“I do object to the propagation of myths disguised as logic”

Ok, that’s fine. Object all you wish. But please, provide me with some reasons for your objections so I can understand where you’re coming from. Why do you believe that Jesus resurrection is a myth?

“>>I'm no historian or NT scholar. But when 90% of NT scholars agree on something, that would suggest that there's very good reasons that they're right.<<

Not at all. Vide Galileo.”

So let me get this straight.

Critical scholars examine some historical data and over 90% of them come to a certain conclusion. Yet, you think that they do NOT have any good reasons for coming to that conclusion? THAT’s an illogical and unreasonable stance.

Science is based on assumptions, which can be tested and challenged, as Galileo did. These assumptions frequently change over time. However, the historical method is unlikely to change. The way historians go about coming to conclusions about historical events, is unlikely to change.

Of course our knowledge of history will change in the future. The data we have can only grow stronger as we discover more ancient writings and ancient artifacts.

“I can prove my train was three minutes late, and that the guy in the coffee shop said "Good morning Pericles"

You can tell me that your train was late. You can’t prove to me uncategorically, that it happened. If you think you can, please try. I’ll then look at the evidence and decide whether it’s likely that your train was actually 3 minutes late.

In the same way, we can look at the evidence regarding Jesus and ask ourselves- where does this point? My contention is that the evidence that we have points to the conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead.

We can, however, come to conclusions based on the historical data. You seem to strongly disagree with my conclusion, so please, feel free to go into further detail as to why.

(I realise this is a late reply. I wrote it this morning, will reply to your most recent reply when I get a chance).

Sancho,

You're not making much sense other than that you have a desperate need to believe what you want to believe. You confuse evolutionary theories (and there are many) with Darwin's contribution, which wasn't evolutionary theory, but natural selection. Read Darwin's book "The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". Note Hitler's appeal to Darwinian Natural Selection in the quote I gave 15 December. Hitler might have hated evolution but he loved Natural Selection for the preservation of the favoured races. Who are the favoured races? I couldn't give a stuff about evolution (there are far too many theories anyway) but natural sleection is a worry.

It's easy to quote Hitler's early appeals to Christianity but have a look at his later loathing of it! Seems he's on your side! Refer my reply 15 December. I note you've been extremely selective in your quotes.....naughty boy!

Why is natural selection a worry?

Dear Francis,

What you are worried about is not natural selection, but artificial selection.

The only time evolution via natural selection becomes a worry, is when evil people in a position of power don’t understand it, and then think that they can somehow artificially apply it to suit a warped and twisted idological belief.

Like with anything else, ignorance is the danger here, not natural selection, and we have religion - particularly the religious fundamentalists - to thank for much of society’s ignorance in this area.

Some odd questions, Trav. And some reasonable ones.

>>please, provide me with some reasons for your objections [to the propagation of myths disguised as logic] so I can understand where you’re coming from.<<

I'm puzzled that you need reasons. I object, simply because each reiteration of the myth needs a belief in the myth that precedes it. That's not argument, that's dogma.

>>Why do you believe that Jesus resurrection is a myth? <<

Because independent evidence for its occurrence is non-existent. And the event itself has never been explained, except in terms that require a pre-existing belief in the religion that has been built around it.

>>Critical scholars examine some historical data and over 90% of them come to a certain conclusion. Yet, you think that they do NOT have any good reasons for coming to that conclusion?<<

Their profession is "critical scholar". That's reason enough.

But it's also why I referred to Galileo.

Right up to the point at which denial becomes ridiculous, the reactionary belief holds "true". The first voice of truth is necessarily a lone one - at which point 99.9999% of "critical scholars" come to a certain conclusion.

And are wrong.

But this is key also:

>>Of course our knowledge of history will change in the future. The data we have can only grow stronger as we discover more ancient writings and ancient artifacts.<<

You are, of course, automatically assuming the new material will support your view.

What if it doesn't? Will you accept it, or dispute it?

>>You can tell me that your train was late. You can’t prove to me uncategorically<<

That's my point.

I don't need faith to see my train is late, merely a watch. Nor do I need to prove it to you, in much the same way that you don't need to "prove" Christianity to me.

If, however, I decided that we should go to war against the SRA on the strength of my tardy train, you would be very much within your rights to interrogate all concerned.

Especially if all I said was "have faith that I am right".

“Are you telling me that you believe everything this “biblical scholar” writes?”

No, but I’m happy to agree with things that he says which 95% of other scholars agree on. Some of Crossan’s positions are controversial, but I’m not taking any controversial position here, or any position which is difficult to prove. The evidences I outlined in my above post are agreed to by virtually all scholars (except 75% with the empty tomb). I’m using him as an example, to prove that even the most radical of scholars agree Jesus died by crucifixion.

“None of the gospel writers was there at the time”

There is serious debate about this. Many scholars hold that Matthew and John were eyewitnesses to Jesus ministry.

Regardless, this shouldn’t influence our conclusions on whether Jesus rose from the dead. As far as I’m concerned it’s a red herring in this discussion, because it’s not something that’s assumed with any of the evidence I’ve offered.

There were however eyewitnesses to the risen Jesus. Namely, James and the other disciples.

“As for Josephus…….the famous “reference” was added centuries later”

One of the biggest experts on Josephus is Louis Feldman, who surveyed scholarly writings on Josephus between 1937-1980. He was asked for an estimate of how many contemporary scholars accept Testimonium Flavianum in one form or another. His response? A ratio of at least 3 to 1, possibly as much as 5 to 1 accept it*. In other words, 75% to 90% of scholars accept the writing in one form or another (ie: There are two versions, both mention Jesus in some form). Remembering that there are only 3 sentences in any serious dispute.

(*footnotes, Case for the resurrection of Jesus, Habermas/Licona)

This means we can be fairly sure that this was an extremely early, and hostile/nonchristian historical reference to Jesus, the crucifixion, and early followers.


Regarding sources, many were independent.

But regardless, this is why we consider the earliest sources to be the best evidence. The oral tradition in 1 Corinthians 15 dates the resurrection story to Jerusalem, within a maximum of 5 years of Jesus cruxifixion