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]

[Replying to post 1417 by Doulos]

Doulos wrote:

Are you claiming to believe nothing?? I would suggest that you think about your own beliefs.

It is common knowledge that one's evidence almost exclusively consists of the totality of propositions that one knows and the evidence we would accept are that 'evidence' that justifies our belief. In other words ‘reason to believe’ and ‘evidence’ are more or less the same thing i.e. evidence justifies belief.

This would mean that atheists, for example, will only accept the evidence that justifies their belief. The further consequence is that they will simply not accept any evidence of supernatural acts as described in Scripture because it does not 'feed' their existing beliefs.

Epistemology states that to belief means holding cognitive content as true in spite of evidence or not.
Epistemology states that to have faith means holding cognitive content as true knowing there is no evidence to back-up the claims of 'truth'.

We all have beliefs: believe in, and believe that. When it comes to people I grant trust, I not offer belief.

Trust is about holding cognitive content as true where there is evidence and justification - I trust my accountant to be honest since I have previous evidence that he was honest when he did my accounts.
When you "trust" someone without knowing if you can trust him, then that is a belief since you granted trust in spite of evidence or not.
When you "trust" someone knowing you have no evidence/justification to trust him, then that is a faith since you granted trust knowing there is no evidence to suggest / grant confidence. Doulos, I will not let you do my accounts because I have no evidence that you can do it. If I were to do this, then one would say I have faith that you can do my accounts.


We all also have lack of beliefs. You lack a belief in one less god than me.

Knowledge is a belief that has been justified and shown to be true (or not false). You need logic, arguments and evidence to show something is true or false.
E.g. I KNOW your dogma is irrational since I have justification for it; the bible is evidence for its evil, historical evidence shows religion poisons everything, etc. <- That is knowledge, not a belief or faith.


If you read an article or hear a story and you just accept it as true, then you accepted that on faith.
If you read an article or hear a story and you just accept it as true, not knowing if there is evidence / justification, then you accepted that on belief.
If you read an article or hear a story and you go and check its sources, review the evidence self, or check is it has been reviewed by say a community of experts and only then your accept it as true, then you accepted that knowledge.

Evidence can consist of information, facts, or data, or any combination of.
Evidence should be able to be shown false, therefore it should be testable/reproducible. This is called falsification.
E.g. if you tell me you have a pink elephant on your eat whispering sweet nothings into it & only you can hear it, then I will reject this information since it can not be shown false, it can not be reproduced at all. Therefore this information you provided is not evidence at all for your claim. Your behavior might however be evidence that you are delusional or hallucinating if you repeatably claim this pink elephant exists even after we explained to you that you have no evidence for your claim.


I review the stuff that scientists come up with. I only accept it when the source and originator is irrelevant to the knowledge gained. I do not believe science or scientists; I accept some of the knowledge that they produced because I have justification for it and have checked the evidence. E.g. I accept Relativity, not because Einstein came up with it, or because other scientists accepts it, or because some experiment verified it. I accept Relativity because the observations agrees with the predictions that the theory makes, and this has been independently verified, and never been falsified, and have contributed to society (e.g. GPS, satellites, etc.).
And that is besides the fact the science is not an institution, it is not a sect, or a cult, with authorities running it. You can not compare science to religion at all. Science is a process how to get to knowledge. So, you can not say you you believe in science, since science only comes up with facts, laws, theories when the evidence can not longer be falsified. That is a grammatical error on your part to say you believe in science.
It is up to you if you want to believe in certain scientists.

The central tenant of your dogma is faith. The bible states you need faith to believe in your supernatural claimed god.
The definition of Faith clearly states it is a belief that is based on no evidence for its truth claims. And epistemology agrees, so does all dictionaries, and philosophical encyclopedias and theology text books, and science journals. If you have evidence, you do not need faith.


I always find this amazing that the theist do not understand the meaning of faith (the central tenant of their religious dogma). All it takes is to read a little scripture and open a dictionary to understand this. And the irony that the con man probably explained this to the fool when he sold it to create religion.
How can a theist offer evidence for its truth claims when the central tenant of the religion is that there is no evidence (i.e. faith).?
You would think the theist would know this stuff since (s)he is betting this finite life on an infinite next life. Why would your god grant you eternal life if you do not even understand the central tenant of your religious dogma?

I suspect Goose understands this. That is why he refuses to reply to my posts on this.

Ironically Goose's own dogma renders his "evidence" irrelevant!

