Resurrections, Tombs, Beliefs, History, etc

[OpenYourEyes]

I've been reading the debate and in fact just came from having read the last post there.

I agree with the conclusion of your last post in that thread (at this writing post #5). Thus far the only "evidence" that has been presented for the resurrection of Jesus amounts to the argument that some of the disciples of Jesus appear to have believed that he was resurrected from the dead.

I personally do not find that argument to be compelling or convincing. I've actually had experiences in my own life with people who have claimed to have seen supernatural things that I know they did not see, because I was with them at the time in question. I have even seen others jump on the bandwagon proclaiming to have seen the same supernatural event when in fact, they weren't even there at the time.

So the fact that humans are quick to support superstitious claims when in fact then never witnessed any such thing seems far more reasonable to me.

Most ancient historians wrote about what they believed. Based on your standards, which so far seem to be non-historical, we should be dismissing all or most of ancient history.

[Divine Insight]

Most ancient historians wrote about what they believed. Based on your standards, which so far seem to be non-historical, we should be dismissing all or most of ancient history.

So where's your justification for dismissing all other religious writings as being "non-historical" then?

Why should Christianity be treated differently from all other religious myths? Even Greek Mythology should be considered to be "historical" by your standards. So should the tales of the Buddha.

This idea that the Christian Gospel rumors should stand above all other historical religious writings simply doesn't hold any water. The Qur'an was historically written too by someone who believed what they wrote. Why isn't that "Good Enough" for you to then become a Muslim?

You accuse me of rejecting history, but if you reject the stories of the Buddha, and the stories of Muhammad, then how can you claim to not also be rejecting history?

Your arguments simply don't hold any water. They are clearly biased toward only one collection of religious rumors.

[OpenYourEyes]

[Replying to post 6 by Divine Insight]

All I can tell you is that history is the best resource we have to know about human affairs in the past. Just as science, although far from being infallible, is the best tool we have for the physical Universe. If you don't like history, then that doesn't mean you ignore it and try to insert science into the picture or vice-versa. It's best to simply stay out of making historical claims entirely otherwise you're left with a clear DOUBLE-standard of accepting one account and not the other.

[Zzyzx]

.

It's best to simply stay out of making historical claims entirely otherwise you're left with a clear DOUBLE-standard of accepting one account and not the other.

Thus, you (generic term) and Christians in general make no historical claims for the Bible to avoid being hypocritical or applying double standards regarding the literature and beliefs of the world's other 4000 religions. Right?

Christians and Christianity do not claim that their Bible is historically accurate while dismissing other religious literature as not historically accurate. Surely they would not talk out of both sides of their mouth (say one thing one time and something different another time. Correct?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 8 by Zzyzx]

I don't want to distract too much from your debate so I will limit my discussion here. I just would recommend on your next head-to-head that you admit that you are really looking for SCIENTIFIC verification for stories in the Bible. If you admit your scientific agenda from the start, then perhaps many won't go into these trying to debate you on a historical level.

Less frustration and confusion for both parties involved.

You make is sound like the historical argument for Christianity has some sort of merit. But clearly it doesn't. We have just made it clear that if you want to give historical merit to ancient religious rumors, then you'll need to give the same merit to all of them. And that most certainly doesn't favor Christian myths as having anymore historical validity than any other religious myths.

So there's nothing to the "historical arguments" for Christianity. They simply don't hold any water. They require historical "bigotry" that favors Christian mythology over the religious myths of other cultures. And that's not a valid historical methodology.

[Zzyzx]

.

I just would recommend on your next head-to-head

If I was seeking advice about debate, you would not be the first person on the list to ask (or on the list at all).

that you admit that you are really looking for SCIENTIFIC verification for stories in the Bible.

If I was “really looking for scientific verification� I would clearly, unmistakably say so.

I do NOT limit evidence to “scientific� – but limit it to VERIFIABLE evidence that is something more than “Take my word for it (or his or this book)�.

As an example of non-scientific verifiable evidence: If I claim to own a certain piece of real estate I can verify the claim with official county and state records, a deed, cadastral maps, title company and attorney documents, etc. NONE of those are “scientific� but all are verifiable.

Most people who talk of “scientific evidence� in these debates do not seem to have even the foggiest notion of what the term means.

If you admit your scientific agenda from the start, then perhaps many won't go into these trying to debate you on a historical level.

If a person engages in debate regarding whether the “resurrection� actually, literally, really happened in the real world, they should expect to provide MORE than just stories making the claim or references to who believed the stories.

