tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post5415848329127432732..comments2024-01-04T11:40:48.827-06:00Comments on Dr Michael G Strauss: Facts vs FaithMichael G Strausshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comBlogger208125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-12802728947734428512020-02-18T00:59:17.763-06:002020-02-18T00:59:17.763-06:00"On what basis would he do that? Would any of..."On what basis would he do that? Would any of your close relatives ever claim that you were divine based on their interactions with you?"<br /><br />It is irrelevant what my relatives or anyone else's relatives living TODAY would claim. What is relevant is what the family of Jesus, living in first century Palestine, would claim. And according to the author of Acts, chapter one, all the brothers of Jesus were already believers within weeks of Jesus' death. Why? Why were they all believers? Answer: We don't know. But what is odd is that if all their conversions were due to a recent appearance of Jesus, there is no mention of this fact anywhere in the Book of Acts. Even if one of the brother's, James, claimed to have received an appearance of Jesus, we have no evidence that any of the other brother's claimed to have received an appearance. This strongly suggests that the majority of Jesus' brothers converted to Christianity for reasons other than an appearance experience. If most of Jesus' brothers converted for other reasons, then it is possible and plausible that James converted for other reasons. Therefore, this is evidence that it is possible that James was already a believer prior to his alleged appearance experience. The claim that the conversion of James is an example of a skeptic conversion is unfounded and based on conjecture. We have no evidence why or when James converted.Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-31651678231819007122020-02-17T10:47:58.270-06:002020-02-17T10:47:58.270-06:00I have a brother who seems to think that he is inf...I have a brother who seems to think that he is infallible in matters of faith and morals, but I remain skeptical that he is really the Pope. <br /><br />Assuming that being a follower of Jesus during his earthly ministry necessarily required an acknowledgement of his divinity (an assumption which I think requires more justification than you have provided), I don't know what basis James had for doing so. On the other hand, I don't know what basis Joseph Smith's brothers had for following him, but that doesn't get me any closer to believing in Moroni and the Golden Plates.<br /><br />BTW, you didn't answer my question about the criteria that scientists use to decide when a supernatural explanation is warranted. VinnyJH57https://www.blogger.com/profile/17954441753543764706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-24533725115957978272020-02-16T21:53:45.268-06:002020-02-16T21:53:45.268-06:00"Divine" in what sense, is the question...."Divine" in what sense, is the question.<br /><br />I think that most scholars would agree that the earliest Christians believed that Jesus was divine, in the sense that he was the "anointed one", the messiah, the son of God. But did James (or any of the other early disciples) believe that Jesus was Yahweh incarnate, the Creator of the universe?? Other than fundamentalist Protestants and evangelicals, most scholars would be hesitant to give a yes or no answer on that question. The Christology of the disciples immediately after Jesus' death and even for several years thereafter is disputed.<br /><br />So in human history have the family members of someone who believes that he is a prophet, a messenger of God, and some sense, divine, believed him? Yes. Just ask the brother of David Koresh who was a member of his cult. And if we do a little digging, I will bet that we can find brothers and sisters among the followers of other cult leaders.<br /><br />So I am not surprised that some of the members of Jesus' family believed him to be a prophet, the messiah, and in some sense, divine. Remember, in the Old Testament, the anointed kings of Israel were referred to as "the son of God". So if the family of Jesus came to believe that Jesus was the messiah, they would then accept that he was "the son of God", a divine being. And if the author of John is correct, that thousands of devout Jews in Jerusalem turned out to greet Jesus as the new king of Israel, why wouldn't the family of Jesus also believe?<br /><br />Again, in Acts chapter one, the author states that "the brothers of the Lord", which sounds to me like "all the brothers", were praying with the Church. Do you claim that all the brothers of Jesus received an appearance of Jesus?? I doubt it. So, this is evidence (if this account is historically accurate) that numerous members of Jesus' family converted to Christianity WITHOUT first receiving an appearance of Jesus. Therefore, this is evidence that it is certainly possible and plausible that James converted PRIOR to his alleged appearance experience mentioned in the Early Creed.