[Goat]

And this is the cleft stick into which you have allowed yourself to be pinned. Just like CS Lewis before you,
In order to establish that the evidence for the Resurrection is historically at least as credible as that for the assassination of Caesar, you have had to argue that the two events are of roughly comparable degrees of 'extraordinariness'. But this argument, if sound, completely removes the justification for supposing that one of the two events could not have happened without the direct intervention of God.

You're knocking down a strawman. I’m not arguing “the two events are of roughly comparable degrees of 'extraordinariness'.� I’m arguing the two events are roughly comparable in terms of the strength of the historical evidence. In fact, the evidence for the resurrection might just be even stronger.

So we have Mark, the first gospeller, who didn't even bother to mention the risen Christ or his post-resurection ministry.

Patently false. Here is how the earliest and most reliable manuscripts of Mark end:

�Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed. And he said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’� They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.� – Mark 16:5-8

The risen Christ is most certainly declared and we are given the Reader’ Digest version that appearances will occur as promised.

Matthew, the second gospeller, telling a tale so full of holes you could strain spaghetti with it. Or strain credulity, anyway.
Luke, the third gospeller, seems to have copied his account of Jesus from the same source Matthew used, but had the brains to miss out the sillier bits.

If the argument runs the synoptic Gospels are dependent traditions where there is strong evidence of copying then it follows they are independent traditions at the points in the overall narrative where they differ enough that we might say they even conflict with one another. It’s generally argued by folks like you the resurrection accounts conflict is it not? Sorry, you don’t get to have your cake and eat it too.

And then John, who was a visionary poet of extraordinary power; but (perhaps for that very reason) is not to be taken as a reliable chronicler of quotidian objectivity.

John is unreliable because you think he's poetic? That’s such a lame objection it isn’t worth a response.

Really?? Do you have physical evidence for the resurrection? Do you have the ability to reproduce the circumstances? Part of having something be historically strong you have to show it is physically possible. Can you do so?

[10CC]

�Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed. And he said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’� They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.� – Mark 16:5-8

Written 30yrs after the event by the cub reporter of the New Jericho Times. How could we not believe such evidence?

[Jax Agnesson]

And this is the cleft stick into which you have allowed yourself to be pinned. Just like CS Lewis before you,
In order to establish that the evidence for the Resurrection is historically at least as credible as that for the assassination of Caesar, you have had to argue that the two events are of roughly comparable degrees of 'extraordinariness'. But this argument, if sound, completely removes the justification for supposing that one of the two events could not have happened without the direct intervention of God.

You're knocking down a strawman. I’m not arguing “the two events are of roughly comparable degrees of 'extraordinariness'.� I’m arguing the two events are roughly comparable in terms of the strength of the historical evidence. In fact, the evidence for the resurrection might just be even stronger.

But don't you think the evidence for the resurrection would need to be massively stronger than the evidence for the assassination of Caesar, on the grounds that the event is massively more extraordinary?

So we have Mark, the first gospeller, who didn't even bother to mention the risen Christ or his post-resurection ministry.

Patently false. Here is how the earliest and most reliable manuscripts of Mark end:

�Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed. And he said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’� They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.� – Mark 16:5-8

This is an account of the tomb being found empty, an unknown person saying Jesus rose up and promising He will meet them in Galilee. It doesn't show Jesus actuaslly doing or saying anything at all. It shows Jesus just not being there. If Jesus walked around preaching after his resurrection, Mark doesn't seem to think anything the Risen Christ preached was sufficiently important to be included in his testimony.

The risen Christ is most certainly declared and we are given the Reader’ Digest version that appearances will occur as promised.

Matthew, the second gospeller, telling a tale so full of holes you could strain spaghetti with it. Or strain credulity, anyway.
Luke, the third gospeller, seems to have copied his account of Jesus from the same source Matthew used, but had the brains to miss out the sillier bits.

If the argument runs the synoptic Gospels are dependent traditions where there is strong evidence of copying then it follows they are independent traditions at the points in the overall narrative where they differ enough that we might say they even conflict with one another. It’s generally argued by folks like you the resurrection accounts conflict is it not? Sorry, you don’t get to have your cake and eat it too.

