Isaiah 52:13-53: whatever..

[Owlswing]

I never said my opinion was evidence, but neither is yours!

Oh yes it is, young Floo, because our Hope is omniscient - he's told us so often enough and some of us still have a good laugh every time he does it and disproves it in the same sentence!

[Shaker]

And you have evidence for that assertion?  In case you have forgotten, people have been making that argument for nigh-on 2000 years but none have ever managed to produce a body.

If your bar of belief is set as ridiculously low as that then Hitler is still alive

[floo]

Oh yes it is, young Floo, because our Hope is omniscient - he's told us so often enough and some of us still have a good laugh every time he does it and disproves it in the same sentence!

Thanks for the 'young Floo' comment, I LOVE you!

[Gonnagle]

Dear Rhiannon,

It would be nice to see Christians be honest here about their beliefs being in spite of the evidence and not because of it.

Not in spite of, because of, the exact same for a follower of Islam, Judaism, Paganism etc etc, but it is personal evidence, it works for them.

Gonnagle.

[Rhiannon]

And you have evidence for that assertion?  In case you have forgotten, people have been making that argument for nigh-on 2000 years but none have ever managed to produce a body. In view of the serious issues that the Jewish religious leadership had with him and his teaching one would expect that they would have ensured that the body couldn't be spirited away.

'One would assume' is not historical method. Publish a history book stuffed with assumptions and 'no evidence to the contrary so I can believe what I like however bonkers' and you're dead in the water. But Lion will publish it for you and call it 'theology' or maybe 'Christian studies'.

[Maeght]

But that's just special pleading - the assertion, on zero evidence, that Jesus is the exception to the fate which has befallen every single last living thing in the entire history of the world since for ever. This is precisely and exactly the sort of special pleading you'd expect of anyone trying to make Jesus a special case, but that's merely assertion.

Yes it is, it is a belief. But to argue that it can't have happened because it doesn't normally happen misses the point. People who believe it are making a special case for Jesus because they believe he was special.

[Rhiannon]

Yes it is, it is a belief. But to argue that it can't have happened because it doesn't normally happen misses the point. People who believe it are making a special case for Jesus because they believe he was special.

But them the onus is on them to prove the specialness - to prove why the rules that apply to every other human being don't apply here. Otherwise we're back to can't have happened.

There is at least a certain honesty with those who make faith about belief and not evidence.

[Shaker]

Yes it is, it is a belief. But to argue that it can't have happened because it doesn't normally happen misses the point. People who believe it are making a special case for Jesus because they believe he was special.

In a viciously circular way at that - he was special because he was Jesus, and because he was Jesus he was therefore special. It's a pretty dismal and depressing way of going on, to me.

[Maeght]

In a viciously circular way at that - he was special because he was Jesus, and because he was Jesus he was therefore special. It's a pretty dismal and depressing way of going on, to me.

He was special, as far as they are concerned, because he was the Son of God or God in human form or whatever.

[Gordon]

And you are certain that there is 'zero evidence', Shakes? 

The problem with your argument is that you have to ignore documentary evidence that exists to the fact of the resurrection

Anecdotal accounts, Hope, not facts - and you've still explain how you've excluded the risks of mistakes or lies in the account since as things stand they are indistinguishable from fiction.

because you, nor anyone else, has ever been able to disprove the evidence.  That's special pleading, if anything is.

Nope - this is you deploying the negative proof fallacy again:  at this rate you'll wear it out.

[Maeght]

But them the onus is on them to prove the specialness - to prove why the rules that apply to every other human being don't apply here. Otherwise we're back to can't have happened.

There is at least a certain honesty with those who make faith about belief and not evidence.

Sure - but that's not my point. My point is that an argument which says Jesus couldn't have died and come back to life because humans can't do that misses the point that Christians do not consider Jesus to be an ordinary human like everyone else.

[Maeght]

And you are certain that there is 'zero evidence', Shakes? 

The problem with your argument is that you have to ignore documentary evidence that exists to the fact of the resurrection because you, nor anyone else, has ever been able to disprove the evidence.  That's special pleading, if anything is.

The one thing which I would see as support for Jesus' resurrection would be the clear belief in it of the authors of the Gospels. If I had a belief in God I am sure I would see this as good evidence. Since I do not then I see other possible explanations for what is written in the Gospels as being much more likely.