<br /><br />Again, tens of thousands of people have "seen" dead people appear to them over the course of human history. And we have evidence that some brothers and sisters of men claiming to be prophets and messengers of God have believed them. The Resurrection of Jesus Story is just not believable. Just because a few members of a first century cult came to sincerely believe that their dead leader had appeared to them is not sufficient evidence for modern, educated people to believe this tale. It is a typical case of religious hysteria, no different than Virgin Mary sightings today.<br /><br /><br /><br />Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-16053016034043144332020-02-16T20:29:42.168-06:002020-02-16T20:29:42.168-06:00Neither of you answered my question. If true that ...Neither of you answered my question. If true that James was a follower of Jesus, then Jesus' own brother acknowledged he was divine. On what basis would he do that? Would any of your close relatives ever claim that you were divine based on their interactions with you?Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-41554982853805720432020-02-16T14:13:06.204-06:002020-02-16T14:13:06.204-06:00In the first chapter of Galatians, Paul says that ...In the first chapter of Galatians, Paul says that he met James, the brother of Jesus, in Jerusalem:<br /><br />"Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days; 19 but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother."<br /><br />The unknown author of Acts, in the first chapter, mentions that Mary the mother of Jesus and "the brothers" of Jesus were present at the meeting in which a replacement for Judas was selected and were praying. This suggests that, according to the unknown author of Acts, all the brothers of Jesus had converted by that time.<br /><br />This evidence is not overwhelming, but added to statements from other sources such as early Church Fathers, I see the evidence for Jesus having a brother named "James" as fairly strong. I think that most scholars would agree that the evidence that this brother was the first bishop of Jerusalem is also good. But the issue in question is: Did this brother, James, convert due to an alleged appearance of Jesus? The answer is: We don't know!<br /><br />While it is true that the mention of an appearance to "James" in the Early Creed might refer to another James, I will bet that most scholars believe that it is probably referring to the James ("the brother of our Lord") referred to by Paul. The Early Creed says nothing of women eyewitnesses. It seems to be a list of the prominent men in the movement. My bet is that the James in the list of eyewitnesses, was James, the first bishop of Jerusalem (the brother of Jesus, according to Paul).<br /><br />Bottom line: The alleged appearance to "James" cannot be used as evidence that an outsider converted to Christianity based on an alleged appearance of Jesus. For all we know, all the brothers of Jesus converted prior to Jesus' death. There is no evidence to suggest either way. The only evidence we have of a non-believer converting to Christianity due to an alleged appearance is that of Paul. And the author of Acts explicitly states that this appearance occurred in a heavenly vision. Visions are not reality.<br /><br />So for all we know, people who had already come to the belief that Jesus was the Son of God, the messiah, had experiences in which they believed that the crucified Jesus appeared to them. This proves nothing. Tens of thousands of people, over the history of humankind, have claimed to have "seen" dead people appear to them. We don't believe these tales, so why should we believe similar tales from first century Palestine??Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-5236078089669152762020-02-16T13:13:28.429-06:002020-02-16T13:13:28.429-06:00It's not a question of choosing to reject anyt...It's not a question of choosing to reject anything: I am simply noting that the evidence for the conversion of Jesus' skeptical brother James is pretty sketchy.<br /><br />While it is true that Josephus refers to a James who was a brother of a man named Jesus, he sheds no light on his conversion or his relationship to other followers of Jesus. <br /><br />I am not sure what you are referring to as “the earliest traditions” concerning the authorship of the Epistle of James. The epistle is not found in the Muratorian Canon in the late second century, and Eusebius listed it among the disputed books early in the fourth century.