Skype Discussion:Resurrection of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-08-2012, 07:20 AM
Skype Discussion:Resurrection of Jesus
We are very possibly going to have a Skype discussion sometime soon on the resurrection of Jesus.
I have been thinking on how to construct this discussion to make it as productive and organized as possible.

So far, I've thought of a few ground rules that I want some feedback on:

1.) Since there are going to be an overwhelming majority of those on Skype to be against the notion, I want the discussion to be one Skeptic against one Theist.
However, it can be laid out like this - Only one skeptic can verbally discuss and rebuttal the Theist at a time. The others that are listening in can only 'IM' with help, ideas, thoughts or anything that you think will add substance to the conversation.
If the one discussing against the notion decides that he/she would like to pass the discussion on to someone else, he/she can simply say so and then someone will be chosen to replace him/her.

2.) The discussion must stay on topic. If it's possible, we may need someone to watch for red herring or anything that changes the topic at hand.

3.) The title of the discussion and, consequently, the topic we will be sticking to (if it is agreed upon) is The Resurrection of Jesus - Is there viable compelling evidence for it?

I will be trying to revise the rules as I go along.
I don't have a date yet of when this discussion will occur, but I will post it on here when I do.

Any comments or suggestions are required..

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2012, 09:07 AM
RE: Skype Discussion:Resurrection of Jesus
4.) The Bible isn't viable compelling evidence, because in order to validate it's content you have to use either circular logic or the composition fallacy

I agree with the other ground rules.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2012, 09:13 AM (This post was last modified: 07-08-2012 11:32 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Skype Discussion:Resurrection of Jesus
Agree up front that whatever the evidence is, if there is equivalent or better evidence for other events, which is better than the resurrection evidence, then those events also have to be accepted, and the other events also have to be affirmed.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2012, 09:14 AM
RE: Skype Discussion:Resurrection of Jesus
(07-08-2012 09:07 AM)Vosur Wrote:  4.) The Bible isn't viable compelling evidence, because in order to validate it's content you have to use either circular logic or the composition fallacy

I agree with the other ground rules.

I've heard this a lot before. So maybe you can explain why any Scripture would not be considered as historical documents?

I'm just curious honestly because I hear that a lot but don't hear why they think so.

Also, I'll most likely be using evidence from both ends.
Whatever that may mean.

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2012, 09:15 AM
RE: Skype Discussion:Resurrection of Jesus
(07-08-2012 09:13 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Agree up front that whatever the evidence is, equivalent or better evidence for other events which is better than the resurrection evidence, also has to be accepted, and the other events also have to to be affirmed.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. It may be your punctuation, but please explain further.

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2012, 09:32 AM (This post was last modified: 07-08-2012 10:17 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Skype Discussion:Resurrection of Jesus
(07-08-2012 09:15 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(07-08-2012 09:13 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Agree up front that whatever the evidence is, equivalent or better evidence for other events which is better than the resurrection evidence, also has to be accepted, and the other events also have to to be affirmed.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. It may be your punctuation, but please explain further.

I'm saying that before the debate, you agree on the nature of the "evidence" that you will accept, for "belief"/acceptance, that a past event is actually true, and that if I can provide the same or better evidence for other "events" with the same or better evidence, that you agree, beforehand, to affirm, that the other events are also actually true, and that the other side be given the time to present the same or better evidence for at least one other supposedly "historical" event.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2012, 10:05 AM
RE: Skype Discussion:Resurrection of Jesus
(07-08-2012 09:14 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(07-08-2012 09:07 AM)Vosur Wrote:  4.) The Bible isn't viable compelling evidence, because in order to validate it's content you have to use either circular logic or the composition fallacy

I agree with the other ground rules.

I've heard this a lot before. So maybe you can explain why any Scripture would not be considered as historical documents?

I'm just curious honestly because I hear that a lot but don't hear why they think so.

Also, I'll most likely be using evidence from both ends.
Whatever that may mean.

One of the main reasons is that alot of what happens in the bible isn't mentioned anywhere else. Floods? Yes. Global ones? No. Humans living for hundreds of years? No.

Jews in egypt? No. And the list goes on.

However, both vikings and the rest of europe have recountings of viking raids. Several sources note the mongol invasion and the crusades to the middle east. When you have one source of information you have no way to verify it.

Think of it like this, eye witness testimonies are unreliable. Ask anyone who works the judicial system and they'll tell you that. However, if 5 people, who have no affiliation say they saw the same thing odds are they're right as it's highly unlikely they're all mistaken. Things will differ in all stories based on bias and perspective, but certain parts will be similar and thus most likely true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like sillinde's post
07-08-2012, 10:06 AM
RE: Skype Discussion:Resurrection of Jesus
(07-08-2012 09:14 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(07-08-2012 09:07 AM)Vosur Wrote:  4.) The Bible isn't viable compelling evidence, because in order to validate it's content you have to use either circular logic or the composition fallacy

I agree with the other ground rules.

I've heard this a lot before. So maybe you can explain why any Scripture would not be considered as historical documents?

I'm just curious honestly because I hear that a lot but don't hear why they think so.

Also, I'll most likely be using evidence from both ends.
Whatever that may mean.

The gospels were written many many years later, by non-eye witnesses, for one purpose only. They were written for use in liturgical worship services, by already believing people. There is no way, any "propaganda" text would be considered evidence today. Each of the gospels totally disagrees on what they saw when they arrived at the tomb. But by all means, if you want to accept that level, go ahead, but just remember, if you do accept THAT level of evidence, you were warned, and you also have to accept other "events" which have that level of evidence, that we will present.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
07-08-2012, 10:07 AM
RE: Skype Discussion:Resurrection of Jesus
(07-08-2012 09:14 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(07-08-2012 09:07 AM)Vosur Wrote:  4.) The Bible isn't viable compelling evidence, because in order to validate it's content you have to use either circular logic or the composition fallacy

I agree with the other ground rules.

I've heard this a lot before. So maybe you can explain why any Scripture would not be considered as historical documents?
The Bible is the only scripture I've read so far, which is why I can't comment on the historical validity of other books of faith. However, the Bible is not considered to be a historical document because it contains contradictions, historical errors and inaccuracies and last but not least because the NT is mostly based on eye-witness accounts written down decades after Jesus death (the authors never met Jesus themselves).

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2012, 12:09 PM
RE: Skype Discussion:Resurrection of Jesus
I understand where you guys are coming from. As far as discounting documents, writings or any material at all from the discussion, I am not going to add that to the ground rules. If someone wants to use invalid documents, then so be it, but the opposite side obviously has no obligation to take to heart the opposing case.

Once the discussion is over, then we can take the information we get and test it's reliability. But the discussion is about the resurrection, not the reliability of certain documents. If this conflicts with the discussion title, then we can revise it. But I do not want this to be about what documents we are and are not allowed to use.
I am going to use whatever resources we have at our disposal.


And Bucky Ball, making agreements before a discussion is not important and sometimes inhibits a fair dialogue.
I'm not going to make agreements to anything. If the opposing side decides to talk about other historical events and the viability of them, I consider that off topic.

Bucky Ball, do you understand what the discussion is supposed to be about?
We are concentrating on one particular claim. That is all, and if we start looking at other people, other events, we could go on rabbit trails that lead nowhere.
Those are different topics for different discussions.

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: