[
Replying to post 5 by Zzyzx]
Okay. Set the NT aside (if it is not the source) and provide verifiable evidence that a 'resurrection' occurred.
My friend, the fact that these authors made the claims is indeed verifiable, and it is a fact that you, nor anyone else has demonstrated these claims would be false. In fact, you have not even demonstrated there would be no reason to believe the claims. So then, what facts, and evidence do we have which would give us a reason to be under the impression, these authors may have reported falsely?
You see, this street runs both ways. There is a reason we have the reports, and if there are those who maintain the reports, would be false, then they are under obligation to demonstrate how they would be false. However, as it seems to stand, neither you, nor I, are insisting the reports would be true or false, but rather seem to hold an opinion of the facts, and evidence we have. Therefore, we do not own a burden, but rather can explain what it is we believe, along with the facts, and evidence in support of what it is we believe.
Correction: The OP may suggest different understanding of the NT than you might prefer. However, you have no legitimate claim to superior or more complete understanding.
Correction! We are talking about the fact that all the Gospels were authored by different individuals, who could not have possibly known about any sort of NT that their writings would have been contained in, hundred, and hundreds of years later, and could not have been writing in order to be contained in such a NT. Therefore, if there are those who have a different understanding than this, they would be in error.
Yes. Tales can be true or can be false or a mixture of the two. Those who maintain that the tales are true have the burden of providing verifiable evidence.
I do not insist the reports would be true. However, the same would go for those who "maintain" the reports would be false. In other words, these folks own the burden to "provide verifiable evidence the reports would be false".
One might start with a definition of 'imaginative' (involving new, different, or exciting ideasinvolving the use of your imagination
www.macmillandictionary.com) and note that tales of long-dead bodies coming back to life demonstrates the concept.
How does one go about demonstrating these authors were using their imagination as opposed to reporting the facts, as they knew them? As an example, the author of the letters to Theophilus explains exactly how he obtained his information, and he never mentions his imagination. How would one go about demonstrating he would be reporting falsely, without using their own imagination of how things may have happened, such as when there are those who claim they MAY have copied?
Yes, we have tales about many 'gods'
We are not talking about "many gods", rather we are talking about a resurrection, and if you would like to compare historical evidence, I will be glad to do so.
Yes, tales of numerous 'gods' cannot be demonstrated to be false.
What about the resurrection?
Correction: The 'reports' ARE the claims.
My friend, reports, and claims, are evidence, unless you can demonstrate they would be false.
Said tales have not been verified as true or false. They are just tales in an ancient book, similar to many other ancient tales.
Exactly how are they similar? It is one thing to make this claim. It is quite another to demonstrate the claim.
I trust that readers do not fail (or refuse) to see my point that unverified tales making claims are not facts supporting the claims they make.
Appealing to the audience, does nothing to demonstrate a point. It is a fact we have the claims. It is a fact that there is a reason we have the claims. So then, unless you can demonstrate how, and why the claims would be false, the most you can do is to say, "the claims may be false".
Yes, we have tales ('reports') that make claims.
Thank you!
We have copies of copies of copies of writings by authors of unknown or disputed identity, writing decades later presenting their version of events that have not been shown to be anything more than 'imaginative' folklore.
None of this demonstrates the reports to be false, nor does it make it likely. This does not even demonstrate that the authors would not have been the authors who are said to be the authors, and it certainly does not demonstrate that it would be, "imaginative folklore".
Correction: I make NO attempt to show that the 'reports' (gospel tales) are false. Instead, I ASK those who claim them to be true to provide verifiable evidence to support their claim.
Then we seem to be in the same boat then. In other words, we both look at, and acknowledge the facts, and evidence surrounding the resurrection, and we share our opinion of the facts, and evidence we have.
Roman churchmen centuries later selected writings from earlier times that reflected their point of view.
This is an opinion, stated as if it would be a fact. Because you see, one of the stated criteria was that the material would be believed to be written by an Apostle, or one believed to be a close associate of the Apostles, whether one would agree with what was said, or not. Of course one could suggest these men would have been dishonest, which would not be surprising, since it is suggested that the authors themselves would have had alternative motives, but the fact is, it has not been demonstrated that these authors were included because the folks who made the decisions would have agreed with what was said. In fact, there were divisions over what should be contained, exactly because there were those who were not in agreement with what would be said.
Four salesmen for a company write glowing accounts of its product. Management selects their writings from among many to include in promotional literature. It would be rather foolish to claim that the accounts are not connected.
How in the world would the fact that all these writings which were written hundreds of years before, being selected, demonstrate in any way, the authors would be connected? Let us recall, there are many scholars who make the argument, that we have no way to demonstrate who the authors may have been, nor when they may have wrote, and they are correct. So then, if we cannot demonstrate who the authors were, nor when they wrote, then how in the world can we demonstrate they were connected simply because they were all selected to be contained in the NT, hundreds of years later? Either, we know who the authors were, and can demonstrate how they were connected, or we have no idea if they may have been connected or not.
If / since Gospel writers appear to have copied passages word-for-word from one another or from a common source, there IS demonstration that they were 'connected'.
My friend, you see the word "appear" that you use above? There is a reason you use this word, and it is because you have to. Therefore, since you have to use this word, This IS NO demonstration at all they were connected. Moreover, there would be other explanation which can explain these things.
I will also point out the fact that those who attempt to make the argument. "these authors would have copied each other" clearly understand they have a problem, because they understand that this idea could not possibly explain all the facts we have. Therefore, they are forced to come up with the possibility, that the authors may have all shared a copy of the same common source, of which we have no idea of what this source would have been, nor if it ever even existed. So then, it seems we do have those who insist "unverified tales" would be true.
You are not the only person who attempts to defend Bible tales.
But the thing is, you did not quote any of these folks in the OP. This sort of demonstrates one who is playing to the audience, and in fact, you have admitted to as much in the past. So.........? Who is it that has an agenda? It ain't me.
If stories in a single book are the only source of information about an event occurred
My friend, before this material was contained in this book, we had 4 different accounts of the same event, by 4 different authors. Now that they are contained in this book, we have 4 different accounts of the same event, by 4 different authors.
are we well advised to conclude that the accounts are true and accurate?
This is a "straw man" because I have never, and would never make such an argument, but of course you could be debating someone other than the person you quoted in the OP.
Are we well advised to base life decisions on tales that could be true or could be false?
Are you making life decisions based upon the idea a tale could be false?
If we cannot determine if tales are true or false, is it prudent to make life decisions based on the tales being true?
Is it prudent to base life decisions based on the tales being false?
In reasoned debate does one use Appeal to Ignorance (it hasn't been proved false) as an argument for their position?
And this is not what I have done, but rather what you have done. In other words, it has been your "APPEAL" that the claims have not been demonstrated to be true, as a reason to dismiss the claims. I have simply responded to your "APPEAL" by demonstrating the fact that this is a very bad argument, because the claims have also not been demonstrated to be false, and not as a reason they should be believed, as you seem to do by "APPEALING" to the fact that they have not been demonstrated to be true, as a reason they should be dismissed.
In other words, it was you who appealed to the fact that the claims have not been demonstrated to be true, in order to appeal to the idea they should be dismissed, and I simply appealed to the fact that they have not been demonstrated to be false, in order to demonstrate how bad of an argument you were making, which had nothing to do with a reason to believe the claims.
Thus, a reasoned response is “I don't know if the tales are true or not�
I think another "reasoned response" would be, "I cannot demonstrate the claims to be true, but have been convinced by the facts, and evidence that they are true".
Nice dodge. Present verifiable evidence – something more than the tales themselves and assumptions based on the tales.
Note: 'Someone wrote about it� does not constitute verifiable evidence.
This is simply false. The reports, are indeed evidence, and those opposed understand this very well, which is why they spend so much time attempting to explain away this evidence we have, exactly because it is evidence, otherwise there would be nothing for them to debate.