<br /><br />The specific point I was addressing was when James became a follower of Jesus, not whether he was a follower at all. As far as I know, there is no evidence of any tradition that he did so as a result of a post-mortem appearance from the risen Christ. On the other hand, there do seem to be some traditions that indicate that he was a follower of Jesus prior to the crucifixion.VinnyJH57https://www.blogger.com/profile/17954441753543764706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-88133593007222501812020-02-15T09:09:04.918-06:002020-02-15T09:09:04.918-06:00You are misreading the plain text again Gary. The ...You are misreading the plain text again Gary. The description in Acts of what Paul saw is a "light" from heaven. A light is not a vision. Others heard the same sound as Paul as well. Others don't hear a vision that is in the mind of someone else. Go ahead and ignore parts of any text you want and only read the parts you want and you can make the text mean anything you want, apart from what the author actually meant. By the way, the text doesn't give details of what Paul saw in the light. You are inserting your predetermined idea that it is a vision apart from what is written. That is a very poor way to read historical documents.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-75697492420612582772020-02-15T08:47:34.383-06:002020-02-15T08:47:34.383-06:00...oh and in Paul's letter to the Galatians, J......oh and in Paul's letter to the Galatians, James, the brother of Jesus, is explicitly stated as being an "apostle," a follower of Jesus. So this 1st century writing is part of the tradition. Galatians is one of the earliest letters written by Paul. Your statements really are dismissing all historical evidence.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-40578498933728863952020-02-15T08:36:54.525-06:002020-02-15T08:36:54.525-06:00So even though Josephus identifies James as the br...So even though Josephus identifies James as the brother of Jesus and even though the earliest traditions place that James as the author of the book of James, you choose to reject that James was a follower of Jesus? Do you accept any facts from antiquity based on writings, tradition, and subsequent actions and consequences alone? If true that James was a follower of Jesus, then Jesus' own brother acknowledged he was divine. On what basis would he do that? I'm sure my brothers would never acknowledge anything close to that about me. Of course you can always just deny the historical evidence that James the brother of Jesus was a follower of Jesus if you want. (Yes, traditions that date from the contemporary period considered are legitimate evidence.) Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-87025112976713961272020-02-03T17:22:56.018-06:002020-02-03T17:22:56.018-06:00Gary has actually overstated the evidence for the ...Gary has actually overstated the evidence for the conversion of James the brother of Jesus. <br /><br />The only New Testament reference to an appearance to James (1 Cor 15:8) doesn't identify the James to which Jesus appeared. It could have been James the son of Zebedee. <br /><br />Josephus doesn't say anything about James to indicate that he was a follower of his brother.<br /><br />Acts never identifies anyone as James the brother of Jesus. It identifies James the son of Alphaeus and James the son of Zebedeee. Unlike Matthew and Mark, Luke/Acts never says that Jesus had a brother named James.<br /><br />As far as I know, nowhere in any early writing is a story told of James converting as a result of a post-mortem appearance by Jesus. On the contrary, the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel According to the Hebrews both make James a follower of his brother prior to the resurrection. Although I wouldn't grant either writing much weight as a source of facts, I think we can say that the earliest known traditions contradict the idea that James only converted after the resurrection.<br />VinnyJH57https://www.blogger.com/profile/17954441753543764706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-38195795226081022282020-02-03T15:40:08.289-06:002020-02-03T15:40:08.289-06:00Perhaps you can enlighten me doctor: What kind of ...Perhaps you can enlighten me doctor: What kind of evidence do scientists generally consider sufficient to establish that a supernatural event has occurred? What criteria do they use to establish that a supernatural explanation is warranted for some collection of evidence? Perhaps you could point me to some examples of anthropologists, archeologists, paleontologists, or criminologists making a case for the occurence of a supernatural event.<br /><br />VinnyJH57https://www.blogger.com/profile/17954441753543764706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-18028974913847303152020-02-02T05:37:56.218-06:002020-02-02T05:37:56.218-06:00Sorry Michael, historical ''facts''...Sorry Michael, historical ''facts'' is not the issue, and especially when applied to religion. <br />I am asking you for <em>evidence for your claims</em>.<br /><br />To illustrate the point I am trying to make. There is ample evidence for dinosaurs as there is evidence that refutes the nonsense for the Adam and Eve tale. (The Human Genome Project - originally headed by Francis Collins, who I am sure you are aware of) )<br />Furthermore, there is archaeological evidence that demonstrates that the tale of the Captivity , Exodus and Conquest as described is the bible is nothing but myth. I am sure you are aware of people such as Finkelstein, Dever, etc.