Is there good evidence for the resurrection of Jesus?

RickeyHoltsclaw

@just_sayin ; The Holy Spirit testified to the resurrection of Messiah; Jesus told us He would be resurrected; 500-witnesses observed our resurrected Messiah...I believe.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Nope

The Gospels were written decades after Jesus' death and are primarily theological documents, meaning their focus is on conveying faith rather than providing objective historical accounts.

There are no accounts of the resurrection from neutral observers outside the Gospels.

The "resurrection" is a fairy tale believed by gullible fanatics.

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

If there is good evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, then there is good reason to believe that Christianity is true.  If there is not, then Christianity collapses, as the apostle Paul said

The very premise of your argument does not seem sensible. If it is established that Jesus, indeed, has been resurrected, it will only suggest two things: that 1) human resurrection is possible (which in itself would have quite dramatic implications), and 2) some witness accounts of Jesus' reappearance may have more than zero credence. It will not at all imply that thousands of claims made in Christianity are true.

Conversely, it is possible in theory that Christianity overall is true, yet this particular event - resurrection of Jesus - never occurred. Perhaps everything else in the Bible is true, but this particular part was a product of human imagination and written in by humans into the book, corrupting it with human-created misinformation.

I think your argument is yet another illustration of how corrupt religious thinking is. It consists of finding logical connections where there are none, and removing logical connections where they are there, out of convenience. Whatever makes it easier to arrive at one's conclusion goes.

just_sayin

JulesKorngold said:

The Gospels were written decades after Jesus' death and are primarily theological documents, meaning their focus is on conveying faith rather than providing objective historical accounts.

There are no accounts of the resurrection from neutral observers outside the Gospels.

The "resurrection" is a fairy tale believed by gullible fanatics.

The gospels do have a religious aspect to them.  No doubt. Eye witness testimony though is an evidence.  Further, the multiple attestations of the four points I made come from both Christian and non-Christian sources and can't just be dismissed out of hand.  Are you suggesting that Jesus didn't exist, die on a cross and that there were no accounts of his resurrection or changed lives of his followers who were willing to die rather than say that the resurrection was a hoax?  

The creed with the list of historical witnesses to the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is said to be no more than 18 months after the resurrection.  Historians agree on that early dating.  So much for your argument about late evidence.  

If by neutral observers, you mean people who didn't know him, then you must be called out for begging the question.  When have you ever seen in a court of law a judge not allow someone to give testimony because they knew the defendant.  Further, there are enemies of Jesus who corroborate the 4 points I made above.  Even though they may not say that Jesus rose from the dead, even they acknowledge that the tomb was empty and that Jesus' followers sincerely believed he was the Messiah and was resurrected.

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

just_sayin said:

If there is good evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, then there is good reason to believe that Christianity is true.  If there is not, then Christianity collapses, as the apostle Paul said

The very premise of your argument does not seem sensible. If it is established that Jesus, indeed, has been resurrected, it will only suggest two things: that 1) human resurrection is possible (which in itself would have quite dramatic implications), and 2) some witness accounts of Jesus' reappearance may have more than zero credence. It will not at all imply that thousands of claims made in Christianity are true.

Conversely, it is possible in theory that Christianity overall is true, yet this particular event - resurrection of Jesus - never occurred. Perhaps everything else in the Bible is true, but this particular part was a product of human imagination and written in by humans into the book, corrupting it with human-created misinformation.

I think your argument is yet another illustration of how corrupt religious thinking is. It consists of finding logical connections where there are none, and removing logical connections where they are there, out of convenience. Whatever makes it easier to arrive at one's conclusion goes.

If there is good evidence of Jesus' resurrection then it would show a miracle that is more than just a causal miracle but something within Christianity associated with the very system of beliefs (forgiveness of sins).

What evidence would you give to claim that Jesus's resurrection did not happen?  That would really help your case if you could provide some strong evidence to support your position.  

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

MayCaesar said:

just_sayin said:

If there is good evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, then there is good reason to believe that Christianity is true.  If there is not, then Christianity collapses, as the apostle Paul said

The very premise of your argument does not seem sensible. If it is established that Jesus, indeed, has been resurrected, it will only suggest two things: that 1) human resurrection is possible (which in itself would have quite dramatic implications), and 2) some witness accounts of Jesus' reappearance may have more than zero credence. It will not at all imply that thousands of claims made in Christianity are true.

Conversely, it is possible in theory that Christianity overall is true, yet this particular event - resurrection of Jesus - never occurred. Perhaps everything else in the Bible is true, but this particular part was a product of human imagination and written in by humans into the book, corrupting it with human-created misinformation.

I think your argument is yet another illustration of how corrupt religious thinking is. It consists of finding logical connections where there are none, and removing logical connections where they are there, out of convenience. Whatever makes it easier to arrive at one's conclusion goes.

If there is good evidence of Jesus' resurrection then it would show a miracle that is more than just a causal miracle but something within Christianity associated with the very system of beliefs (forgiveness of sins).

What evidence would you give to claim that Jesus's resurrection did not happen?  That would really help your case if you could provide some strong evidence to support your position.  

That's not how it works. You are making the assertion about the resurrection. You are responsible for presenting compelling evidence. Not @MayCaesar. He simply doesn't believe you or the bible, you have not produce anything but hearsay. The bible isn't evidence because it's claims are not completely unique to christianity. As Zeus pointed out here: https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/176945/#Comment_176945

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

MayCaesar said:

just_sayin said:

If there is good evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, then there is good reason to believe that Christianity is true.  If there is not, then Christianity collapses, as the apostle Paul said

The very premise of your argument does not seem sensible. If it is established that Jesus, indeed, has been resurrected, it will only suggest two things: that 1) human resurrection is possible (which in itself would have quite dramatic implications), and 2) some witness accounts of Jesus' reappearance may have more than zero credence. It will not at all imply that thousands of claims made in Christianity are true.

Conversely, it is possible in theory that Christianity overall is true, yet this particular event - resurrection of Jesus - never occurred. Perhaps everything else in the Bible is true, but this particular part was a product of human imagination and written in by humans into the book, corrupting it with human-created misinformation.

I think your argument is yet another illustration of how corrupt religious thinking is. It consists of finding logical connections where there are none, and removing logical connections where they are there, out of convenience. Whatever makes it easier to arrive at one's conclusion goes.

If there is good evidence of Jesus' resurrection then it would show a miracle that is more than just a causal miracle but something within Christianity associated with the very system of beliefs (forgiveness of sins).

What evidence would you give to claim that Jesus's resurrection did not happen?  That would really help your case if you could provide some strong evidence to support your position.  

That's not how it works. You are making the assertion about the resurrection. You are responsible for presenting compelling evidence. Not @MayCaesar. He simply doesn't believe you or the bible, you have not produce anything but hearsay. The bible isn't evidence because it's claims are not completely unique to christianity. As Zeus pointed out here: https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/176945/#Comment_176945

Fact, May didn't discredit a single source I mentioned.  Instead he attacked people of faith.  He gave no reasons why the evidence of both Christians and the enemies of Jesus alike was false.  

Mentioning Zeus' AI report was laughable.  It it no way invalidates the multiple attestations of Jesus' death and resurrection.  In fact, the Jews did not have the idea of a crucified Messiah in their thoughts.  Crucifixion was the death of criminals, not a Messiah in the Jewish mindset of the day.  Jesus' death by crucifixion therefore seems more probable because it is embarrassing - the myth stories of Zeus' AI don't contain that.  In fact the vast majority of details of Jesus death and resurrection do not fit other religious myths.  This is an incredibly weak argument that doesn't even address the witness evidence I mentioned.

If you don't mind me asking, why are you an atheist?  Its seems obvious its not because someone argued you into that belief.  

GiantMan

Argument Topic: Argument of atheists

"We don't like it so its not true."

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

If there is good evidence of Jesus' resurrection then it would show a miracle that is more than just a causal miracle but something within Christianity associated with the very system of beliefs (forgiveness of sins).

What evidence would you give to claim that Jesus's resurrection did not happen?  That would really help your case if you could provide some strong evidence to support your position.  

It would show that a mechanism exists in nature that we are not aware of, and that it may be connected to the Biblical testimonies. It would not show that Christian beliefs are true. As an analogy, consider the following system of beliefs: The Great Truck has created the world, and The Great Truck posited that in the 21st century America a truck will get stuck in a house in an impossible position, and that will be a harbinger of the upcoming Great Truck Revolution when all trucks will become sentient and take over the world. Now, I see this:



I cannot find a reasonable physical explanation to this: it simply does not seem possible for the truck to end up in this position - yet it is. Does this, in your view, support my Great Truck theory?

To your last question, I have not made the claim that "Jesus' resurrection did not happen": such a claim, indeed, would be difficult to support with evidence. However, in logical thinking we use hypothesis testing, and the null hypothesis is always the one requiring the smallest number of assumptions. For example, "Invisible unicorns exist" is a bad null hypothesis, while "Invisible unicorns do not exist" is a good one, because the former is more complex than the latter - so if the latter hypothesis aligns with the evidence, then considering the former hypothesis is unnecessary. So Jesus' resurrection did not happen model-wise. I have no idea if it happened in reality; perhaps it has. And perhaps there is a secret society of T-rexes somewhere deep in the Amazon forest. But seriously considering either of these two possibilities is silly.

This is how logical thinking works, my friend. You set aside all of your personal desires and look at raw facts and implications of them. You do not draw unwarranted conclusions, you do not accept unproven alternative hypotheses, and you certainly do not twist arguments against your hypothesis; the latter is death of impartiality and logic.

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

just_sayin said:

If there is good evidence of Jesus' resurrection then it would show a miracle that is more than just a causal miracle but something within Christianity associated with the very system of beliefs (forgiveness of sins).

What evidence would you give to claim that Jesus's resurrection did not happen?  That would really help your case if you could provide some strong evidence to support your position.  

It would show that a mechanism exists in nature that we are not aware of, and that it may be connected to the Biblical testimonies. It would not show that Christian beliefs are true. As an analogy, consider the following system of beliefs: The Great Truck has created the world, and The Great Truck posited that in the 21st century America a truck will get stuck in a house in an impossible position, and that will be a harbinger of the upcoming Great Truck Revolution when all trucks will become sentient and take over the world. Now, I see this:



I cannot find a reasonable physical explanation to this: it simply does not seem possible for the truck to end up in this position - yet it is. Does this, in your view, support my Great Truck theory?

To your last question, I have not made the claim that "Jesus' resurrection did not happen": such a claim, indeed, would be difficult to support with evidence. However, in logical thinking we use hypothesis testing, and the null hypothesis is always the one requiring the smallest number of assumptions. For example, "Invisible unicorns exist" is a bad null hypothesis, while "Invisible unicorns do not exist" is a good one, because the former is more complex than the latter - so if the latter hypothesis aligns with the evidence, then considering the former hypothesis is unnecessary. So Jesus' resurrection did not happen model-wise. I have no idea if it happened in reality; perhaps it has. And perhaps there is a secret society of T-rexes somewhere deep in the Amazon forest. But seriously considering either of these two possibilities is silly.

This is how logical thinking works, my friend. You set aside all of your personal desires and look at raw facts and implications of them. You do not draw unwarranted conclusions, you do not accept unproven alternative hypotheses, and you certainly do not twist arguments against your hypothesis; the latter is death of impartiality and logic.

In your first paragraph, are you arguing that Christianity could be true, but the resurrections false?

Your argument seems to be comparing multiple historical witnesses, both for and against Christianity, with invisible unicorns and semi-trucks.  This is special pleading on  your part.

What should we look for in good historical evidence?  I would argue we should look for these types of things:

1.  Multiple sources - there are 42 ancient sources within a 100 year period of the resurrection, both Christian and non-Christian, that mention Jesus.  To put it into perspective, the most well known person of Jesus' day, Tiberius, has 15 sources of evidence in a 150 year period.