[Rhiannon]

Sure - but that's not my point. My point is that an argument which says Jesus couldn't have died and come back to life because humans can't do that misses the point that Christians do not consider Jesus to be an ordinary human like everyone else.

In which case we are talking matters of faith and not facts. Which is fine if that is where it gets left. Only it doesn't.

[Gordon]

Sure - but that's not my point. My point is that an argument which says Jesus couldn't have died and come back to life because humans can't do that misses the point that Christians do not consider Jesus to be an ordinary human like everyone else.

Then it is important to point out that their arguments are fallacious.

[Owlswing]

Thanks for the 'young Floo' comment, I LOVE you!

Thanks, Young Lady!

[Maeght]

Then it is important to point out that their arguments are fallacious.

But do you see my point?

[Maeght]

In which case we are talking matters of faith and not facts. Which is fine if that is where it gets left. Only it doesn't.

We are indeed talking about matters of faith - but if Jesus was who he said he was I see no reason to say that he couldn't have risen from the dead. I don't believe he was/did but my point, pure and simple, is that arguing that Jesus couldn't have risen from the dead because humans don't do that is missing the point about Jesus.

[Gordon]

We are indeed talking about matters of faith - but if Jesus was who he said he was I see no reason to say that he couldn't have risen from the dead. I don't believe he was/did but my point, pure and simple, is that arguing that Jesus couldn't have risen from the dead because humans don't do that is missing the point about Jesus.

Thing is though, the point that Jesus was who he said he was (or more accurately what other people claim he said) would be fine if: a) Christians could demonstrate this via an appropriate method, which they can't, or b) since they can't they would keep this stuff to themselves: but they don't since they have had, and would like to keep but are losing, special privileges for their beliefs in the public arena (such as in the public education system).

Therefore it is reasonable to challenge whatever points they assert, such as that a claimed miraculous resurrection from being dead is a historical fact.

[Shaker]

Therefore it is reasonable to challenge whatever points they assert, such as that a claimed miraculous resurrection from being dead is a historical fact.

... as claimed by Hope five-and-a-half hours ago in #41 on this very thread, for example.

[Maeght]

Thing is though, the point that Jesus was who he said he was (or more accurately what other people claim he said) would be fine if: a) Christians could demonstrate this via an appropriate method, which they can't, or b) since they can't they would keep this stuff to themselves: but they don't since they have had, and would like to keep but are losing, special privileges for their beliefs in the public arena (such as in the public education system).

Therefore it is reasonable to challenge whatever points they assert, such as that a claimed miraculous resurrection from being dead is a historical fact.

Absolutely - but that is not my point. My point is purely and simply that saying to Christians that Jesus couldn't have risen from the dead because humans can't do that misses the point that, in Christian's eyes, Jesus is unlike any other human. Its the same as arguing that miracles are not credible because things like that don't normally happen - but that's why they are considered miracles.

[Rhiannon]

But none of that means the argument shouldn't be made.

[Maeght]

But none of that means the argument shouldn't be made.

People can make whatever arguments they like. But it makes no sense to me.

[Gordon]

Absolutely - but that is not my point. My point is purely and simply that saying to Christians that Jesus couldn't have risen from the dead because humans can't do that misses the point that, in Christian's eyes, Jesus is unlike any other human. Its the same as arguing that miracles are not credible because things like that don't normally happen - but that's why they are considered miracles.

I get that, but I still think that for as long as they make their claims in the public arena they should be rebutted in the public arena.

[Rhiannon]

People can make whatever arguments they like. But it makes no sense to me.

If a Christian asks us to believe something as true for us then it's right to make the argument that without evidence that Jesus was divine there's no reason to think that different rules apply to him compared to other humans. I accept that there's no need to argue with someone just going about their business, but if someone wants to make their true for them true for me also, that needs challenging.

[Maeght]

If a Christian asks us to believe something as true for us then it's right to make the argument that without evidence that Jesus was divine there's no reason to think that different rules apply to him compared to other humans.

Yes - but saying Jesus couldn't come back to life because humans don't do that doesn't address the point of whether he was divine or not. The non-Christian takes it he wasn't so the argument applies - a Christian takes it he was so the argument doesn't apply.

I accept that there's no need to argue with someone just going about their business, but if someone wants to make their true for them true for me also, that needs challenging.

Absolutely, but the 'challenge' has to make sense doesn't it?