Hello all, it’s me again, still comunicating with my atheist buddy, and now i think he’s getting help. Our last argument I talked about historian evidence, and most of it came from New Testament Historian Scholar Michael Licona. But he responded and responded quite well. I need masters i think to help me on this one. And again I think he’s getting his answers from atheist historians. My talk is in quotes, so not to confuse you all. Here goes the FIRST part, there are SIX all together:
THE CATHOLIC IN QUOTES “To begin, some like Bart D. Ehrman (author of “Misquoting Jesus”) say “Because historians can only establish what probaly happened, the historian cannot say it probaly occurred.” But this is faulty.”
THE ATHEIST OUT OF QUOTES: Of course you cannot prove a negative, however positive claims, such as the existence of a god or what Jesus did require positive evidence. This is the basis of how we uncover objective truth.
“For example, if someone says Jesus rose from the dead by natural causes, then of course that would be the least probable explanation.”
Couple of big problems here, firstly there is no evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, the evidence that Jesus even existed is pretty poor. The historicity of Jesus is not what it could or should be. The historicity of someone else from a similar period like say Julius Caesar is much more certain.
"But nobody is saying that. Rather, the claim is that God rose Jesus from the dead. And if God exists and wants to raise Jesus from the dead, I would think that would be the most probable explanation. "
Sure, but consider this if the flying spaghetti monster exists and wanted to raise Jesus from the dead, that would be the most likely explanation. However there is no evidence in favour of the existence of either of these two beings, just as there is no evidence in favour of bigfoot.
“Philosopher Antony Flew, when he was an atheist said the resurrection is more likely if God exists.”
I would also agree with this. If this super being exists it is more likely that resurrection could occur, however since we have no evidence for such a being, this is pure speculation.
“a good number of atheists begin with a bias against the supernatural: “there is no God, therefore there must be another explanation, no matter what!” Therefore, some historians rule out the supernatural at the outset.”
No, it is not a bias against the supernatural (except of course in science, natural means actual, so by that definition supernatural means fictitious) rather like the bigfoot hypothesis, if there is no evidence to back up the existence of bigfoot you cannot put forth that bigfoot exists to back up the argument.
Since there is no evidence for god, just as there is no evidence for any form of ‘magic’ existing, despite repeated attempts to find this we cannot form an argument based upon no evidence. It is like if this was a court case and you were being charged with murder, if there is no evidence you have committed this crime you cannot be charged with said crime. Positive claims require positive evidence.
"“You can’t have a Virgin birth, therefore Mary must to have been either raped or had an affair. There just has to be a “naturalistic explanation” for it.”
Mary being a virgin would appear to be a translation error, if you look back at the Aramaic texts before their translation into Greek you will find that Mary was not a virgin, but a young woman. It is a similar difference as maid and maiden in English. One simply means young woman, the other means virgin.
Additionally the bible states that the messiah would be of the line of David, since these lines are always passed down the male side… he cant be the messiah if Joseph is not the real father. This is just one of many of the contradictions between the two gospels which deal with Jesus’ birth.
Additionally the Jesus birth story gets wrong other facts, like suggesting they had to be in Bethlehem because of a census requiring all people to go to their ancient ancestors city. This is clearly flawed since it doesn’t specify generations. Additionally we can check other historical documents and find that no national census occurred, only local ones which did not require anyone to go anywhere.