<br /><br />If you are asking me what (sufficient) evidence I would accept then this tells me that you have no evidence to support your claims, otherwise you would have presented it.<br /><br />If you had been completely honest regarding the lack of evidence up front and stated that your belief is driven by theological (biblical) claims underpinned by faith I would have accepted this and it would have saved time and cyber ink. <br /><br />Arkenatenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01166167852846589879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-89180629000688118642020-02-02T01:04:35.809-06:002020-02-02T01:04:35.809-06:00Let's look at your evidence:
1) that Jesus di...Let's look at your evidence:<br /><br />1) that Jesus died by crucifixion.<br /><br />Tens of thousands of Jews were killed by crucifixion. This "fact" about Jesus proves nothing. (I am not a mythicist. I believe Jesus existed.)<br /><br /><br /> 2) that very soon afterwards, his followers had real experiences that they thought were actual appearances of the risen Jesus.<br /><br />Thousands of devout Roman Catholics have had real experiences of seeing something that they believed to be the mother of Jesus. Thousands of Hindus claimed to have seen Hindu idols cry tears of milk. Superstitious people "see" a lot of things. I will bet that you discount almost all of these claims. So why do you believe a handful of similar claims from the first century??<br /><br /> 3) that their lives were transformed as a result, even to the point of being willing to die specifically for their faith in the resurrection message.<br /><br />Tens of thousands of people, of many different religions, have been willing to die for their beliefs. We have ZERO evidence that even ONE of the apostles was given the chance of saving his life by denying seeing a walking, talking resurrected body.<br /><br /> 4) that these things were taught very early, soon after the crucifixion.<br /><br />The Gospels were not written for several decades after Jesus' death. That is plenty of time for legend and rumor to develop. The idea that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses is highly contested. Not even the Catholic Church believes that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses.<br /><br />5) that James, Jesus’ unbelieving brother, became a Christian due to his own experience that he thought was the resurrected Christ.<br /><br />Although there is evidence from Josephus and the Book of Acts that James became a believer, we have zero evidence for the date of his conversion. For all we know, James may have converted on Palm Sunday when great throngs greeted Jesus as the new Jewish king (if the author of John is correct.)<br /><br /> 6) that the Christian persecutor Paul (formerly Saul of Tarsus) also became a believer after a similar experience.<br /><br />The author of Acts very clearly states that Paul believed that his experience on the Damascus Road was a "heavenly vision". If you are correct that Paul's appearance experience was the same as that of the Twelve, then ALL the alleged witnesses of an appearance of Jesus saw nothing more than what Paul saw: a talking bright light in a vision.<br /><br />Visions are not reality.Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-11314184547899330172020-02-01T20:48:37.662-06:002020-02-01T20:48:37.662-06:00Arkentan. Please try to do some research on the na...Arkentan. Please try to do some research on the nature of historical facts and evidence since you don't seem to understand the procedures on which historical claims are verified. It is the same kind of evidence used by archeologists, anthropologists, paleontologists, criminologists, lawyers, etc. I'll ask you the same question I asked VinnyJH57, what evidence that would have been available to a handful of first century people and could be passed down to us in the 21st century would you accept as sufficient evidence to establish that a supernatural event most probably occurred?<br /><br />Gary, the evidence is not disputed, as documented by Gary Habermas, for instance, including at least six facts accepted by almost all historians, including skeptics. Those facts, taken from https://ses.edu/minimal-facts-on-the-resurrection-that-even-skeptics-accept/ include 1) that Jesus died by crucifixion; 2) that very soon afterwards, his followers had real experiences that they thought were actual appearances of the risen Jesus; 3) that their lives were transformed as a result, even to the point of being willing to die specifically for their faith in the resurrection message; 4) that these things were taught very early, soon after the crucifixion; 5) that James, Jesus’ unbelieving brother, became a Christian due to his own experience that he thought was the resurrected Christ; and 6) that the Christian persecutor Paul (formerly Saul of Tarsus) also became a believer after a similar experience. Of course, I believe there are many more facts as well because the writings of the New Testament can be shown to be reliable historical accounts. The documents have the characteristics of being eyewitness accounts that date back to the first century with clear "credal statements" dating back to the early first century. Again, these are facts agreed on by historians who are not religious. <br /><br />VinnyJH57 I appreciate that you have read some books that make the case for the resurrection. I, too, read many books by authors who write about viewpoints I disagree with. However, since you "don't know' what evidence from the first century would convince you of a resurrection, then it is senseless to try to discuss the evidence with you.