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?

[Goose]

I'll be happy to explain. First of all you appear to misunderstand the word 'contemporary.' He was a contemporary of Caesar whether he met him or not. There is no mention as whether or not he ever met Caesar, just that "He was not actually present when the assassination occurred but had the opportunity to speak with those who were." Nicolaus was professional historian who interviewed the witnesses to the assassination for the very purpose of finding out what happened. I am not aware of any record of Paul conducting such an interview of any eyewitness to the resurrection. The 2d and 3d party statements we do have of the latter are in conflict. Also as has been pointed out several times, the assassination of J.Caesar did not involve supernatural claims.

You cut out almost all of my post. Why?

At any rate, you fail to define what you see as a “contemporary� and why. You’re merely asserting Nicolaus was a contemporary despite never meeting Caesar. The only criteria that makes him a contemporary you seem to supply is that Nicloaus had an opportunity to speak to those who were present at the assassination. But you fail to offer any primary evidence for this. Your reasoning here still allows me to introduce Paul as a contemporary of Jesus if we are to be consistent since Paul met witnesses and spoke to them as well (Galatians 1, 2).

You argue Nicoluas was a professional historian who interviewed witnesses but offer no primary evidence to establish this. In fact, I’m not aware of Nicloaus claiming to have interviewed anyone in Life of Augustus as compared to Paul who at least states he met the disciples and spoke to them (Galatians 1 and 2). Even Luke tells he received his data from witnesses (Luke 1:1). Where does Nicloaus even tell us that much?

By the way, your objection that the assassination "did not involve supernatural claims" is false. I gave you some examples which you conveniently ignored. Not to mention, simply objection to a claim on the basis it is a supernatural claim is meaningless and merely reveals a bias towards the supernatural.

Once you've expressed your point, I simply redact what seems to me as redundant or uninteresting. I get decide what I want to respond to. That is the debater's prerogative. My point then and now is that you do not understand the word 'contemporary.' As its Latin root suggests it means existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time; [example] Newton's discovery of the calculus was contemporary with that of Leibniz.

Which by definition makes Paul a contemporary to Jesus as well. It further makes, at the very least, Luke a contemporary also.

[Goat]

I'll be happy to explain. First of all you appear to misunderstand the word 'contemporary.' He was a contemporary of Caesar whether he met him or not. There is no mention as whether or not he ever met Caesar, just that "He was not actually present when the assassination occurred but had the opportunity to speak with those who were." Nicolaus was professional historian who interviewed the witnesses to the assassination for the very purpose of finding out what happened. I am not aware of any record of Paul conducting such an interview of any eyewitness to the resurrection. The 2d and 3d party statements we do have of the latter are in conflict. Also as has been pointed out several times, the assassination of J.Caesar did not involve supernatural claims.

You cut out almost all of my post. Why?

At any rate, you fail to define what you see as a “contemporary� and why. You’re merely asserting Nicolaus was a contemporary despite never meeting Caesar. The only criteria that makes him a contemporary you seem to supply is that Nicloaus had an opportunity to speak to those who were present at the assassination. But you fail to offer any primary evidence for this. Your reasoning here still allows me to introduce Paul as a contemporary of Jesus if we are to be consistent since Paul met witnesses and spoke to them as well (Galatians 1, 2).

You argue Nicoluas was a professional historian who interviewed witnesses but offer no primary evidence to establish this. In fact, I’m not aware of Nicloaus claiming to have interviewed anyone in Life of Augustus as compared to Paul who at least states he met the disciples and spoke to them (Galatians 1 and 2). Even Luke tells he received his data from witnesses (Luke 1:1). Where does Nicloaus even tell us that much?

By the way, your objection that the assassination "did not involve supernatural claims" is false. I gave you some examples which you conveniently ignored. Not to mention, simply objection to a claim on the basis it is a supernatural claim is meaningless and merely reveals a bias towards the supernatural.

Once you've expressed your point, I simply redact what seems to me as redundant or uninteresting. I get decide what I want to respond to. That is the debater's prerogative. My point then and now is that you do not understand the word 'contemporary.' As its Latin root suggests it means existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time; [example] Newton's discovery of the calculus was contemporary with that of Leibniz.

Which by definition makes Paul a contemporary to Jesus as well. It further makes, at the very least, Luke a contemporary also.

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).

[Danmark]

I'll be happy to explain. First of all you appear to misunderstand the word 'contemporary.' He was a contemporary of Caesar whether he met him or not. There is no mention as whether or not he ever met Caesar, just that "He was not actually present when the assassination occurred but had the opportunity to speak with those who were." Nicolaus was professional historian who interviewed the witnesses to the assassination for the very purpose of finding out what happened. I am not aware of any record of Paul conducting such an interview of any eyewitness to the resurrection. The 2d and 3d party statements we do have of the latter are in conflict. Also as has been pointed out several times, the assassination of J.Caesar did not involve supernatural claims.

You cut out almost all of my post. Why?

At any rate, you fail to define what you see as a “contemporary� and why. You’re merely asserting Nicolaus was a contemporary despite never meeting Caesar. The only criteria that makes him a contemporary you seem to supply is that Nicloaus had an opportunity to speak to those who were present at the assassination. But you fail to offer any primary evidence for this. Your reasoning here still allows me to introduce Paul as a contemporary of Jesus if we are to be consistent since Paul met witnesses and spoke to them as well (Galatians 1, 2).

You argue Nicoluas was a professional historian who interviewed witnesses but offer no primary evidence to establish this. In fact, I’m not aware of Nicloaus claiming to have interviewed anyone in Life of Augustus as compared to Paul who at least states he met the disciples and spoke to them (Galatians 1 and 2). Even Luke tells he received his data from witnesses (Luke 1:1). Where does Nicloaus even tell us that much?

By the way, your objection that the assassination "did not involve supernatural claims" is false. I gave you some examples which you conveniently ignored. Not to mention, simply objection to a claim on the basis it is a supernatural claim is meaningless and merely reveals a bias towards the supernatural.

Once you've expressed your point, I simply redact what seems to me as redundant or uninteresting. I get decide what I want to respond to. That is the debater's prerogative. My point then and now is that you do not understand the word 'contemporary.' As its Latin root suggests it means existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time; [example] Newton's discovery of the calculus was contemporary with that of Leibniz.

Which by definition makes Paul a contemporary to Jesus as well. It further makes, at the very least, Luke a contemporary also.

Correct. No argument. Now where is the record that either Luke or Paul were either disinterested investigators or interviewed eyewitnesses?

[Goose]

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.

[Goose]

Correct. No argument. Now where is the record that either Luke or Paul were either disinterested investigators or interviewed eyewitnesses?

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?

Now, here is Nicolaus' Life of Augustus again (the assassination account starts at 19). Maybe you could quote where Nicolaus says he interviewed witnesses or cites his sources? As far as I can see Nicoluas doesn’t tell us who he interviewed or who his sources were. In fact, he never tells us that his sources were even witnesses. All he says are vague things like “[t]hey say…� and “[s]ome say…� implying that he is merely regurgitating hearsay.

[scourge99]

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.

[Danmark]

Correct. No argument. Now where is the record that either Luke or Paul were either disinterested investigators or interviewed eyewitnesses?

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?

Now, here is Nicolaus' Life of Augustus again (the assassination account starts at 19). Maybe you could quote where Nicolaus says he interviewed witnesses or cites his sources? As far as I can see Nicoluas doesn’t tell us who he interviewed or who his sources were. In fact, he never tells us that his sources were even witnesses. All he says are vague things like “[t]hey say…� and “[s]ome say…� implying that he is merely regurgitating hearsay.

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

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?

[JohnA]

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.

We disagree on the strength of the evidence FOR the resurrection.

And here you conceded the debate question as you’ve framed it in your OP. Your OP states:

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

Because you concede there IS evidence for the resurrection you concede the point and I need not admit I have no evidence. Everything else beyond this is a rabbit trail.

But, for the sake of interest and to be a good sport I’ll bite on the rest.

------

But let's agree to disagree on that for now, and assume you're right, and lets say that there is strong historical evidence for the resurrection.

Our other disagreement, which I want to address here, is best spelled out in our exchange here:


The fact that we know scientifically with a very very very very very high level of certainty that decomposing brain-dead bodies DO NOT come back to life, isn't just a claim in favor of something, it's also a claim AGAINST something.

The overwhelmingly strongly established scientific fact that bodies don't raise from the dead is evidence against the claim that bodies raise from the dead.

It's utterly laughable to say that when trying to determine if a claim is true or not, you should only examine evidence in FAVOR of it, but completely ignore evidence AGAINST IT just because this evidence against it also happens to be evidence in favor of an alternate explanation. What on earth are you talking about?

What on earth are YOU talking about? Would you like a blow torch for that enormous strawman? Where I have said, “that when trying to determine if a claim is true or not, you should only examine evidence in FAVOR of it, but completely ignore evidence AGAINST IT…�? No where I have said or argued we only look at the evidence in favour of a position while ignoring the evidence against. I was responding to your implication that evidence for a position is rendered invalid on the basis there is evidence against the position. Here’s what I wrote to refresh your memory, “What you’ve listed here doesn’t make the evidence itself invalid. What you have listed here would be evidence in favour of the case against a particular claim.� You need to pay closer attention before you fly off the handle ridiculing.

Now, what this essentially boils down to is whether or not the Christian is standing on strong enough historical evidence to justify the belief that our observation that usually dead people stay dead did not hold in the case of Jesus. Of course, I believe the Christian is standing on solid enough historical evidence – you no doubt disagree as you’ve stated. But you offer no real argument as to why the historical evidence itself is weak. I’ve at least provided a framework in this thread through which to demonstrate the evidence for the resurrection is strong by comparing it to other historical events we already take for granted which are also well supported in their own right. Since you seem reluctant at this point to get into that framework with me I don’t really see the point in continuing. I'm considering starting a separate thread on this anyway so I may not spend much effort on it here in this thread.

Please follow this example closely:
Imagine an athlete is accused of stabbing a woman.

Since your example here and question regarding a round earth are attempting to knock down a position I do not hold I don’t feel in any way obliged to address them.

So let's look at the evidence in favor and against the resurrection of Jesus:

Evidence in favor: All the stuff you said about Paul having a seizure, and anonymous scribes writing centuries later that the apostles thought he was raised from the dead, etc.

This is a rather unsophisticated characterization of the evidence.

We’ll use the assassination of Caesar as control for the treatment of the evidence since the assassination is, in its own right, an undisputed well supported extraordinary event. This at the very least allows us a more objective way to evaluate the evidence. In addition, to meet half way with those who agree the assassination is extraordinary but less extraordinary than a resurrection I’ll also work toward establishing the resurrection has better historical evidence than the assassination of Caesar.

For now I’ll submit as historical evidence:
1. The letter’s and testimony of Paul who met eyewitnesses
2. The testimony of Peter who was an eyewitness
3. An eyewitness account in John
4. An eyewitness account in Matthew
5. The account of Luke who met witnesses
6. The account of Mark who met witnesses
7. Clement’s first letter.

Now, you argue these are anonymous accounts. But you offer no argument as to why that is the case. All the external data suggests these accounts were written by the people who bear the names and John in particular internally claims to be an eyewitness to the events.

Run a comparison for the evidence to the assassination.

1. A handful of cryptic mentions to an assassination in Cicero’s speeches. Cicero was not a witnesses and offers no details.
2. The first full account comes from the non-witness Nicolaus of Damascus writing almost 60 years later. His account is biased and embellished at points. We aren’t sure who his source of information was and he conflicts on key points with later writers.
3. Plutarch is the next source to offer a full account but he is quite late writing c. 70AD.
4. No eyewitness accounts have come down to us.

Any historical evidence for the assassination I've missed you'd like to add?

Evidence against: We know for a fact that it's physically, chemically, biologically, medically impossible for a brain-dead and decomposing body to revert the chemical denaturing of the enzymes in the brain and other vital tissue, and come back to life after three days.

You cannot logically claim we know for a fact (thus implying absolute certain knowledge) it is impossible since our knowledge base regarding death is incomplete and still growing.

I’ll also note here you are pigeon holing me into defending a literal three day period in which Jesus was dead. I don’t mind doing that so long as you admit that by forcing me to defend a three day period you are conceding the general reliability of the accounts. You don’t get to assume the text is accurate in its secondary details only when it helps make your case stronger. Sorry, that don’t fly. If you will not concede this point then it’s only necessary for me to defend a generalized resurrection (which is simply a return to life from being dead) and not a literal dead for three days resurrection.

As an aside, regarding the Lazarus Syndrome. Here is what it is: The heart of a person stopping for a few minutes and then starting again, with the brain of the person NEVER STOPPING AT ALL NOT EVEN FOR AN INSTANT, EVER. That's what the Lazarus Syndrome is. The heart stopping for a few minutes and then starting again. The brain never stopping.

That is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from brain death, which is irreversible and inevitable for a body dead for three days.


Would you like to make a lot of money? It's easy. I will give you $1000 for every confirmed medical report of brain-death reversal you can find. What, you can't find any? Oh well.

Google Zack Dunlap – he was declared brain dead. I’d send you my banking details but I suspect you won’t pay up.

You don’t seem to realize you’re merely shifting the goal posts anyway. Here’s how it runs.

Person A: “Dead people always stay dead.�
Person B: “Not always - The Lazarus Syndrome.�
Person A: “Oh, wait a minute, what I meant to say was brain dead people always stay dead. Yeah, that’s better. Brain dead people always stay dead.�
Person B: “Okay, Zack Dunlap was declared brain dead.�
Person A: “Bbbbut, that must have been a mistake. He couldn't have been brain dead because he came back to life and brain dead people always stay dead and besides he was in hospital receiving medical attention anyway.�
Person B: “Bye.�

As a side note: There is an incredible amount of noise in this thread and rabbit trails galore where people are snipping out my salient points and arguments and responding to partial posts. So I’ll focus my attention on you for the time being since this is your thread. Unless of course I feel someone else offers something material to my argument.

Why are you proposing a rabbit trail when you refuse to address your futile attempt to undermine your own faith?

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/t ... nipost.gif

[Jax Agnesson]

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.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[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. 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? And the answer to that question depends on the innate skepticism, gullibility, and the degree to which the 21st century reader has been programmed to accept ancient stories of flying reanimated corpses as undeniably valid and true. Not every one is endowed with both the innate lack of skepticism and high degree of gullibility that are necessarily required to believe unconditionally in ancient stories of flying reanimated corpses, I am afraid.