Evidence for the Resurrection of Christ

[jce]

No, not "to the same degree" but certainly of the "same kind." Mormonism is a particularly enlightening case because it was invented so recently. We have newspaper reports and LOTS of documents written by the people involved with the invention of the cult. We have nothing like that with Christianity. But when we compare the claims of how Mormonism began (angels speaking to Joe Smith, etc.) we see that they are similar to those of Christianity and so they give us a counter-example to the claims of apologists concerning the psychology of believers. That's why those arguments are so weak. Furthermore, we wouldn't know anything about what really happened to the first Christians except by assuming that the Biblical record is accurate. But the Biblical record was decades after the fact, and as we can see in the case of Mormonism, the folks pushing the religion were free to write whatever they wanted. So why should we trust it?

This seems like a very weak approach using the Book of Morman to discredit the Bible. if there were no Bible there would probably be no Book of Morman. The Book of Morman, as you have implied, is a fallacious construct relying on the Bible as its foundation.

John

[Richard Amiel McGough]

This seems like a very weak approach using the Book of Morman to discredit the Bible. if there were no Bible there would probably be no Book of Morman. The Book of Morman, as you have implied, is a fallacious construct relying on the Bible as its foundation.

John

You missed my point. I was not using the Book of Mormon to discredit the Bible. I was talking about the psychology of believers and how cults get formed because I was answering arguments about how the formation of Christianity proved it was valid because the first Christians wouldn't have "risked their lives for a lie," etc. I was showing why that kind of argument is weak. There are two primary reasons: 1) Our records from that time are very sparse, so we don't know if the same kind of psychological dynamics were at work then as we saw recently with Mormonism. 2) The psychology of believers, especially believers in apocalyptic cults, shows that folks do all sorts of crazy things when their prophecies fail, which is what happened in the first century when Christ's promised coming failed to materialize.

You are absolutely correct about the reliance of the book of Mormon on the Bible. Joe Smith lifted passages straight from the KJV and pretended they were directly revealed to him through his magic spectacles!

The things religious people believe ...

[David M]

Good morning David,

It would have been better if you had answered the points I raised. Have you read the book? Did you read the refutation I linked? Or are you siding with the book merely because you agree with its conclusion? That would be a grave error.

Hello Richard
I do not have a copy of the book to refer to any quotations you make from it, but I accept you have quoted from it correctly. The conclusions the book makes are not unique to this book so if I agree with one or all of the conclusions does not mean that the book is resposible for what I believe. I agree with you when you are correct and I disagree when you are not correct, and that will apply to anything I read. A book like this only reinforces what I already believed.

I'm glad you quoted Lee Strobel's unsupported assertions that are printed on the book. As far as I know, Morison wrote nothing that suggested "he set out to prove that the story of Christ's Resurrection was only a myth." Can you give me any documentation of this claim? I have shown you what Morison said about himself in his book. It contradicts the myth that Srobel is promoting.

I was just bringing to light the Amazon book description. If you refute that, it is OK with me, that is why I suggested you write to Amazon with a book feedback.

I'm glad you brought up Strobel since I was going to mention him as another example of a supposed "atheist" who converted because of the "evidence." I see no reason to believe Strobel's claims. He refutes himself in his own book "The Case for Christ" because he fails to address the real issues that skeptics raise, and he fails to present any arguments that would convince a true skeptic. His book reads like a religious tract preaching to the choir. I've never seen any evidence that he was ever an atheist. Have you?

No, I have not seen evidence and I have not read anything about Strobel, I was only bringing attention to the book description, I am not defendig Strobel or Amazon's description.

If any answer is "usual" it is yours David. You simply brush aside the reasons I gave without even attempting to refute them.

I do not intentionally brush aside all your reasons. I might ignore claims which you assert with no real evidence and I am not going to repeat answers that I have already given elsewhere which I think you know about. I will reason anything with you from the Bible.

The reasons I gave stand unrefuted, and will remain so until you or someone else chooses to actually answer them.

I expect someone will. I cannot deal with everything as fast as you do. It is difficult finding time to answer your replies to my posts, I cannot answer for the others you reply to.

I've already answered in Post #4 of this thread, but you ignored it. Why don't you respond to the answers I gave?

That reply was to Twospirits and I was not intending to comment on the whole of that reply.

Your comment begins by assuming that the Bible is true in every details. If we begin with that assumption, then there is nothing you need to prove. Your logic is, therefore, a classic case of circular reasoning. It seems like you don't understand this fundamental fallacy. You constantly repeat it.

If I had started from the point of believing the Bible true from the beginning, then by years of study I have had time to examine the evidence to support it. It does not mean that I knew about all the evidence at the beginning, but as the evidence comes along to support the Bible, there is nothing wrong with accepting that evidence if if is true. I do not reject evidence on the say so of one or two individuals.
I know of circular reasoning and the fact that there is much evidence to support the facts in the Bible, does not mean I am using circular reasoning. If there is something in the Bible I cannot answer, I cannot come to a conclusion until I have found the answer, so how can that be circular reasoning? I look for coherence in the Bible and that is one of the reasons for believing the Bible.

