How not to argue against the resurrection

[Mr5150]

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

Seems you've set it up so that the NT evidence is whatever you need it to be. When the general idea of a historical Jesus needs propping up, the NT is solid. When you run into contradictions, don't worry, we know much of it is wrong so that's still proof that the NT evidence for a historical Jesus is solid.

You're pretending as if the gospels are somehow proven to be an accurate historical account. Nice attempt to shift the burden of proof, but that's an old trick and no one's going to fall for it.

Sorry to disappoint, but the quote is from the Humanist site I cited. You can go ahead and belittle them instead of me.

Originally Posted by Mr5150

It's not my argument. Please read the article. I am only posting up an atheist site. One that is amazingly open minded and intelligent. Point your comments towards them. Not me and do read the link.

Originally Posted by ovcatto

I'm sorry, obviously mistook you for the author of the original post. Usually when quoting someone else's work they are usually placed within quotation marks. My Bad.

No worries.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

And this thread surely belongs in the earlier evidence of resurrection thread anyway.

I did place the link on that other thread.

Anyway, I didn't want to have this find get lost on the other thread. The points made by the author are very good and I hope it will improve the arguements of the atheists on this board. So many statements made here and on other sites come from a cookie cutter mindset.

From the article (bolded so no one gets confused as to the source):

McKinsey pontificates, "Anyone who has attempted to investigate this question with any degree of objectivity is immediately struck by the absence of extrabiblical information on anyone by the name of Jesus of Nazareth." He then proceeds to quote several Christian writers who apparently agree with his claim. However, McKinsey's approach to the historicity of Jesus leaves much to be desired. First, by focusing solely on alleged extrabiblical references to Jesus, McKinsey has missed the point. The New Testament is our primary source of information about Jesus. If McKinsey believes that the New Testament alone does not provide sufficient evidence for concluding that Jesus existed, then McKinsey needs to provide an argument for that belief. Yet, in stark contrast to other proponents of the mythicist hypothesis like G.A. Wells and Earl Doherty who spend the bulk of their time addressing the New Testament evidence, McKinsey does not discuss the NT evidence for the historicity of Jesus. As I have argued elsewhere, I believe the New Testament alone is prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus and therefore there is no need for extrabiblical confirmation.

Second, despite all of the quotations from hostile authorities, McKinsey does not even provide a prima facie case for his sweeping claim because McKinsey does not discuss all of the alleged extrabiblical references to Jesus. Besides the writers McKinsey does discuss, the alleged extrabiblical references to Jesus also include the Talmud, Thallus, Phlegon, Mara Bar-Serapion, Lucian, and Hadrian. So McKinsey's case for his claim that there are no extrabiblical references to Jesus is, at best, incomplete. Even if his objections to Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger were accurate, he would still need to discuss all of the other alleged references to Jesus in order to justify his sweeping claim.
********************
I seet this sort of half baked arguement often. Not just concerning whether Jesus existed but on many points in general.

Futher, I see the evil God arguement used to some how convince theists that God does not exist. What has disagreeable behavior to do with whether there is a God?

Originally Posted by Mr5150

Second, despite all of the quotations from hostile authorities, McKinsey does not even provide a prima facie case for his sweeping claim because McKinsey does not discuss all of the alleged extrabiblical references to Jesus. Besides the writers McKinsey does discuss, the alleged extrabiblical references to Jesus also include the Talmud, Thallus, Phlegon, Mara Bar-Serapion, Lucian, and Hadrian. So McKinsey's case for his claim that there are no extrabiblical references to Jesus is, at best, incomplete. Even if his objections to Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger were accurate, he would still need to discuss all of the other alleged references to Jesus in order to justify his sweeping claim.
********************
I seet this sort of half baked arguement often. Not just concerning whether Jesus existed but on many points in general.

Well, why don't you quote each of those extra biblical references (Talmud, Thallus, Phlegon, Mara Bar-Serapion, Lucian, and Hadrian) and we'll see if there is any direct evidence instead of hearsay and whether they support a resurrection.

Futher, I see the evil God arguement used to some how convince theists that God does not exist. What has disagreeable behavior to do with whether there is a God?

Most people who make this argument are claiming that the theist's concept of a Good God does not exist - not the general concept of any God/s per-se.

[TRANSPONDER]

The 'Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus' claim has been discussed extensively and whatever that linked article says about other reference, I can tell you that the ones that repeatedly crop up are the only ones that even look like they have anything to do with a historical Jesus. Mostly they are evidence of nothing but the existence of the Christians, which is not disputed. For example, Pliny only asks about how to deal with them. Phlegon and Thallus only dicker about the possibility of the claimed darkness at the resurrection being an eclipse. This is in no way support for a historical Jesus.

Josephus' Flavian testament is demonstrably fraudulent and the 'James' reference is looking like a gloss on a James who wasn't the brother of Jesus at all. Suetonius only refers to disturbances possibly related to Christianity. That is no assistance to a 'historical Jesus'. Tacitus at best only attests to the execution of Jesus by Pilate, and probably is only reporting what the Christians claimed. Even if his own knowledge, i do not deny that a failed messiah was executed by Pilate.

Tacitus is thus pretty much the only extra biblical support for a historical Jesus. Other references are niot even as good as these flimsy examples. If you can find a better, do so.

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by Mr5150

Sorry to disappoint, but the quote is from the Humanist site I cited. You can go ahead and belittle them instead of me.

Belittle? If you didn't want discussion, perhaps a blog is more your speed.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Mr5150 View Post
Sorry to disappoint, but the quote is from the Humanist site I cited. You can go ahead and belittle them instead of me.

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

Belittle? If you didn't want discussion, perhaps a blog is more your speed.

It is a familiar theiopologetic ploy to provide a link (and maybe a few mined quotes) and then when discussion starts, to tell the opponent to go and argue with the authors of the site.

In fact it is not the site or the contents that is deserving of objection - the discussion about moving on from former position on Biblical criticism to a more complete one is of no help to the believer (1) - but it is the crafty misuse of sites presented as 'on our side - but disagreeing with us' that is what needs to be shown up as dishonest tactics.

(1) e.g the original discussion of the Flavian testament has now moved on to a comprehensive rejection of it as anything other than a christian forgery and from that we have moved on yet again to casting doubt on the 'James' reference, as it looks like it relates to a different 'James' altogether.