What 'folks like me' 'generally argue' is not relevant. What I challenge is the improbability of Matthew's account. Specifically, the claim that there were eye-witnesses to the actual resurrection event itself, and the odd reaction of the chief priest to the soldiers' account of the resurrection
Either the chief priest believed that Jesus had risen from the dead, or he didn't.
A. If he didn't believe the soldiers' description of the resurrection, what else could he possibly have thought? That the soldiers fell asleep or turned a blind eye while the body was being 'resurrected' by the disciples? But if that's what the chief priest believed, why would he need to bribe the men to say the body had been stolen?
B. If he did believe the soldiers' account, AND IF he saw, as by Matthew's account he must have seen, all the 'saints' rising up out of their graves and walking around the streets of Jerusalem, how would it make any sense at all for him to bribe the soldiers to tell a lie about the resurrection of Jesus?
Can you deal with this?

And then John, who was a visionary poet of extraordinary power; but (perhaps for that very reason) is not to be taken as a reliable chronicler of quotidian objectivity.

John is unreliable because you think he's poetic? That’s such a lame objection it isn’t worth a response.

I'm sure you understand what I am saying here.
John's work is full of fantastical prophetic imagery and apocalytic symbols. In other words, he is a teller of fantastical tales, and a very good one. If the other versions of the story were reasonably consistent and coherent, it would be sensible to read John's recounting as a shift into chronicling; and perfectly believable on that basis. But they are not.
The first gospeller doesn't report anyone seeing the risen Christ, and makes no effort to relay anything the risen Christ supposedly wanted to say to humanity;
The second gospeller tells a tale full of such extraordinary inconsistency that it is difficult to find the characters at all credible;
That knocks out a good proportion of the evidence. In this context, the fact that the visionary poet John wrote a version df the tale doesn't suggest to me that he is trying to chronicle actual events. So I think it is it most reasonable to read John's resurrection account as a piece of fiction.

[no evidence no belief]

[Replying to post 1416 by Doulos]

Snake Talks -- Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.

Donkey Talks - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.


Global Flood Kills All But Eight People – - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.


Total Darkness for Three Days - - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.


Devastating Plagues Strike Egypt – Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.

Mass Migration and the Red Sea Suddenly Parts for Crossing - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.


Strange Food (Manna) Provides Daily Bread - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.

Commandments Etched on Stone Tablets - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.

Moses Talks With God on Mount Sinai - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.


Jericho City Walls Collapse at Loud Sound - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.

Joseph Interprets Dreams of Prisoners - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.


Man Vanishes and Reappears 12 Miles Away - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.


The Face of Moses Shined - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.


Jesus Ascends Into Heaven - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.


Enoch Never Dies - - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.


Tabitha, Get Up! - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.



Dead Man Brought Back to Life - - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.


Virgin birth - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.


Resurrection - Is there a natural explanation? No. Then is can only be a supernatural act by God.

Need I say more??

NOW, can you give natural explanations for these events?

I can most definitely give a natural explanation for the fact these stories are written down: SOMEBODY MADE THEM UP. How easy is that?

Look, I can write stuff down too: "My cat is a virgin and nonetheless it gave birth to a litter of kittens". Now either that's true, and it can only be a supernatural event, OR I JUST MADE THAT UP!

Have you EVER considered the notion that just because something is written down, it doesn't mean that it's true?

Here, some fun reading for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullibility

[Goose]

Medical science certainly knows what happens to a brain that his been deprived of oxygen for an extended period. Brain cells do not regenerate, and that is simple and well known medical FACT. There is no medical mystery involved there. But apparently your point is that God occasionally, and quite at random, chooses to resurrect individuals from the dead, if only briefly. And the object of this little exercise is what, keeping in practice? Actually I seemed to have established my connection between flying reindeer and a flying reanimated corpse somewhat better then I had any real reason to expect. Believing in either, or both, of these things clearly does require a special childlike quality not all of us possess.

Well then, let's have a gander at what you actually did say. From post #1347 (page 135) of this string:

Apparently all that is required to achieve plausibility is a large enough fan club. Whatever the number of fans it takes to reach that magic threshold of plausibility, let's all hope that it is never reaches the magic number which would allow those H.R. Giger aliens, or the alien predators, to become plausible. That would make attempting to sleep at night most uncomfortable, and as an adult I have always been so well protected by my firm belief that implausible things are not real. I would hate to become fodder for the implausible childlike fantasies of others.

What we have established is that people generally believe in their religious beliefs, and are fully prepared to testify to the truth of them. Like the story of the flying steed Al-Buraq. Does the fact that large numbers of people fully and completely believe in otherwise implausible things or events, really serve to make them plausible in the light of objective reason and logic? In your opinion? Or do you all notice the way that obvious make believe has a marked habit of becoming established truth and reality as it increases in popular acceptance?

I think we’ve flogged these flying reindeer enough and I don’t see where you’ve managed to successfully overturned my arguments showing your analogy for why flying reindeer and Jesus’ resurrection are on equal footing is fallacious. Let me re-cap your counters so we are clear on how inept they really are. Your argument against the Lazarus Syndrome establishing a baseline of plausibility for a resurrection is fundamentally circular where it assumes the doctors were mistaken because dead people stay dead. In fact, any argument against it will be circular because the facts are quite clear that in each case the patient fulfilled the criteria of being dead and was subsequently declared as such by a qualified medical person to then spontaneously come back to life. Your counter to my argument from the authority of historians establishes a prima facie reason to think these events are not equal in plausibility was misrepresented by you as an argument from popularity. Oh, and let’s not forget the Al-Baraq rabbit trail. But if in your mind that establishes the connection better than you thought I wouldn’t be surprised at all considering how much weight you give to your appalling Paul hadn’t eaten or drank for three days argument.

You first argued that the flying reanimated corpse story was too well attested to for it to be pure fiction. Now you are arguing that it really isn't necessary for it to be all THAT well attested to for it to be true, at all. Well here is another "well attested" story from ancient times. Hesiod, Homer, Theocritus, Euripides and Virgil all wrote of a race of one-eyed giants known as the Cyclops who lived in a far off and remote land. The existence of this race of giants was widely considered to be an established fact in ancient times. In modern times however many of us have come to recognize the difference between fact and fiction, genuine history and mythology, reality and make believe. Many of us. There is no real reason to question the accuracy of the story of the assassination of Julius Caesar and much to support it. Do you genuinely see no reason to question the accuracy of the story of the flying reanimated corpse of Jesus? Answer the question!

Nice try. Homer, Theocritus, Euripides and Virgil all wrote of a race of one-eyed giants known as the Cyclops – in poems and plays! Genre, my friend, genre. That’s the first sign why we recognize it as mythology. But to answer your question since you feel it is so compelling, yes, there are reasons to question. However, there’s reasons to question any story. Whether or not you have reason to question the resurrection itself, though, is irrelevant to what I’m arguing.

Could the "Life of Agustus" have been written by someone other then to whom it has been generally attested? Most certainly! "Commentarii de Bello Gallico" (Commentaries on the Gallic War) is Julius Caesar's account of the Gallic wars. The final book, of eight, on the campaign was well known to have been written by one of Caesar's generals, Aulus Hirtius however, and it is suspected by some modern historians that much of the first seven books were actually written by Hirtius as well, perhaps based on Caesar's personal notes. "Commentarii de Bello Gallico" is an amazingly glowing and an indulgent and self congratulatory tribute to Caesar's own brilliance as a general, and a perfect testimony to the fact that history is written by the victors. Aulus Hirtius is also widely suspected to have been the actual author of ‘"De Bello Alexandrino" which history also credited to Caesar.

The point you’re missing is that despite the fact the Gallic Wars doesn’t self identify, was written in the third person, and has late problematic attestation to authorship no classical scholar would dream of arguing it was anonymous. Yet, the Gospels, which have at least as strong external evidence, are asserted to be anonymous by folks like you. So either the standard is unfairly higher for the Christian texts or the Gospels authorship shouldn’t be questioned anymore than the authorship of the Gallic Wars is if the same standard were employed.

My argument is that based on the information at hand concerning the assassination of, and the information at hand concerning the direct consequences of the assassination of Julius Caesar. There is no real reason to doubt the information as it stands. No appeals to supernatural make believe is anywhere required.

Oh, but there are reasons to doubt the assassination. It is quite hard to swallow the notion the leader of a country was stabbed to death by eighty senators in plain view of the senate which may have had as many as 900 people without a single senator or Praetorian guard interfering at all. It’s easier to believe and more probable that Caesar died of natural causes. It’s easier to believe the assassination was fabricated to fuel political ideologies. See how easy it is to question a story? Just put on your hyper-sceptical hat and you’re off to the races.

