If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
Hey buddy. Havent seen you around for awhile. How are things?
Just be sure to stick around =] Seems like we could use all of the Theist on this site possible.
Loved your posts on 'Is the Resurrection of Jesus Probable?' Very good arguments.
Hi, how are you? I have read through your debate. It looks good.
Sure did. I thank you very much.
I edited your post to read "One on one: Pro: Bible Defender Con: Roderick Usher". Did I get the pro and the con correct? I didn't have time to read the debate.
Hi, I have read it this far. Why?
I made a thread about your thread in the ODN Debate Discussion forum.
Good question. As far as I have read. Most NT scholars do accept the historicity of the resurrection. However there are of course skeptics.
Why I cite the skeptics is not the conclusion, but as to the facts I have presented.
If most scholars agreed with Bob, like I said in my last post, truth is not predicated upon popular vote. I never said in my debates that scholars agree with me or vice versa. I simply use the methodology that they themselves use and come to a conclusion, I then leave it up to the readers.
I do not think that if the consensus supports a point it helps my case. I simply cite them becuase they are acknowledged experts in their particular field, which is perfectly legal, that is not an argument from authority. If that were the case, then in criminal investigation, to call upon expert witnesses would never be allowed. However, I base my arguments on the evidence presented, not just because someone said so. The consensus can be wrong.
Sounds good. I have a couple follow-up questions for you.
1) Do you think there is a consensus amongst historians and scholars on the resurrection. If so, what is it?
2) Do the historians and scholars you quote all accept your conclusion: That the resurrection probably happened? If not, then what does that say about whether or not you should be citing them?
For instance, suppose scholar Bob supports points 1 - 5, but he does not support your conclusion. And what if most scholars agree with Bob?
You seem to think that if the consensus supports a point, it helps your case.
Conversely, if the consensus does not support your point, doesn't that hurt your case?
ODN Community Regular