<br /><br />Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-25499024764409576432020-01-30T12:20:04.197-06:002020-01-30T12:20:04.197-06:00I have read The Case for Christ, The Case for the ...I have read <i>The Case for Christ</i>, <i>The Case for the Real Jesus</i>, <i>The Resurrection: a New Historiographical Approach</i>, and, years ago, the first edition of <i>Evidence that Demands a Verdict</i>.<br /><br />As I noted in an earlier comment, the evidence for the resurrection consists of a collection of ancient writings of mostly indeterminate authorship. These writings were composed decades after the facts they purport to describe based on unknown sources. It is not known how many times the story was transmitted orally before reaching the writers, nor is it known whether the originators of the stories had any first hand knowledge of the events. The writings are filled with fantastic stories told for purposes of proselytization.<br /><br />By any reasonable standard, that's a shaky foundation.<br /><br />Apologists try to bootstrap their way past the flimsy evidence by relying on the consensus of scholars about certain facts; unfortunately, these facts are all derived from those same problematic writings. They are inferences drawn from that evidence. No matter how many scholars agree that a particular fact is the best explanation for any particular piece of evidence, confidence in that fact is limited by the quality of the evidence. <br /><br />Consider two facts upon which there is strong scholarly consensus: Abraham Lincoln wrote the <i>Gettysburg Address</i> and Plato wrote the dialogue known as <i>The Sophist</i>. For the former, the evidence is just about as conclusive as we could imagine it being: we have copies of the text in Lincoln’s hand, eyewitness accounts of him working on the text, and eyewitness accounts of him delivering the speech. It is almost inconceivable that anyone other than Lincoln wrote the <i>Gettysburg Address</i>. In the case of <i>The Sophist</i>, we have no way to eliminate plausible (or even implausible) alternatives. There is no way to know that someone didn't compose <i>The Sophist</i> later and attribute it to Plato. The scholars agree not because the evidence is overwhelming, but because the evidence is so sparse. There is no way to investigate other possibilities.<br /><br />You asked earlier what evidence passed on by first century people might suffice to convince me that the resurrection had actually occurred. (My apologies for not responding sooner. I can’t remember whether I noticed the question before.) The answer is that I don’t know. You might as well ask me what evidence would suffice to convince me that the destruction of Pompeii in 79 AD was the result of God raining down fire and brimstone rather than the eruption of Mount Vesuvius. The existing evidence is perfectly consistent with the natural process of volcanic eruptions, and I actually have no idea whether or not it’s consistent with supernatural intervention because I have no knowledge of how that process works.<br /><br />Based on my knowledge and experience, stories of supernatural events are usually the product of human foibles such as ignorance, superstition, exaggeration, wishful thinking, gullibility, and prevarication. I know of no objective criteria that would allow me to distinguish a supernatural story that is the product of an actual supernatural event from one that is the product of human shortcomings. If I did, I might be able to say what evidence would suffice to convince me that the resurrection happened.VinnyJH57https://www.blogger.com/profile/17954441753543764706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-62432446191665044162020-01-22T15:44:26.730-06:002020-01-22T15:44:26.730-06:00Dr Strauss, we are not talking about historical fa...Dr Strauss, we are not talking about historical facts but objective evidence.<br />You are adamant there is objective evidence and all I am asking is for you to provide it, yet you seem intent to either side step the issue or hand-wave away the counter arguments.<br /><br />You are a recognised physicist, and I have no doubt whatsoever that you can provide evidence for much of your work, so why is it so difficult for you to provide similar evidence for your religious assertions?