Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
1) Everything came from nothing
2) Life came from non-life
3) Order came from chaos
4) Consciousness came from nonexistence
5) Morals came from matter
Those are straight up faith claims.
When Nero burned Christian women and children as torches to light his garden parties (historical fact), these people refused to recant their claim that Jesus was resurrected. Yet you think they were just engaged in hearsay. Nero cut Paul's head off when he would not recant. Nero had Peter crucified upside down. And you think they endured all that because they want to keep a lie going? I just don't have enough faith, or hate, to be an atheist.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
In the case of Barbara Commiskey, we have her medical records and the statements from 4 of her doctors. One wrote a published medical report on it. Three of the others wrote books about it, which include the medical evidence because she permitted to be published. Also, in addition to those who wrote about it the remain 31 medical people who were involved in her treatments have also said it was a miracle (I know that will really make you scream like a demon possessed child). Again, the very definition of a miracle is that it is not a regular occurrence.
May, you seriously think there are only a few misusing links in your theory? Just to go from non-life to a singled celled organism would require 10 known chemical miracles that science is further away from solving than it was 70 years ago.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
When Nero burned Christian women and children as torches to light his garden parties (historical fact), these people refused to recant their claim that Jesus was resurrected. Yet you think they were just engaged in hearsay. Nero cut Paul's head off when he would not recant. Nero had Peter crucified upside down. And you think they endured all that because they want to keep a lie going? I just don't have enough faith, or hate, to be an atheist.
It takes a lot more hate and faith to be christian as history and you attest to that fact. You would die right now to keep the lie going, why wouldn't they? You act as if it's fact these two specific executions (peter & paul) happened the way they're posited when they're actually just rumored to have happened by christian tradition. Further evidence you've no clue what evidence is...
According to tradition, Paul was beheaded during Nero's persecution of Christians, likely sometime between 64 and 67 CE.
According to tradition, Peter was crucified upside-down during Nero's persecution of Christians. The reason for this unusual form of execution was reportedly at Peter's own request, as he felt unworthy to die in the same manner as Jesus.
https://www.historyskills.com/classroom/ancient-history/nero-christians/#:~:text=Christianity was seen as a,source of dissent and rebellion.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
In case it has not been made clear yet (I believe it has), I do not view repeating the same statement without addressing any of its criticisms as a proper way to have a discussion. I have already pointed out a couple of things the doctor's testimony contained that the doctor had to make up as he had no access to the data he was referencing. I could go on and analyze everyone's writing, but one has to be practical, and given how shoddy all the evidence you have presented so far has been - and you have clearly spent a lot of time studying this case, so, presumably, you would be armed with the best arguments one can come up with - there is very little point for me to look into this further.
I weight the experience and knowledge of probably millions of doctors and scientists in multiple disciplines all arriving at the same conclusion with respect of possibility of "medical miracles" of the kind you are describing - against... I do not know what to even call this. The scales are not quite balanced.
To your last question, the missing links are quite serious - however, the known links are overwhelmingly consistent. There are very few other theories out there with better evidential support than this one - which is quite spectacular, considering that the majority of processes we are talking about here occurred billions years ago. Your "chemical miracles" are considered miracles only by you, Dr. Craig and other religious folks who have read some popular articles on the field (specifically those that aim at arriving at the same conclusion as you) - not by professionals who have studied these processes their whole lives. In serious science, we do not talk about "miracles": we talk about gaps of knowledge that we work hard towards closing.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Accounts of Peter
Accounts of Paul
Accounts of Peter & Paul
References in Other Christian Literature
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
First general extrabiblical references about Christians being persecuted and martyred:
Of course that's not the claim being rejected.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biblical_names
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
We do not have to go far to find other things like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loch_Ness_Monster
https://www.highlandtitles.com/blog/loch-ness-monster/#:~:text=We%20have%20all%20heard%20of,hunters%20and%20leaving%20scientists%20baffled.
I am a little worried here, as sometimes when I bring something like this up, thinking, "They will surely see how preposterous their reasoning is now", they say, "Oh, of course the Loch Ness Monster also exists". Then I feel very awkward...
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
1) Did these eyewitnesses know the monster beforehand and can verify if he was dead and alive now?
2) Did these witnesses touch the monsters hands and side?
3) Did these witnesses have dinner with the monster multiple times after it 'rose' up out of the water?
4) Were these witnesses willing to die for their claims that they saw the monster? Please provide their names.
5) Have any of these eye witness accounts been proven to be fake or the witnesses claimed they lied (yep for the Loch Ness Monster, and Nope for the eyewitnesses of Jesus).
6) Have there ever been mass sightings for Nessie, as the 500 people who saw Jesus at one time after he rose?
I love how you refuse to deal with the actual evidence of the Resurrection. I get it though. The evidence for the Resurrection is diverse, comes from friend and enemy alike, with many eye witness accounts, lots of supplemental support, and the reactions of the eye witnesses are hard to explain if it was not true. I get how it causes dissonance with your faith.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I address exactly what you call "evidence" of the "resurrection" by comparing it to other hypotheses with similar pieces and amounts of evidence, and find it just as lacking. There is no "faith": I know very little about the historical character called "Jesus" on numerous occasions, and I am very open to the idea that he was very much unlike of what I think he could have been. However, the claim that he was "resurrected" by "god" is so out of this world (in the eyes of anyone who does not believe in folklore stories and fairytales), that the fact that you cannot come up with better evidence than "witnesses" from millennia ago almost certainly suggests that the claim is false.
The truth is that to me these are just fun mental exercises: I do not have strong positions on these matters my entire world view hinges on. If I learn tomorrow that Jesus actually did rise from the dead, I will be curious to understand how it happened - but nothing would change in how I live my day to day life. It is quite different for you, for, as you yourself said (erroneously, in my opinion), Jesus' resurrection being untrue would destroy Christianity, and to you, as a devoted Christian, that would mean the end of the world as you know it.
That is why you are prone to thinking that others also have a very strong position on the subject, while to many non-religious people it is just one of the millions of fun historical peculiarities and nothing else. Whether Jesus was resurrected or not matters about as much to me as whether Hannibal's elephant could jump across ravines (there were "witnesses" of that too), and in the context of the debate it only interests me in terms of the arguments given in its support. And the arguments I have seen from you so far... let us call them "unconvincing".
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
This possibility does not bother me, given that the set of miracles I believe in is empty.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
1) Everything came from nothing
2) Life came from non-life (and all the many sub-miracles associated with it)
3) Order came from chaos
4) Consciousness came from nonexistence
5) Morals came from matter
Those are all faith claims and miracles.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I think that abiogenesis is the most reasonable hypothesis given the evidence. I do not "believe" in abiogenesis: my mind does not work on beliefs, only on hypotheses and models. It is possible that abiogenesis has never happened in Earth's conditions and true source of life here lies somewhere else, although I see it as somewhat unlikely.
I am not sure how many more times I have to explain this. My mind does not work the way yours does: I do not assume beliefs and hold on to them. You can keep claiming that I operate on "faith" as many times as you want, but it will not change the reality.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
May, if you don't think life came from non-life (abiogenesis) then where do you think it came from?
We don't know. Abiogenesis is the best working theory we got. Barring the troglodytes. That's not a faith declaration. It's a confession. You don't know either.
Any empirical evidence? Peer reviewed articles? Experiments? Observations of god by using the scientific method to establish behavior patterns? Samples of it's physiology to analyze? Of your god?
Didn't think so. Remember, conjecture, faith and the bible aren't evidence.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Geez, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. You know what I'm sayin? Just_sayin will be as deluded as he wants to be.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I actually do not have a problem with discussing religion with religious people in general, and while I see them as confused, I think "deluded" might be too strong a word (or maybe I am overly tolerant of their views). It is just very hard to have a conversation with someone who does not listen to what you say... There are three active individuals on this website who have a habit of doing (not doing?) that, and I have never made much progress in discussions with them. After all these endless exchanges, we are back at square one, where I have to explain the same damn thing that I explained months ago: that no, my argument is not X, but Y.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
1) that Jesus was not crucified by Pontius Pilate and have ignored the 10 plus historical attestations by both friend and foe alike,
2) that the tomb was not empty - instead we see good evidence of this being corroborated by Jesus enemies, embarrassing details such as the women eyewitnesses, and the naming of the owner of the tomb - Joseph of Arimathea, a Pharisee and member of the Sanhedrin
3) that there were no resurrection appearances of Jesus - the atheists have failed to explain why there so many eyewitness accounts, with an early Christian creed being dated at with 18 months of Jesus' resurrection, and very detailed evidence of disciples like Thomas touching the side and nail scars of Jesus
4) that the disciples of Jesus were not transformed by the event - Instead the evidence shows Jesus' brother James, not only becoming a believer, but leading the church in Jerusalem and being martyred for his belief in the resurrection, we see James the apostle being beheaded, Paul being beheaded by Nero, Peter being crucified by Nero, and the other disciples martyred for their belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus
We could end this debate now on the mercy rule, since none of the minimal facts have been shown to be false, but let's address some of the common theories deniers have put forward:
1) Jesus body was stolen
This was the first argument made by the Jews for the empty tomb. The gospels and early church fathers refuted this argument. Had the disciples stolen Jesus body, it seems unlikely that they would have all been willing to be martyred, and in some instances watched their children murdered, rather than deny that Jesus was resurrected. Someone may be willing to be a martyr for something they believe to be true, but it is unlikely someone will die for something they know to be a lie. If the disciples had stolen the body, it fails to explain their martyrdoms and their suffering for their claims. The stolen body theory fails to explain how James, Jesus' brother became such a strong Christian leader, as he did not believe Jesus prior to the resurrection, nor does it explain why an enemy of Jesus, Paul, became the strongest witness of the resurrection
2) Hallucination Theory
While an individual may hallucinate, groups do not. This theory fails to explain the multiple appearances of Jesus to different individuals - Mary Magdalene and the other women at the tomb, to the disciples at a meal, to Thomas a week later, to people on the road, to the disciples on the beach at breakfast, to James, to 500 at one time (possibly at his ascension).
3) Jesus didn't really die
The multiple accounts that Jesus was crucified argue against this. Roman soldiers were unlikely to not carry out the sentence. They were known for their ruthlessness and their very lives were at stake if they did not carry out their duties. Further, the multiple attestations that a spear was thrust into Jesus' side with water and blood flowing out denotes he was dead already. But suppose for a moment that they mistakenly thought Jesus was dead when he wasn't, and a severely wounded Jesus could open a tomb with a rock door from the inside, which was impossible. This fails to explain the other accounts and the disciples response to him. If Jesus appeared to the disciples after getting out of the tomb, the response would not be 'wow, Jesus arose from the dead', but 'uh, Jesus you don't look so good. Are you OK?' The response of the disciples would have been much different.
The evidence of Jesus resurrection gives of strong reasons to believe that it is true.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Thus far, the deniers have failed to show
Thus far you've failed to show anyone has been resurrected.
Thus far rumor, inuendo, conjecture and reports there of have failed to show verifiable empirical evidence of your fairytale.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://web.archive.org/web/20220126124914/http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/deathjesus.pdf
So there is medical evidence that supports the evidence of Jesus crucifixion as being portrayed in a medically accurate manner.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
1) Mary Magdalene
She is mentioned as a witness in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and in gnostic gospels. Why believe she was the first witness? Women were not considered reliable witnesses in 1st century Judea. If you were making up a story, you wouldn't have a woman as the first witness - this would just make it harder to convince people. Because it is considered an 'embarrassing detail' it has the ring of authenticity.
