it would behoove you to provide it. That, or accept that the minimal facts are historically reliable, and offer a counter-theory that addresses them that we can publicly evaluate.

Edited by NeuroGuy, 10 April 2013 - 03:35 PM.

[platypus]

Texts written after the fact don't "prove" even that the tomb was empty, let alone that a "resurrection" happened. Come on guys.

Platypus, this is a straw man fallacy. Nowhere have I said that texts ''prove" that the resurrection happened, nor am I defending that the resurrection can be "proven" with said texts. The case I've been presenting has been that the resurrection theory provides the most explanatory power for addressing the minimal facts, as the various other theories (stolen-body theory, the swoon theory, the twin theory, vision theory, etc.) are refuted by the minimal facts. As such, the theory that "Christ actually rose from the dead as he claimed he would" has the most explanatory power among competing theories, which makes it the most reasonably probable conclusion. I'm not arguing for absolute certainty, and it is obviously impossible (and unreasonable) to expect as much for any historical event.

The "resurrection theory" of course has most explanatory power within the Christian mythology, but not elsewhere. If you think the hearsay collected into biblical texts is reliable you do not understand humans very much. I recommend you familiarize yourself with the cult of John Frum and reflect what it tells us about humans:

https://en.wikipedia.../wiki/John_Frum
http://www.smithsoni...s/10021366.html

Given all of the above reasoning, the following conclusion is derived: to not base one's conclusion concerning the resurrection of Jesus on reasonable probability via the analysis of the known facts, facts that ultimately suggest that the resurrection of Christ is the most reasonable explanation for the variables surrounding his death, is to merely hold a confirmation bias in order to favor a secular worldview. Thus, when Christ returns (and the above suggests that he will return), I expect that he'll be accepted with great joy by those who have been waiting for him.

John Frum is coming back too, I'm sure he is :D

Platypus, you're now committing the fallacy of ignoring the counter-evidence. I'm not sure if you're aware, but your posts are actually supporting my case. Rather than actually addressing the minimal facts with a tenable counter-theory, you repeatedly evince your confirmation bias through a continued denial of the minimal facts as "hearsay." If you had an expert opinion on the various sources used to compile those minimal facts, I wouldn't be able to make this assertion. But, assuming your giving an opinion as a lay person (and I apologize if that assumption is incorrect), you're essentially arguing against the prevailing academic consensus. That requires a good deal of research to support your point, and it would behoove you to provide it. That, or accept that the minimal facts are historically reliable, and offer a counter-theory that addresses them that we can publicly evaluate.

"Academic consensus" agrees that Jesus is the Son of God? What Planet are you on??

[NeuroGuy]

"Academic consensus" agrees that Jesus is the Son of God? What Planet are you on??

This is another straw man platypus. The academic consensus that the minimal facts are historically reliable; I never mentioned any consensus that Jesus is the son of God. Either you're failing to read my posts before responding, or you're unable to come up with either of the aforementioned credible responses, and choosing to evade the argument instead.

Edited by NeuroGuy, 10 April 2013 - 04:25 PM.

[platypus]

"Academic consensus" agrees that Jesus is the Son of God? What Planet are you on??

This is another straw man platypus. The academic consensus that the minimal facts are historically reliable, a collection of facts that does not include that Jesus is the son of God. You're either responding without fully understanding the argument, or you're unable to come up with either of the aforementioned credible responses, and choosing to evade the point instead.

So does the academic consensus really say that Jesus was abducted from his tomb by a supernatural force?

ps. Please read the two articles about John Frum and then elaborate why you think people around year 0 were any less gullible than the people believing in cargo cults still today. There are many groups of true believers in John Frum!

[NeuroGuy]

"Academic consensus" agrees that Jesus is the Son of God? What Planet are you on??

This is another straw man platypus. The academic consensus that the minimal facts are historically reliable, a collection of facts that does not include that Jesus is the son of God. You're either responding without fully understanding the argument, or you're unable to come up with either of the aforementioned credible responses, and choosing to evade the point instead.

So does the academic consensus really say that Jesus was abducted from his tomb by a supernatural force?

ps. Please read the two articles about John Frum and then elaborate why you think people around year 0 were any less gullible than the people believing in cargo cults still today. There are many groups of true believers in John Frum!