2. The Earlier the better - the creed in 1 Corinthians 15 is said to be within 18 months of the resurrection.  It mentions the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus plus names witnesses such as Peter, James, the apostles, and claims 500 eye witnesses.  As far as early dates go in antiquity - that's incredibly early evidence.

3. Does it fit historically - Jesus crucifixion fits with what we know about Roman crucifixion.  Burial in a tomb was for rich people - so it tracks that Jesus was buried in a rich man's tomb, who also was a member of the Sanhedrin.  The reaction of the disciples fits if they saw something miraculous, otherwise its hard to understand why they all were martyred - well except for John, who was imprisoned and boiled in oil.   

4. Enemy attestation can be a strong evidence. - You expect your enemies to lie, but sometimes they can corroborate details.  For example Jesus enemies said he could predict the future, performed miracles, was in Jerusalem for the Passover, was  crucified by Pontius Pilate, that the tomb was empty, that the disciples believed Jesus was the Messiah. Multiple sources from Jesus' enemies such as Josephus, and Tacitus say that the disciples of Jesus were martyred when they refused to renounce Jesus resurrection.  

Paul was an enemy of Jesus.  He put Christians to death. This is attested to in Acts and in Paul's on writings.  Paul mentions in his letter to the Corinthian church (15:9), his letter to the Galatian church (1:13), and his letter to Timothy (1 Timothy 1:13), that he was a persecutor of Christians. From Paul’s own writings he tells us that he killed some Christians and had others imprisoned.  Paul even tries to get some churches, that he had not visited yet, at ease over his past in his epistles before visiting them.  It seems for someone who was a zealous Jew, who stoned Christians to death in behalf of the high priest, to 'switch sides' ,that the evidence had to be pretty compelling to him.  How do you account for this otherwise?  Remember he was beheaded for preaching that Jesus was risen, and spent years of his life in prison.  He was stoned and beaten for his message.  

5. Embarrassing details can also lend weight to a historical claim.  People don't usually share their embarrassing moments in antiquity.  If Jesus had not been crucified it is unlikely that detail would have been mentioned.  If women were not the first witnesses, it is unlikely that detail would have been created because it would have been counterproductive.  Thomas saying he wouldn't believe unless he saw Jesus for himself is a detail that would not have been shared by the disciples if not true.  Mark in his gospel mentions a young man running away naked when the high priests guards came to take Jesus away - in the original Koine Greek the reader understands that the writer is talking about himself.  Do you freely talk to others about running away naked because you are fearing for your life?  Mark includes details about Peter denying Christ on the eve Jesus was crucified.  It is unlikely Mark, whose source was Peter, would have made that detail up because it puts Peter in a bad light.

Can you see how the evidence for the resurrection differs from your special pleading that the resurrection is like an invisible unicorn?

Why don't you try and explain why the disciples claimed they saw Jesus resurrected and gave their lives up rather than say Jesus didn't rise from the dead.  I'm waiting.  

RickeyHoltsclaw

JulesKorngold said:

The Gospels were written decades after Jesus' death and are primarily theological documents, meaning their focus is on conveying faith rather than providing objective historical accounts.

There are no accounts of the resurrection from neutral observers outside the Gospels.

The "resurrection" is a fairy tale believed by gullible fanatics.

@JulesKorngold ; The Gospels were written relatively, comparatively, soon subsequent Messiah's ascension and we have every reason to believe that the disciples kept extensive notes concerning their service to their Rabbi, Jesus our Messiah. You can trust what is written as the Holy Spirit has ensured its legitimacy and preserved same for your edification. The same Creator who created your your genome is perfectly capable of providing you with the words He desires you have so that you can know Him personally, love Him intimately, live with Him eternally. 

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

In your first paragraph, are you arguing that Christianity could be true, but the resurrections false?

Your argument seems to be comparing multiple historical witnesses, both for and against Christianity, with invisible unicorns and semi-trucks.  This is special pleading on  your part.

What should we look for in good historical evidence?  I would argue we should look for these types of things:

1.  Multiple sources - there are 42 ancient sources within a 100 year period of the resurrection, both Christian and non-Christian, that mention Jesus.  To put it into perspective, the most well known person of Jesus' day, Tiberius, has 15 sources of evidence in a 150 year period.

2. The Earlier the better - the creed in 1 Corinthians 15 is said to be within 18 months of the resurrection.  It mentions the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus plus names witnesses such as Peter, James, the apostles, and claims 500 eye witnesses.  As far as early dates go in antiquity - that's incredibly early evidence.

3. Does it fit historically - Jesus crucifixion fits with what we know about Roman crucifixion.  Burial in a tomb was for rich people - so it tracks that Jesus was buried in a rich man's tomb, who also was a member of the Sanhedrin.  The reaction of the disciples fits if they saw something miraculous, otherwise its hard to understand why they all were martyred - well except for John, who was imprisoned and boiled in oil.   

4. Enemy attestation can be a strong evidence. - You expect your enemies to lie, but sometimes they can corroborate details.  For example Jesus enemies said he could predict the future, performed miracles, was in Jerusalem for the Passover, was  crucified by Pontius Pilate, that the tomb was empty, that the disciples believed Jesus was the Messiah. Multiple sources from Jesus' enemies such as Josephus, and Tacitus say that the disciples of Jesus were martyred when they refused to renounce Jesus resurrection.  

Paul was an enemy of Jesus.  He put Christians to death. This is attested to in Acts and in Paul's on writings.  Paul mentions in his letter to the Corinthian church (15:9), his letter to the Galatian church (1:13), and his letter to Timothy (1 Timothy 1:13), that he was a persecutor of Christians. From Paul’s own writings he tells us that he killed some Christians and had others imprisoned.  Paul even tries to get some churches, that he had not visited yet, at ease over his past in his epistles before visiting them.  It seems for someone who was a zealous Jew, who stoned Christians to death in behalf of the high priest, to 'switch sides' ,that the evidence had to be pretty compelling to him.  How do you account for this otherwise?  Remember he was beheaded for preaching that Jesus was risen, and spent years of his life in prison.  He was stoned and beaten for his message.  

5. Embarrassing details can also lend weight to a historical claim.  People don't usually share their embarrassing moments in antiquity.  If Jesus had not been crucified it is unlikely that detail would have been mentioned.  If women were not the first witnesses, it is unlikely that detail would have been created because it would have been counterproductive.  Thomas saying he wouldn't believe unless he saw Jesus for himself is a detail that would not have been shared by the disciples if not true.  Mark in his gospel mentions a young man running away naked when the high priests guards came to take Jesus away - in the original Koine Greek the reader understands that the writer is talking about himself.  Do you freely talk to others about running away naked because you are fearing for your life?  Mark includes details about Peter denying Christ on the eve Jesus was crucified.  It is unlikely Mark, whose source was Peter, would have made that detail up because it puts Peter in a bad light.

Can you see how the evidence for the resurrection differs from your special pleading that the resurrection is like an invisible unicorn?

Why don't you try and explain why the disciples claimed they saw Jesus resurrected and gave their lives up rather than say Jesus didn't rise from the dead.  I'm waiting.  

"This is special pleading" is not an argument. There have been "witnesses" of alien kidnappings, ghosts, and - yes, where do you think the idea of them comes from? - unicorns. Trucks are actually real, unlike walking corpses, so the comparison is overly generous.

"Historical evidence" constitutes a series of findings that cannot be easily explained without the assumption that the entity in question was a part of history. For example, it is very hard to explain the observed consequences of movements of large armies and countries' borders, and countless translated documents, without positing that Julius Caesar was a real Roman general and, later, ruler. The null hypothesis that Julius Caesar is a fictional character runs against countless facts that would require some grand worldwide conspiracy going on for millennia, so it is reasonable to conclude that Julius Caesar is a real historical character.
With "resurrected Jesus", it merely requires a few people to get inspired by some spiritual experience and interpret it in a way that resonates with their beliefs - and the other people to spread the story. There is no concrete piece of evidence that makes no sense in the assumption that Jesus never became a zombie, so accepting this assumption that runs against everything we know about human biology and physics is unreasonable.

The phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is not technically accurate - standards of evidence should be the same regardless of the claim made - however, one could say that something defying all laws of this world that we are aware of constitutes strong counter-evidence, and to offset that counter-evidence, the weight of evidence must be enormous. If someone claims that a tribe of intelligent T-Rexes is living somewhere deep in the Amazon forest (which is a claim much less discordant with modern knowledge than a claim that an animal corpse rose up and started walking and talking), then there better be very concrete and verifiable evidence in support of that. Something as strong as one actual T-Rex captured and brought to the Houston Zoo for everyone to examine.

So, on one side of the scale we have shady accounts of some witnesses from 2,000 years ago, in combination with many centuries of Christian dictatorship in Europe featuring endless rewriting of history and execution of critics of the church. On the other we have centuries of rigorous studies and experiments in the fields of medicine, physics, biology, history, testifying to lack of and impossibility of such events. Which one is going to win the weighing contest? I guess the answer depends on what you are looking for: the truth, or affirmation of your beliefs.

ZeusAres42

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

MayCaesar said:

just_sayin said:

If there is good evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, then there is good reason to believe that Christianity is true.  If there is not, then Christianity collapses, as the apostle Paul said

The very premise of your argument does not seem sensible. If it is established that Jesus, indeed, has been resurrected, it will only suggest two things: that 1) human resurrection is possible (which in itself would have quite dramatic implications), and 2) some witness accounts of Jesus' reappearance may have more than zero credence. It will not at all imply that thousands of claims made in Christianity are true.

Conversely, it is possible in theory that Christianity overall is true, yet this particular event - resurrection of Jesus - never occurred. Perhaps everything else in the Bible is true, but this particular part was a product of human imagination and written in by humans into the book, corrupting it with human-created misinformation.

I think your argument is yet another illustration of how corrupt religious thinking is. It consists of finding logical connections where there are none, and removing logical connections where they are there, out of convenience. Whatever makes it easier to arrive at one's conclusion goes.

If there is good evidence of Jesus' resurrection then it would show a miracle that is more than just a causal miracle but something within Christianity associated with the very system of beliefs (forgiveness of sins).

What evidence would you give to claim that Jesus's resurrection did not happen?  That would really help your case if you could provide some strong evidence to support your position.  

That's not how it works. You are making the assertion about the resurrection. You are responsible for presenting compelling evidence. Not @MayCaesar. He simply doesn't believe you or the bible, you have not produce anything but hearsay. The bible isn't evidence because it's claims are not completely unique to christianity. As Zeus pointed out here: https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/176945/#Comment_176945

@Factfander

Not entirely. The latter part of your post, which Just_Sayin_Anything failed to notice, discussed how religious beliefs have evolved over many centuries. The initial part focused on the lack of substantial empirical evidence for many claims in the Bible, which we might expect to find by now. However, this doesn't mean that the Bible or any other religious scripture lacks historical or archaeological studies that support some of its historical claims. My comments generally address the supernatural/extraordinary claims regarding their substantiation through empirical evidence as understood within the scientific context.

But, yes claims in the Bible are not unique to Christianity. After a historical examination, it seems many religious texts share common themes and/or have influenced each other historically.

Factfinder

ZeusAres42 said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

MayCaesar said:

just_sayin said:

If there is good evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, then there is good reason to believe that Christianity is true.  If there is not, then Christianity collapses, as the apostle Paul said

The very premise of your argument does not seem sensible. If it is established that Jesus, indeed, has been resurrected, it will only suggest two things: that 1) human resurrection is possible (which in itself would have quite dramatic implications), and 2) some witness accounts of Jesus' reappearance may have more than zero credence. It will not at all imply that thousands of claims made in Christianity are true.