There are several women with Mary Magdalene mentioned in the gospels
a. - Joanna,- Her husband was Chuza, the household manager or steward of King Herod Antipas
b - Mary - mother of Jesus
c - Mary - mother of James and Joseph
d - Mary - wife of Clopas
e - Salome - mother of James and John
2) The apostles
Peter
James
John
Andrew
Philip
Bartholomew
Matthew
James the Less
Simon the Zealot
Thaddeus
Thomas
Mattias - See Acts 1
Why believe they did? Because there is multiple attestations and very early ones. Peter says he did in 1 Peter. 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, which is an early Christian creed no more than 18 months after the resurrection, mentions Peter by name, and the apostles in general. Early church fathers such as Clement, Polycarp, Irenaeus who spoke with the apostles affirmed that they said they had seen the resurrected Christ. And the fact that each of them other than John were martyred for their faith.
Further the specific details of the accounts indicates several distinct encounters. With Thomas seeing Jesus a week after the others and asking to see Jesus' side and nail scars. Other accounts talk about meeting Jesus by the lake for breakfast.
3) Cleopas and a friend on the Road to Emmaus
4) James the brother of Jesus
James was not a believer in Jesus prior to the resurrection. The gospel records him and his other brothers trying to get Jesus to stop speaking because he was embarrassing them. James is mentioned in the early Christian creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, his martyr is mentioned by Josephus and he is named as the brother of Jesus there. The gospel of James also attests to James belief in his brother as the Christ.
5) Paul
And then there is the issue with Paul. He was tasked to kill Christians. He was a former member of the Sanhedrin. Both Acts and Paul's own epistles record that he met with Paul, John, and James to confirm their belief in a physical resurrection. The evidence would have had to have been pretty convincing for him to switch sides. Acts and his epistles record he had an encounter with Jesus - whether this was a vision or a manifestation of a bodily Jesus is unknown, what is known is that he switched sides shortly thereafter. Paul was not immediately welcomed by Christians due to his reputation. Barnabas, the uncle of John Mark, is the first to agree to work with Paul and he too was most likely a witness of the resurrection (church history says Barnabas was the rich young ruler who approached Jesus). Paul was martyred by Nero for his belief in the resurrection. It seems unlikely he would be so zealous in his faith given his background, if the evidence was not convincing.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
Your 'I am angry with God so I don't accept the gospels as a source' is your own special pleading.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Stop trying to figure out me and start figuring out what evidence consists of. Storytelling from primarily one source, the bible is not evidence. Relatively speaking there is little evidence outside the bible. Were there crucifixions, persecutions, clashes of cultures, real places in history that stories derived from, yes but none of that is direct evidence of a resurrection. Every "eye" witness account comes from the bible. If the stories themselves were true and not just orated myths woven through some benign historical facts, we'd expect to see a lot more accountings unrelated to the biblical accounts of the stories themselves. So much so that we couldn't ignore the biblical accounts. As it is now, you take the bible away and your left with a few trinkets of factual data and a whole lot of conjecture.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Yes.
The Enemies of Jesus
Josephus (37-100) - Christian scribe version
“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a 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. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”
Indirect Evidence from Jesus Enemies
Suetonius (70-160)
“Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition [the resurrection].”
Phiny the Younger (61-113)
“I have never been present at an examination of Christians. Consequently, I do not know the nature of the extent of the punishments usually meted out to them, nor the grounds for starting an investigation and how far it should be pressed…They also declared that the sum total of their guilt or error amounted to no more than this: they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day [Sunday in remembrance of Jesus’ resurrection] to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honor of Christ as if to a god.”
Early Church Fathers
Gospel of Barnabas
Wherefore also we keep the eighth day for rejoicing, in the which also Jesus rose from the dead, and having been manifested ascended into the heavens. Barnabas 15:9
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
And not a single 'eye' witness outside the bible, just hearsay and not much of it given the magnitude of the claim. Still no evidence. Christians writing about christian doctrine and beliefs are not evidence. Jesus's 'enemies' giving small vague references as to what christians believe is not evidence. No resurrection in Jerusalem or anywhere else at anytime. Though we do know that the Egyptian god horus's father Osiris was king of the resurrection thousands of years before. My how stories evolve and spread.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
There is a book that claims that Christianity originated with a bunch of people consuming psychedelic mushrooms and having wild visions. The evidence presented there is shoddy at best, but sometimes I wonder if there is something to it.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
And the thing is we are not insulting anyone. I may point out the reality that the god bible has as much chance of existing as fairy elves and you point to psychedelics but we generally leave the faithful themselves alone. Wonder what makes them upset? Just provide one sliver of evidence and they don't need to feel insecure. Oh yeah, there is none. Guess there is that.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
It is this weird concept of "sacrilege", the idea that certain things just are not to be said, and that evaluation of their quality is dependent not on their logical merit, but on their satisfaction of certain conventions. It is not exclusive to religion - the "woke" people nowadays have it as well - but it certainly originated in it.
I am not offended or upset when someone criticizes my views: I welcome the challenge. Now, if the criticism is lousy (as the one our little friend here routinely throws our direction), then I may get mildly irritated by it: I expect more of my opponents. But every single thing I believe in is absolutely a subject to criticism - no exceptions.
Not so with theocrats. You are not allowed to make fun of their views, and if you are not 100% on board with their fantasies, then you are evil. Even if you just go about your life and do not engage with them without them initiating these conversations, they still get upset. First they knock in your door in the morning and start telling you their fantasies. Then you question their views, and they get outraged. Like, if you do not want your views criticized, then do not express them to me. What am I supposed to do, listen and nod my head even when I disagree with everything you say?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
when you ask the person who does not believe in Jesus' resurrection why the numerous eye witness accounts should not be considered, you get crazy notions such as they all had the same group hallucination. Now, there is no known instance of people who were in various places all having the same group hallucination. But that is exactly what some have claimed.
Considering the reaction to those who say they saw the resurrected Christ, it makes the most sense to conclude that they truly believe that they same Jesus alive. Someone may be willing to die for what they believe is the truth, but it is unlikely that one will die for something they know to be a life, especially hundreds of people.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
1) Early attestation - the Christian creed found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 - is dated no later than 18 months after the resurrection. This is an incredibly early attestation for an event in antiquity. It says:
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. He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. 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.
It states Jesus was raised from the dead on the 3rd day and it identifies witnesses of the resurrection. We have the eye witness testimony of Peter, some of the apostles, and James as corroborating sources.
2) Multiple sources - There are at least 12 sources for the crucifixion of Jesus, with half of the sources being enemies of Jesus and Christianity. Eye witness accounts also have multiple attestations. The gospel accounts identify many eyewitnesses, while accounts in Matthew, John, James, 1 Peter provide personal eyewitness accounts.
Early church fathers corroborate the eye witness accounts. Church fathers such as Clement, Polycarp and Irenaeus who knew the apostles confirm that they did indeed claim that Jesus rose from the dead. Further, there are several sources from Jesus' enemies which corroborate that the followers of Jesus believed he rose from the dead.
3) Historical accuracy - the eye witness accounts portray crucifixion, and burial in historically accurate ways. Further, the the details of Jesus' crucifixion match medical evidence of what a crucifixion would have been like.
4) Embarrassing elements - All four gospels mention that women were the first witnesses. In the culture of the day, women were not considered reliable witnesses. A fabricated story would not have had women as the first witnesses. Further the gospels all record that the disciples ran away on the night Jesus was arrested. These embarrassing events suggest that the accounts are about a real event.
5) Lots of facts are provided that could have been verified: 1) Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb. He was a Pharisee and a member of the Sanhedrin - he would have obviously have been known. The same goes for Nicodemus who was also a member of the Sanhedrin who assisted in the burial of Jesus. 2) Lots of names are mentioned in the accounts - Mary Magdalene, Clopas, Peter, John, Thomas, James, Mattias, etc. Further, many of the names mentioned corroborated the accounts we have.