<br />Surely the matter should be fairly straight forward?<br /><br />Arkenatenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01166167852846589879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-78987807654106168742020-01-22T10:27:51.890-06:002020-01-22T10:27:51.890-06:00All the alleged evidence for the resurrection of J...All the alleged evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is disputed. How strong can the evidence be if it is disputed?Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-46717831265242544242020-01-22T07:57:58.111-06:002020-01-22T07:57:58.111-06:00You are free to deny the historical facts and evid...You are free to deny the historical facts and evidence. That is your choice. Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-10534211870605888972020-01-21T06:58:19.349-06:002020-01-21T06:58:19.349-06:00All but two of those you list I am aware of but th...All but two of those you list I am aware of but this list is hardly ''many books', especially when you consider the tens of thousands and upwards of Christian books published each year.<br /><br />The titles of the books by Ross and McDowell, for example, take for granted that Jesus of Nazareth actually was a carpenter and that there was an actual tomb.<br />There is no evidence to support these claims however, so these examples can not be considered objective evidence. <br /><br />I have not read Strobel's book, but have read several reviews and I've watched the film.<br />If the book is anything like the film then it is a sham, not least because I know he never interviewed a single qualified individual who might have had a contradictory view.<br /><br />As for Wallace: Again, I have not read his book , but have read several reviews. Nothing he writes is new and by and large much of it is anecdotal. Furthermore, if there were any serious merit to his claims then, using his reasoning, the vast majority of homicide detectives would have become born again Christians.<br />Muggeridge was a former agnostic, not atheist. According to his bio he converted to Catholicism, which is not regarded as being a ''proper'' form of Christianity by most mainline protestant sects.<br /><br />Once again, I ask if you have objective evidence for your claims, Michael?<br /><br />Regards.<br /><br />Ark<br /><br />Arkenatenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01166167852846589879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-25077498893916894022020-01-20T15:39:57.635-06:002020-01-20T15:39:57.635-06:00I recommend you read Cold Case Christianity writte...I recommend you read Cold Case Christianity written by a homicide detective who did not believe the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses and was an atheist skeptic until he read them for himself and was convinced they bore the unmistakable mark of eyewitness testimony and then became a Christian. Sorry Gary, but all the evidence from the gospels themselves suggest actual eyewitness testimony. You can stick your head in the sand and deny that all you want but it doesn't change the facts. Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-27103095754687753392020-01-20T15:35:22.141-06:002020-01-20T15:35:22.141-06:00Let's see. Have you read any of the many books...Let's see. Have you read any of the many books written by atheists who have actually looked at the evidence for the resurrection to try to refute it and then become Christians based on the evidence. See my list of some of those at https://www.michaelgstrauss.com/2019/08/if-you-flip-coin-number-of-times-and-60.html. That would be a good place to start if you are serious about trying to understand the evidence and not just spouting rhetoric.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-55482626649633358502020-01-03T11:43:06.024-06:002020-01-03T11:43:06.024-06:00''One of the primary reasons I am a Christ...''One of the primary reasons I am a Christian is because of the overwhelming objective evidence that Jesus actually arose from the dead.''<br /><br />What objective evidence are you referring to please?Arkenatenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01166167852846589879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-135289987495101072019-04-05T13:22:33.621-05:002019-04-05T13:22:33.621-05:00Do you believe in climate change? The overwhelming...Do you believe in climate change? The overwhelming majority of scientists do. Some conspiracy theorists believe that this majority expert opinion on climate change is due to a bias. These conspiracy theorists believe that the overwhelming majority of scientists are left wing fanatical environmentalists who have "cooked" the evidence. Climate change is not real, they say. It is the invention of biased scientists.