Conversely, it is possible in theory that Christianity overall is true, yet this particular event - resurrection of Jesus - never occurred. Perhaps everything else in the Bible is true, but this particular part was a product of human imagination and written in by humans into the book, corrupting it with human-created misinformation.

I think your argument is yet another illustration of how corrupt religious thinking is. It consists of finding logical connections where there are none, and removing logical connections where they are there, out of convenience. Whatever makes it easier to arrive at one's conclusion goes.

If there is good evidence of Jesus' resurrection then it would show a miracle that is more than just a causal miracle but something within Christianity associated with the very system of beliefs (forgiveness of sins).

What evidence would you give to claim that Jesus's resurrection did not happen?  That would really help your case if you could provide some strong evidence to support your position.  

That's not how it works. You are making the assertion about the resurrection. You are responsible for presenting compelling evidence. Not @MayCaesar. He simply doesn't believe you or the bible, you have not produce anything but hearsay. The bible isn't evidence because it's claims are not completely unique to christianity. As Zeus pointed out here: https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/176945/#Comment_176945

@Factfander

Not entirely. The latter part of your post, which Just_Sayin_Anything failed to notice, discussed how religious beliefs have evolved over many centuries. The initial part focused on the lack of substantial empirical evidence for many claims in the Bible, which we might expect to find by now. However, this doesn't mean that the Bible or any other religious scripture lacks historical or archaeological studies that support some of its historical claims. My comments primarily address the supernatural claims, discussing them in general terms regarding their substantiation through empirical evidence as understood within the scientific context.

But, yes claims in the Bible are not unique to Christianity. After a historical examination, it seems many religious texts share common themes and/or have influenced each other historically.

I'm not sure what you mean here @ZuesAres42. If you're referring to @MayCaesar's posts I wasn't saying he didn't produce evidence. My frame of mind was more towards the onus being on just_sayin for making assertions, and not on May. That's the point I was making. 

ZeusAres42

@Factfinder

I thought perhaps for a minute I wasn't clear and so was just clarifying my position that it wasn't lack of evidence per se that is due to non-uniqueness. If that makes sense. 

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

just_sayin said:

In your first paragraph, are you arguing that Christianity could be true, but the resurrections false?

Your argument seems to be comparing multiple historical witnesses, both for and against Christianity, with invisible unicorns and semi-trucks.  This is special pleading on  your part.

What should we look for in good historical evidence?  I would argue we should look for these types of things:

1.  Multiple sources - there are 42 ancient sources within a 100 year period of the resurrection, both Christian and non-Christian, that mention Jesus.  To put it into perspective, the most well known person of Jesus' day, Tiberius, has 15 sources of evidence in a 150 year period.

2. The Earlier the better - the creed in 1 Corinthians 15 is said to be within 18 months of the resurrection.  It mentions the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus plus names witnesses such as Peter, James, the apostles, and claims 500 eye witnesses.  As far as early dates go in antiquity - that's incredibly early evidence.

3. Does it fit historically - Jesus crucifixion fits with what we know about Roman crucifixion.  Burial in a tomb was for rich people - so it tracks that Jesus was buried in a rich man's tomb, who also was a member of the Sanhedrin.  The reaction of the disciples fits if they saw something miraculous, otherwise its hard to understand why they all were martyred - well except for John, who was imprisoned and boiled in oil.   

4. Enemy attestation can be a strong evidence. - You expect your enemies to lie, but sometimes they can corroborate details.  For example Jesus enemies said he could predict the future, performed miracles, was in Jerusalem for the Passover, was  crucified by Pontius Pilate, that the tomb was empty, that the disciples believed Jesus was the Messiah. Multiple sources from Jesus' enemies such as Josephus, and Tacitus say that the disciples of Jesus were martyred when they refused to renounce Jesus resurrection.  

Paul was an enemy of Jesus.  He put Christians to death. This is attested to in Acts and in Paul's on writings.  Paul mentions in his letter to the Corinthian church (15:9), his letter to the Galatian church (1:13), and his letter to Timothy (1 Timothy 1:13), that he was a persecutor of Christians. From Paul’s own writings he tells us that he killed some Christians and had others imprisoned.  Paul even tries to get some churches, that he had not visited yet, at ease over his past in his epistles before visiting them.  It seems for someone who was a zealous Jew, who stoned Christians to death in behalf of the high priest, to 'switch sides' ,that the evidence had to be pretty compelling to him.  How do you account for this otherwise?  Remember he was beheaded for preaching that Jesus was risen, and spent years of his life in prison.  He was stoned and beaten for his message.  

5. Embarrassing details can also lend weight to a historical claim.  People don't usually share their embarrassing moments in antiquity.  If Jesus had not been crucified it is unlikely that detail would have been mentioned.  If women were not the first witnesses, it is unlikely that detail would have been created because it would have been counterproductive.  Thomas saying he wouldn't believe unless he saw Jesus for himself is a detail that would not have been shared by the disciples if not true.  Mark in his gospel mentions a young man running away naked when the high priests guards came to take Jesus away - in the original Koine Greek the reader understands that the writer is talking about himself.  Do you freely talk to others about running away naked because you are fearing for your life?  Mark includes details about Peter denying Christ on the eve Jesus was crucified.  It is unlikely Mark, whose source was Peter, would have made that detail up because it puts Peter in a bad light.

Can you see how the evidence for the resurrection differs from your special pleading that the resurrection is like an invisible unicorn?

Why don't you try and explain why the disciples claimed they saw Jesus resurrected and gave their lives up rather than say Jesus didn't rise from the dead.  I'm waiting.  

"This is special pleading" is not an argument. There have been "witnesses" of alien kidnappings, ghosts, and - yes, where do you think the idea of them comes from? - unicorns. Trucks are actually real, unlike walking corpses, so the comparison is overly generous.

"Historical evidence" constitutes a series of findings that cannot be easily explained without the assumption that the entity in question was a part of history. For example, it is very hard to explain the observed consequences of movements of large armies and countries' borders, and countless translated documents, without positing that Julius Caesar was a real Roman general and, later, ruler. The null hypothesis that Julius Caesar is a fictional character runs against countless facts that would require some grand worldwide conspiracy going on for millennia, so it is reasonable to conclude that Julius Caesar is a real historical character.
With "resurrected Jesus", it merely requires a few people to get inspired by some spiritual experience and interpret it in a way that resonates with their beliefs - and the other people to spread the story. There is no concrete piece of evidence that makes no sense in the assumption that Jesus never became a zombie, so accepting this assumption that runs against everything we know about human biology and physics is unreasonable.

The phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is not technically accurate - standards of evidence should be the same regardless of the claim made - however, one could say that something defying all laws of this world that we are aware of constitutes strong counter-evidence, and to offset that counter-evidence, the weight of evidence must be enormous. If someone claims that a tribe of intelligent T-Rexes is living somewhere deep in the Amazon forest (which is a claim much less discordant with modern knowledge than a claim that an animal corpse rose up and started walking and talking), then there better be very concrete and verifiable evidence in support of that. Something as strong as one actual T-Rex captured and brought to the Houston Zoo for everyone to examine.

So, on one side of the scale we have shady accounts of some witnesses from 2,000 years ago, in combination with many centuries of Christian dictatorship in Europe featuring endless rewriting of history and execution of critics of the church. On the other we have centuries of rigorous studies and experiments in the fields of medicine, physics, biology, history, testifying to lack of and impossibility of such events. Which one is going to win the weighing contest? I guess the answer depends on what you are looking for: the truth, or affirmation of your beliefs.

May, I agree with you that special pleading is not a good argument.  Yet, you are suggesting that the witnesses are unreliable without any evidence of such.

A mistake I see some atheist make is the Humian error where they beg the question.  They assume there are no miracles so if there is evidence of a miracle it must be discarded because their world view doesn't allow for miracles.  However, we should be open to where ever the evidence leads.  

I think it is important to note that even Jesus' enemies said he did miracles (see Josephus, Phlegon, The Talmud, and Celsus).  Further, Phlegon also claimed Jesus predicted future events and they came true.  So it seems that not only Jesus' followers but also his enemies acknowledged that Jesus performed miracles.  it seems like an odd thing to claim of your enemy, especially if you are trying to discredit his followers.  So, both Jesus followers and his enemies are willing to acknowledge that Jesus performed miracles, while some atheists dismiss the idea without even considering the evidence.

You claim the accounts are 'shady' but provided no evidence for this claim.  Did Jesus' enemies consider his disciples 'shady' like you allege?  Let's look at the evidence:

Pliny the Younger

“They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food—but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”

Lucian of Samasata

“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account….You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.” (Lucian, The Death of Peregrine. 11-13)

Josephus (note: this is the version most scholars think he actually wrote, not the one believed edited by a Christian scribe)

“Now around this time lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was a worker of amazing deeds and was a teacher of people who gladly accept the truth. He won over both many Jews and many Greeks. Pilate, when he heard him accused by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, (but) those who had first loved him did not cease (doing so). To this day the tribe of Christians named after him has not disappeared”

So Jesus' enemies describe the first disciples as moral, honest, and faithful to him.  I didn't see 'shady' in their descriptions.  Again, these are the comments from Jesus' enemies.  It seems their experience with Jesus' followers was very different than you assert.  

Are you seriously saying that all of the disciples who claimed to have seen Jesus resurrected, and followers like Mary Magdalene, James, Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, and Copas all lied?  Why would they let people kill them rather than recanting their assertion that Jesus was resurrected?

Unless you can cite evidence that shows the apostles and the disciples of Jesus were all shady, it seems like this is more of your personal views being projected onto them.  

Barnardot

@just_sayin @MayCaeser ;I cannot find a reasonable physical explanation to this: it simply does not seem possible for the truck to end up in this position - yet it is.

Yet it isnt and of course you cannot find a resonable physical answer. Because your up to your usual dishonest tricks of posting totally doctored made up crap from scam websites that have now been bloked. 

Your bovine doodoo never stops does it?

just_sayin

Barnardot said:

@just_sayin @MayCaeser ;I cannot find a reasonable physical explanation to this: it simply does not seem possible for the truck to end up in this position - yet it is.

Yet it isnt and of course you cannot find a resonable physical answer. Because your up to your usual dishonest tricks of posting totally doctored made up crap from scam websites that have now been bloked. 

Your bovine doodoo never stops does it?

Bernie, I assume you are addressing MayCaesar since that's his argument you are trashing.

But, if you want to falsely accuse me of making stuff up, please try.  I love posting evidence.  It has gotten comical how anti-evidence the atheists on this site have become.  So many fact free posts from them.  Its like they can't  make a fact based argument and can only engage in personal attacks.

Factfinder

ZeusAres42 said:

@Factfinder

I thought perhaps for a minute I wasn't clear and so was just clarifying my position that it wasn't lack of evidence per se that is due to non-uniqueness. If that makes sense. 

Okay. That make sense. There are actually separate lines of thought when questioning an incredible claim like the resurrection of a historical figure no doubt. It makes total sense. 

Factfinder

@just_sayin

 I love posting evidence.

The bible says is not evidence. Science doesn't know is not evidence of an assertion. Your faith is not evidence. Historical causal references within a paragraph or two to a religious sect and their claims some 50 years later or so is not evidence. If you love posting evidence, try doing it once in a while. Do you know what empirical evidence is? 

Joeseph

There has never been one  single scientifically verified case of resurrection yet christians think the laws of nature were put on hold so this one extraordinary event could take place? Seriously?

Not one credible historian accepts the resurrection accounts the only ones that do are Christian historians who also believe Jesus walked on water, says it all.

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

May, I agree with you that special pleading is not a good argument.  Yet, you are suggesting that the witnesses are unreliable without any evidence of such.

