The Minimal Facts for the Resurrection of Christ.

[aeon]

You are 100% free to doubt any of the facts... What fact would you like to start with? I'd be happy to discuss why scholars of all religious backgrounds affirm that particular fact.

There are no facts to doubt, so I do not doubt.

I don’t care about scholars, numbers, or authority.

You, or anyone else, can say there are facts.

That doesn’t make it so.

You have opinions, and ones you hold dear. You have a faith, which is, as you said in your book, part of your self-identity.

I don’t doubt that, nor do I question it. If you say you believe, I believe that is so.

But facts? No, there are none to be found.

You may disagree. That’s fine. You are entitled to your opinion. You can say something is factual, and I will say that which is presented without evidence may be summarily dismissed without evidence.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[QuickTwist]

There are no facts to doubt, so I do not doubt.

I don’t care about scholars, numbers, or authority.

You, or anyone else, can say there are facts.

That doesn’t make it so.

You have opinions, and ones you hold dear. You have a faith, which is, as you said in your book, part of your self-identity.

I don’t doubt that, nor do I question it. If you say you believe, I believe that is so.

But facts? No, there are none to be found.

You may disagree. That’s fine. You are entitled to your opinion. You can say something is factual, and I will say that which is presented without evidence may be summarily dismissed without evidence.

Cheers,
Ian

Earlier, you made it seem like all we have are copies of copies of copies... That is plainly false. We have better historical documentation for the NT than any other ancient work. So, you are free to throw out all of ancient history and say we can't know anything about the ancient world (which you do), but this is a skeptical bar that most anyone does not hold to. You are the exception because of your equally deeply held presuppositions that are neither normalized nor match what almost all scholars believe. But, I am sure you are smarter than all these scholars, which is the only conclusion that can be reached from your view.

 

[QuickTwist]

The problem with peoples presumed views on orthodoxy is that doubt cannot destroy what is in the heart once God has chosen you.

Jesus did not let Peter sink into the water.

Peter even denies Jesus three times.

Yet Jesus still accepts him.

Jesus said to Peter: This is the rock upon which I found my church.

Salvation is eternal.

Which is exactly why this whole thread is silly

That's a Free Grace heresy, as I already explained earlier. People can hold whatever heresies they want. They may be very earnest in believing such heresies. There have been heresies since the time the NT was written. That does not mean I can or should call them a Christian at that point. When all of Christian history and all modern denominations agree unanimously that some group calling themselves Christians is actually out, like one of the very few things they all agree on, I'm simply going to default to that position.

 

[aeon]

Earlier, you made it seem like all we have are copies of copies of copies... That is plainly false. We have better historical documentation for the NT than any other ancient work. So, you are free to throw out all of ancient history and say we can't know anything about the ancient world (which you do), but this is a skeptical bar that most anyone does not hold to.

I’m not throwing anything out. I am simply saying to regard all of it for what it is—a historical record, which is not fact. Opinions about those records are not facts. Nothing is being dismissed. Everything is being regarded for what it can be known to be.

Also, you ascribed something to me which is inaccurate. I asked you before to stop doing that, yet you have persisted.

Your way is rude. You wilfully dishonor boundaries.

You are the exception because of your equally deeply held presuppositions that are neither normalized nor match what almost all scholars believe

I certainly am an exception for a few reasons, but not for this one. I’m not sure what presuppositions you are referring to. I have no belief. I make no claim.

But, I am sure you are smarter than all these scholars, which is the only conclusion that can be reached from your view.

Could be, but it’s not a dick-measuring contest.

You can appeal to letter, or title, or numbers all you like. It’s immaterial if we are talking about facts.

And we aren’t. We have only shared opinions.

Cheers,
Ian