toxicTom: Well there are "high quality eyewitness accounts" for many events. Also, I don't deny that on the whole the story of Jesus took place. You always seem to assume that it's all or nothing. Proving that Jesus existed (hard enough) and that some of the events took place in locations that can be traced back doesn't prove that every single fact is true.
As a historian you have to criticise your sources. As I already said, there is always facts, omitted facts and interpretation of facts. And lies, too. And even eyewitness account are highly unreliable as every investigator can tell you.
Another example: Good historical novels also include a huge amount of historical facts like places, people and events. In reading them you can ideally learn a lot about history. But they are still fiction, and as a reader, you have to be aware of that.
You seem to assume that I assume that it's all or nothing. A eyewitness today can still perceive something inaccurately, recall something inaccurately, or be untruthful, but their account should nevertheless still be investigated a such, rather than something like historical fiction.
toxicTom: Well he is a glowing Evangelical Christian apologist and Professor in Theology. He is not a historian. He is also a "sworn defender" of the resurrection. I'm sorry to say that, this is as biased as it can get. I would be very surprised if the outcome wouldn't "prove" his views.
If I had been ignorant, I would have dismissed your suggestion of reading non-Christian scholars about Christianity because they would all be biased, but all scholars have bias, so that would actually be my bias preventing me accurately evaluating modern scholarship. Instead, I asked you to suggest a non-Christian scholar and in return I recommend a Christian scholar to you. I have no idea why you think Licona is a "sworn defender" of the resurrection. He is a very skeptical person who went through long periods of doubts, who went to great lengths to evaluate the evidence as objectively as he could, and who wouldn't be a Christian today if the evidence had indicated otherwise. He is a New Testament historian who tries to answer what it would look like if professional historians who work outside of the community of biblical scholars were to embark on an investigation of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.
toxicTom: However, if you say we have to claim that Jesus was raised as long as naturalistic explanations are only remotely possible, then you’re no longer doing serious history. “Careful” means an investigation that proceeds under strict controls, not stubborn assertion of something that can’t be proven beyond all doubt.
Cute, but it’s not really accurate. You claimed that it was possible that that Jesus rose from the dead, but in what sense is it possible if we can concoct any number of far-fetched naturalistic explanations that can’t be disproved and all have historical precedence over it? If we limited knowledge of ancient history to only those things that can be proved beyond all doubt, then we have to throw out ancient history. Historians can rarely prove that a particular hypothesis is impossible, so they apply a number of criteria to determine which hypothesis is the best explanation. If you refuse to allow the possibility that something could be the best explanation, then you're letting your biases get in the way of doing a careful historical investigation.
There were enough people that were there and simply told the story?
It’s like you’re not even trying. Who were these people, where were they, why did they tell the story, and why would anyone believe them?
toxicTom: Machu Picchu is a good example. If someone was to believe in the Inca gods, wouldn't place be strong evidence, since "humans couldn't do it"?
Sure, it is not unreasonable for someone to think that it’s more plausible that humans had some outside assistance.
Soyeong: Learning is the process of reinforcing those beliefs we think are true,
weeding out those beliefs that we wrongly thought were true, and taking in new true and false beliefs.
You ignored an important part of my sentence. I can’t weed out those beliefs that I wrongly think are true without questioning what I think is true. When we do a thorough investigation of a belief, it either reinforces it or causes us to dismiss it. If I found the evidence more strongly supported some other exclusive belief, then I would stop being a Christian.
toxicTom: I believe in things that are not compatible with your god, and although I'm constantly questioning them (and have often changed my opinions) I never reached a point where your belief makes sense to me.
I think C. S. Lewis does an excellent job in explaining what Christianity is about in
<i>Mere Christianity</i> (online). There is also an audio version on youtube if you’d prefer.
toxicTom: Troy has been verified, part of Oddyseus' travels have been verified (even if natural phenomena were transformed to monsters). Places and events of the tales of Herakles have been verified. Is this strong evidence for the Greek Pantheon existing "for real"?
It’s one thing to list a few places names and another to have intimate knowledge of agriculture, architecture, botany, culture, economics, geography, language, law, personal names, politics, religion, social stratification, topography, and weather. Not only that, but we have independent sources that confirm many of the people in the Bible and we have the bones of one of them.
toxicTom: Yes, if. If one is true and if you know which one is the right one. And if you just don't know?
Regardless of if any happen to be true, you should believe what the evidence most strongly indicates.
toxicTom: Well I guess I'd have to be a believer first to understand this. What would be the motivation to play hide and seek, when I'm "damned" if I don't play along?
This is like what one from the Society of Witnesses told me: "Good people that never have heard of Jesus, will meet him after death and can them decide to convert. But if you've heard of Him and don't convert, you're damned".
My answer is and was: "Then it would be better never to have heard of Jesus, because this way I had undeniable proof and would be saved. By spreading your word to people that might not find you very trustworthy or likeable and have no reason to believe you, you're actually driving this people into damnation."
I think you’re focusing too much on the afterlife when the primary focus of Christianity is on how we live this life. God allows those who want to be with Him to be with him in heaven while hell is essentially God allowing people who want nothing to do with Him to have what they want.
