Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[JohnA]

I'm afraid I've lost track, and would appreciate some clarification.
Is the resurrection of Jesus being presented as evidence for Jesus's Godhood, with the argument that it could not have happened 'naturally', ie without God's direct intervention.
Is Zack wotisname also God?
If Zack wotsisname's resurrection isn't evidence that he is a special messenger of God, then the resurrection of Jesus isn't, either. In which case its historicity isn't relevant to the OP.

Yep, it is amazing how people can use two mystical events/things illogically. They use the 2nd occult event to explain the 1st magical one. You can not use the resurrection of a dead body to explain the existence of a supernatural being.

Furthermore, if a belief system is purely based on faith, you can not offer evidence without admitting your faith based belief is erroneous.

Am not sure why Goose does not get these 2 obvious points. But it is nice reading how he argue in circles.

[Goat]

Yes, but, there is also 1) A theological motivation, 2) Claims for things that are physically impossible as we know it and 3) Lack of independent verification of the claims (aside from the fact the claims are not theoretically possible).

Regarding point (1). A motivation for bias is acknowledged. But is bias enough to invalid the evidence altogether? If it is then the criteria of bias equally invalidates the evidence for the assassination of Caesar as Nicolaus et al. had political motivations to be biased in how they presented the facts. So as far the treatment of the evidence is concerned bias plays out on both sides.

Point (2) was addressed in my last post to NENB (post #1266). Point (3) again doesn't invalidate the evidence itself anymore than it would invalidate the evidence for the assassination as we have no independent verification of the claim Caesar was assassinated either.

Point 1 in combination with other factors is.. such as. lack of independent sources, oh, and the lack of possibility of someone actually coming back from the dead.

Before you start to complain about 'anti-supernatural bias', please show there IS a supernatural to begin with.

[instantc]

Yes, but, there is also 1) A theological motivation, 2) Claims for things that are physically impossible as we know it and 3) Lack of independent verification of the claims (aside from the fact the claims are not theoretically possible).

Regarding point (1). A motivation for bias is acknowledged. But is bias enough to invalid the evidence altogether? If it is then the criteria of bias equally invalidates the evidence for the assassination of Caesar as Nicolaus et al. had political motivations to be biased in how they presented the facts. So as far the treatment of the evidence is concerned bias plays out on both sides.

Point (2) was addressed in my last post to NENB (post #1266). Point (3) again doesn't invalidate the evidence itself anymore than it would invalidate the evidence for the assassination as we have no independent verification of the claim Caesar was assassinated either.

I object wholesale to the very notion that historical texts can EVER provide sufficient justification to believe things incompatible with one's worldview.

For example, if historians came out tomorrow and said that some scientology claims were true because of the veracity of ancient texts attesting to encounters with Xenu, I'd reject it as well.


The very notion that testimony can EVER outweigh a worldview based on a lifetime of evidence and experience to the contrary is ABSURD. That is why Christian attempts to justify belief in supernaturalism and magic based on the writings of ancient people is a futile endeavor. The only people who will believe such outrageous things are those who already believe them (and thus don't think them extraordinary or magical) or are gullible.

I think this is the only relevant point to be made here. Debating about whether Ceasar's assassination is backed up by more or less evidence is beside the point. Would you, Goose, be ready to switch your religion if you encountered historical testimonies of a bunch of miracles performed by someone else?

[JohnA]

Yes, but, there is also 1) A theological motivation, 2) Claims for things that are physically impossible as we know it and 3) Lack of independent verification of the claims (aside from the fact the claims are not theoretically possible).

Regarding point (1). A motivation for bias is acknowledged. But is bias enough to invalid the evidence altogether? If it is then the criteria of bias equally invalidates the evidence for the assassination of Caesar as Nicolaus et al. had political motivations to be biased in how they presented the facts. So as far the treatment of the evidence is concerned bias plays out on both sides.

Point (2) was addressed in my last post to NENB (post #1266). Point (3) again doesn't invalidate the evidence itself anymore than it would invalidate the evidence for the assassination as we have no independent verification of the claim Caesar was assassinated either.

I object wholesale to the very notion that historical texts can EVER provide sufficient justification to believe things incompatible with one's worldview.

For example, if historians came out tomorrow and said that some scientology claims were true because of the veracity of ancient texts attesting to encounters with Xenu, I'd reject it as well.


The very notion that testimony can EVER outweigh a worldview based on a lifetime of evidence and experience to the contrary is ABSURD. That is why Christian attempts to justify belief in supernaturalism and magic based on the writings of ancient people is a futile endeavor. The only people who will believe such outrageous things are those who already believe them (and thus don't think them extraordinary or magical) or are gullible.

I think this is the only relevant point to be made here. Debating about whether Ceasar's assassination is backed up by more or less evidence is beside the point. Would you, Goose, be ready to switch your religion if you encountered historical testimonies of a bunch of miracles performed by someone else?

Only a fool would not switch when the historical testimonials had been shown to be true. And that is what Goosec is arguing: the testimonies are true.
Your question to him is pointless, belongs to antiquity with philosophy.
Instantc, am not convinced you understand this, given this post I reply to.

The point is, Goose has only faith, he had no evidence. Besides his resurrection claim to evidence his god's existence is a non sequitur.

Why is this so easy to understand this and so many struggle?

[Goose]

The very notion that testimony can EVER outweigh a worldview based on a lifetime of evidence and experience to the contrary is ABSURD.

It's not absurd if the evidence is strong enough. I think it is and I've made my case for why I think it is. You on the other hand have merely offered your bias against testimony. Which is itself absurd since most of what we know about ancient history comes down to us via testimony - second hand testimony at that. Shall we just rip pages and pages out of our history books?

[Goose]

Paul makes a passing reference to going to see Cephas [Peter] for two weeks, but Peter never refers to Paul. In 2Peter there is one reference, but Peter is not the author of 2d Peter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Peter

Holy moving goal posts Batman! First, the bar is set to Paul must have met witnesses. I provide the evidence for this. THEN, you raise the bar to the witnesses must also acknowledge they met Paul. Let's not forget that Nicolaus doesn't even tell us he met witnesses let alone tell us who they are and have them confirm they met Nicolaus.

Incidentally, in Galatians ch 2. Paul also says he met with John and James., not just Peter.

It's pretty clear you aren't applying your methodology consistently. Some of your objections would rule out most of what we know about ancient history if we were to apply them across the spectrum.

I suppose in some sense no historian is absolutely objective, but are you seriously claiming that 1st Century Christians are less 'interested' in the resurrection of Jesus than secular historians were about the events of Caesar's assassination?

No. I'm simply claiming both sets of data for each respective event suffer from bias. If bias alone is enough to invalidate the evidence for the resurrection it is enough to invalidate the evidence for the assassination.

[10CC]

Paul makes a passing reference to going to see Cephas [Peter] for two weeks, but Peter never refers to Paul. In 2Peter there is one reference, but Peter is not the author of 2d Peter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Peter

Holy moving goal posts Batman! First, the bar is set to Paul must have met witnesses. I provide the evidence for this. THEN, you raise the bar to the witnesses must also acknowledge they met Paul. Let's not forget that Nicolaus doesn't even tell us he met witnesses let alone tell us who they are and have them confirm they met Nicolaus.

It's pretty clear you aren't applying your methodology consistently. Some of your objections would rule out most of what we know about ancient history if we were to apply them across the spectrum.

I suppose in some sense no historian is absolutely objective, but are you seriously claiming that 1st Century Christians are less 'interested' in the resurrection of Jesus than secular historians were about the events of Caesar's assassination?

No. I'm simply claiming both sets of data for each respective event suffer from bias. If bias alone is enough to invalidate the evidence for the resurrection it is enough to invalidate the evidence for the assassination.

Who was it Saul was working for in his persecution of "christians"?

[Goose]

I'm afraid I've lost track, and would appreciate some clarification.
Is the resurrection of Jesus being presented as evidence for Jesus's Godhood, with the argument that it could not have happened 'naturally', ie without God's direct intervention.
Is Zack wotisname also God?
If Zack wotsisname's resurrection isn't evidence that he is a special messenger of God, then the resurrection of Jesus isn't, either. In which case its historicity isn't relevant to the OP.

The resurrection is presented as evidence to support my belief in the supernatural. Zack is evidence against the premise that brain dead people always stay dead.

[otseng]

Goose, I don't know if I'm gonna be able to get across to you, but I will try.

If you could manage to pull yourself away from the incessant juvenile arguments by ridicule for even one post it would certainly be easier to take you seriously. I won't hold my breath though.

Moderator Comment

Please, just make your arguments without commenting if the other would get it.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Goose]

[Replying to Goose]

Firstly, I've not claimed Luke or Paul (or anyone else for that matter) were disinterested. Nor were Nicoluas, Plutarch and so on disinterested either. Secondly, I've given to you twice the location of where both Luke and Paul claim to have met witnesses - Paul in Galatians ch. 1 &2 and Luke 1:1-3. Are you even reading my posts?

It's fair to say that Paul and the author of Gospel Luke met with individuals who claimed to have witnessed the risen Jesus, based on the NT. It's also true that this is EXACTLY what the chief priests and Pharisees predicted that the followers of Jesus intended to do after relocating the body of Jesus elsewhere, based on the NT; "lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first." (Matt. 27:64). And this is in fact exactly what occurred. The tomb did indeed prove to be empty, according to all four gospels, and the disciples did indeed begin to spread the story of the risen Jesus, as detailed very clearly beginning in Acts 2. So there is no reason to deny that both Paul and his follower, the author of Gospel Luke, who is virtually undeniably also the author of Acts, as well as a good many others in the first century met with individuals who CLAIMED to have witnessed the risen Jesus.

Good. I'm glad to hear you accept the position that Paul and Luke met with witnesses. The fallacy in the rest of your argument is that you argue for the historical accuracy of the text only when it suites you while ignoring the text when it is against you. It's disingenuous.

The real question before us today however is this. Is there any compelling reason for modern 21st century readers of this material to actually believe that a corpse came back to life and ultimately flew away?

I believe there is compelling historical evidence and I've attempted to lay the foundation to answer why I believe there is here.