To believe the atheist -
1)we must dismiss numerous eye witness accounts - both from Jesus' friends and enemies.
2) Believe that all the preserved accounts are false even though they were written from many different people in many different locations.
3) Believe that embarrassing details that would not have benefited the spread of the story were made up and included anyway.
4) Believe that the well known people named were part of the plot to lie about the event.
5) Believe that the witnesses who said Jesus was resurrected allowed themselves and in some instances, their families, to be martyred, to preserve the lie.
I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
The Women at the Tomb:
The Resurrected Jesus:
Additional Details:
Obviously, the stories are not divinely inspired or historically accurate.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
The gospels don't say 'only' one woman was here. In fact over 6 total women across the gospels are identified. Just like if you had a police report, the accounts would not all contain the same details. The focus on Mary Magdalene in Mark is because she was the first witness (it does not exclude other women having gone to the tomb). The general sequence of events is:
a) The women left before sunrise to travel the 2 miles to the tomb from Bethany
b) On the way the sun arose and the women arrive at the tomb and find it empty and see the angels
c) The women run back to tell the disciples - Mary to see Peter and John who were staying with John's friend in Jerusalem and the other women back to Bethany.
d) Peter and John and Mary arrive at the tomb first, while Peter and John go into the tomb, Mary encounters Jesus
The number of angels is not problematic. The text does not exclude more than one angel. The one angel is mentioned because that angel made the announcement. Again, you have to examine the documents in the way that ancient mid-eastern people would have related the story - your AI is programmed for Western thought patterns, and these accounts are not western. The writers focused only on details that related to the point they were trying to make.
Matthew mentioning guards is not problematic. In eyewitness testimony, detectives will tell you that one witness will mention one detail, while another may mention another detail not mentioned by the others. Rather than reduce authenticity, the accounts actually have a ring of true accounts.
There is no 'this happened the same day' clause in Luke. In fact, Luke, who wrote the sequel to his gospel, Acts, which deals with what the Apostles did after Jesus when up into heaven said:
An AI would have to intentionally misrepresent Luke to make such a conclusion as you mentioned. Further, John mentions post resurrection appearances both in Jerusalem and Galilee which happened over the 40 day period. There is no discrepancy.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Sources:
Thallus
Tacitus
Mar Bar-Sarapion
Phlegon
Pliny the Younger
Suetonius
Lucian of Samosata
Celsus
Josephus
Jewish Talmud
The Toledot Yeshu
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Osiris became one of Egypt’s most important gods, together with Isis and Horus, and he was indeed worshipped for roughly three thousand years, “from shortly before the Early Dynastic Period (c. 3150–2613 BCE) to the Ptolemaic Dynasty (323–30 BCE), the last dynasty to rule Egypt before the coming of Rome.”
Reflect, then, on the global impact of two thousand years of Christianity, in terms of how its theology and institutions have influenced other cultures. Now add a thousand years to that influence. That was the impact of the myth of Osiris.
But talking about Osiris as a lone deity is empty because the Egyptian trinity represents a convoluted dynamic that dramatized the Egyptian’s yearning for personal immortality. Osiris was the lord of the underworld, the judge of souls in the afterlife, and the god of fertility, of resurrection, and of the renewal of life.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Claim: Osiris was called “Lord of Lords”, “King of Kings”, “God of Gods”, “Resurrection and the Life”, “Good Shepherd”, “Eternity and Everlastingness”, and the god who “made men and women to be “born again”
Truth: These names for Jesus were not used by Osiris, who was called, “Lord of All”, the “Good Being”, “Lord of the Underworld”, “Lord (King) of Eternity”, “Ruler of the Dead”, “Lord of the West”, “Great One”, “He who takes seat,” “the Begetter”, “the Ram”, “Great Word”, “Chief of the Spirits”, “Ruler of Everlastingness”, “Living God,” “God above the gods.” These rather general names were not uncommon for many other deities as well.