A mistake I see some atheist make is the Humian error where they beg the question.  They assume there are no miracles so if there is evidence of a miracle it must be discarded because their world view doesn't allow for miracles.  However, we should be open to where ever the evidence leads.  

I think it is important to note that even Jesus' enemies said he did miracles (see Josephus, Phlegon, The Talmud, and Celsus).  Further, Phlegon also claimed Jesus predicted future events and they came true.  So it seems that not only Jesus' followers but also his enemies acknowledged that Jesus performed miracles.  it seems like an odd thing to claim of your enemy, especially if you are trying to discredit his followers.  So, both Jesus followers and his enemies are willing to acknowledge that Jesus performed miracles, while some atheists dismiss the idea without even considering the evidence.

You claim the accounts are 'shady' but provided no evidence for this claim.  Did Jesus' enemies consider his disciples 'shady' like you allege?  Let's look at the evidence:

Pliny the Younger

“They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food—but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”

Lucian of Samasata

“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account….You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.” (Lucian, The Death of Peregrine. 11-13)

Josephus (note: this is the version most scholars think he actually wrote, not the one believed edited by a Christian scribe)

“Now around this time lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was a worker of amazing deeds and was a teacher of people who gladly accept the truth. He won over both many Jews and many Greeks. Pilate, when he heard him accused by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, (but) those who had first loved him did not cease (doing so). To this day the tribe of Christians named after him has not disappeared”

So Jesus' enemies describe the first disciples as moral, honest, and faithful to him.  I didn't see 'shady' in their descriptions.  Again, these are the comments from Jesus' enemies.  It seems their experience with Jesus' followers was very different than you assert.  

Are you seriously saying that all of the disciples who claimed to have seen Jesus resurrected, and followers like Mary Magdalene, James, Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, and Copas all lied?  Why would they let people kill them rather than recanting their assertion that Jesus was resurrected?

Unless you can cite evidence that shows the apostles and the disciples of Jesus were all shady, it seems like this is more of your personal views being projected onto them.  

Of course witnesses are unreliable. Have you ever had of a court case ended with, "Hey, here is a witness that says that the accuser is guilty. 25 years for you, I do not need to hear more!"? And the standards for legal evidence are much-much lower than the standards for historical or scientific evidence.

There have been countless of examples in human history of very large numbers of people testifying to something - and turning out to be wrong. Probably the most famous example is Aristotle's counting of a mayfly's legs, which was off by 2, and which was corrected only 2+ millennia later: people did not even think of questioning Aristotle's observation.
Or with more esoteric things, take all the Greek and Roman gods who at the time had endless shrines built in their names, services performed, and songs sung - where are all of them now? Just where they belong: in the encyclopedia of historical superstitions.

When someone from 2,000 years ago claims that Jesus performed "miracles", they better have done something more than just write it in some pamphlet. Where is observable, reproducible evidence? Where are experiments that we can perform today that verify that it took place? Where are predictions of locations or phenomena that modern science believes to be impossible, yet that are demonstrably there?

There is nothing. And there is nothing surprising in "Jesus' enemies", as you called them, to accept some of the premises of Jesus' followers. They had their own superstitions, many of them shared with Jesus' followers. It is not necessarily "lying", just a combination of being overly impressionable and history adding color to the original tales. Again, something that has happened in countless documented instances - just read about all that has been written on Socrates, and compare it to how little can be verified (to the point that many historians seriously argued that Socrates as described by Plato and Xenophon did not exist at all, or, perhaps, was a codename for a group of philosophers).

I will lastly point out your inconsistency: you do not defend with the same rigor myths attributed to other historical or mythical characters. Everything that has been attributed to Tutankhamun, or Buddha, or Muhammad, or Atilla, or Genghis Khan, or Alexander the Great, or Nefertiti, or Cleopatra, or Confucius (I have to give it to the Chinese - they have mostly rid themselves of superstitions when it comes to this guy) - not a peep from you. But Jesus, who by happy coincidence is also the prophet of your religion - suddenly tales about him you treat differently.

It is very hard, considering all this, to accept that your belief in Jesus' resurrection and other stories is a product of much more than your faith, coupled with pained rationalization. Regardless of your belief, the hard evidence of his resurrection is nil, and that is all that interests me personally when it comes to evaluating the validity of this hypothesis.

Barnardot

@just_sayin ;Bernie, I assume you are addressing @MayCaesar since that's his argument you are trashing. But, if you want to falsely accuse me of making stuff up, please try.  I love posting evidence. 

Thats right I was addressing @MayCaesar but while your at it your even ten times worse than he is at posting bovine doodoo. At least he was posting it to illustrate the fact that its totally absurd. The thing is that you post your so called evidence as if you expect any one with half a brain to accept that it is evidence. At least he is a cool guy who loves jumping into the water naked with his sloppy girl friend but his other friends are a bit questionable if they buy $2.00 rings from dodgy web sites and wonder why they get scammed after woods.

You love posting evidence then do you? Like as much as you ask others to post evidence that some thing doesnt exist? Like what drug are you on to think up that crap?

What evidence would you give to claim that Jesus's resurrection did not happen?  

Thats what you said....yes you did. Now what evidence are you going to give that you havent lost the plot to come up with any thing so dum?

Joeseph

@Barnardot

Your st-pidity is  making Justsayin sound intelligent .......only you can manage that........

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

just_sayin said:

May, I agree with you that special pleading is not a good argument.  Yet, you are suggesting that the witnesses are unreliable without any evidence of such.

A mistake I see some atheist make is the Humian error where they beg the question.  They assume there are no miracles so if there is evidence of a miracle it must be discarded because their world view doesn't allow for miracles.  However, we should be open to where ever the evidence leads.  

I think it is important to note that even Jesus' enemies said he did miracles (see Josephus, Phlegon, The Talmud, and Celsus).  Further, Phlegon also claimed Jesus predicted future events and they came true.  So it seems that not only Jesus' followers but also his enemies acknowledged that Jesus performed miracles.  it seems like an odd thing to claim of your enemy, especially if you are trying to discredit his followers.  So, both Jesus followers and his enemies are willing to acknowledge that Jesus performed miracles, while some atheists dismiss the idea without even considering the evidence.

You claim the accounts are 'shady' but provided no evidence for this claim.  Did Jesus' enemies consider his disciples 'shady' like you allege?  Let's look at the evidence:

Pliny the Younger

“They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food—but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”

Lucian of Samasata

“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account….You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.” (Lucian, The Death of Peregrine. 11-13)

Josephus (note: this is the version most scholars think he actually wrote, not the one believed edited by a Christian scribe)

“Now around this time lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was a worker of amazing deeds and was a teacher of people who gladly accept the truth. He won over both many Jews and many Greeks. Pilate, when he heard him accused by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, (but) those who had first loved him did not cease (doing so). To this day the tribe of Christians named after him has not disappeared”

So Jesus' enemies describe the first disciples as moral, honest, and faithful to him.  I didn't see 'shady' in their descriptions.  Again, these are the comments from Jesus' enemies.  It seems their experience with Jesus' followers was very different than you assert.  

Are you seriously saying that all of the disciples who claimed to have seen Jesus resurrected, and followers like Mary Magdalene, James, Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, and Copas all lied?  Why would they let people kill them rather than recanting their assertion that Jesus was resurrected?

Unless you can cite evidence that shows the apostles and the disciples of Jesus were all shady, it seems like this is more of your personal views being projected onto them.  

Of course witnesses are unreliable. Have you ever had of a court case ended with, "Hey, here is a witness that says that the accuser is guilty. 25 years for you, I do not need to hear more!"? And the standards for legal evidence are much-much lower than the standards for historical or scientific evidence.

There have been countless of examples in human history of very large numbers of people testifying to something - and turning out to be wrong. Probably the most famous example is Aristotle's counting of a mayfly's legs, which was off by 2, and which was corrected only 2+ millennia later: people did not even think of questioning Aristotle's observation.
Or with more esoteric things, take all the Greek and Roman gods who at the time had endless shrines built in their names, services performed, and songs sung - where are all of them now? Just where they belong: in the encyclopedia of historical superstitions.

When someone from 2,000 years ago claims that Jesus performed "miracles", they better have done something more than just write it in some pamphlet. Where is observable, reproducible evidence? Where are experiments that we can perform today that verify that it took place? Where are predictions of locations or phenomena that modern science believes to be impossible, yet that are demonstrably there?

There is nothing. And there is nothing surprising in "Jesus' enemies", as you called them, to accept some of the premises of Jesus' followers. They had their own superstitions, many of them shared with Jesus' followers. It is not necessarily "lying", just a combination of being overly impressionable and history adding color to the original tales. Again, something that has happened in countless documented instances - just read about all that has been written on Socrates, and compare it to how little can be verified (to the point that many historians seriously argued that Socrates as described by Plato and Xenophon did not exist at all, or, perhaps, was a codename for a group of philosophers).

I will lastly point out your inconsistency: you do not defend with the same rigor myths attributed to other historical or mythical characters. Everything that has been attributed to Tutankhamun, or Buddha, or Muhammad, or Atilla, or Genghis Khan, or Alexander the Great, or Nefertiti, or Cleopatra, or Confucius (I have to give it to the Chinese - they have mostly rid themselves of superstitions when it comes to this guy) - not a peep from you. But Jesus, who by happy coincidence is also the prophet of your religion - suddenly tales about him you treat differently.

It is very hard, considering all this, to accept that your belief in Jesus' resurrection and other stories is a product of much more than your faith, coupled with pained rationalization. Regardless of your belief, the hard evidence of his resurrection is nil, and that is all that interests me personally when it comes to evaluating the validity of this hypothesis.

There are several logical fallacies that I see in your post.

1)  Fallacy - my antidotal evidence can replace your actual evidence

You mentioned a story about Aristotle.  Now unless Aristotle knew Jesus or was there for the events in question, this is a use of an antidotal story about a different topic, in a different place, at a different time, about someone  who was not present for the resurrection event.  Antidotal stories don't trump the actual evidence of an event.  

2) Fallacy - the general tells you what the specific is.  

You mentioned that some witnesses share false stories.  Yet, even if this were the regular case of witnesses, it does not mean the specific and significant in number of witnesses  of the resurrection were wrong.  This is special pleading.

If a general survey of people's driving shows they drive an average of 50 miles an hour, it does not mean that a specific driver drives an average of 50 miles an hour.  To determine the truth you must investigate the specific case.  I noticed that you have refused to engage in the specifics of the resurrection story.  At best you said that the fact Jesus' enemies said he had magical powers means they are wrong, because we know others have made that claim and they were wrong.  Generalizations, do not trump the specific event in question.  

3)  Fallacy - Old people can't be trusted

You have suggested that because the people 2000 years ago do not have the scientific knowledge that you do, then they must have been superstitious and we should not trust their testimony.  You did this also in the miracle of Calanda - where in essence you suggested that the eye witnesses could not successfully determine the difference between 1 foot or 2 because the event happened 400 years ago.  You have brought out the same old fallacy trope in this discussion.  Are you seriously suggesting that the people could not tell that Jesus was dead, or that he was alive after being buried following a Roman crucifixion?  So, you don't think people 2000 years ago knew the difference between dead and alive?

If the 'old people can't be trusted' fallacy were true, then I would declare myself the winner in this debate immediately.  You are obviously much older than I am, Boomer.  

In my comments I pointed out that even the enemies of Jesus and Christianity did not think the early Christians were 'shady', and you did not provide any specific evidence to show they were wrong.  Does it make sense that a group known for their honesty, would lie about the crucifixion?  Yet, you have claimed that to be true, without any evidence to support such a claim.  