This is your third straw man; I sincerely ask you not to make anymore, as this does divert the discussion away from the topic. The academic consensus does not say that Jesus was taken from his tomb by supernatural force, nor have I ever stated that it does. Once again, you're evading the argument by exaggerating the arguments, further supporting my case that those unwilling to evaluate the known facts are merely maintaining the confirmation bias of their own secular worldview.

Also, I did read the two articles on John Frum; I've studied anthropology in the past, and the John Frum case is both interesting and sad. But, again, your ignoring the counter-evidence. I'll grant you this: there are many irrational cults and religious beliefs, and people were just as gullible then as they are today. It is precisely because of that fact that objective, critical skepticism is needed. Yet it appears that that is exactly what you are failing to provide regarding your own secular worldview: you assume it without critically evaluating the argument your presently debating, namely, the issue of explaining the minimal facts. The fact that people are just as gullible in the past as they are today should make one more open to questioning their own belief, including the belief in secularism, and it is only the belief in secularism that precludes the possibility of a resurrection as an explanation to the minimal facts.

[platypus]

The fact that people are just as gullible in the past as they are today should make one more open to questioning their own belief, including the belief in secularism, and it is only the belief in secularism that precludes the possibility of a resurrection as an explanation to the minimal facts.

Why would rationals not be resurrected? It seems that your belief in an evolved version of the Cult of Jesus is making you think that other religions are less correct. Your personal feeling proves nothing, as you probably know.

ps. sorry if I'm hijacking the thread but arguing that it's somehow logical to believe in Christianity because what is written is the Bible seems absurd to me. Besides both Muslims and Mormons have received an updated version of the scripture, which should surely override previous prophecies.

[mikeinnaples]

But to claim that there is no evidence for the resurrection is an untenable position.

Most of the 'evidence' I see people present in arguments is testimonial in the form of hearsay. Alright, so someone that hated Jesus 2000 years ago had a vision (hallucination) and claimed to see Jesus. Yeah ok.....

[NeuroGuy]

The fact that people are just as gullible in the past as they are today should make one more open to questioning their own belief, including the belief in secularism, and it is only the belief in secularism that precludes the possibility of a resurrection as an explanation to the minimal facts.

Why would rationals not be resurrected? It seems that your belief in an evolved version of the Cult of Jesus is making you think that other religions are less correct. Your personal feeling proves nothing, as you probably know.

ps. sorry if I'm hijacking the thread but arguing that it's somehow logical to believe in Christianity because what is written is the Bible seems absurd to me. Besides both Muslims and Mormons have received an updated version of the scripture, which should surely override previous prophecies.

Fourth straw man, and this side conversation is starting to hijack the thread. I've made and supported my points, and I leave them open for others to critically evaluate. Platypus, if you're genuinely interested in this, I suggest researching the views of various contemporary historians who specialize in ancient Rome and Palestine, and particularly the recent work of Gary Habermas. Friend, I sincerely wish you the best.

Edited by NeuroGuy, 10 April 2013 - 06:33 PM.

[mikeinnaples]

Given all of the above reasoning, the following conclusion is derived: to not base one's conclusion concerning the resurrection of Jesus on reasonable probability via the analysis of the known facts, facts that ultimately suggest that the resurrection of Christ is the most reasonable explanation for the variables surrounding his death, is to merely hold a confirmation bias in order to favor a secular worldview. Thus, when Christ returns (and the above suggests that he will return), I expect that he'll be accepted with great joy by those who have been waiting for him.

Between the statement I quoted and the rest of the 'argument' I have seen you make, I am wondering if you doing it on purpose. You are pointing out fallacy in other people, yet somehow manage to ignore your own broad spectrum and blatant use of it. Reading your posts reminds me of an exam question I had when I was in college. We were basically given a rather large written argument and was asked to identify as many different fallacies as we could.

No offense, but if you aren't doing this on purpose, I would suggest not criticizing other people.

[Lister]

This is pretty much exactly why I was attempting to deflect the argument onto one based on speculation rather than “facts”. What qualifies as a fact in my eyes may not in your eyes and vise-versa.

Nero, for us to qualify what you view as being “minimal facts” we would have to table said facts and pick them apart. We could do this if we were aiming to challenge issues related to a world reaction to the second coming of Jesus though I’m not really sure how we could do that…

I personally haven’t read everything related to what is viewed as being facts regarding to the resurrection of Jesus. Perhaps if I spent the time reviewing this information I may arrive at the same conclusion. Thing is though just as a religious person may be satisfied with their view of the information, I am satisfied with my view.

Whether Jesus did indeed exist; whether Jesus was crucified and whether he will come back from the dead… all of that is very important and very deep and really something we should talk at length about – but in other threads related to those issues. We have to assume that all of this is true if we want to have a conversation about the effects of the second coming do we not?

[shadowhawk]

This is pretty much exactly why I was attempting to deflect the argument onto one based on speculation rather than “facts”. What qualifies as a fact in my eyes may not in your eyes and vise-versa.

Nero, for us to qualify what you view as being “minimal facts” we would have to table said facts and pick them apart. We could do this if we were aiming to challenge issues related to a world reaction to the second coming of Jesus though I’m not really sure how we could do that…

I personally haven’t read everything related to what is viewed as being facts regarding to the resurrection of Jesus. Perhaps if I spent the time reviewing this information I may arrive at the same conclusion. Thing is though just as a religious person may be satisfied with their view of the information, I am satisfied with my view.

Whether Jesus did indeed exist; whether Jesus was crucified and whether he will come back from the dead… all of that is very important and very deep and really something we should talk at length about – but in other threads related to those issues. We have to assume that all of this is true if we want to have a conversation about the effects of the second coming do we not?

This is off topic but:

1.There is such a thing as a historical fact and historical scholars would laugh at the suggestion there isn’t. There are many non repeatable facts in science such as the big bang. Anything that moves or changes, though historical, can be a fact. Saying something has to be repeatable is philosophical, not a fact.

2. “minimal facts’ in history, refer to what elements most agree to, not that every conceivable skeptic must agree to. Think everyone agrees in science? Try to convince a three year old of anything or an idiot. It takes a certain maturity to recognize a fact. Just saying there are no facts is not a fact. Why? Cuz

3 Think this is off topic here? There is a thread on the evidence for the resurrection of Christ. Satisfied with your present view. OK

4. The Second Coming is related to the First Coming is it not?.

[NeuroGuy]

This is pretty much exactly why I was attempting to deflect the argument onto one based on speculation rather than “facts”. What qualifies as a fact in my eyes may not in your eyes and vise-versa.

I think you really highlighted the obstacle that has caused the hiccup in this thread when you referenced what has been discussed as what I view as the facts. I guess it might be faulty communication on my part or a failure to cite the proper sources, and if that is the case I apologize. But the point I have been trying to make (and somehow have failed to get across) is that it is not merely my opinion that these are facts; my own opinion would obviously be subjective and, as you said, "What qualifies as a fact in my eyes may not in your eyes and vise-versa," which is perfectly fair outside of an academic context. Thus, it would be pointless to relay what I view as facts in the context of this discussion. The opinion I was referencing, however, was the "academic consensus" that kept being misunderstood, not my opinion. It is their opinion (those scholars who have a genuine expert opinion) that there are certain details surrounding the death of Jesus that are historically reliable, and it is as such that they are considered "historical facts" by said scholars. Therein is the central qualifier for regarding the "minimal facts" as genuine facts: I was utilizing an expert opinion (and this is not a false appeal to authority: a consensus in this regard really does exist among the germane scholars). The failure to understand that point may be what led in part to the digression of this discussion. Beyond that, I really don't know how else to communicate that I have not been relaying my personal subjective opinion regarding the historicity of certain details (aside from the resurrection itself, which I agree is my personal subjective opinion, though one that is supported through the analysis of the aforementioned data).

I personally haven’t read everything related to what is viewed as being facts regarding to the resurrection of Jesus. Perhaps if I spent the time reviewing this information I may arrive at the same conclusion. Thing is though just as a religious person may be satisfied with their view of the information, I am satisfied with my view.

I can respect this. I do encourage you to take the time, as you said, to study the aforementioned data and see why they comprise one of the best cases for the resurrection. As I mentioned briefly in another post, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Dr. Gary Habermas is an excellent, comprehensive resource to start with, as it also explains the nature of the scholarly credence behind the "facts."

Whether Jesus did indeed exist; whether Jesus was crucified and whether he will come back from the dead… all of that is very important and very deep and really something we should talk at length about – but in other threads related to those issues. We have to assume that all of this is true if we want to have a conversation about the effects of the second coming do we not?

This is entirely fair and you're right, one must assume that all of this is true anyway if we want to have a conversation about the original topic. At this point, it really would be best to just move forward with that, and leave the minimal facts discussion for another thread (in which I'd be happy to continue discussing it).

Edited by NeuroGuy, 11 April 2013 - 04:46 AM.