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?

[otseng]

[Replying to post 2342 by no evidence no belief]

Moderator Comment

Please leave out the sexual humor in the debates.

Please review the Rules.


______________

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

[no evidence no belief]

There are also many recorded miracles down through the centuries. Lets start with the gospels and the Book of Acts. They are all dated in the first century within a generation of Christs crucifixion. That means there were plenty of eye witnesses around to see Jesus following his resurrection.

What are you talking about! Ok. I guess I have to go through basic Bible history... again!

Based on everything you've written you clearly don't have any understanding of biblical scholarship. So please, before indirectly insulting the intelligence of other people you should make sure you have your facts correct.

The earliest papyri we have containing fragments of the Bible are from approximately 150AD. We don't really have anything even close to resembling a complete New Testament until about 330AD.

You can view the entire chronology of that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ne ... ent_papyri

This is really important. Please pay close attention. The New Testament you read today is a translation of the Codex Vaticanus, which was written in 330AD. 300 years after Jesus's death. That's about 19 generations later.

That means that the anonymous 330AD scribe who wrote your Bible would have been the
great, [continued...........]

grandson of somebody alive at the same time as Jesus.

The Bible you read is the copy of the copy of the copy of the copy of the copy of the translation of the copy of the translation of the copy of the translation of the copy of the copy of the copy of words written by somebody who heard a story from someone who heard a story from someone who heard a story from someone who heard a story from someone who may or may not have ever met Jesus.

To call that "eyewitness testimony" is insane. That's the kind of thing a really smart hamster could figure out made no sense.

Your condescension, along with your apparent misunderstanding, is probably the reason why very few people want to debate you.

You do understand that my thread is the most active on this forum right? Speculating as to the reason why few people want to debate me, is like speculating as to the reason why Bill Gates as a hard time making money.

And you especially shouldn't talk down to people when you have your own facts wrong. The gospels themselves were written several decades after Jesus' death, which puts the date of authorship around the 70s, 80s and 90s in the first century.

Correct. I never said otherwise. Please find anywhere on this forum where I alleged that the long gone autographs were written more than just several decades after the events, and you'll have my apologies and a full retraction.

We are on the same page: The long gone originals which nobody alive today has ever seen were indeed written by anonymous authors which may or may not have been eyewitnesses. Again, the long gone originals that nobody alive today has ever seen. What we have are copies of copies of copies of translations of copies.

There is virtually no scholar that claims the gospels (even John) were written in the second century.

And they are correct. We can infer indirectly that the gospel originals were indeed written 30 to 60 years after the events. I never contested that. You are absolutely welcome to argue against imaginary positions held by imaginary opponents in your own time, but please try to argue against my positions if you wish to obtain a response from me.

Therefore, it would is impossible to rule out eyewitness testimony based on the time at which the gospels were written.

Right. It's not IMPOSSIBLE that eyewitnesses were alive at the time the gospels were written. What's your argument? That we are ignorant of whether the apostles were still alive at ages 60 to 90, that we are ignorant of whether they wrote the gospels... so therefore they wrote the gospels? There's a name for that kind of argument, you know?

Besides, you argument about copying is complete bogus. Show me a historical text that hasn't been copied and translated multiple times throughout the ages. All your arguments thusfar belie any real understanding of historical methodology.

What's your argument here? We don't have originals of other historical records and we don't know if the originals were written by eyewitnesses, just like we don't have originals of the Gospels and we don't know if the originals were written by eyewitnesses... therefore we have originals of the gospels?

Look, all Im trying to do here is educate Overcomer about the fact that we don't have in our possession written eyewitness testimony. We have in our possession texts written centuries later. That's all. We know these texts we have are copies of earlier texts which are copies of earlier texts which eventually lead to originals which may or may not have been written by people who ever met anybody who ever met anybody who ever met Jesus.

Do you understand the difference between "I met George Washington today, Signed: historically verifiable eyewitness. Dated: August 3rd 1777", and "I copied a document today, which was a copy of another document which was a copy of another document written by somebody who might have met someone who might have met someone who once met George Washington. Signed: anonymous. Dated: 300 years later".

Seriously. If you put a hamster in a cage and you put in front of it a carrot and a photo of a photo of a photo of a photo of a carrot, the hamster will know to eat the carrot, and not the photo of the photo of the photo of the photo of the carrot.

If a hamster can do that, how can you not be able to make the distinction between eyewitness testimony and the copy of the copy of the copy of the copy of a verbal tale about a verbal tale about a verbal tale which may have been told by a witness? How is this possible?

How is it possible that you're trying to debate an issue that you obviously have very little understanding of? Everything you've written here demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of biblical scholarship and ancient historical methodology. And to make matters worse you're mocking somebody who is clearly more knowledgeable about this subject than you are. LOL

Please tell me which portion of my accounting I'm wrong about.

Are the earliest fragments of the NT we have from 125AD, but the first full copies of the Gospel from the 3rd century? Yes or no?

Are these existent documents copies of earlier documents, yes or no?

Are the originals (written 30 to 60 years after the events) all gone, yes or no?

Is the consensus among historians that these originals were themselves were for the most part NOT independent accounts but inspired by other works (Markan priority, Q), yes or no?

Please get your facts straight.

Yes. No evidence no belief, please please please please please please please please please please please please get your facts right.

I look forward to you educating me on which specific facts I got wrong.

Please name a mainline historian, who teaches history at a major university, who claims there is historical basis for believing in the supernatural.

This is actually a valid point. And when it comes to debates like this I think it would be prudent to separate what we're actually debating. Many theists here are treating the resurrection as a typical historical event and are applying historical methodology and criterion to determine it's validity. On the otherhand, you have many nonbelievers objecting to it based on an a priori rejection of miracles/a personal bias against miracles. Clearly, the resurrection is historically supported and if it did not contain a supernatural component then there really would be no controversy. As a mere historical event the resurrection has been sufficiently substantiate in terms of historical methodology and criterion.

We are actually in agreement.

If it weren't for the fact that a maggot-infested putrefied cadaver with all organs failed, what's left of its blood in its veins completely clotted, and oozing bile from every orifice coming back to life with all its functions intact, and then flying off into the sky like Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer... violates everything we know about medicine, biology, chemistry and physics... then it would be believable.

If it weren't for the fact that we have overwhelming empirical, medical, biological, chemical, physical evidence that Jesus did NOT raise from the dead, then it would be reasonable, based on historical data, to assume that he raised from the dead.

If it weren't for the fact that overwhelmingly strong DNA evidence exonerates Mr. Smith from having committed the crime, then the circumstantial evidence might be sufficient to charge him with a crime.

But, the miracle/supernatural aspect causes room for doubt and really requires an in depth, philosophical debate about naturalism/uniformitarianism/the reliability of our perception of the world, etc.

Right. The question to ask is this: Does the fact that overwhelmingly strong empirical medical, biological, chemical, physical evidence rules out the possibility that a putrid cadaver came back to life and flew into the sky, mean that we should strongly doubt that a putrid cadaver came back to life and flew into the sky?

Is it reasonable to posit, absent any evidence whatsoever, that a magical superpowerful (untestable) entity exists that can make the medically, biologically, chemically, physically impossible possible? And if an entity exists which can make the impossible possible, how do you determine which impossible events she made possible and which impossible events she left alone?

If an entity that makes the impossible possible exists, can we rule out the resurrection? No. Can we rule out Mohammed flying to heaven on a flying horse? No. Can we rule out Zeus getting Greek women pregnant magically? no. Can we rule out Buddha being born from a slit in his mother's side? No. Can we rule out that there is an invisible dragon in my basement? No. Can we rule out there is a teapot orbiting saturn? no.

If we assume that the impossible is possible and that overwhelming empirical evidence doesn't matter then nothing makes any sense. No claim is any more or less reasonable than any other claim. I could make the most outlandish claim imaginable, flying in the face of overwhelming empirical evidence, and when you pointed that out, I could just say "well, your objection is based on the assumption that the possible is possible and the impossible is impossible. If we assume the impossible is possible then empirical evidence doesn't matter".

If we allow for the sake of argument that the impossible is possible, courtesy of your imaginary skydaddy, then you won the argument, as did the Heaven's Gate cultists who thought that by committing suicide they could reach the spaceship behind the comet.

But if we operate under the assumption that that against which there is overwhelming empirical evidence probably did not happen, then corpses don't fly, donkeys don't talk, and the earth didn't stop in its orbit around the sun for a day to then resume it undisturbed.

[Danmark]

....
And you especially shouldn't talk down to people when you have your own facts wrong. The gospels themselves were written several decades after Jesus' death, which puts the date of authorship around the 70s, 80s and 90s in the first century. There is virtually no scholar that claims the gospels (even John) were written in the second century. . . .

This is close to being correct, since some scholars give John, or parts of John, as having been written as late as 10 years into the 2d Century.

Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Scholars variously assess the majority (though not the consensus) view as follows:
Mark: c. 68"73, c. 65"70.
Matthew: c. 70"100,c. 80"85.
Luke: c. 80"100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85, c. 80"85.
John: c. 90"100, c. 90"110, The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Dating

[WinePusher]

And you especially shouldn't talk down to people when you have your own facts wrong. The gospels themselves were written several decades after Jesus' death, which puts the date of authorship around the 70s, 80s and 90s in the first century.

Correct. I never said otherwise. Please find anywhere on this forum where I alleged that the long gone autographs were written more than just several decades after the events, and you'll have my apologies and a full retraction.

If you understand that the gospels were written during the later part of the first century then why are you continually droning on about the codex vaticanus?

Therefore, it would is impossible to rule out eyewitness testimony based on the time at which the gospels were written.

Right. It's not IMPOSSIBLE that eyewitnesses were alive at the time the gospels were written. What's your argument? That we are ignorant of whether the apostles were still alive at ages 60 to 90, that we are ignorant of whether they wrote the gospels... so therefore they wrote the gospels? There's a name for that kind of argument, you know?

I wasn't making an argument, I was stating a fact. The fact is that the gospels were written only several decades after the death of Jesus, which leaves ample room open for the idea that they were written by individuals who were eyewitnesses to the events. Nonbelievers often like to suggest that it's impossible for the gospels to have been the product of eyewitness testimony, yet there is nothing that backs up this claim.

Besides, you argument about copying is complete bogus. Show me a historical text that hasn't been copied and translated multiple times throughout the ages. All your arguments thusfar belie any real understanding of historical methodology.

What's your argument here? We don't have originals of other historical records and we don't know if the originals were written by eyewitnesses, just like we don't have originals of the Gospels and we don't know if the originals were written by eyewitnesses... therefore we have originals of the gospels?

Sorry, but I was under the impression that you were trying to discredit the authenticity of the new testament by pointing to the fact that it's been copied multiple times throughout history. If this is the case, then we would have to reject the authenticity of every other historical text in the ancient world because they too have all been copied and translated throughout the centuries. This is why your argument is bogus, and it's also why no historian of the ancient world or biblical scholar uses these washed up ideas.

Look, all Im trying to do here is educate Overcomer about the fact that we don't have in our possession written eyewitness testimony. We have in our possession texts written centuries later. That's all. We know these texts we have are copies of earlier texts which are copies of earlier texts which eventually lead to originals which may or may not have been written by people who ever met anybody who ever met anybody who ever met Jesus.

Show me an ancient historical text for which we have the original autographs. There are rarely any, and this is why the number of times the text was copied is not a determinant or factor to be considered when discerning the authenticity or historical accuracy of the text itself.

Are the earliest fragments of the NT we have from 125AD, but the first full copies of the Gospel from the 3rd century? Yes or no?

Are these existent documents copies of earlier documents, yes or no?

Are the originals (written 30 to 60 years after the events) all gone, yes or no?

Yes, yes and yes. But like I said, all this is meaningless and if you understood how ancient historical methodology functions you would realize this too. Most ancient and classical texts were often discovered centuries after the fact and were copies of earlier documents and the original manuscripts for most of these texts are gone.

Is the consensus among historians that these originals were themselves were for the most part NOT independent accounts but inspired by other works (Markan priority, Q), yes or no?

It depends on what portions and sections of the gospels we're looking at. Scholars tend to avoid talking about the gospels as a collective whole and focus more on the individual/specific stories and events the gospels relay. There are parts of the gospels that seem to indicate interdependence and there are other parts that seem to indicate independence.

If it weren't for the fact that a maggot-infested putrefied cadaver with all organs failed, what's left of its blood in its veins completely clotted, and oozing bile from every orifice coming back to life with all its functions intact, and then flying off into the sky like Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer... violates everything we know about medicine, biology, chemistry and physics... then it would be believable.

You see, when you spew out nonsense like this it makes me wonder how serious you are in trying to 'debate' this issue. Everything you've said here seems to suggest that you're completely clueless about first century Jewish burial customs. How is it possible for a body to become maggot infested during a one week duration? The body was also wrapped in linen and placed in a high profile tomb and was likely cleaned and perfumed by the women disciples of Jesus.

[Goat]

....
And you especially shouldn't talk down to people when you have your own facts wrong. The gospels themselves were written several decades after Jesus' death, which puts the date of authorship around the 70s, 80s and 90s in the first century. There is virtually no scholar that claims the gospels (even John) were written in the second century. . . .

This is close to being correct, since some scholars give John, or parts of John, as having been written as late as 10 years into the 2d Century.

Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Scholars variously assess the majority (though not the consensus) view as follows:
Mark: c. 68"73, c. 65"70.
Matthew: c. 70"100,c. 80"85.
Luke: c. 80"100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85, c. 80"85.
John: c. 90"100, c. 90"110, The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Dating

There is some evidence that the Gospel of Luke used Josephus' antiquities as a source, so that might put it to as late as the first decade of the second century. The 'upper bound' for when it could have been written is 130, since that is the oldest reference to it outside of itself.

If Luke did indeed use Antiquities as a source, that makes the writing after 93 C.E.

[help3434]

Clearly, the resurrection is historically supported and if it did not contain a supernatural component then there really would be no controversy. As a mere historical event the resurrection has been sufficiently substantiate in terms of historical methodology and criterion.

Really? Is there any documentation or records about Jesus made by a non-Christian contemporary of Jesus? Paul claims that the resurrected Jesus appeared to more than 500 hundred people at once. Do we have the testimonies of any of the witnesses that were supposedly in this crowd?

[no evidence no belief]

And you especially shouldn't talk down to people when you have your own facts wrong. The gospels themselves were written several decades after Jesus' death, which puts the date of authorship around the 70s, 80s and 90s in the first century.

Correct. I never said otherwise. Please find anywhere on this forum where I alleged that the long gone autographs were written more than just several decades after the events, and you'll have my apologies and a full retraction.

If you understand that the gospels were written during the later part of the first century then why are you continually droning on about the codex vaticanus?

Because we do not have access to the late first century texts. They are gone. The earliest full texts of the Gospel are from the 3rd and 4th century, and the Bible you read today is a translation of the Codex Vaticanus.

When you quote the Bible from Biblegateway.com, you are quoting the Codex Vaticanus.

Therefore, it would is impossible to rule out eyewitness testimony based on the time at which the gospels were written.

Right. It's not IMPOSSIBLE that eyewitnesses were alive at the time the gospels were written. What's your argument? That we are ignorant of whether the apostles were still alive at ages 60 to 90, that we are ignorant of whether they wrote the gospels... so therefore they wrote the gospels? There's a name for that kind of argument, you know?

I wasn't making an argument, I was stating a fact. The fact is that the gospels were written only several decades after the death of Jesus, which leaves ample room open for the idea that they were written by individuals who were eyewitnesses to the events. Nonbelievers often like to suggest that it's impossible for the gospels to have been the product of eyewitness testimony, yet there is nothing that backs up this claim.

It's possible that the texts which no longer exist were written by eyewitnesses. We just don't know.

The texts which do exist were irrefutably not written by eyewitnesses, unless these eyewitnesses were 300 years old at the time of writing.

It could be that some segments of the the texts which do exist are identical copies of the texts which no longer exist, and that therefore when we read those portions of the modern Bible we are reading the same words the original authors wrote, who may or may not be eyewitnesses. It could be that they are completely different, or it could be that they are very similar but were not written by eyewitnesses. We can use various methods to try to guess how similar they might have been, but we can't know for sure. Some portions we know for 100% sure to be forgeries, such as the end of Mark, other portions are mistranslated, such as the part about Mary being a virgin. Others are clearly errors.

For the portions which we don't know for sure are not accurate copies of the originals, we cannot be sure they are accurate. It's possible they are not accurate. It's possible they are accurate but not written by eyewitnesses. It is possible that they are inaccurate copies of originals written by non-eyewitnesses.

We just don't know. And just so we're on the same page: Not knowing something is the opposite of knowing it. You agree, right?

In summary: Many portions we know are NOT accurate and/or copies of originals NOT written by eyewitnesses. Of what's left, we don't know if they are accurate, and we don't know if the original authors were eyewitnesses in the first place.

We don't know who wrote the Gospels, and we don't know if the copies we do have accurately portray what these unknown authors wrote.

Can you please confirm that you agree the syllogism bellow is NOT accurate?

1) We don't know if the original authors were eyewitnesses
2) We don't know if existent copies accurately portray the original words
3) Therefore the Gospel we read today is the words of eyewitnesses.

Besides, you argument about copying is complete bogus. Show me a historical text that hasn't been copied and translated multiple times throughout the ages. All your arguments thusfar belie any real understanding of historical methodology.

What's your argument here? We don't have originals of other historical records and we don't know if the originals were written by eyewitnesses, just like we don't have originals of the Gospels and we don't know if the originals were written by eyewitnesses... therefore we have originals of the gospels?

Sorry, but I was under the impression that you were trying to discredit the authenticity of the new testament by pointing to the fact that it's been copied multiple times throughout history. If this is the case, then we would have to reject the authenticity of every other historical text in the ancient world because they too have all been copied and translated throughout the centuries. This is why your argument is bogus, and it's also why no historian of the ancient world or biblical scholar uses these washed up ideas.

You are forgetting the fundamental difference between the claims of the Bible and the claims of any other historical record that is widely accepted.

Let's take the historical evidence for the Resurrection and the historical evidence for Caesar's assassination.

There is no dispute that they are comparable and that, as you said, if the claims of the gospel did NOT violate the laws of nature, they would be as universally accepted as most likely historically true as Caesar's assassination.

The problem is that the Gospel make claims that violate everything we know about meicine, biology, chemistry, physics, etc. The evidence for the Resurrection is trumped by overwhelmingly stronger evidence against the resurrection.

Let me put it this way: You accept Caesar's assassination based on the historical evidence, correct?

Assume the historical evidence said that Caesar was decapitated and that for two hours after his head had been completely severed from the rest of his body, Caesar kept talking and trying to guilt-trip the assassins into sawing his head back onto his body, and that at that point the assassins stabbed him multiple times, and that's how Caesar finally died.

If that was the testimony, you might believe he was stabbed, you might believe he was decapitated, but you would NOT believe he continued talking for two hours after being decapitated. Why? Because the portion about the talking decapitated head violates everything we know about medicine, biology, chemistry and physics, and it's more likely that some anonymous author made that up, or mistranslated or exaggerated or made a mistake, than that overwhelmingly strong empirical evidence is fundamentally wrong on multiple levels.

Similarly, you might believe Jesus existed, you might believe he was crucified, you might believe his tomb was found empty, but you would not believe his corpse came back to life and flew into the sky. Why? Because the portion about the flying corpse violates everything we know about medicine, biology, chemistry and physics, and it's more likely that some anonymous author made that up, or mistranslated or exaggerated or made a mistake, than that overwhelmingly strong empirical evidence is fundamentally wrong on multiple levels.

Look, all Im trying to do here is educate Overcomer about the fact that we don't have in our possession written eyewitness testimony. We have in our possession texts written centuries later. That's all. We know these texts we have are copies of earlier texts which are copies of earlier texts which eventually lead to originals which may or may not have been written by people who ever met anybody who ever met anybody who ever met Jesus.

Show me an ancient historical text for which we have the original autographs. There are rarely any, and this is why the number of times the text was copied is not a determinant or factor to be considered when discerning the authenticity or historical accuracy of the text itself.

You are absolutely wrong. The number of times a text was copied most certainly is a factor to be considered when trying to determine the likelihood that the text accurately portrays what actually happened. It's just that when there is no better evidence than the copy of the copy of a copy of a text, historians have to do the best they can with what they've got, and try to piece things together to try to determine what is most likely happened.

If historians had very very very strong evidence that Caesar was NOT assassinated, then the historical evidence that he was would be discarded as less reliable.

If historians had very very very strong evidence that Jesus's body did NOT come back to life and fly into the air, then the historical evidence that he did would be discarded as less reliable. But wait, historians DO have very very very strong evidence that Jesus's corpse didn't fly into the air. It's called the LAWS OF GRAVITY!

Are the earliest fragments of the NT we have from 125AD, but the first full copies of the Gospel from the 3rd century? Yes or no?

Are these existent documents copies of earlier documents, yes or no?

Are the originals (written 30 to 60 years after the events) all gone, yes or no?

Yes, yes and yes. But like I said, all this is meaningless and if you understood how ancient historical methodology functions you would realize this too. Most ancient and classical texts were often discovered centuries after the fact and were copies of earlier documents and the original manuscripts for most of these texts are gone.

I understand that in the absence of more reliable evidence, historians have no choice but to rely on whatever flimsy evidence is available to make an educated guess as to what is most likely to have happened.

But it would be insanity to rely on flimsy historical evidence, when overwhelmingly strong empirical medical, biological, chemical, physical evidence is available, and tells us with almost complete certainty that A CORPSE DIDN'T FLY INTO THE AIR!

The historical method is not sufficiently reliable to determine that everything we know about medicine, biology, chemistry and physics is wrong. When a method to determine the truth which is only moderately accurate is in direct contradiction with a method of determining the truth that is overwhelmingly more accurate, it would be insane to go with the less accurate method.

If it weren't for the fact that a maggot-infested putrefied cadaver with all organs failed, what's left of its blood in its veins completely clotted, and oozing bile from every orifice coming back to life with all its functions intact, and then flying off into the sky like Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer... violates everything we know about medicine, biology, chemistry and physics... then it would be believable.

You see, when you spew out nonsense like this it makes me wonder how serious you are in trying to 'debate' this issue. Everything you've said here seems to suggest that you're completely clueless about first century Jewish burial customs. How is it possible for a body to become maggot infested during a one week duration?

I don't want to appear as though I am condescending towards you, just because of your ignorance of basic 3rd Grade Science. You seem to state your fundamentally inaccurate opinions about simple biological facts a) without knowing anything about the facts, b) without showing any interest in finding out about the factsand c) with a tone of certainty and authority that one would expect from a tenured Biology Professor.

It's remarkable.

Without making you feel excessively bad about your faux pa, may I direct you to the first few websites that come up when you google "maggot life cycle"? Enjoy.

http://australianmuseum.net.au/Decompos ... fe-cycles/

http://science.howstuffworks.com/zoolog ... sefly4.htm

http://www.orkin.com/flies/house-fly/ge ... house-fly/

http://www.orkin.com/flies/house-fly/li ... house-fly/

The body was also wrapped in linen and placed in a high profile tomb and was likely cleaned and perfumed by the women disciples of Jesus.

Oh, so you're saying that the flies would know from the expensive linens and perfumes that it was a high profile corpse, and therefore would have the courtesy not to lay eggs in it? Is there any scientific evidence for middle eastern flies exhibiting better table manners than flies everywhere else in the world?

This was fun. We're done, right?

[WinePusher]

If you understand that the gospels were written during the later part of the first century then why are you continually droning on about the codex vaticanus?

Because we do not have access to the late first century texts. They are gone. The earliest full texts of the Gospel are from the 3rd and 4th century, and the Bible you read today is a translation of the Codex Vaticanus.

Ok, so what? Did you have an actual point you wanted to make or is this just a fun fact? Unless you can prove that there are extensive errors in the texts due to the copying, or perhaps the mode of oral transmission, then this is pretty much all irrelevant and pointless.

I wasn't making an argument, I was stating a fact. The fact is that the gospels were written only several decades after the death of Jesus, which leaves ample room open for the idea that they were written by individuals who were eyewitnesses to the events. Nonbelievers often like to suggest that it's impossible for the gospels to have been the product of eyewitness testimony, yet there is nothing that backs up this claim.

It's possible that the texts which no longer exist were written by eyewitnesses. We just don't know.

The texts which do exist were irrefutably not written by eyewitnesses, unless these eyewitnesses were 300 years old at the time of writing.

No one has ever claimed that the codex vaticanus was written and compiled and edited by an eyewitness. The claim being made is that the original texts, the autographs, were the products of eyewitness testimony and over the centuries these texts were passed along and preserved by the early church through methods of copying and moral transmission. Like I said, show that there are errors in the text due to the copying and then you might have a valid point.

It could be that some segments of the the texts which do exist are identical copies of the texts which no longer exist, and that therefore when we read those portions of the modern Bible we are reading the same words the original authors wrote, who may or may not be eyewitnesses. It could be that they are completely different, or it could be that they are very similar but were not written by eyewitnesses. We can use various methods to try to guess how similar they might have been, but we can't know for sure. Some portions we know for 100% sure to be forgeries, such as the end of Mark, other portions are mistranslated, such as the part about Mary being a virgin. Others are clearly errors.

For the portions which we don't know for sure are not accurate copies of the originals, we cannot be sure they are accurate. It's possible they are not accurate. It's possible they are accurate but not written by eyewitnesses. It is possible that they are inaccurate copies of originals written by non-eyewitnesses.

We just don't know. And just so we're on the same page: Not knowing something is the opposite of knowing it. You agree, right?

Yes, I understand what you're saying but it is still absurd. Honestly, give me one scholar that doesn't believe the latter copies are not accurate representations of the original autographs. Does this idea of yours have any legitimacy in any academic and scholarly circles?

In summary: Many portions we know are NOT accurate and/or copies of originals NOT written by eyewitnesses. Of what's left, we don't know if they are accurate, and we don't know if the original authors were eyewitnesses in the first place.

We don't know who wrote the Gospels, and we don't know if the copies we do have accurately portray what these unknown authors wrote.

Can you please confirm that you agree the syllogism bellow is NOT accurate?

1) We don't know if the original authors were eyewitnesses
2) We don't know if existent copies accurately portray the original words
3) Therefore the Gospel we read today is the words of eyewitnesses.

'We don't know if existent copies accurately portray the original words.' Honestly, did you really just suggest that? Biblical and New Testament studies is not my field, but even I know that this statement is pure nonsense. Go pick up any standard New Testament textbook written by Bart Ehrman or Raymond E. Brown, this idea of yours is just incorrect. Yes, there is a debate among biblical scholars about textual variations but literally no one is suggesting that the copies we have today were completely fabricated and are completely different from the original autographs.

Sorry, but I was under the impression that you were trying to discredit the authenticity of the new testament by pointing to the fact that it's been copied multiple times throughout history. If this is the case, then we would have to reject the authenticity of every other historical text in the ancient world because they too have all been copied and translated throughout the centuries. This is why your argument is bogus, and it's also why no historian of the ancient world or biblical scholar uses these washed up ideas.

You are forgetting the fundamental difference between the claims of the Bible and the claims of any other historical record that is widely accepted.

Let's take the historical evidence for the Resurrection and the historical evidence for Caesar's assassination.

There is no dispute that they are comparable and that, as you said, if the claims of the gospel did NOT violate the laws of nature, they would be as universally accepted as most likely historically true as Caesar's assassination.

The problem is that the Gospel make claims that violate everything we know about meicine, biology, chemistry, physics, etc. The evidence for the Resurrection is trumped by overwhelmingly stronger evidence against the resurrection.

Let me put it this way: You accept Caesar's assassination based on the historical evidence, correct?

Assume the historical evidence said that Caesar was decapitated and that for two hours after his head had been completely severed from the rest of his body, Caesar kept talking and trying to guilt-trip the assassins into sawing his head back onto his body, and that at that point the assassins stabbed him multiple times, and that's how Caesar finally died.

If that was the testimony, you might believe he was stabbed, you might believe he was decapitated, but you would NOT believe he continued talking for two hours after being decapitated. Why? Because the portion about the talking decapitated head violates everything we know about medicine, biology, chemistry and physics, and it's more likely that some anonymous author made that up, or mistranslated or exaggerated or made a mistake, than that overwhelmingly strong empirical evidence is fundamentally wrong on multiple levels.

Similarly, you might believe Jesus existed, you might believe he was crucified, you might believe his tomb was found empty, but you would not believe his corpse came back to life and flew into the sky. Why? Because the portion about the flying corpse violates everything we know about medicine, biology, chemistry and physics, and it's more likely that some anonymous author made that up, or mistranslated or exaggerated or made a mistake, than that overwhelmingly strong empirical evidence is fundamentally wrong on multiple levels.

I have agreed multiple times with you that the supernatural component that is attached with many stories in the New Testament is problematic and it does fall outside the scope of history. As a pure historical event the resurrection is well supported. In terms of history the resurrection probably did happen. However, as a purely scientific the resurrection is not supported because it defies out understanding of the physical world. In terms of science the resurrection probably didn't happen. But again, this requires a more detailed discussion about naturalism and uniformitarianism. There is nothing that indicates that the laws of science cannot be broken or suspended, and this fact alone makes miracles possible. A very easy way for nonbelievers to disprove the existence of miracles is to show that the laws of science are completely and totally and inviolable, but until this day the existence of miracles cannot be ruled out. Yes, the probability that miracles have and do occur is low but the possibility of them having occurred still exists.

You see, when you spew out nonsense like this it makes me wonder how serious you are in trying to 'debate' this issue. Everything you've said here seems to suggest that you're completely clueless about first century Jewish burial customs. How is it possible for a body to become maggot infested during a one week duration?

I don't want to appear as though I am condescending towards you, just because of your ignorance of basic 3rd Grade Science. You seem to state your fundamentally inaccurate opinions about simple biological facts a) without knowing anything about the facts, b) without showing any interest in finding out about the factsand c) with a tone of certainty and authority that one would expect from a tenured Biology Professor.

It's remarkable.

Without making you feel excessively bad about your faux pa, may I direct you to the first few websites that come up when you google "maggot life cycle"? Enjoy.

http://australianmuseum.net.au/Decompos ... fe-cycles/

http://science.howstuffworks.com/zoolog ... sefly4.htm

http://www.orkin.com/flies/house-fly/ge ... house-fly/

http://www.orkin.com/flies/house-fly/li ... house-fly/

What are you even talking about. I asked you to support your claim that Jesus' body was maggot infested and you respond with a bunch of rubbish and links explaining the life cycle of flies? What makes you think I care about any of this? Show that the body of Jesus was maggot infested. I provided many reasons as to why I think that it isn't based on the length of time Jesus spent in the tomb and the fact that it was cleaned and perfumed by women attendants. If you can't support this unintelligent claim then you probably should stop repeating it as often as you do.

[no evidence no belief]

If you understand that the gospels were written during the later part of the first century then why are you continually droning on about the codex vaticanus?

Because we do not have access to the late first century texts. They are gone. The earliest full texts of the Gospel are from the 3rd and 4th century, and the Bible you read today is a translation of the Codex Vaticanus.

Ok, so what? Did you have an actual point you wanted to make or is this just a fun fact?

You cut in on an exchange I was having with Overcomer, who, clearly lacking the degree of knowledge you and I have, was making absurd arguments based on the wrongful notion that the Bible he reads today is an actual eyewitness testimony. It was thus necessary to educate him on the facts. Now that he has been educated on the facts, he has the decency to stop making arguments that run counter to these facts, whereas you, though well informed on the facts, seem to have no problem continuing.

Unless you can prove that there are extensive errors in the texts due to the copying, or perhaps the mode of oral transmission, then this is pretty much all irrelevant and pointless.

I wasn't making an argument, I was stating a fact. The fact is that the gospels were written only several decades after the death of Jesus, which leaves ample room open for the idea that they were written by individuals who were eyewitnesses to the events. Nonbelievers often like to suggest that it's impossible for the gospels to have been the product of eyewitness testimony, yet there is nothing that backs up this claim.

It's possible that the texts which no longer exist were written by eyewitnesses. We just don't know.

The texts which do exist were irrefutably not written by eyewitnesses, unless these eyewitnesses were 300 years old at the time of writing.

No one has ever claimed that the codex vaticanus was written and compiled and edited by an eyewitness.

You didn't. But you are not the entirety of the human race. Overcomer made arguments implying as much, or implying that he was ignorant of the timeline of Bible writings, and thus I educated him on the fact.

The claim being made is that the original texts, the autographs, were the products of eyewitness testimony and over the centuries these texts were passed along and preserved by the early church through methods of copying and moral transmission. Like I said, show that there are errors in the text due to the copying and then you might have a valid point.

Dude, are you joking? It's universally accepted that there errors, forgeries, additions, editing, etc are rampant in the Codex Vaticanus. The notes in the Bible itself, in the preface to Mark, admit that the ending of Mark is probably a later addition.

Are you playing the game where we see who can say the most counterfactual thing possible?

I mean, who in the world, except for the most ardent literalist evangelicals, claims that there were no errors in the centuries of translation and copying?

It could be that some segments of the the texts which do exist are identical copies of the texts which no longer exist, and that therefore when we read those portions of the modern Bible we are reading the same words the original authors wrote, who may or may not be eyewitnesses. It could be that they are completely different, or it could be that they are very similar but were not written by eyewitnesses. We can use various methods to try to guess how similar they might have been, but we can't know for sure. Some portions we know for 100% sure to be forgeries, such as the end of Mark, other portions are mistranslated, such as the part about Mary being a virgin. Others are clearly errors.

For the portions which we don't know for sure are not accurate copies of the originals, we cannot be sure they are accurate. It's possible they are not accurate. It's possible they are accurate but not written by eyewitnesses. It is possible that they are inaccurate copies of originals written by non-eyewitnesses.

We just don't know. And just so we're on the same page: Not knowing something is the opposite of knowing it. You agree, right?

Yes, I understand what you're saying but it is still absurd. Honestly, give me one scholar that doesn't believe the latter copies are not accurate representations of the original autographs. Does this idea of yours have any legitimacy in any academic and scholarly circles?

What? I mean, seriously? The publishers of the Bible itself acknowledge that some portions of it are forgeries and therefore not accurate representations of the original autographs. Look at the preface to Mark for crying out loud!

When aspiring catholic priests go to seminary they are given a color coded Bible, with the portions that are believed by the vatican to be authentic color coded in one color, the portions the vatican is not sure about in a different color, and the portions the vatican believes are almost certainly errors, forgeries or later addition in a third color.

Every Bible historian in the world, without a single exception in the history of the human race, has ever even contemplated stating publicly the ludicrous position that there aren't MANY later additions, errors, editings, forgeries, etc in the Gospels.

Wow!

In summary: Many portions we know are NOT accurate and/or copies of originals NOT written by eyewitnesses. Of what's left, we don't know if they are accurate, and we don't know if the original authors were eyewitnesses in the first place.

We don't know who wrote the Gospels, and we don't know if the copies we do have accurately portray what these unknown authors wrote.

Can you please confirm that you agree the syllogism bellow is NOT accurate?

1) We don't know if the original authors were eyewitnesses
2) We don't know if existent copies accurately portray the original words
3) Therefore the Gospel we read today is the words of eyewitnesses.

'We don't know if existent copies accurately portray the original words.' Honestly, did you really just suggest that? Biblical and New Testament studies is not my field, but even I know that this statement is pure nonsense. Go pick up any standard New Testament textbook written by Bart Ehrman or Raymond E. Brown, this idea of yours is just incorrect.

Wow. I am speechless. I was about to suggest the same to you! Please watch this Ehrman lecture. Please!

Yes, there is a debate among biblical scholars about textual variations

There is debate about textual variations, but there are many passages where nobody, not the Vatican, not the publishers of the Bible, dispute that forgery, errors, edits, changes, mistranslations are present.

literally no one is suggesting that the copies we have today were completely fabricated and are completely different from the original autographs.

Picture the Roman Empire at it's peak. Imagine how gigantic it's cavalry must have been. Think of how many horses it must have had.

Well, the strawman you just built is big enough to provide enough straw to feed all the horses in the Roman Empire's cavalry for a year, with some to spare to decorate 100 million years' worth of Nativity Scenes.

What goes through your head when you write this stuff? What in the world makes you think you can get away with it!?

How can you take my position (shared by the entirety of academia) "there are errors, forgeries, additions, mistranslations in the Bible", transform it into "the existent copies are completely fabricated and completely different from the originals", and hope to get away with it? How? I don't get it.

Sorry, but I was under the impression that you were trying to discredit the authenticity of the new testament by pointing to the fact that it's been copied multiple times throughout history. If this is the case, then we would have to reject the authenticity of every other historical text in the ancient world because they too have all been copied and translated throughout the centuries. This is why your argument is bogus, and it's also why no historian of the ancient world or biblical scholar uses these washed up ideas.

You are forgetting the fundamental difference between the claims of the Bible and the claims of any other historical record that is widely accepted.

Let's take the historical evidence for the Resurrection and the historical evidence for Caesar's assassination.

There is no dispute that they are comparable and that, as you said, if the claims of the gospel did NOT violate the laws of nature, they would be as universally accepted as most likely historically true as Caesar's assassination.

The problem is that the Gospel make claims that violate everything we know about meicine, biology, chemistry, physics, etc. The evidence for the Resurrection is trumped by overwhelmingly stronger evidence against the resurrection.

Let me put it this way: You accept Caesar's assassination based on the historical evidence, correct?

Assume the historical evidence said that Caesar was decapitated and that for two hours after his head had been completely severed from the rest of his body, Caesar kept talking and trying to guilt-trip the assassins into sawing his head back onto his body, and that at that point the assassins stabbed him multiple times, and that's how Caesar finally died.

If that was the testimony, you might believe he was stabbed, you might believe he was decapitated, but you would NOT believe he continued talking for two hours after being decapitated. Why? Because the portion about the talking decapitated head violates everything we know about medicine, biology, chemistry and physics, and it's more likely that some anonymous author made that up, or mistranslated or exaggerated or made a mistake, than that overwhelmingly strong empirical evidence is fundamentally wrong on multiple levels.

Similarly, you might believe Jesus existed, you might believe he was crucified, you might believe his tomb was found empty, but you would not believe his corpse came back to life and flew into the sky. Why? Because the portion about the flying corpse violates everything we know about medicine, biology, chemistry and physics, and it's more likely that some anonymous author made that up, or mistranslated or exaggerated or made a mistake, than that overwhelmingly strong empirical evidence is fundamentally wrong on multiple levels.

I have agreed multiple times with you that the supernatural component that is attached with many stories in the New Testament is problematic and it does fall outside the scope of history. As a pure historical event the resurrection is well supported. In terms of history the resurrection probably did happen. However, as a purely scientific the resurrection is not supported because it defies out understanding of the physical world. In terms of science the resurrection probably didn't happen. But again, this requires a more detailed discussion about naturalism and uniformitarianism. There is nothing that indicates that the laws of science cannot be broken or suspended, and this fact alone makes miracles possible. A very easy way for nonbelievers to disprove the existence of miracles is to show that the laws of science are completely and totally and inviolable, but until this day the existence of miracles cannot be ruled out.

Sure. If our basic understanding of the laws of nature are wrong, and contrary to our understanding they can be broken or suspended, then miracles are possible.

Here's a list of other things that are possible if our understanding of the basic laws of nature are wrong:

Santa has an invisible magic toy factory in the north pole
Mohammed flew into heaven on the back of a flying white horse
Buddha was born through a slit in him mother's side
Scientologists are right about the souls of aliens being trapped inside volcanos
Heaven's Gate cultists are right that by committing suicide they teleport to the alien space ship hiding behind the comet

If your argument for the occurrence of Biblical miracles requires you to broaden the assumption of what is possible so much that you must also allow Santa, Scientology and Heaven's Gate, then you don't have a very strong argument. The Resurrection is about as likely as Santa's existence. You're making my point!

You see, when you spew out nonsense like this it makes me wonder how serious you are in trying to 'debate' this issue. Everything you've said here seems to suggest that you're completely clueless about first century Jewish burial customs. How is it possible for a body to become maggot infested during a one week duration?

I don't want to appear as though I am condescending towards you, just because of your ignorance of basic 3rd Grade Science. You seem to state your fundamentally inaccurate opinions about simple biological facts a) without knowing anything about the facts, b) without showing any interest in finding out about the factsand c) with a tone of certainty and authority that one would expect from a tenured Biology Professor.

It's remarkable.

Without making you feel excessively bad about your faux pa, may I direct you to the first few websites that come up when you google "maggot life cycle"? Enjoy.

http://australianmuseum.net.au/Decompos ... fe-cycles/

http://science.howstuffworks.com/zoolog ... sefly4.htm

http://www.orkin.com/flies/house-fly/ge ... house-fly/

http://www.orkin.com/flies/house-fly/li ... house-fly/

What are you even talking about. I asked you to support your claim that Jesus' body was maggot infested and you respond with a bunch of rubbish and links explaining the life cycle of flies? What makes you think I care about any of this? Show that the body of Jesus was maggot infested.

Premise 1) Jesus was a corpse for 72 hours
Premise 2) Corpses get infested by maggots within 24 hours of dying
Premise 3) 72 is a larger number than 24.
Conclusion) Jesus's corpse was infested by maggots when he (allegedly) came back to life and flew into the sky

I provided many reasons as to why I think that it isn't based on the length of time Jesus spent in the tomb and the fact that it was cleaned and perfumed by women attendants.

1) Corpses get infested by maggots within 24 hours of dying, Jesus was a corpse for 72 hours and 72 is a greater number than 24.
2) A corpse being cleaned and perfumed has absolutely no effect on flies laying eggs on it
3) Jesus's corpse was infested by maggots when he (allegedly) came back to life and flew into the sky.

[Danmark]

....
I have agreed multiple times with you that the supernatural component that is attached with many stories in the New Testament is problematic and it does fall outside the scope of history. As a pure historical event the resurrection is well supported. In terms of history the resurrection probably did happen. However, as a purely scientific the resurrection is not supported because it defies out understanding of the physical world. In terms of science the resurrection probably didn't happen. But again, this requires a more detailed discussion about naturalism and uniformitarianism. There is nothing that indicates that the laws of science cannot be broken or suspended, and this fact alone makes miracles possible. A very easy way for nonbelievers to disprove the existence of miracles is to show that the laws of science are completely and totally and inviolable, but until this day the existence of miracles cannot be ruled out. Yes, the probability that miracles have and do occur is low but the possibility of them having occurred still exists.
....
I asked you to support your claim that Jesus' body was maggot infested and you respond with a bunch of rubbish and links explaining the life cycle of flies? What makes you think I care about any of this? Show that the body of Jesus was maggot infested. I provided many reasons as to why I think that it isn't based on the length of time Jesus spent in the tomb and the fact that it was cleaned and perfumed by women attendants. If you can't support this unintelligent claim then you probably should stop repeating it as often as you do.

Taking the last paragraph first, it is certainly difficult to prove Jesus' body was maggot invested since it is impossible to prove Jesus even existed. Whether or not you 'care about any of this' is of course irrelevant. What you 'care' or don't 'care' about does not an argument make.

Contrary to your assertion that, 'As a pure historical event the resurrection is well supported. In terms of history the resurrection probably did happen' the 'evidence' which solely consists of the reports of the New Testament would never withstand the scrutiny of a court of law. The 'evidence' consists of contradictory reports from anonymous reporters written decades after the alleged events. As you say [from a scientific point of view] '... the probability that miracles have and do occur is low....,' but asserting that it is 'possible' they occurred is as weak an argument as saying it is 'possible' Muhammed flew up to heaven on a winged horse or that I am a genius because my best friend says so.