My observation is that your entire argument, ignored the specific details of the resurrection event.  You used antidotal evidence about an unrelated matter and tried to use that as evidence.  You claimed old people don't know the difference between dead and alive people, and made generalizations about false witnesses, while ignoring the specific claims of the numerous witnesses.  Have you ever considered addressing the specific evidence of the resurrection event.  

Factfinder

@just_sayin

This is special pleading.

Special pleading is what you say based on wishful thinking and you having no idea what empirical evidence is. 

ZeusAres42

Joeseph said:

There has never been one  single scientifically verified case of resurrection yet christians think the laws of nature were put on hold so this one extraordinary event could take place? Seriously?

Not one credible historian accepts the resurrection accounts the only ones that do are Christian historians who also believe Jesus walked on water, says it all.

Interestingly that is also the same stance with most contemporary Biblical Scholars too. They don't take this or may other things in the bible as literal. It apears only the mostly doctrinated people do. @Joseph

Barnardot

@Joeseph ;Your st-pidity is  making Justsayin sound intelligent .......only you can manage that........

So how many days of home leave have they given you this time?

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

This is special pleading.

Special pleading is what you say based on wishful thinking and you having no idea what empirical evidence is. 

So I have no idea what empirical evidence is.  Huh.  Can you tell me which of the minimal facts I mentioned, that most historical scholars agree on you disagree with and why?

1) Jesus was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate
2) The tomb was empty
3) There were post resurrection appearances of Jesus
4) Jesus' disciples lives were radically transformed as a result of the event.

Feel free to share your empirical evidence for whichever point you don't agree with.  

Barnardot

@just_sayin @Factfinder ;So I have no idea what empirical evidence is. 

I think that every one here is a wear of that now and it is a good step on your part to admit it. Because moving forwood you will start seeing what every body has been trying to tell you that all that evidence you thought in your heart was evidence was a load of untruthful extreme crap. I am only to willing to help you look for emperical evidence and put you on to responsible reliable sites. Although I reckon that I would be at a lost to put you on to any emperical evidence about any thing about religion because there is absolutely none out there at all and there are certainly no reliable responsible sites that have any thing about all that resurection crap any way. The best thing I can do is refer you to psychology sites that deal with psychosis and delusion.

Joeseph

@Barnardot

As usual I cannot make head nor tail of what you're trying to say , your st-pidity is alarming.

Hey why don't you go find your budd Dreamer surely there's something else you can whine about and demand its banned.

Joeseph

@ZeusAres42

That's interesting.,it would possibly be career death to do otherwise.

Bogan

Barnardot

@Joeseph ;As usual I cannot make head nor tail of what you're trying to say 

Well if only you actually take your retinol instead of sticking in the pot plants when the carers aren’t looking then may be you would be able to focus.

Joeseph

@Barnardot

Focus on your st-pidity in print? LOL

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

There are several logical fallacies that I see in your post.

1)  Fallacy - my antidotal evidence can replace your actual evidence

You mentioned a story about Aristotle.  Now unless Aristotle knew Jesus or was there for the events in question, this is a use of an antidotal story about a different topic, in a different place, at a different time, about someone  who was not present for the resurrection event.  Antidotal stories don't trump the actual evidence of an event.  

2) Fallacy - the general tells you what the specific is.  

You mentioned that some witnesses share false stories.  Yet, even if this were the regular case of witnesses, it does not mean the specific and significant in number of witnesses  of the resurrection were wrong.  This is special pleading.

If a general survey of people's driving shows they drive an average of 50 miles an hour, it does not mean that a specific driver drives an average of 50 miles an hour.  To determine the truth you must investigate the specific case.  I noticed that you have refused to engage in the specifics of the resurrection story.  At best you said that the fact Jesus' enemies said he had magical powers means they are wrong, because we know others have made that claim and they were wrong.  Generalizations, do not trump the specific event in question.  

3)  Fallacy - Old people can't be trusted

You have suggested that because the people 2000 years ago do not have the scientific knowledge that you do, then they must have been superstitious and we should not trust their testimony.  You did this also in the miracle of Calanda - where in essence you suggested that the eye witnesses could not successfully determine the difference between 1 foot or 2 because the event happened 400 years ago.  You have brought out the same old fallacy trope in this discussion.  Are you seriously suggesting that the people could not tell that Jesus was dead, or that he was alive after being buried following a Roman crucifixion?  So, you don't think people 2000 years ago knew the difference between dead and alive?

If the 'old people can't be trusted' fallacy were true, then I would declare myself the winner in this debate immediately.  You are obviously much older than I am, Boomer.  

In my comments I pointed out that even the enemies of Jesus and Christianity did not think the early Christians were 'shady', and you did not provide any specific evidence to show they were wrong.  Does it make sense that a group known for their honesty, would lie about the crucifixion?  Yet, you have claimed that to be true, without any evidence to support such a claim.  

My observation is that your entire argument, ignored the specific details of the resurrection event.  You used antidotal evidence about an unrelated matter and tried to use that as evidence.  You claimed old people don't know the difference between dead and alive people, and made generalizations about false witnesses, while ignoring the specific claims of the numerous witnesses.  Have you ever considered addressing the specific evidence of the resurrection event.  

What I did in 1) is called an "analogy". Happy to enlighten you!

2) I have never said that these witnesses were "wrong". Since you decided to talk about fallacies, yours is called a "strawman argument" (seems to be your favorite one ). The specific characterization of witness testimonies we were discussing was "unreliable".

3) As I said, "seems to be your favorite one". I have not said anything about trusting or not trusting old people; I have talked about evidence, and naturally evidence becomes shakier as the events are temporarily removed from us.

My observation is that I am talking to someone who is not talking to me.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

So I have no idea what empirical evidence is. 

That is correct. https://www.britannica.com/topic/empirical-evidence

Huh.  Can you tell me which of the minimal facts I mentioned, that most historical scholars agree on you disagree with and why?

Depends on what you read into what they're agreeing on and what they ACTUALLY are agreeing on...

1) Jesus was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate

A person who had a common name 'jesus' described as a guru was executed by him and historically that would be in character. There is archeological evidence, one piece of limestone with pilate's name inscribed. There is also historical evidence that he was a ruthless, violent governor who was recalled to Rome because of his violence. Nothing extraordinarily compelling for such an extraordinary claim of human resurrection.

2) The tomb was empty

Nothing compelling about that on it's own. It requires belief in the story before consideration. Belief a doesn't support belief b empirically. That would be circular in nature.

3) There were post resurrection appearances of Jesus

Yes, rumors fly once someone reaches a certain level of popularity. Wonder how many Hitler and Elvis sightings have been officially documented since their deaths? And yet no resurrection.

4) Jesus' disciples lives were radically transformed as a result of the event.

Actually according to scripture a stronger argument can be made that the disciples lives were radically changed some three years prior. They one day stopped working out their lives and stopped supporting their families by their professions, the moment jesus entered their lives and beckoned them to follow him at all cost.

Matthew 4:18-20  18 And Jesus, walking by the Sea of Galilee, saw two brothers, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen. 19 Then He said to them, “Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men.” 20 They immediately left their nets and followed Him.

Matthew 16:24  Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.

Feel free to share your empirical evidence for whichever point you don't agree with.  

It is a logical fallacy to expect empirical evidence of something asserted; not existing when none has been offered for the things existence. 

Here you will find reasonable, rational arguments against the resurrection that include suggestions of alternative explanations based in a simpler naturistic rationale that doesn't require extraordinary unnatural answers. https://www.gcrr.org/post/rebuffing-and-rejecting-the-resurrection-an-explanation-of-cavin-and-colombetti-s-article

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

This is special pleading.

Special pleading is what you say based on wishful thinking and you having no idea what empirical evidence is. 

So I have no idea what empirical evidence is.  Huh.  Can you tell me which of the minimal facts I mentioned, that most historical scholars agree on you disagree with and why?

1) Jesus was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate
2) The tomb was empty
3) There were post resurrection appearances of Jesus
4) Jesus' disciples lives were radically transformed as a result of the event.

Feel free to share your empirical evidence for whichever point you don't agree with.  

@just_sayin

So I have no idea what empirical evidence is. 

That is correct. https://www.britannica.com/topic/empirical-evidence

Huh.  Can you tell me which of the minimal facts I mentioned, that most historical scholars agree on you disagree with and why?

Depends on what you read into what they're agreeing on and what they ACTUALLY are agreeing on...

1) Jesus was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate

A person who had a common name 'jesus' described as a guru was executed by him and historically that would be in character. There is archeological evidence, one piece of limestone with pilate's name inscribed. There is also historical evidence that he was a ruthless, violent governor who was recalled to Rome because of his violence. Nothing extraordinarily compelling for such an extraordinary claim of human resurrection.

2) The tomb was empty

Nothing compelling about that on it's own. It requires belief in the story before consideration. Belief a doesn't support belief b empirically. That would be circular in nature.

3) There were post resurrection appearances of Jesus

Yes, rumors fly once someone reaches a certain level of popularity. Wonder how many Hitler and Elvis sightings have been officially documented since their deaths? And yet no resurrection.

4) Jesus' disciples lives were radically transformed as a result of the event.

Actually according to scripture a stronger argument can be made that the disciples lives were radically changed some three years prior. They one day stopped working out their lives and stopped supporting their families by their professions, the moment jesus entered their lives and beckoned them to follow him at all cost.

Matthew 4:18-20  18 And Jesus, walking by the Sea of Galilee, saw two brothers, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen. 19 Then He said to them, “Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men.” 20 They immediately left their nets and followed Him.

Matthew 16:24  Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.

Feel free to share your empirical evidence for whichever point you don't agree with.  

It is a logical fallacy to expect empirical evidence of something asserted; not existing when none has been offered for the things existence. 

Here you will find reasonable, rational arguments against the resurrection that include suggestions of alternative explanations based in a simpler naturistic rationale that doesn't require extraordinary unnatural answers. https://www.gcrr.org/post/rebuffing-and-rejecting-the-resurrection-an-explanation-of-cavin-and-colombetti-s-article

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

This is special pleading.

Special pleading is what you say based on wishful thinking and you having no idea what empirical evidence is. 

So I have no idea what empirical evidence is.  Huh.  Can you tell me which of the minimal facts I mentioned, that most historical scholars agree on you disagree with and why?

1) Jesus was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate
2) The tomb was empty
3) There were post resurrection appearances of Jesus
4) Jesus' disciples lives were radically transformed as a result of the event.

Feel free to share your empirical evidence for whichever point you don't agree with.  

@just_sayin

So I have no idea what empirical evidence is. 

That is correct. https://www.britannica.com/topic/empirical-evidence

Huh.  Can you tell me which of the minimal facts I mentioned, that most historical scholars agree on you disagree with and why?

Depends on what you read into what they're agreeing on and what they ACTUALLY are agreeing on...

1) Jesus was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate

A person who had a common name 'jesus' described as a guru was executed by him and historically that would be in character. There is archeological evidence, one piece of limestone with pilate's name inscribed. There is also historical evidence that he was a ruthless, violent governor who was recalled to Rome because of his violence. Nothing extraordinarily compelling for such an extraordinary claim of human resurrection.

2) The tomb was empty

Nothing compelling about that on it's own. It requires belief in the story before consideration. Belief a doesn't support belief b empirically. That would be circular in nature.

3) There were post resurrection appearances of Jesus

Yes, rumors fly once someone reaches a certain level of popularity. Wonder how many Hitler and Elvis sightings have been officially documented since their deaths? And yet no resurrection.

4) Jesus' disciples lives were radically transformed as a result of the event.

Actually according to scripture a stronger argument can be made that the disciples lives were radically changed some three years prior. They one day stopped working out their lives and stopped supporting their families by their professions, the moment jesus entered their lives and beckoned them to follow him at all cost.

Matthew 4:18-20  18 And Jesus, walking by the Sea of Galilee, saw two brothers, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen. 19 Then He said to them, “Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men.” 20 They immediately left their nets and followed Him.

Matthew 16:24  Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.

Feel free to share your empirical evidence for whichever point you don't agree with.  

It is a logical fallacy to expect empirical evidence of something asserted; not existing when none has been offered for the things existence. 

Here you will find reasonable, rational arguments against the resurrection that include suggestions of alternative explanations based in a simpler naturistic rationale that doesn't require extraordinary unnatural answers. https://www.gcrr.org/post/rebuffing-and-rejecting-the-resurrection-an-explanation-of-cavin-and-colombetti-s-article

So you agree with the first 3 points.  You think that they were mistaken about seeing Jesus though.  Let's talk about how that makes no sense.  The earliest record of Jesus resurrection says 500 people saw him alive.  Was this a mass hallucination?  That's a lot of people.  Your view is not logical.  The tomb would not have been empty if Jesus was still dead.  The owner of the tomb, Joseph of Arimathea would not have become a Christian saint if that were the case.  

Your fourth point is that you think that they were all changed earlier, so they then couldn't tell the difference in someone being dead and alive.  Good Lord, is your faith that silly to think that?  Jesus was crucified.  Do you understand what that meant in Jewish culture?  The disciples would have disassociated themselves with Jesus, not traveled the world and been martyred for him if he had just died and that was the end of it.  

Your explanation doesn't explain many of the witnesses of Jesus though.  James, Jesus' brother, wasn't a follower of him until after his resurrection, in fact he was embarrassed by him according to the sources we have.  it was only after Jesus' resurrection that James became a follower.  Your theory doesn't explain this.  It also doesn't explain how Paul, a former member of the Sanhedrin, and someone whose job it was to kill Christians was persuaded that Jesus rose from the dead.  

I want to take a moment and look at the article you reference and answer some of the so called 'problems of the resurrection' it mentions. From the article:

The gospels say two things about when Jesus was crucified. Mark (14:12, 15:25) says he was crucified on the day of Passover at the third hour, but John (19:14-16) says it was the day before Passover at the sixth hour. In the synoptic gospels (Mark 15:23, Matthew 27:48, Luke 23:36), Jesus refuses to drink while on the cross, but in John (19:29-30) he does. Historically, the Romans usually didn’t crucify thieves—that was for enemies of the state—but the synoptics say the men crucified with Jesus were thieves. And those that were crucified weren’t taken down and put into a grave; they were left up to rot and later thrown into a pit.  

1)  ;Mark (3rd hour) and john (6th hour) of when Jesus died.  There are several views.  The disciples of the disciples explained it this way:

“On the day of the preparation, then, at the third hour, He received the sentence from Pilate, the Father permitting that to happen; at the sixth hour He was crucified; at the ninth hour He gave up the ghost; and before sunset He was buried” (Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, 9 

Eusebius, an early church father says it was a transcription error from someone who copied the gospel of Mark over.  :

 “Mark says Christ was crucified at the third hour. John says that it was at the sixth hour that Pilate took his seat on the tribunal and tried Jesus. This discrepancy is a clerical error or an earlier copyist. Gamma (Γ) signifying the third hour is very close to the episemon (ς) denoting the sixth. As Matthew, Mark and Luke agree that the darkness occurred from the sixth hour to the ninth, it is clear that Jesus, Lord and God, was crucified before the sixth hour., i.e., about the third hour, as Mark has recorded. John similarly signified that it was the third hour, but the copiest turned the gamma (Γ) into the episemon (ς) (Eusebius, Minor Supplements to Questions to Marinus, 4).

Others have noted another solution - Mark is using the Jewish way of measuring a day, while John is using the Roman method of time where the day starts at midnight.  There are other views also.  You can read them here:

https://bible.org/article/time-jesus-death-and-inerrancy-harmonization-plausible

2) Regarding Romans practices of crucifixion.  Remember this: location, location, location.  It is true Romans typically left crucified people up for days and tortured the dead bodies.  However, not in Judah.  The Old Testament clearly commanded that the body of the crucified:

If someone guilty of a capital offense is put to death and their body is exposed on a pole, 23 you must not leave the body hanging on the pole overnight. Be sure to bury it that same day, because anyone who is hung on a pole is under God’s curse. - Deuteronomy 21:22-23

We know that the Roman soldiers respected this belief in Israel because the Roman historian for the Jews, Josephus mentions it multiple times in his writings;

They actually went so far in their impiety as to cast out the corpses without burial, though the Jews are so careful about funeral rites that even malefactors who have been sentenced to crucifixion are taken down and buried before sunset. (J.W. 4.317)

3)  The key phrase for the drinking on the cross claim is 'on the cross', both Mark and Matthew have Jesus drinking something before he is crucified.  In both instances he drinks and is then crucified.  There is no contradiction.  It seems as if somebody went looking for problems with the text where there weren't any.

So,  You acknowledge that the disciples saw Jesus after his death.  You just think it was a mirage or hallucination - hard to explain how so many people hallucinated the same same thing = with Thomas hallucinating so well that he touched Jesus side and nail scars.  The hallucination theory isn't accepted by historical scholars as there are no examples of mass hallucination.  If if such a thing existed, it would not explain the change in the lives of James, Jesus' brother and of Paul.  I hope you will look at the evidence.  I think it will shake your faith in atheism.  

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

This is special pleading.

Special pleading is what you say based on wishful thinking and you having no idea what empirical evidence is. 

So I have no idea what empirical evidence is.  Huh.  Can you tell me which of the minimal facts I mentioned, that most historical scholars agree on you disagree with and why?

1) Jesus was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate
2) The tomb was empty
3) There were post resurrection appearances of Jesus
4) Jesus' disciples lives were radically transformed as a result of the event.

Feel free to share your empirical evidence for whichever point you don't agree with.  

@just_sayin

So I have no idea what empirical evidence is. 

That is correct. https://www.britannica.com/topic/empirical-evidence

Huh.  Can you tell me which of the minimal facts I mentioned, that most historical scholars agree on you disagree with and why?

Depends on what you read into what they're agreeing on and what they ACTUALLY are agreeing on...

1) Jesus was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate

A person who had a common name 'jesus' described as a guru was executed by him and historically that would be in character. There is archeological evidence, one piece of limestone with pilate's name inscribed. There is also historical evidence that he was a ruthless, violent governor who was recalled to Rome because of his violence. Nothing extraordinarily compelling for such an extraordinary claim of human resurrection.

2) The tomb was empty

Nothing compelling about that on it's own. It requires belief in the story before consideration. Belief a doesn't support belief b empirically. That would be circular in nature.

3) There were post resurrection appearances of Jesus

Yes, rumors fly once someone reaches a certain level of popularity. Wonder how many Hitler and Elvis sightings have been officially documented since their deaths? And yet no resurrection.

4) Jesus' disciples lives were radically transformed as a result of the event.

Actually according to scripture a stronger argument can be made that the disciples lives were radically changed some three years prior. They one day stopped working out their lives and stopped supporting their families by their professions, the moment jesus entered their lives and beckoned them to follow him at all cost.

Matthew 4:18-20  18 And Jesus, walking by the Sea of Galilee, saw two brothers, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen. 19 Then He said to them, “Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men.” 20 They immediately left their nets and followed Him.

Matthew 16:24  Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.

Feel free to share your empirical evidence for whichever point you don't agree with.  

It is a logical fallacy to expect empirical evidence of something asserted; not existing when none has been offered for the things existence. 

Here you will find reasonable, rational arguments against the resurrection that include suggestions of alternative explanations based in a simpler naturistic rationale that doesn't require extraordinary unnatural answers. https://www.gcrr.org/post/rebuffing-and-rejecting-the-resurrection-an-explanation-of-cavin-and-colombetti-s-article

So you agree with the first 3 points.  You think that they were mistaken about seeing Jesus though.  Let's talk about how that makes no sense.  The earliest record of Jesus resurrection says 500 people saw him alive.  Was this a mass hallucination?  That's a lot of people.  Your view is not logical.  The tomb would not have been empty if Jesus was still dead.  The owner of the tomb, Joseph of Arimathea would not have become a Christian saint if that were the case.  

Your fourth point is that you think that they were all changed earlier, so they then couldn't tell the difference in someone being dead and alive.  Good Lord, is your faith that silly to think that?  Jesus was crucified.  Do you understand what that meant in Jewish culture?  The disciples would have disassociated themselves with Jesus, not traveled the world and been martyred for him if he had just died and that was the end of it.  

Your explanation doesn't explain many of the witnesses of Jesus though.  James, Jesus' brother, wasn't a follower of him until after his resurrection, in fact he was embarrassed by him according to the sources we have.  it was only after Jesus' resurrection that James became a follower.  Your theory doesn't explain this.  It also doesn't explain how Paul, a former member of the Sanhedrin, and someone whose job it was to kill Christians was persuaded that Jesus rose from the dead.  

I want to take a moment and look at the article you reference and answer some of the so called 'problems of the resurrection' it mentions. From the article:

The gospels say two things about when Jesus was crucified. Mark (14:12, 15:25) says he was crucified on the day of Passover at the third hour, but John (19:14-16) says it was the day before Passover at the sixth hour. In the synoptic gospels (Mark 15:23, Matthew 27:48, Luke 23:36), Jesus refuses to drink while on the cross, but in John (19:29-30) he does. Historically, the Romans usually didn’t crucify thieves—that was for enemies of the state—but the synoptics say the men crucified with Jesus were thieves. And those that were crucified weren’t taken down and put into a grave; they were left up to rot and later thrown into a pit.  

1)  ;Mark (3rd hour) and john (6th hour) of when Jesus died.  There are several views.  The disciples of the disciples explained it this way:

“On the day of the preparation, then, at the third hour, He received the sentence from Pilate, the Father permitting that to happen; at the sixth hour He was crucified; at the ninth hour He gave up the ghost; and before sunset He was buried” (Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, 9 

Eusebius, an early church father says it was a transcription error from someone who copied the gospel of Mark over.  :

 “Mark says Christ was crucified at the third hour. John says that it was at the sixth hour that Pilate took his seat on the tribunal and tried Jesus. This discrepancy is a clerical error or an earlier copyist. Gamma (Γ) signifying the third hour is very close to the episemon (ς) denoting the sixth. As Matthew, Mark and Luke agree that the darkness occurred from the sixth hour to the ninth, it is clear that Jesus, Lord and God, was crucified before the sixth hour., i.e., about the third hour, as Mark has recorded. John similarly signified that it was the third hour, but the copiest turned the gamma (Γ) into the episemon (ς) (Eusebius, Minor Supplements to Questions to Marinus, 4).

Others have noted another solution - Mark is using the Jewish way of measuring a day, while John is using the Roman method of time where the day starts at midnight.  There are other views also.  You can read them here:

https://bible.org/article/time-jesus-death-and-inerrancy-harmonization-plausible

2) Regarding Romans practices of crucifixion.  Remember this: location, location, location.  It is true Romans typically left crucified people up for days and tortured the dead bodies.  However, not in Judah.  The Old Testament clearly commanded that the body of the crucified:

If someone guilty of a capital offense is put to death and their body is exposed on a pole, 23 you must not leave the body hanging on the pole overnight. Be sure to bury it that same day, because anyone who is hung on a pole is under God’s curse. - Deuteronomy 21:22-23

We know that the Roman soldiers respected this belief in Israel because the Roman historian for the Jews, Josephus mentions it multiple times in his writings;

They actually went so far in their impiety as to cast out the corpses without burial, though the Jews are so careful about funeral rites that even malefactors who have been sentenced to crucifixion are taken down and buried before sunset. (J.W. 4.317)

3)  The key phrase for the drinking on the cross claim is 'on the cross', both Mark and Matthew have Jesus drinking something before he is crucified.  In both instances he drinks and is then crucified.  There is no contradiction.  It seems as if somebody went looking for problems with the text where there weren't any.

So,  You acknowledge that the disciples saw Jesus after his death.  You just think it was a mirage or hallucination - hard to explain how so many people hallucinated the same same thing = with Thomas hallucinating so well that he touched Jesus side and nail scars.  The hallucination theory isn't accepted by historical scholars as there are no examples of mass hallucination.  If if such a thing existed, it would not explain the change in the lives of James, Jesus' brother and of Paul.  I hope you will look at the evidence.  I think it will shake your faith in atheism.  

You in no way addressed my post with an open mind. Preferring to continue as usual to misrepresent everything and flat out lie about what I said and meant. 

Built a good straw man though. Another common trait of yours. I get it though. I been there, done that. Believe me, no matter how much you think you're being clever and defending the bible with reasonable thought, you're not because that is incompatible with faith. What ever you discuss, whatever interest you've taken in science, whatever, your faith compels you to somehow fit everything you take in to conforming to what you believe. In other words you've convinced yourself you have objectivity where everyone else knows better. Your conclusions must line up with faith in the god of the bible. Mine do not. My conclusions conform to factual knowledge and known discoveries, where ever the evidence leads. 

I did not agree with points 1-3 and do not acknowledge the disciples saw jesus after his death. As I've always maintained 'the bible says' is not evidence because it's contingent on believing what it says, circular. That goes for religious texts and transcripts that didn't make the cut for the canon of scripture as well. Pointing out what could be possible falls far short of being evidence something is reality. I can tell you would use the criminal defense tactic when defending the resurrection. As each skeptical objection is raised you will explain away possible reasons and discount them as a defense lawyer discounts each piece of evidence the prosecution brings up against their client. But at the end of the day the defense has to account for the large volume of evidence when stacked up has one common denominator, the defendant.  Likewise every skeptical rejection to your claims has one thing in common, there are multiple ordinary possibilities that needs no special pleading like transcript errors, or methods of time keeping, or extraordinary events. 

just_sayin

@Factfinder
I did not agree with points 1-3 and do not acknowledge the disciples saw jesus after his death. As I've always maintained 'the bible says' is not evidence because it's contingent on believing what it says, circular. That goes for religious texts and transcripts that didn't make the cut for the canon of scripture as well. Pointing out what could be possible falls far short of being evidence something is reality. I can tell you would use the criminal defense tactic when defending the resurrection. As each skeptical objection is raised you will explain away possible reasons and discount them as a defense lawyer discounts each piece of evidence the prosecution brings up against their client. But at the end of the day the defense has to account for the large volume of evidence when stacked up has one common denominator, the defendant.  Likewise every skeptical rejection to your claims has one thing in common, there are multiple ordinary possibilities that needs no special pleading like transcript errors, or methods of time keeping, or extraordinary events. 

So you don't agree with any of the 4 minimal facts that almost all historians agree wtih?  Well, let me tell you why I think there is good evidence to believe all four and address your claim that the Bible can't be referenced as a source.

1) Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate.

There are a lot different historical sources which say this happened:

Flavius Josephus (37-100 A.D) in Antiquity of the Jews wrote (no Christianized version accepted by scholars):

“Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,–a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Cornelius Tacitus, Annals, 15:44

Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius

Lucian of Samosata, from the book The Passing Peregrinus

“The Christians . . . worship a man to this day–the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . ."

The Talmud (Jewish source)

Jesus was hanged on Passover Eve

Now you have engaged in special pleading, saying that the sources found in the New Testament can't be used.  The fact is they are historical sources, corroborated by extra-biblical sources.  The historical documents in question have good reasons to accept them - early attestation, eye witness accounts, embarrassing elements, they fit historically, and they even have enemy attestation (Paul).

Matthew 27:26

 So Pilate released Barabbas to them. He ordered Jesus flogged with a lead-tipped whip, then turned him over to the Roman soldiers to be crucified.

Mark 15:15

So to pacify the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas to them. He ordered Jesus flogged with a lead-tipped whip, then turned him over to the Roman soldiers to be crucified.

Luke 23:23

But the mob shouted louder and louder, demanding that Jesus be crucified, and their voices prevailed. So Pilate sentenced Jesus to die as they demanded. 

John 19:16

Then Pilate turned Jesus over to them to be crucified.

Acts 13:27-29

The people in Jerusalem and their leaders did not recognize Jesus as the one the prophets had spoken about. Instead, they condemned him, and in doing this they fulfilled the prophets’ words that are read every Sabbath. They found no legal reason to execute him, but they asked Pilate to have him killed anyway. “When they had done all that the prophecies said about him, they took him down from the cross and placed him in a tomb.

1 Timothy 6:12-14

 Fight the good fight for the true faith. Hold tightly to the eternal life to which God has called you, which you have declared so well before many witnesses. 13 And I charge you before God, who gives life to all, and before Christ Jesus, who gave a good testimony before Pontius Pilate, that you obey this command without wavering. Then no one can find fault with you from now until our Lord Jesus Christ comes again.

Now, I could give you more but this serves the purpose of showing you that several independent sources, both enemies and followers of Jesus acknowledge he was crucified under Pontius Pilate.  Is there any good reason to doubt all of these diverse attestations?  Nope.  That's why historians believe that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

Of note, only the women were with Jesus in his final hours, other than John.  All the other disciples had fled.  This detail is an embarrassing point that would not have been included if made up.  It paints the disciples in a bad light.

2. That the tomb was Empty

a) There was no mass exodus of Jerusalem by the disciples.  They were all from other locations.  If this were some type of scam, they would have left spreading their story.  They remained there for some time.  The church began in Jerusalem.  If the there had been a body it could have easily been produced.  The marks of crucifixion would have been very distinctive.

b) The earliest accounts by Jesus' enemies claim the body was stolen - that suggests the tomb was empty.  

c) Multiple accounts name the owner of the tomb - Joseph of Arimathea who became a believer.  He was a well known member of the synagogue, along with Nicodemus who helped bury Jesus.  It would have been easy to have Joseph of Arimathea say Jesus was still in the tomb, but that's not what he said.

d) All four gospels mention women as the first witnesses at the tomb.  Women were not allowed to be witnesses in court at the time in Judea.  They were not thought of as credible witnesses.  It is unlikely that this detail is made up because it would not have helped give credibility tot he account.

e) The empty tomb has multiple attestations: It’s mentioned in (1) The synoptic gospels, (2) the gospel of John, and (3) the early creed cited in 1 Corinthians 15.

f) If Jesus was still in the tomb, it would have been venerated as a shrine.  it wasn't.  

3. The Appearances of Jesus After the Resurrection

The creed in 1 Corinthians 15 is agreed on by scholars that it is not more than 18 months after Jesus' resurrection:

I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. 5 He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. 6 After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles.

All four gospels, and 1 Peter mention Jesus' resurrection and interactions with the disciples, Mary Magdalene, and others.

Acts 1:1-3 tells us that Jesus was not a ghost, but proved to them he was alive

In my first bookI told you, Theophilus, about everything Jesus began to do and teach until the day he was taken up to heaven after giving his chosen apostles further instructions through the Holy Spirit. During the forty days after he suffered and died, he appeared to the apostles from time to time, and he proved to them in many ways that he was actually alive. And he talked to them about the Kingdom of God.

John's gospel records how Thomas put his hands in Jesus' side and nail scars to confirm it was him.  

The fact that the disciples believed Jesus was resurrected is recorded in their own words, the words of their disciples (Iraneus, Polycarp, Clement of Rome), who knew them, and can be found in works by Jesus' enemies:

 Tacitus mention of the most mischievous superstition is an allusion to the resurrection

Nero fastened the guilt ... on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of ... Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome....

Pliny the Elder indirectly alludes to the belief in the resurrection by noting the disiples worshipped Jesus as if he were a god:

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food – but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.

The Christianized version of Josephus records this:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he ... wrought surprising feats.... He was the Christ. When Pilate ...condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared ... restored to life.... And the tribe of Christians ... has ... not disappeared.

Other indirect references are Lucian.  

There are multiple attestations of the resurrection by witnesses and even enemy testimony that reinforces that the disciples believed that Jesus was resurrected.

4.  The Changed Lives of the Eye Witnesses

James, Jesus' brother was martyred for not denying that Jesus was resurrection (see Josephus, Antiquities 20.197-203).  James the apostle was beheaded.  Paul was beheaded for not denying the resurrection - a former enemy who was so transformed that he endured stoning, beating, imprisonments, and execution.  In fact all the apostle's except John were martyred, he was burned in oil.  It is hard to believe that these diverse people would all devote their lives to a message that they knew was false and die for it.  

We know from the testimony of Jesus' enemies that the disciples were not 'shady', but valued honesty and truth.  It is hard to reconcile their eye witness accounts, and actions if the resurrection was not true.

GiantMan

Argument Topic: Different Debate Styles

Just Sayin style



The atheists' style

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

@Factfinder
I did not agree with points 1-3 and do not acknowledge the disciples saw jesus after his death. As I've always maintained 'the bible says' is not evidence because it's contingent on believing what it says, circular. That goes for religious texts and transcripts that didn't make the cut for the canon of scripture as well. Pointing out what could be possible falls far short of being evidence something is reality. I can tell you would use the criminal defense tactic when defending the resurrection. As each skeptical objection is raised you will explain away possible reasons and discount them as a defense lawyer discounts each piece of evidence the prosecution brings up against their client. But at the end of the day the defense has to account for the large volume of evidence when stacked up has one common denominator, the defendant.  Likewise every skeptical rejection to your claims has one thing in common, there are multiple ordinary possibilities that needs no special pleading like transcript errors, or methods of time keeping, or extraordinary events. 

So you don't agree with any of the 4 minimal facts that almost all historians agree wtih?  Well, let me tell you why I think there is good evidence to believe all four and address your claim that the Bible can't be referenced as a source.

1) Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate.

There are a lot different historical sources which say this happened:

Flavius Josephus (37-100 A.D) in Antiquity of the Jews wrote (no Christianized version accepted by scholars):

“Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,–a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Cornelius Tacitus, Annals, 15:44

Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius

Lucian of Samosata, from the book The Passing Peregrinus

“The Christians . . . worship a man to this day–the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . ."

The Talmud (Jewish source)

Jesus was hanged on Passover Eve

Now you have engaged in special pleading, saying that the sources found in the New Testament can't be used.  The fact is they are historical sources, corroborated by extra-biblical sources.  The historical documents in question have good reasons to accept them - early attestation, eye witness accounts, embarrassing elements, they fit historically, and they even have enemy attestation (Paul).

Matthew 27:26

 So Pilate released Barabbas to them. He ordered Jesus flogged with a lead-tipped whip, then turned him over to the Roman soldiers to be crucified.

Mark 15:15

So to pacify the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas to them. He ordered Jesus flogged with a lead-tipped whip, then turned him over to the Roman soldiers to be crucified.

Luke 23:23

But the mob shouted louder and louder, demanding that Jesus be crucified, and their voices prevailed. So Pilate sentenced Jesus to die as they demanded. 

John 19:16

Then Pilate turned Jesus over to them to be crucified.

Acts 13:27-29

The people in Jerusalem and their leaders did not recognize Jesus as the one the prophets had spoken about. Instead, they condemned him, and in doing this they fulfilled the prophets’ words that are read every Sabbath. They found no legal reason to execute him, but they asked Pilate to have him killed anyway. “When they had done all that the prophecies said about him, they took him down from the cross and placed him in a tomb.