Claim: Osiris’ birth was announced by Three Wise Men: the three stars Mintaka, Anilam, and Alnitak in the belt of Orion, and Osiris had a star in the east (Sirius) that signified his birth
Truth: It is true that some scholars connect Osiris with Orion, but they don’t stretch the imagination to call the three stars of the belt “wise men”, and there is no mention of an eastern star in the Osiris mythology.
Claim: Osiris had a Eucharist ceremony of sorts, in which his flesh was eaten in the form of communion cakes of wheat
Truth: There is no evidence for this in the research of the scholars
Claim: Osiris taught much of the same material as Jesus; many teachings are identically the same, word for word
Truth: There is absolutely no evidence of any of this, and the “wisdom” of Osiris is still available for review.
Claim: Osiris was killed and later resurrected, providing hope every believer might also be resurrected into eternal life
Truth: Osiris was murdered and his body was then dismembered and scattered. Later, his body pieces were recovered and rejoined, and he was rejuvenated. Osiris then journeyed to the underworld, where he became the lord of the dead. He did not resurrect with a glorified body and walk with men on earth, as did Jesus. He was not alive again, as was Jesus, but was instead a “dead” god who never returned among the living
My favorite lie atheists repeat is that there is a virgin birth associated with Osiris. The actual myth is that Isis reassembled Osiris dead body parts, minus one crucial one, and then flew around Osiris as a bird and his 'seed' impregnated her as she flew around him. Not exactly like the biblical account of Jesus.
Gotta laugh at atheists.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
But something wild such as resurrection of a human being through divine intervention? Hey, who cares about hard evidence: we have a few witnesses and a bunch of fantasy stories. We are good!
I have come to believe that religion is a product of intellectual cowardice. People who are uncomfortable with ignorance and uncertainty invent fake knowledge. Has there ever been a good reason to believe that Zeus existed? Not really: people did not know how lightning works and came up with a fantasy story explaining it. Saying, "I do not know how lightning works", was too uncomfortable, too scary, for those people. And that is understandable.
It is not as understandable in the 21st century when the fundamentals of physics and biology are known to every elementary school kid, yet adults still cling to primitive superstitions. Feynman wrote about the "cargo cults" in Oceania, of tribal people who did not understand modern technology, so whenever they saw it, they associated it with divinity. A passenger plane flies above your island? It is a sign from gods! Seems that cargo cults are alive and well even in the most developed parts of the world.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Obviously the problem with Socrates is he didn't have get out of hell free cards. If he had perhaps fantasy stories would suffice for claiming his existence and we'd be like "jesus who"?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Seriously though, this does raise an interesting question: to what extent are stories based on something that happened in reality and was somewhat loosely reinterpreted, and to what extent are they just made up? With people such as Socrates, Jesus or Buddha, there is a lot of certainty in that even if the individuals in question did not exist, their image represents groups of individuals that did. Whether Socrates was one man, or a group of philosophers, or even no one in particular - virtually every historian agrees that Socratic teachings did exist in the Ancient Greece and influenced Plato, Aristotle and others. Things become blurrier when we talk about stories such as the Trojan War or the Great Flood: while these stories were likely inspired by some real wars and natural disasters that took place, it could be that they are not directly related to any particular event and are just ancient stories that carried through generations, or even outright fiction. My understanding is that Homer did not just make up the story of the Trojan War, that the story or a part of it existed in the Greek folklore prior to him - however, how much of it did he make up? "Troy" itself may have been his invention.
It is easier with modern fiction: with, say, The Lord of the Rings, we know very well who the author is and what sources he drew inspiration from. It is not so simple when talking about history and fiction from millennia ago, especially given countless instances of destruction of stored knowledge. How much knowledge was lost when the Alexandria Library was destroyed is hard to assess, but it is quite likely that if that knowledge miraculously returned, we would be shocked by how much we were missing. Perhaps we would instantly understand the Bronze Age Collapse, one of the greatest historical mysteries to date.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra