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]

You seem to be avoiding the issue.

That's an odd thing for you to say since you've been cutting out most of most posts when you respond to me. For instance I pointed out to you some time back the discrepancies among the accounts for the assassination. The argument being if discrepancies among the Gospels are indicative of non-historicity then the same applies for the assassination. You ignored that.

Do you have a quarrel with any of the questions I suggested at post 1650?

Not at all. And you'll notice I've been answering most of those questions for pages now.

[Goose]

Are you dismissing a cut and paste argument from Wikipedia, simply because it was a 'cut and paste?'

Yep.

Whether the argument is original or copied from another source, don't you have the same obligation to attack the argument?

Nope.

Is your criticism the lack of originality?

That's part of it, but not all of it.

Isn't the key here that we deal with the arguments themselves and the facts they are based upon, rather than to get sidetracked by whether or not the debater is original?

I guess if all one can do is use Google and the cut and paste feature then I guess that's all they can do.

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 1652 by Goose]

Faith says you have no evidence. You have to convince me you have evidence before I ask for it. So you need to convince me your faith is wrong before you can offer evidence. Stop running and answer my questions.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 833#605833

I disagree John. Having faith does not mean you have 'no evidence.' Tho' we are frequently burdened here with an argument that relies on equivocation based on different definitions of faith, I have no trouble with the idea that those of religious faith in god have, at least in their own minds, some evidence to support their faith.

Tho' their evidence falls far short of what a scientist requires for his belief in the theory of gravity or evolution, the Christian has some evidence for his belief in God or in the resurrection. Some of that evidence may be questionable historically, or even be evidence that a modern court of law would find inadmissible, but it is 'evidence' however weak.

I disagree Danmark (or is it Dan?). I think you are confusing their so called evidence for their belief with evidence for other things.
E.g. When a theist offers personal encounter as evidence then he is merely offering evidence for his delusion (or hallucination, whateva).

This thread also supports my position since no theist had been able to present any evidence for their faith based belief, weak or strong.
Lastly, Heb 11:1 is clear, there is no evidence. And dictionaries and epistemology states it too. Sure the bible can be argued to be flawed, but the theist needs to argue that first before offering any evidence for their faith based belief.

I find this incredible that theists do not understand what is meant by faith. I am amazed that you struggle with this as well.

[Danmark]

Are you dismissing a cut and paste argument from Wikipedia, simply because it was a 'cut and paste?'

Yep.

Whether the argument is original or copied from another source, don't you have the same obligation to attack the argument?

Nope.

Is your criticism the lack of originality?

That's part of it, but not all of it.

Isn't the key here that we deal with the arguments themselves and the facts they are based upon, rather than to get sidetracked by whether or not the debater is original?

I guess if all one can do is use Google and the cut and paste feature then I guess that's all they can do.

Those are completely invalid points and may simply constitute an excuse to fail to answer. I doubt there are any new arguments on this issue. Why reinvent the wheel when you pose a tired, old, hackneyed argument when there are a dozen ready made refutations at hand?

It is the substance of the argument itself, and its counter that is important, not whether or not it was original. It is a simple thing to take any argument from any source and simply reword it, or not give attribution at all.

In any event it is the argument that needs to be considered.

[scourge99]

3) He can pick any answer he likes: yes, no, i don't know, etc. But right now he's dodging answering it altogether. I don't know why its so hard for him to tell us what his honest belief on the matter is.

Oh brother. I answered this question back on page 127. And again, on this page.

Here I'll give it to you one more time since you apparently missed it as well.

On page 127 I wrote:

"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."


Are you guys done chasing me around on this rabbit trail? Are you ready to discuss my argument and the evidence yet? Let me know when you are.

I see you are unwilling or unable to answer the question directly. For example, "yes i believe Jesus's resurrection was a violation of the laws of physics as we know them".

I think at this point its quite clear you are unable or unwilling to engage in productive debate.

[Goose]

3) He can pick any answer he likes: yes, no, i don't know, etc. But right now he's dodging answering it altogether. I don't know why its so hard for him to tell us what his honest belief on the matter is.

Oh brother. I answered this question back on page 127. And again, on this page.

Here I'll give it to you one more time since you apparently missed it as well.

On page 127 I wrote:

"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."


Are you guys done chasing me around on this rabbit trail? Are you ready to discuss my argument and the evidence yet? Let me know when you are.

I see you are unwilling or unable to answer the question directly. For example, "yes i believe Jesus's resurrection was a violation of the laws of physics as we know them".

I've answered the question multiple times now. That I didn't answer precisely how you wanted me to is irrelevant and not grounds for you claim I'm unwilling or unable to answer. I've answered.

Now, are you ready to address my argument and the evidence yet? Let me know when you are.

I think at this point its quite clear you are unable or unwilling to engage in productive debate.

I could say that same.

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 1663 by Goose]
Do you believe Jesus's resurrection was a violation of the laws of physics as we know them?
Yes or No?

[10CC]

"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."

I seem to be at a loss here.

Where in this statement is your response to the question (paraphrased) do you believe jesus resurrection was a violation of the physical laws as we know them?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Goose]

Your arguments against the historical evidence amounted to essentially walls of cut and paste jobs from Wikipedia. That was bad enough but I thought to myself, "Oh well, what the heck, at least he's trying to argue against the evidence unlike others in this thread. So let's see where it goes." When those wiki arguments were countered by me you seemed to be at loss for what to do next since Wikipedia doesn't have a counter to my counter arguments. All you seemed to be able to do past that point was muster up some superficial complaints and cry foul.

I read your post but didn't see anything new or of substance that would debunk my argument. There's more ranting and bluster than anything else really. Plus you're going back over old ground on most points anyway. I think it's time for me to look for someone who can offer some stronger arguments against my position.

This is not debating. This is throwing in the towel and trying to cover your tracks by throwing up a covering wall of derision. You accused me of simply going back over old ground. I will gladly cover the same ground as many times as you are intent on leading me back to it since it serves my purpose to do so. An excellent example of this problem occurred in our discussion of the Gospel of Matthew. I pointed out that the Gospel of Matthew, like ALL of the Gospels, was written anonymously and in point of fact we don't really know who wrote it. In response to this you declared:

Not exactly true. We can establish a link.

Your link is that Papias, Polycarp, Irenaeus and Eusebius all indicated that the apostle Matthew wrote a gospel. Which is true. Irenaeus for example wrote:

�Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.� – Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.1.1, c. 180AD.

And my reply to this at the time was:

As you pointed out, Matthew was reported to have written a gospel 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 canonic "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!

To which you responded:

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.

Which in fact lead us right back to my original point which was that no one actually knows who wrote the canonical Gospel of Matthew.The apostle Matthew COULD have written the Gospel in the same way that anyone living in the first century COULD have written it. But we have no direct evidence who that was! And therefore no "strong evidence" which would compel us to accept the validity of the story of a corpse coming back to life and flying away. And certainly EVERY real reason to impugn it!

The same may be said for the identity of the author of 1 Peter and your insistence that 1 Peter represents an eye witness source. The Wikipedia article on 1 Peter discusses the various arguments pro and con concerning the identity of the author of 1 Peter, and then concludes:

Ultimately, the authorship of 1 Peter remains contested.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Peter

Which is simply a factual statement. The authorship of 1 Peter is widely contested. I also pointed out to you, in rather great detail, that many dozens of works attributed to the various apostles and other figures prominent in the NT story of Jesus were published pseudonymously at the time. In other words, they were written "in the name" of the apostle or NT figure by unknown individuals, and that such works were considered to be perfectly genuine and authentic by Christians at the time since they were produced under the influence of the Holy Spirit. To which you replied:

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.

In other words Peter, the poor simple fisherman, COULD have learned to write in perfect Koine Greek over the years and therefore COULD therefore have been the author of 1 Peter. The authorship of 2 Peter is challenged on the same grounds as is 1 Peter by the way.

"The Second Epistle of Peter, often referred to as Second Peter and written 2 Peter or in Roman numerals II Peter (especially in older references), is a book of the New Testament of the Bible, ascribed by some scholars to Saint Peter, though currently, many NT scholars regard it as pseudepigraphical." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Peter

And there's that darned Wikipedia raining on your parade again. But the point of my including such references in my replies to you is to establish that I am not simply making up my argument as I go along, and that it is based on the considered opinion of a good many others. You disparage Wikipedia, but you have not contested the fact the authorship of both 1 Peter and 2 Peter have been widely contested and their true authorship remains in doubt.

"For the sake of clarity let me restate what it is I’m arguing. I’m arguing the Christian’s belief in the resurrection of Jesus is justified because the historical evidence is strong."

As I have shown above, your arguments return back to claims of what COULD be true, which is a very far cry from justifying the historical evidence as "strong," And if you choose to swing back to the same claims of what could be true, over and over again, I am certainly willing to cover the same ground with you, over and over again. But your protestations that my covering the same ground with you over and over again is boring you is as obviously self defeating as it is disingenuous. Your stated intention here is to establish that the historical evidence for the story of the flying reanimated corpse of Jesus story "is strong." Declaring that your proofs "could" be true doesn't even qualify as flimsy, much less "strong." And just for the record, allow ME to restate just what it is that I am arguing.

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.

The lack of comment on events when they were supposed to have occurred is perfectly in keeping with the lack of any such events actually occurring, you see. That is perfectly clear and valid logic. It certainly does not serve to justify or substantiate the statement that "the resurrection of Jesus is justified because the historical evidence is strong."

So cut and run from the discussion if you choose, but do not allow your self deception to misunderstand what is obvious to everyone else; that you have been getting the worst of it and well know it!

[Danmark]

Are you dismissing a cut and paste argument from Wikipedia, simply because it was a 'cut and paste?'

Yep.

Whether the argument is original or copied from another source, don't you have the same obligation to attack the argument?

Nope.

Is your criticism the lack of originality?

That's part of it, but not all of it.

Isn't the key here that we deal with the arguments themselves and the facts they are based upon, rather than to get sidetracked by whether or not the debater is original?

I guess if all one can do is use Google and the cut and paste feature then I guess that's all they can do.

There is no good reason to resort to the personal here. Cutting and pasting sources hardly means 'that's all they can do.' Why bring that up at all?

Bringing in sources such as Wikipedia is simply a time saving device when showing differing points of view from other scholars. For example, you claim there is 'no reason to assume pseudonymity of Peter:

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

The Wikipedia article previously cited discusses both hypotheses:

One theory used to support Petrine authorship of 1 Peter is the "secretarial hypothesis", which suggests that 1 Peter was dictated by Peter and was written in Greek by his secretary, Silvanus (5:12). John Elliot, however, suggests that the notion of Silvanus as secretary or author or drafter of 1 Peter represents little more than a counsel of despair and introduces more problems than it solves because the Greek rendition of 5:12 suggests that Silvanus was not the secretary, but the courier/bearer of 1 Peter,[5] and some see Mark as a contributive amanuensis in the composition and writing of the work.[3][6] On the one hand, some scholars such as Bart D. Ehrman[7] are convinced that the language, dating, literary style, and structure of this text makes it implausible to conclude that 1 Peter was written by Peter; according to these scholars, it is more likely that 1 Peter is a pseudonymous letter, written later by one of the disciples of Peter in his honor. On the other hand, some scholars argue that there is not enough evidence to conclude that Peter did not write 1 Peter. For instance, there are similarities between 1 Peter and Peter's speeches in the Biblical book of Acts,[8] and the earliest attestation of Peters authorship comes from 2 Peter (80-90 CE) and the letters of Clement(70-140ce).[3] Ultimately, the authorship of 1 Peter remains contested.
[emphasis applied]
I find Ehrman's and Eliot's arguments more persuasive. In any event, it is hardly an 'extreme' view to consider pseudonymity in view of the fact this was a common and non fraudulent practice at the time.