(12-01-2019, 10:47 PM)Schrodinger's Outlaw Wrote:(12-01-2019, 10:26 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:resurrection is an extraordinary event?(12-01-2019, 10:04 PM)SYZ Wrote: Well, if one is of the frame of mind of accepting wholly that the historical Jesus existed—without
any apparent empirical evidence—then shouldn't that same frame of mind lead one to accept his
resurrection? After all, both occurrences are recorded in the bible as being legitimate, rather than
mythical. And the bible is purportedly inerrant. (I'm looking at this from a Christian's perspective.)
Why should current logic be applied differently to the two closely related events? We apply strict
logic to one claim, whilst ignoring the illogicality of the other? How does that work?
You're adding a lot of variable and qualifiers to your original statement, which was:
"The point I was making is that if you believe in the veracity of a historical Jesus, then your default position must be a belief in his resurrection."
You're cooking in, to name a few: A Christian's perspective, the bible as legitimate (or not), the bible as inerrant (or not), ones frame of mind having to be the same in both cases, and amount of apparent empirical evidence. All of these things complicate a very simple question: Is it true that belief in the veracity of a historical Jesus means one must believe in his resurrection? If all you are saying is Christians that believe in historical Jesus also believe in the resurrection, that is a different thing. But clearly an atheist or a HIndu or a Jew can believe there was a historical Jesus, because there are often (but not always) actual people at the foundings of cults and religions. You haven't demonstrated at all that that has some automatic connection to belief in magic or the supernatural (ie the resurrection). There is no "must" here...more like "most likely" or "often is."
Does your cunning bag of tricks ever involve a second sentence? Give us something to work with here. What's your point?
