Isaiah 52:13-53: whatever..

[Hope]

Not really. It is a matter of personal belief, or lack of belief, so isn't a valid argument to use. If a Christian says something is true because Jesus is divine then the Christian has to show that to be true or else the argument is invalid.

Again, I'd disagree, insofar as it is the 'lack of belief' position that most atheists and non-Christians base their arguements on.  They can't use science - such as the suggestion that because humans can't come back to life (but don't forget to tell the hundreds of doctors, who perform such miracles every year, that they can't), simply because they can't categorically prove that Jesus was 'merely' human.

As I've said on many occasions previously, the problem is that the two sides of the debate are arguing from completely different starting points which are largely mutually exclusive.  Sadly, there is no conclusive evidence for the sole validity of either pov.

[Hope]

No it isn't. Non Christians do not accept special magic explanations. If you want to convince us that Jesus could have resurrected because he was "special", you first need to show that he was special.

It is a perfectly valid argument simply because - as I've just pointed out in my previous post - the two side of the debate are starting from hugely differenct understandings of reality.  Is naturalistic science and its thinking, the sole arbiter of reality - or is reality broader, more multi-faceted than 'mere' naturalism?  Without an answer to that conundrum, no-one will be able to claim an argumentative 'victory'.

No we don't. You are the one making the argument, you show it to be true.

Sorry, jeremy, when atheists and non-believers make categorical statements and assertions, as many here do, believers here are just as entitled to request evidence to support those statements as non-believers are of believers.  Furthermore, whilst documentary evidence of what Christians believe remain on the table of public accessibility, that evidence has to be shown to be wrong.  Arguing the case that it could be wrong, or might be wrong, yet without providing evidence of that case, doesn't hold water.

[jeremyp]

Well, one way would be for a skeleton that can be positively proved to have been that of Jesus to be discovered (there will no doubt be plenty of Jews who trace their ancestry back to Joseph and Mary thus providing a source of her DNA).

It's 2,000 years since Mary lived. Probably every Jew alive today is related in some way to every Jew who was alive in 1CE. DNA won't help you.

Another would be the discovery or release of an official Jewish document of the time attesting to the events surrounding the crucifixion of this clearly dangerous man (after all, which other 'messiah' was initially arrested by the Jews, found guilty and then handed over to the Romans?) and the long-term disposal of his body.

As far as we know this does not exist. Since the preservation of documentary evidence was at one time monopolised by Christians, a document refuting the resurrection is unlikely to survive.

However, I think it is much more likely that no such document exists because the importance of Jesus and the earliest church has been exaggerated and it was never written in the first place.

In other words, there are ways in which the documentary evidence for the resurrection story could be categorically shown to be false.

It can be categorically be shown to be false by observing what happens to a dead body over the course of two days.

[Maeght]

Again, I'd disagree, insofar as it is the 'lack of belief' position that most atheists and non-Christians base their arguements on.  They can't use science - such as the suggestion that because humans can't come back to life (but don't forget to tell the hundreds of doctors, who perform such miracles every year, that they can't), simply because they can't categorically prove that Jesus was 'merely' human.

I've been making that point regarding the use of that argument.

As I've said on many occasions previously, the problem is that the two sides of the debate are arguing from completely different starting points which are largely mutually exclusive.  Sadly, there is no conclusive evidence for the sole validity of either pov.

Agreed.

[Maeght]

It is a perfectly valid argument simply because - as I've just pointed out in my previous post - the two side of the debate are starting from hugely differenct understandings of reality.  Is naturalistic science and its thinking, the sole arbiter of reality - or is reality broader, more multi-faceted than 'mere' naturalism?  Without an answer to that conundrum, no-one will be able to claim an argumentative 'victory'.

That doesn't make it a valid argument

Sorry, jeremy, when atheists and non-believers make categorical statements and assertions, as many here do, believers here are just as entitled to request evidence to support those statements as non-believers are of believers.  Furthermore, whilst documentary evidence of what Christians believe remain on the table of public accessibility, that evidence has to be shown to be wrong.  Arguing the case that it could be wrong, or might be wrong, yet without providing evidence of that case, doesn't hold water.

Agreed

[jeremyp]

but don't forget to tell the hundreds of doctors, who perform such miracles every year

You are claiming a doctor can revive a two day old corpse. I want to see some evidence to support that bullshit.

[Maeght]

It can be categorically be shown to be false by observing what happens to a dead body over the course of two days.

Only if Jesus was human and not divine, so this argument is based on a belief or lack of belief so categorically shows nothing.

[Gordon]

Well, one way would be for a skeleton that can be positively proved to have been that of Jesus to be discovered (there will no doubt be plenty of Jews who trace their ancestry back to Joseph and Mary thus providing a source of her DNA).

So what would be the protocol for an investigation on this basis, such as the basis to conclude that a specific skeleton was that of Jesus. In any event that the Jewish people today whose current DNA is studied show descent from Jews in antiquity would be no great surprise so I can't see how this helps.

Another would be the discovery or release of an official Jewish document of the time attesting to the events surrounding the crucifixion of this clearly dangerous man (after all, which other 'messiah' was initially arrested by the Jews, found guilty and then handed over to the Romans?) and the long-term disposal of his body.

The 'authorities;, as you've often referred to them, appear to have recorded nothing about Jesus being anything special and he was executed as a routine troublemaker, allegedly alongside two other routine troublemakers - so this suggestion seems like you flying a kite, again.

In other words, there are ways in which the documentary evidence for the resurrection story could be categorically shown to be false.

[jeremyp]

Only if Jesus was human and not divine, so this argument is based on a belief or lack of belief so categorically shows nothing.

There is no evidence that Jesus was divine.

Either

• some humans lied about a resurrection
• God suspended the laws of physics

Which do you think is the more likely?

[Maeght]

There is no evidence that Jesus was divine.

Either

• some humans lied about a resurrection
• God suspended the laws of physics

Which do you think is the more likely?

Once again you seem to be missing my point. Saying to someone who believes that Jesus was divine couldn't do this or that because humans don't/can't do that is pointless since that person believes Jesus was special and could do such things. Because I have no belief in God I see other natural explanations much more likely but that is not what I am talking about.

[floo]

jeremy, I think that it is an argument that is perfectly valid - the non-Christians have somehow got to show evidence that the understanding is false

No Hope, it is the ones claiming a fantastical tale is true who have to provide the evidence to support their belief, as you have been told many times!

[jeremyp]

Saying to someone who believes that Jesus was divine couldn't do this or that because humans don't/can't do that is pointless

Wrong. It's the person who believes that Jesus was divine who is making the argument, therefore it is for them to show he was divine.

since that person believes Jesus was special and could do such things.

Then they should be honest and just say "I believe Jesus was resurrected because I have faith". They shouldn't waste time trying to engage in rational discourse where the rules say they can't make such assertions without evidence.

[Gordon]

Again, I'd disagree, insofar as it is the 'lack of belief' position that most atheists and non-Christians base their arguements on.  They can't use science - such as the suggestion that because humans can't come back to life (but don't forget to tell the hundreds of doctors, who perform such miracles every year, that they can't), simply because they can't categorically prove that Jesus was 'merely' human.

Drivel - medicine isn't 'miraculous': it is applied naturalistic science within a field where the science continues to develop. I see you've again used the negative proof fallacy: when will you even learn to avoid this obvious reasoning error bearing in mind it has been pointed out to you numerous times.

As I've said on many occasions previously, the problem is that the two sides of the debate are arguing from completely different starting points which are largely mutually exclusive.  Sadly, there is no conclusive evidence for the sole validity of either pov.

More drivel - constantly pointing out your repeated use of fallacies doesn't imply an alternative point of view.

[Maeght]

Wrong. It's the person who believes that Jesus was divine who is making the argument, therefore it is for them to show he was divine.

Missed the point again.

Then they should be honest and just say "I believe Jesus was resurrected because I have faith".

Yes they should.

They shouldn't waste time trying to engage in rational discourse where the rules say they can't make such assertions without evidence.

Agreed - they should present their beliefs as beliefs. Fair enough to look for supporting evidence - if a claim for divinity is made it has to be supported evidence if it is to be used as a basis for other points.

[jeremyp]

Missed the point again.

Keep trying, you'll get it eventually.

[Maeght]

Keep trying, you'll get it eventually.

Very funny.

[Shaker]

As I've said on many occasions previously, the problem is that the two sides of the debate are arguing from completely different starting points which are largely mutually exclusive.  Sadly, there is no conclusive evidence for the sole validity of either pov.

You couldn't be more wrong, although you do try.

There's a ton of evidence for one position, none at all for the other.

[Shaker]

It is a perfectly valid argument simply because - as I've just pointed out in my previous post - the two side of the debate are starting from hugely differenct understandings of reality.  Is naturalistic science and its thinking, the sole arbiter of reality - or is reality broader, more multi-faceted than 'mere' naturalism?  Without an answer to that conundrum, no-one will be able to claim an argumentative 'victory'.

You could always provide some methodology for what no doubt you think of as your alternative to naturalism.

Not that you will, of course.

Sorry, jeremy, when atheists and non-believers make categorical statements and assertions, as many here do, believers here are just as entitled to request evidence to support those statements as non-believers are of believers.  Furthermore, whilst documentary evidence of what Christians believe remain on the table of public accessibility, that evidence has to be shown to be wrong.  Arguing the case that it could be wrong, or might be wrong, yet without providing evidence of that case, doesn't hold water.

You know what this is called, don't you?

[Shaker]

Drivel - medicine isn't 'miraculous': it is applied naturalistic science within a field where the science continues to develop. I see you've again used the negative proof fallacy: when will you even learn to avoid this obvious reasoning error bearing in mind it has been pointed out to you numerous times.

He not only won't but apparently can't, because by all appearances he seems to have built what he no doubt thinks of as his faith position on it. Let go of that and presumably the whole lot comes tumbling down around his ears. What other explanation can there be for the fact that the negative proof fallacy and why it's wrong has been pointed out to him so many times by so many over such a long period, yet he can barely put fingers to keyboard with committing it?

[Owlswing]

WOW! How much do you want to borrow?

About 30 years?

[Owlswing]

Yes, a different point and quite right. I accept your point. Do you accept mine?

Yes, but what gets me is the way in which believers question the sanity (we are nuts, silly, etc) and intelligence (stupid) of those who do NOT believe.

[Owlswing]

No we don't. You are the one making the argument, you show it to be true.

How many more times has the Almighty and All-Knowing Hope got to tell you - IT IS IN THE BIBLE SO NO FURTHER PROOF IS REQUIRED!

[ippy]

Once again you seem to be missing my point. Saying to someone who believes that Jesus was divine couldn't do this or that because humans don't/can't do that is pointless since that person believes Jesus was special and could do such things. Because I have no belief in God I see other natural explanations much more likely but that is not what I am talking about.

Hi Maeght, this is what Thomas Paine had to say about it just over two hundred years ago it still stands, he was a Quaker:

"If we are to suppose a miracle to be something so entirely out of the course of what is called nature, that she must go out of that course to accomplish it; it raises the question in the mind very easily decided, which is: Is it more probable that nature should out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie"?

Just thought you might like it?

ippy

PS Just a thought, you could say Hope's having another one of his Alan Burns moments.

[Dicky Underpants]

I think the clue is that Israel is never referred to as 'he' in such contexts.

If that's meant to be an argument, it's worse than threadbare. If it had anything going for it, you'd have to assume the sudden switch of identity occurred between Isaiah chapters 41 and 42.
In Isaiah 41 we read:
"[8] But you, Israel, my servant,
 Jacob, whom I have chosen,
 the offspring of Abraham, my friend;

[9] you whom I took from the ends of the earth,
 and called from its farthest corners,
 saying to you, "You are my servant,
 I have chosen you and not cast you off";

and in chapter 42:

[1] Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights;
 I have put my Spirit upon HIM,
 HE will bring forth justice to the nations.


I suggest that Isaiah 52 - 53 were just texts used to source the narrative and theology of the NT, just as so many other OT texts appear to have been used for this purpose, without there being much actual history to corroborate the details. Those details being somewhat meagre: Jesus went around preaching and teaching, and was crucified.

[Maeght]

Hi Maeght, this is what Thomas Paine had to say about it just over two hundred years ago it still stands, he was a Quaker:

"If we are to suppose a miracle to be something so entirely out of the course of what is called nature, that she must go out of that course to accomplish it; it raises the question in the mind very easily decided, which is: Is it more probable that nature should out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie"?

Just thought you might like it?

ippy

PS Just a thought, you could say Hope's having another one of his Alan Burns moments.

Thanks Ippy, but afgain what I am referring to is the mindset of the Christian to whom the point is being made. If they believe miracles happen it is pointless arguing that such events don't happen otherwise.

I am, I must say, at a bit of a loss as to why so many clever people on here are having trouble understanding my point. I am not arguing that miracles happen, I am saying to someone who believes in them just saying 'humans don't do that' is a non argument.