The information is based upon Paul's recounting of the events as it was understood by the author of Acts, who was not personally present. According to the account in Acts 9:

[3] And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
[4] And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
[5] And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
[6] And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
[7] And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

This is Paul's recounting of the events. But remember, Paul was the afflicted man, by his own account, blinded and disoriented at the time. Both are symptoms of dehydration and heat stroke. Afflictions not unnatural when traveling in a dry arid clime. We can never know what those who were journeying with Paul actually saw or experienced however, since they left no such record. We are left with the understanding that Paul collapsed during his journey to Damascus and had to be brought into the city by his fellow travelers. There is nothing unrealistic about that.

As I said earlier this argument is based on such an incredibly appalling reading of Acts 9 it’s not worth any more of my time.

The historical evidence is that nothing especially unusual occurred in Jerusalem circa 30 AD based on the undeniable fact that there is no record at the time of anything of particular interest happening. Certainly nothing so spectacular as various and sundry dead people coming back to life, leaving their graves, and wandering about. It is reasonable to suspect that certain stories might have been in circulation, based on what begins to be recorded a quarter of a century later. The nature of the claims overwhelmingly mitigate against the realistic possibility of them being historically accurate however. This is clearly supported by the fact that the very people who were in the best place to have known what actually happened at the time overwhelmingly and resolutely denied that any such thing occurred.

More inept arguments from silence which have been obliterated by the lack of early abundant accounts of the apparently infamous event of Caesars’ assassination. This and arguments by ridicule seem to be the bulk of your arsenal and they’re growing old very quickly.

Paul had been a very virulent opponent of Christianity, which he considered to be a heresy, prior to his experience in Damacus. But during a period of profound illness, and while he was being tended to and prayed over by a Christian man, Paul believed that he was visited by Jesus. Paul believed that he had a conversation with a dead man. And so after his recovery Paul became a confirmed Christian. It's not especially surprising, really.

You still haven’t overturned Paul as a witness. Even if you were able to he is still stands as a former enemy and contemporary who met witnesses.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
The authorship of 1 Peter has traditionally been attributed to the Apostle Peter because it bears his name and identifies him as its author (1:1). Although the text identifies Peter as its author the language, dating, style, and structure of this letter has led many scholars to conclude that this letter is pseudonymous. Many scholars are convinced that Peter was not the author of this letter because the author had to have a formal education in rhetoric/philosophy and an advanced knowledge of the Greek language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Peter

Peter was a poor rough JEWISH fisherman, remember? Such men are not typically literate, and especially not proficiently multi-lingually literate. It was common of the era however for individuals entirely unconnected to the person to write "pseudonymous" accounts in the name of that other person. And it was considered perfectly valid at the time that a person would write such material while "in the spirit" of the other person. Virtually all of the apocrypha was written pseudonymously. 1Peter happens to be a pseudonymous work that was chosen by the Catholic church to be included in the 27 books of the canon. The other examples you pointed out were written by the author of Gospel Luke, not Peter.

pseu•don•y•mous [soo-don-uh-muhs] adjective:
1.bearing a false or fictitious name.
2.writing or written under a fictitious name.

"Having been nurtured by the content of the writings themselves, the church selected the canon. The concept of inspiration was not decisive in the matter of demarcation because the church understood itself as having access to inspiration through the guidance of the spirit. Indeed, until c.AD 150, Christians could produce writings either anonymously or pseudonymously--i.e.. using the name of some acknowledged important biblical or apostolic figure. The practice was not considered to be either a trick or a fraud. Apart from letters in which the person of the writer was clearly attested--as in those of Paul, which have distinctive historical, theological and stylistic traits peculiar to Paul--the other writings placed their emphases on the message or revelation conveyed, and the author was considered to be only an instrument or witness to the Holy Spirit or the Lord. When the message was committed to writing, the instrument was considered to be irrelevant, because the true author was believed to be the Spirit. By the mid second century however, with the delay of the final coming (the Parousia) of the Messiah as the victorious eschatological (end time) judge and with a resulting increased awareness of history, increasingly a distinction was made between the apostolic time and the present. There also was also a gradual cessation of `authentically pseudonymous' writings in which the author could identify with Christ and the Apostles and thereby gain ecclesiastical recognition." (The Encyclopedia Britannica; "Biblical Literature" p813).

We need not go to the extreme of assuming pseudonymity when Peter himself provides a strong enough explanation for the very good Greek. That is the use of an amanuensis which wasn’t unprecedented even by Greek writers such as Paul.

�Through Silvanus, our faithful brother (for so I regard him), I have written to you briefly, exhorting and testifying that this is the true grace of God.� – 1 Peter 5:12

Even if we do not grant the use of an amanuensis then surely the 30 years from Jesus’ death/resurrection to the time the letter was written, if written by Peter, was sufficient time for Peter to become fluent enough to account for the high quality of Greek in the letter.

As you pointed out, Matthew was reported to have been written especially for the Hebrews "in their own dialect" That would be Aramaic. Both Polycarp and Papias also reported that the apostle Matthew wrote a gospel in "the language of the Hebrews," and that it was written during the time when Peter and Paul were supposed to be founding the Christian church in Rome, circa 60-64. Which is why Gospel Matthew is traditionally placed as the first Gospel in the NT, with Gospel Mark supposed to have been written second. The canonical "Gospel of Matthew" however, is written in pure Koine Greek, and shows absolutely NO SIGNS of being a translation from any other language. Gospel Matthew is in fact almost entirely "The Gospel Of Mark," with additional information woven In. This is a particularly fine trick if Gospel Matthew was written prior to Gospel Mark as supposed. Gospel Mark is also written in pure Koine Greek, as are Luke and John. So who wrote the Koine Greek gospel contained an all modern New Testaments? NO ONE KNOWS! It has been suggested that the work written by the apostle Matthew is actually the work known to history as "The Gospel of the Hebrews," which was written in Aramaic. Only fragments of this gospel remain today.

The problem is overblown. Matthew having been a tax collector was likely educated in both the Greek and Hebrew languages. There’s no compelling reason to think he could not have first written a Gospel in the Hebrew dialect and then later written one in Greek. Or even translated his own Hebrew version into a Greek one without leaving signs of translation.

True. Polycarp claimed to have been converted by the original apostles, and Pollycarp was a close personal friend of Papias. So Papias should have had reasonably knowledge of just who was, and was not, the apostle John.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Authorship (of the Gospel of John)

The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus's innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship, the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it,and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90-100 AD. According to Victorinus and Irenaeus,[20] the Bishops of Asia Minor requested John, in his old age, to write a gospel in response to Cerinthus, the Ebionites and other Jewish Christian groups which they deemed heretical. This understanding remained in place until the end of the 18th century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_john

Papias indicates that there was a second John, one whom he refers to as John the presbyter (elder). It is to this individual that many of the writings attributed to "John" may be accredited. Because you see, while "The Gospel of John" might have been written anonymously, other works accredited to John were not.

2John.1
[1] The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;

3John.1
[1] The elder unto the wellbeloved Gaius, whom I love in the truth.

Writings of Papias; I:

I received with care at any time from the elders, and stored up with care in my memory, assuring you at the same time of their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange commandments, but in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and proceeding from truth itself. If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html

You’re making the same mistake Eusebius made by interpreting Papias as referring to two different Johns. And remember Eusebius didn’t like Papias for some of his views. More to the point it’s important to note that we don’t need Papias to establish authorship as we have ample testimony aside from him anyway. Muddying the water with Papias doesn’t undermine the testimony of others such Iranaeus. But Papias’ words here referencing “the elder John�, in context, can also be understood to be referring to the aforementioned “John� the disciple because in your version where “presbyter� appears it can also be translated as “elder.� Further, it’s not unprecedented for the term “elder� to be used in the context of “apostle� (1Peter 5:1).

At a time when the average life expectancy wasn't much over 40, it's not even "very highly likely" that Luke had been born yet when Jesus was executed. I do not deny that there were individuals spreading the story of the risen Jesus. It's what, if anything, that they were actually witness to that is in question, given the nature of what they were claiming.

Which assumes a much later dating for Luke. But even with a later dating we have ample evidence from sources such as the results of a Vespasian census recorded by Pliny the Elder and Lucian’s Long Lives) of people living to well over 100 years of age. So there’s no reason to think Luke couldn’t have been around long enough to have met witnesses and write his works. Same goes for John by the way.

This particular "source" wasn't even considered worthy of being included into the canon of the NT by the early Catholic church. There clearly was material being written about Jesus by the end of the first century and on into the second century. Most of it so transparently fallacious that even committed Christians won't have anything to do with it.

Canonicity isn’t the issue. The issue is being early enough to have been written during the life time of possible witness which 1 Clement certainly was, although barely.

In summary, once again, you haven’t presented anything that would knock the historical evidence for resurrection back far enough that we would call it weak when we compare its strength to the evidence for the assassination.