<br /><br />The problem for conspiracy theorists is that not all scientists are left-wing environmentalists. In fact, there are plenty of scientists who are politically conservative. Yet even the majority of politically conservative scientists believe that climate change is real. The fact that the consensus position that climate change is real is held by scientists across the political spectrum is evidence AGAINST the conspiracy theorists' claim that climate change is a left-wing environmentalist lie.<br /><br />And we find the same situation with the authorship of the Gospels. Many conservative Christians believe that the majority expert consensus position that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses or the associates of eyewitnesses is based on a bias. These conservative Christian Protestants believe that the majority of New Testament scholars are liberals, atheists, and agnostics who are skeptical or deny all supernatural claims. The problem for this argument is that it isn't just liberal, atheist, and agnostic scholars who believe that the Gospels were written by non-eyewitnesses, in lands far away, several generations removed from the alleged events described in the Gospels. The overwhelming majority of Roman Catholic scholars also hold the consensus majority position. Can anyone credibly claim that Roman Catholics have a bias against the supernatural?? No. So, what we find is that a broad range of New Testament scholars reject the traditional/eyewitness/associate of eyewitnesses authorship of the Gospels, including many scholars who very much believe in the supernatural and the bodily resurrection of Jesus. This fact speaks against the conservative Protestant claim that the majority position on the authorship of the Gospels is based on a bias. Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-29769080150677752412017-10-03T07:28:42.998-05:002017-10-03T07:28:42.998-05:00People secretly moving dead bodies is very uncommo...People secretly moving dead bodies is very uncommon. Thus, explanation containing such an idea have a low probability for occurrence.<br /><br />People naturally having illusions or hallucinations is a low probability. Illusions or hallucinations are not like a disease that is passed on so they are essentially independent. So the chance of multiple instance of them occurring is basically the chance of them multiplied together making for a very small probability. Making the total probability very low for explanations containing multiple instances of illusions or hallucinations naturally occurring. Thus, I do not consider such explanations plausible. <br /><br />At my website the link “Hostile Witnesses” give good reasons to consider the “Soldiers at the tomb story” real. If it is a real story, then it is very difficult to develop an all-natural explanation for how the women found the tomb empty.<br /><br />The old tradition cited by Paul in I Cor. 15.3-5 implies the fact of the empty tomb. For any first century Jew, to say that of a dead man “that he was buried and that he was raised” is to imply that a vacant grave was left behind. Moreover, the expression “on the third day” probably derives from the women’s visit to the tomb on the third day, in Jewish reckoning, after the crucifixion. The four-line tradition cited by Paul summarizes both the gospel accounts and the early apostolic preaching (Acts 13. 28-31); significantly, the third line of the tradition corresponds to the empty tomb story.<br /><br />Paul/Saul holding Stephen clothing at the stoning of Stephen in the books of Acts is an embarrassing account for the Christian leader Paul to support the stoning of Christians; thus, not expected to fabricated by Christians authors or sources. This reasoning uses the criterion that self-embarrassing reports tend to be more credible because typically there is no self-serving motivation for self-embarrassing reports. Paul/Saul going from leading the persecution of Christians to being a leader of the early Christians movement is very unusual implying it to have a low probability naturally, but is explained directly by Jesus being supernatural. <br /><br />I do not list actual probabilities values Scholarly historians and lawyers in court rooms often say this or that historical claim is probable or not probable, but seldom actually state a probability value. It is up to the reader to judge the plausibility of different human behaviors which is the same thing jurors often have to do in judging a court case. <br /> <br /> I prefer discussing probabilities values that can be calculated. I explain how to do so in link “Rational Methodology for Identifying Supernatural Intervention” found at my webpage https://sites.google.com/site/s2hinrichs/home. I do claim that based on this rational approach there is some supernatural evidence for Jesus as the Messiah. You can read about this evidence in the link “Daniel's Messiah in the Critics Den” also found at my webpage.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698667617778304372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-71800858039552218082017-10-01T22:57:13.239-05:002017-10-01T22:57:13.239-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698667617778304372noreply@blogger.com