There is no problem with you believing the Bible is true. The problem arises only when you try to argue that the Bible is true by assuming that the Bible is true. Why can't you see this? It is the most plain and obvious fact which you understand perfectly in any context other than Christianity. You reject circular reasoning if it is used by Catholics (the Pope said the Pope is infallible and this proves the Pope is infallible) or anyone else.

I do not have to assume the Bible is true, but once I have been convinced it is, then it will take more than you casting doubt or not putting up very good evidence to make me alter my mind. I have not closed my ears, but I can reject anything that you say that I have rejected along time ago and elswhere. I do not disagree with you when you are correct or if it is on a subject I have no understanding of.

I do not "presume the Bible is not true." I make no presumptions at all in that regard. I simply follow the evidence. This allows me to conclude that it contains both truth and falsehood depending upon the evidence. You have no such freedom. There is no equivalence between my view based on evidence and your presumption that the Bible is the very Word of God!
"That is what you are bent on proving." - Yes, I am "bent" on proving the truth. The Bible contains a mix of truth and falsehood, with the balance decidedly in favor of the false (creation myth, flood myth, exodus myth, using striped sticks to make speckled goats, walking on water, etc.).

I have freedom, but I see truth in the Bible where you do not. Errors due to tanslation and transcription are not reason for me to reject the consistent and coherent messages which runs through the Bible. I just do not agree with your conclusion and I do not see the falsehood that you do, though I know that your understanding of some verses and passages is not what I consider to be the truth and I am not surprised you do not see the coherent truth that runs through the pages of the Bible.

"It is not surprising that any evidence anyone puts forward to support their belief, you will trash as not being valid." - Really? Is that what I'm doing when I prove that your reasoning is based on the most elementary and fundamentally fallacious logic of Petitio Principii?

You keep saying I am using circular reasoning, but someone can come to believe the Bible without assuming it is true to begin with, so your statement has no weight.

"Well, the issue about Morison's personal beliefs was raised by Charisma who falsely asserted he had been an atheist. If he wasn't an atheist, then there is nothing special about his book. It's just another Christian tract preaching to the choir. Why do you think folks like Lee Strobel and Charisma make such a big deal about him being skeptical? They are trying to say that there is real evidence that should convince a skeptic. But no skeptic will EVER be convinced by circular reasoning, and that's exactly what Morison does in his book from beginning to end! He began by assuming the Bible was accurate in most of what it says. This is why skeptics are not convinced by his book - it is based entirely upon one of the most elementary and fundamental of all logical fallacies.

My reasons for believing the Bible are not based on either of these authors so anything you want to say about them I do not need to defend. If their reasons do not agree with what the Bible says, I will reject them, this is no different to anyone else reasoning from the Bible. I agree with you when it is confirmed by the Bible. That is the only basis I will accept anyones commentary on the Bibe. I shall continue to do what the Bereans were commended for.

"I've already explained this error but you don't seem to understand. You are relying on men when you study your Bible in English. You are relying on men when you use dictionaries and concordances to study the original languages. And most significantly, you are relying on a mere MAN when you trust your own fallible logic as the final arbiter of truth. You can't get away from your reliance upon men when you study the Bible or do anything.

So what? This is no reason for rejecting everything. If the Bible is 99% correct and has 1% errors due to translation and transcription, the 99% is more than enough to show up the errors. You will know about error checking and that is why when 9 out of 10 verses say one thing, I am not going to agree with the one verse that is out of place and would not use that one verse to reject the Bible.

"Your error is based on your belief that a person must accept a DOGMA about the Bible. You think I "accept that the whole of the Bible is myth and the work of men" as if that were a dogma like your belief that the Bible is the "Word of God." But that's simply not true. Every Bible that has every been handled has been produced by the hands of men. You cannot deny this. Therefore, we can agree perfectly that the Bible is "the work of men" in a most literal sense. Now you think that the Bible is in some sense "divinely inspired" though we haven't discussed the details as yet. I have no problem with that as a possibility. But you are making a HUGE ASSUMPTION that the whole Bible is the "Word of God" in such a way that everything in it (except a few incidental errors) is "true." You have never given any reason for this radical assumption, and worse, your assumption is directly contradicted by a mountain of evidence. Yet it is the basis of everything you write. So yes, we will be just "going past each other" as long as you begin with such an unfounded assumption.

Firstly, I will argue everything from the Bible in order to get to the truth of what is written to understand as the author intends to be understood. If you are right in your understanding and conclusions, you have nothing to gain except a victory over me. If I am right, I have eternal life to look forward to. How the Bible came to be, we could put to one side until we agree what everything means in the Bible. When that is done, who knows which one of us could change their mind.

All the very best to you my diligent friend,

Richard

And to you Richard


David