[help3434]

Medical science certainly knows what happens to a brain that his been deprived of oxygen for an extended period. Brain cells do not regenerate, and that is simple and well known medical FACT. There is no medical mystery involved there. But apparently your point is that God occasionally, and quite at random, chooses to resurrect individuals from the dead, if only briefly. And the object of this little exercise is what, keeping in practice? Actually I seemed to have established my connection between flying reindeer and a flying reanimated corpse somewhat better then I had any real reason to expect. Believing in either, or both, of these things clearly does require a special childlike quality not all of us possess.

Well then, let's have a gander at what you actually did say. From post #1347 (page 135) of this string:

Apparently all that is required to achieve plausibility is a large enough fan club. Whatever the number of fans it takes to reach that magic threshold of plausibility, let's all hope that it is never reaches the magic number which would allow those H.R. Giger aliens, or the alien predators, to become plausible. That would make attempting to sleep at night most uncomfortable, and as an adult I have always been so well protected by my firm belief that implausible things are not real. I would hate to become fodder for the implausible childlike fantasies of others.

What we have established is that people generally believe in their religious beliefs, and are fully prepared to testify to the truth of them. Like the story of the flying steed Al-Buraq. Does the fact that large numbers of people fully and completely believe in otherwise implausible things or events, really serve to make them plausible in the light of objective reason and logic? In your opinion? Or do you all notice the way that obvious make believe has a marked habit of becoming established truth and reality as it increases in popular acceptance?

I think we’ve flogged these flying reindeer enough and I don’t see where you’ve managed to successfully overturned my arguments showing your analogy for why flying reindeer and Jesus’ resurrection are on equal footing is fallacious. Let me re-cap your counters so we are clear on how inept they really are. Your argument against the Lazarus Syndrome establishing a baseline of plausibility for a resurrection is fundamentally circular where it assumes the doctors were mistaken because dead people stay dead. In fact, any argument against it will be circular because the facts are quite clear that in each case the patient fulfilled the criteria of being dead and was subsequently declared as such by a qualified medical person to then spontaneously come back to life.

No it isn't! He gave reasons and why they should not be considered completely dead besides "they came back life so they couldn't have been dead". Those reasons would not apply to someone who had been dead and buried for three days.

[Goose]

But don't you think the evidence for the resurrection would need to be massively stronger than the evidence for the assassination of Caesar, on the grounds that the event is massively more extraordinary?

My argument is simply that for the Christian to justify his belief in the resurrection the historical evidence needs to be strong. How many more times do I need to repeat this?

This is an account of the tomb being found empty, an unknown person saying Jesus rose up and promising He will meet them in Galilee. It doesn't show Jesus actuaslly doing or saying anything at all. It shows Jesus just not being there.

Why does the ending of Mark need to show Jesus doing anything to be an affirmation of the resurrection? It doesn’t.

If Jesus walked around preaching after his resurrection, Mark doesn't seem to think anything the Risen Christ preached was sufficiently important to be included in his testimony.

Mark doesn’t include the virgin birth either so I don’t see why not including some details regarding a few appearances should be seen as an issue.

What 'folks like me' 'generally argue' is not relevant. What I challenge is the improbability of Matthew's account. Specifically, the claim that there were eye-witnesses to the actual resurrection event itself, and the odd reaction of the chief priest to the soldiers' account of the resurrection
Either the chief priest believed that Jesus had risen from the dead, or he didn't.
A. If he didn't believe the soldiers' description of the resurrection, what else could he possibly have thought? That the soldiers fell asleep or turned a blind eye while the body was being 'resurrected' by the disciples? But if that's what the chief priest believed, why would he need to bribe the men to say the body had been stolen?
B. If he did believe the soldiers' account, AND IF he saw, as by Matthew's account he must have seen, all the 'saints' rising up out of their graves and walking around the streets of Jerusalem, how would it make any sense at all for him to bribe the soldiers to tell a lie about the resurrection of Jesus?
Can you deal with this?

So you’re perplexed with the odd reaction of the chief priest? So what?

You’re changing the subject off my counter argument regarding dependency anyway. Here I’ll give it to you again.

If the argument runs the synoptic Gospels are dependent traditions where there is strong evidence of copying then it follows they are independent traditions at the points in the overall narrative where they differ enough that we might say they even conflict with one another. It’s generally argued by folks like you the resurrection accounts conflict is it not? Sorry, you don’t get to have your cake and eat it too.

I'm sure you understand what I am saying here.
John's work is full of fantastical prophetic imagery and apocalytic symbols. In other words, he is a teller of fantastical tales, and a very good one. If the other versions of the story were reasonably consistent and coherent, it would be sensible to read John's recounting as a shift into chronicling; and perfectly believable on that basis. But they are not.
The first gospeller doesn't report anyone seeing the risen Christ, and makes no effort to relay anything the risen Christ supposedly wanted to say to humanity;
The second gospeller tells a tale full of such extraordinary inconsistency that it is difficult to find the characters at all credible;
That knocks out a good proportion of the evidence. In this context, the fact that the visionary poet John wrote a version df the tale doesn't suggest to me that he is trying to chronicle actual events. So I think it is it most reasonable to read John's resurrection account as a piece of fiction

So basically your argument is because you think John’s writing style has some flare, he must have written fiction. That’s a big fat non-sequitur. Your second part of that argument which is something along the lines of discrepancies between accounts are indicative of fiction is blown away by the fact that other historical events, like the assassination, also have numerous discrepancies and problems. Would you like the short list or long one?

[instantc]

But don't you think the evidence for the resurrection would need to be massively stronger than the evidence for the assassination of Caesar, on the grounds that the event is massively more extraordinary?

My argument is simply that for the Christian to justify his belief in the resurrection the historical evidence needs to be strong. How many more times do I need to repeat this?

That's not being questioned, we all agree that strong evidence is needed. Do you or do you not agree that, due to it's more extraordinary nature, the standard of evidence is higher for the resurrection than for Ceasar's assassination?

This is at least my main disagreement with you. I am open to concede that some historical events are inferred from weaker evidence than that of the resurrection, no need for argument there.

[Sonofason]

[Replying to post 1 by no evidence no belief]

no evidence no belief wrote:

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

Who is this we, you're talking about. You certainly haven't been anywhere for 6,000 years.

no evidence no belief wrote:

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

There is no such thing as a supernatural anything, and so there is no such thing as a supernatural belief. Everything that exists is completely natural. All beliefs are quite natural.

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

There are no such things as talking donkeys, or at least none that speak in any human language. But God could cause a donkey to speak a human language if He should so desire such a thing to occur. The Bible says it did occur. I believe it did. I have no evidence that such an event occurred other than the testimony of someone who I believe was a witness to the event, wrote down what he saw, and wrote down what he heard. I believe it happened, and considering that God was behind it, I believe it was quite a natural occurrence.

no evidence no belief wrote:

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

I believe that Jesus rose from the dead. I believe the people who wrote the Bible. I believe the Bible, because I believe the writers of the Bible were telling the truth with regard to what they witnessed. I have reasons for my faith in the Bible.

no evidence no belief wrote:

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

I do not have a belief in a flying horse of Islam, and so I reserve comment. For all I know one could exist, but it is not something I've given much thought. I know nothing about it. Maybe I'll read the story one day, and let you know what I think.

no evidence no belief wrote:

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.

Men claiming that they saw Jesus walking on water is absolutely evidence that Jesus walked on water. It may not be perfect evidence, but there is no such thing as perfect evidence. Faith in evidence is a choice people make. You've chosen the level of faith that you have in others, and I've chosen mine.

Evidence that Jesus walked on water
"Shortly before dawn Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. “It’s a ghost,� they said, and cried out in fear.

But Jesus immediately said to them: “Take courage! It is I. Don’t be afraid.�
“Lord, if it’s you,� Peter replied, “tell me to come to you on the water.�
“Come,� he said." (Mathew 14:25-29)

This is evidence. It is not proof. Evidence is believed to be true. It cannot be proven to be true.

Evidence that Jesus was born of a virgin
Isa.7:14: Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. the sign which usually is interpreted as a miracle or unusual event is describing a virgin conception and through her God will be in a human son.

Luke 1:26-35
"In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendent of David. The virgin's name was Mary...The angel answered, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.' "

This is not proof. It is evidence. Evidence is believed to be true. It cannot be proven to be true. Perhaps you could provide evidence that a Singularity can exist without God, and that a Singularity can produce a universe without God. Never-mind, don't bother. You can't.

If you don't have reason to believe that something exists, then don't believe that it exists. If you don't have a reason to believe that something doesn't exist, there is no sound reason to believe that it doesn't exist. If there is evidence to suggest that something might exist, then by all means believe that it might exist. If there is evidence to suggest that something might not exist, then of course, by all means, believe that it might not exist.