1 Timothy 6:12-14

 Fight the good fight for the true faith. Hold tightly to the eternal life to which God has called you, which you have declared so well before many witnesses. 13 And I charge you before God, who gives life to all, and before Christ Jesus, who gave a good testimony before Pontius Pilate, that you obey this command without wavering. Then no one can find fault with you from now until our Lord Jesus Christ comes again.

Now, I could give you more but this serves the purpose of showing you that several independent sources, both enemies and followers of Jesus acknowledge he was crucified under Pontius Pilate.  Is there any good reason to doubt all of these diverse attestations?  Nope.  That's why historians believe that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

Of note, only the women were with Jesus in his final hours, other than John.  All the other disciples had fled.  This detail is an embarrassing point that would not have been included if made up.  It paints the disciples in a bad light.

2. That the tomb was Empty

a) There was no mass exodus of Jerusalem by the disciples.  They were all from other locations.  If this were some type of scam, they would have left spreading their story.  They remained there for some time.  The church began in Jerusalem.  If the there had been a body it could have easily been produced.  The marks of crucifixion would have been very distinctive.

b) The earliest accounts by Jesus' enemies claim the body was stolen - that suggests the tomb was empty.  

c) Multiple accounts name the owner of the tomb - Joseph of Arimathea who became a believer.  He was a well known member of the synagogue, along with Nicodemus who helped bury Jesus.  It would have been easy to have Joseph of Arimathea say Jesus was still in the tomb, but that's not what he said.

d) All four gospels mention women as the first witnesses at the tomb.  Women were not allowed to be witnesses in court at the time in Judea.  They were not thought of as credible witnesses.  It is unlikely that this detail is made up because it would not have helped give credibility tot he account.

e) The empty tomb has multiple attestations: It’s mentioned in (1) The synoptic gospels, (2) the gospel of John, and (3) the early creed cited in 1 Corinthians 15.

f) If Jesus was still in the tomb, it would have been venerated as a shrine.  it wasn't.  

3. The Appearances of Jesus After the Resurrection

The creed in 1 Corinthians 15 is agreed on by scholars that it is not more than 18 months after Jesus' resurrection:

I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. 5 He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. 6 After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles.

All four gospels, and 1 Peter mention Jesus' resurrection and interactions with the disciples, Mary Magdalene, and others.

Acts 1:1-3 tells us that Jesus was not a ghost, but proved to them he was alive

In my first bookI told you, Theophilus, about everything Jesus began to do and teach until the day he was taken up to heaven after giving his chosen apostles further instructions through the Holy Spirit. During the forty days after he suffered and died, he appeared to the apostles from time to time, and he proved to them in many ways that he was actually alive. And he talked to them about the Kingdom of God.

John's gospel records how Thomas put his hands in Jesus' side and nail scars to confirm it was him.  

The fact that the disciples believed Jesus was resurrected is recorded in their own words, the words of their disciples (Iraneus, Polycarp, Clement of Rome), who knew them, and can be found in works by Jesus' enemies:

 Tacitus mention of the most mischievous superstition is an allusion to the resurrection

Nero fastened the guilt ... on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of ... Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome....

Pliny the Elder indirectly alludes to the belief in the resurrection by noting the disiples worshipped Jesus as if he were a god:

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food – but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.

The Christianized version of Josephus records this:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he ... wrought surprising feats.... He was the Christ. When Pilate ...condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared ... restored to life.... And the tribe of Christians ... has ... not disappeared.

Other indirect references are Lucian.  

There are multiple attestations of the resurrection by witnesses and even enemy testimony that reinforces that the disciples believed that Jesus was resurrected.

4.  The Changed Lives of the Eye Witnesses

James, Jesus' brother was martyred for not denying that Jesus was resurrection (see Josephus, Antiquities 20.197-203).  James the apostle was beheaded.  Paul was beheaded for not denying the resurrection - a former enemy who was so transformed that he endured stoning, beating, imprisonments, and execution.  In fact all the apostle's except John were martyred, he was burned in oil.  It is hard to believe that these diverse people would all devote their lives to a message that they knew was false and die for it.  

We know from the testimony of Jesus' enemies that the disciples were not 'shady', but valued honesty and truth.  It is hard to reconcile their eye witness accounts, and actions if the resurrection was not true.

Once again you misrepresent what I say with your blind closed mind. A couple of tad bits by local historians referencing what they heard happened before they were born, a smidgin compared to all their writings dedicated to reality isn't evidence. If they were documenting what they truly were convinced of why write so little about something so major? No it's obvious these few locals wrote just a couple of foot notes in the context of what they felt more important and true to the times, cultural and societal trends going on. Where are the independent secular history books detailing the facts and verifiable evidence?  Where are the legit encyclopedias telling the story as fact instead of writing it under historic religious claims? Where are the European and Asian secular historical accounts by their historians? Even back then news of that caliber would travel around the world. And of course the babble don't count. You have done nothing for christianity here, produced no evidence and I suspect you've even created another account in order to try and make it appear you have more support than you do. Wouldn't be the first time a christian has done that. You're lying to yourself and others for your faith. Vague minimal casual referencing while writing much more about natural events of the times do not constitute them acknowledging the actual truth of the claims, only that the events were claimed to have happened. And you know it.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; You will believe what the Scriptures tell you about Jesus' resurrection and LIVE or you'll fight it, deny it, and die in Hell...it's not complicated.

just_sayin

@Factfinder
Once again you misrepresent what I say with your blind closed mind. A couple of tad bits by local historians referencing what they heard happened before they were born, a smidgin compared to all their writings dedicated to reality isn't evidence. If they were documenting what they truly were convinced of why write so little about something so major? No it's obvious these few locals wrote just a couple of foot notes in the context of what they felt more important and true to the times, cultural and societal trends going on. Where are the independent secular history books detailing the facts and verifiable evidence?  Where are the legit encyclopedias telling the story as fact instead of writing it under historic religious claims? Where are the European and Asian secular historical accounts by their historians? Even back then news of that caliber would travel around the world. And of course the babble don't count. You have done nothing for christianity here, produced no evidence and I suspect you've even created another account in order to try and make it appear you have more support than you do. Wouldn't be the first time a christian has done that. You're lying to yourself and others for your faith. Vague minimal casual referencing while writing much more about natural events of the times do not constitute them acknowledging the actual truth of the claims, only that the events were claimed to have happened. And you know it.

A few historical observations:

1) Jesus has the most independent historical documents referencing him of any person of his time.  There are 42 documents about him within 100 years of his life.  To put that into perspective, the most well known person of that time was Tiberius - who has 15 documents attesting to his life within a 150 year timeframe.  So when you say there isn't much evidence for Jesus or the resurrection, know that for the historian there is a lot of evidence for that time period.

2)  You asked why European and Asian scholars don't have histories about it.  Well, its because the event happened in Jerusalem.  The disciples and followers of Jesus did spread the gospel outward, but that took time.  There are lots of mentions of the disciples and missionaries in Asia, Africa, and even Europe within a 100 to 200 year time frame.  Joseph of Arimathea has a lot of legends that connect him to Europe.  If you were being fair, you would also ask why there are no histories about Tiberius for Asia and Europe.  If it isn't odd that they didn't mention Tiberias, why would they mention a religious leader so far away?  

3) You said Jesus resurrection was just a footnote.  You don't know your history well.  Christians were so well known and their message was considered such as threat to the emperor, that Nero blamed Christians for burning Rome.  That happened in the mid-60s AD.  You wondered why wouldn't there be more on Jesus written by historians - in part the reason is because most historians were paid by Rome to write their histories.   

As I often point out - I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.  Instead, I'll trust the evidence.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

And by "evidence" you mean blind faith as your responses including your latest one demonstrates. 

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

And by "evidence" you mean blind faith as your responses including your latest one demonstrates. 

Blind faith suggests no evidence.  That's what you atheists have demonstrated.  Let me give a quick highlight reel:

1)  I provided evidence of Barbara Commiskey's healing from being lame, blind, and her internal organs shut down - I provided you 4 of her doctor's written statements, and her medical records.  You said there was no evidence of miracles.

2) I talked about the 24 document testimonies by the Spanish kings own record keeper in a tribunal that showed a man's amputated leg grew back.  I quoted from doctor's who testified the leg was sawed off.  I quoted from doctor's who said the leg was latter there.  You said there was no evidence.

3) I pointed out to you that the universe has a beginning, and anything that has a beginning, must have a cause - you provided no evidence of how that could logically happen.  You even denied what virtually every cosmologist acknowledges that the universe appears very finely tuned for life.

4) I pointed out the numerous chemical and biological issues with abiogenesis and you claimed there was certain evidence for it.  When asked to provide the specifics - you engaged in personal attacks.

5)  I have provided numerous eye witness accounts, and written histories by friends and enemies of Jesus alike regarding his resurrection and you have claimed there was no evidence.

It seems to me that you are the one who is operating by blind faith.  

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

And by "evidence" you mean blind faith as your responses including your latest one demonstrates. 

Blind faith suggests no evidence.  That's what you atheists have demonstrated.  Let me give a quick highlight reel:

1)  I provided evidence of Barbara Commiskey's healing from being lame, blind, and her internal organs shut down - I provided you 4 of her doctor's written statements, and her medical records.  You said there was no evidence of miracles.

2) I talked about the 24 document testimonies by the Spanish kings own record keeper in a tribunal that showed a man's amputated leg grew back.  I quoted from doctor's who testified the leg was sawed off.  I quoted from doctor's who said the leg was latter there.  You said there was no evidence.

3) I pointed out to you that the universe has a beginning, and anything that has a beginning, must have a cause - you provided no evidence of how that could logically happen.  You even denied what virtually every cosmologist acknowledges that the universe appears very finely tuned for life.

4) I pointed out the numerous chemical and biological issues with abiogenesis and you claimed there was certain evidence for it.  When asked to provide the specifics - you engaged in personal attacks.

5)  I have provided numerous eye witness accounts, and written histories by friends and enemies of Jesus alike regarding his resurrection and you have claimed there was no evidence.

It seems to me that you are the one who is operating by blind faith.  

You present hearsay and conjecture with occasional support of a few benign facts as support of supernatural claims and foolishly think pointing to others who believe in myths and who 'testify' to fantasy stories as 'evidence' when you clearly have no understanding of the term. All the while dismissing the numerous more likely natural alternative explanations and possible conclusions in order to support thor at all cost. Is that right one, thor? You know because it's hard to keep track of all the baseless myths and thor seems to be the only one for good.

MayCaesar

Let us see here... On the one hand we have centuries of rigorous scientific research and medical experience that suggest that people do not get healed from debilitating illnesses overnight by saying a few words - on the other hand we have one doctor's statement who has made claims ("she heard...") that he could not possibly know to be true. On one hand we have millennia of observations and experimentation suggesting that people do not rise from the dead - on the other hand we have a few "witnesses" from 2,000 years ago saying otherwise. On one hand we have extensive documentation of countless species and life forms going back all the way to 2+ billion years and are only missing a few small links in the process - on the other we have the argument that "complexity suggests intelligent design".

I think one has to be absolutely insane to view these groups of evidence as even remotely comparable - but that is just me.

RickeyHoltsclaw

MayCaesar said:

Let us see here... On the one hand we have centuries of rigorous scientific research and medical experience that suggest that people do not get healed from debilitating illnesses overnight by saying a few words - on the other hand we have one doctor's statement who has made claims ("she heard...") that he could not possibly know to be true. On one hand we have millennia of observations and experimentation suggesting that people do not rise from the dead - on the other hand we have a few "witnesses" from 2,000 years ago saying otherwise. On one hand we have extensive documentation of countless species and life forms going back all the way to 2+ billion years and are only missing a few small links in the process - on the other we have the argument that "complexity suggests intelligent design".

I think one has to be absolutely insane to view these groups of evidence as even remotely comparable - but that is just me.

@MayCaesar ;  You're a foolish atheist.