If they have nothing more to offer than unverifiable tales and beliefs, they would be well advised to NOT attempt to debate the topic. It is not rocket science or any kind of science at all to make an informed decision.

Less frustration and confusion for both parties involved.

I am neither frustrated or confused (nor emotional nor impatient). If others become that way it is their problem, not mine.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 16 by OpenYourEyes]

You have to probe a little deeper and factor in why the early Christians believed.

Ok go on...

Things that come to my mind are Jesus's death,

Ok, so their hero died. To have a logically consistent belief in a resurrection, the guy would have to die first.

the empty tomb,

Paul, who wrote the earliest Christian writings that we have access to, makes no mention of a tomb. I'm also told by others that the Greek words he speaks when he's talking about the resurrection actually refer to a spiritual resurrection, and not a physical bodily one.
In any case, an empty tomb does not a resurrection make. Tombs can be empty for all sorts of reasons.

the Nazareth Inscription that may've been in response to Jesus's tomb,

Can you establish that it actually WAS? I looked it up - it was sent from Nazareth to Paris, but we don't actually know if it was FROM there.
When trying to gather evidence to point to a story being true, you have to be EXTREMELY careful. You are NOT doing what scientists do - scientists are advised to try to falsify their own claims first. You are not looking at your 'evidence' from the point of view of a skeptic. You don't ask yourself "Was it actually in response to Jesus? Could it have come from somewhere else?"
As you yourself write up there, 'may've been in response to Jesus's tomb'. Sorry, but 'may've been' is not good enough here.
That tablet could have been written by anyone in response to any other attempted/successful grave robbing. Only an emotional bias such as the one you have would tie it to Jesus, as if that's the only example of grave robbing in Roman/Greek/Jewish history.

the early witnesses,

Again, presupposing that they actually witnessed anything. I do not make that presupposition. They may have witnessed something, they may not have.

Now back to this line

You have to probe a little deeper and factor in why the early Christians believed.

Have you yourself probed a little deeper and factored in why the early Muslims believed? Why the Heaven's Gaters believed?

[OpenYourEyes]

I do NOT limit evidence to “scientific� – but limit it to VERIFIABLE evidence that is something more than “Take my word for it (or his or this book)�.

As an example of non-scientific verifiable evidence: If I claim to own a certain piece of real estate I can verify the claim with official county and state records, a deed, cadastral maps, title company and attorney documents, etc. NONE of those are “scientific� but all are verifiable.

Give me an example of non-scientific verifiable evidence that would prove a resurrection. In your debate, you said that you wanted something more than "ancient stories" (or written accounts). I see that your example contains written records, like state records, deeds, documents from attorneys, etc. I'm assuming that the "verification" feature in your example are the multiple written sources that corroborate each other. So if I experienced something, and witnesses came in and gave testimony, and it was recorded, then those are multiple sources. By your standards, which hopefully remains consistent, you'd accept my claim.

Scaling this down to historical standards, we have multiple sources of Jesus's death and resurrection. Remember, the Bible is not simply ONE source, but rather a COLLECTION of books from different sources compiled into one book or anthology. So when someone uses one book in the Bible to corroborate with another book that is not necessarily circular reasoning because the books can be from different sources.

Many might say we don't have the originals, but then again we don't have a lot of the originals for other ancient sources neither. They're possibly lost or were never fully compiled and put together in one source as a written account until later on; but nonetheless, we can still establish that the copies stem from earlier sources based on the details were included and weren't included.

[Zzyzx]

.

I do NOT limit evidence to “scientific� – but limit it to VERIFIABLE evidence that is something more than “Take my word for it (or his or this book)�.

As an example of non-scientific verifiable evidence: If I claim to own a certain piece of real estate I can verify the claim with official county and state records, a deed, cadastral maps, title company and attorney documents, etc. NONE of those are “scientific� but all are verifiable.

Give me an example of non-scientific verifiable evidence that would prove a resurrection.

Providing evidence for “resurrections� is YOUR (generic term) problem, NOT mine. I would not take or defend a position unless I knew that I had verifiable evidence.

In your debate, you said that you wanted something more than "ancient stories" (or written accounts). I see that your example contains written records, like state records, deeds, documents from attorneys, etc. I'm assuming that the "verification" feature in your example are the multiple written sources that corroborate each other.

Notice that the sources I cite are disconnected from one another and are matters of official record AND are verifiable. I can produce original documents.

So if I experienced something, and witnesses came in and gave testimony, and it was recorded, then those are multiple sources. By your standards, which hopefully remains consistent, you'd accept my claim.

NOWHERE have I agreed to accept a claim even with witness accounts. Produce the evidence and I (and readers) will evaluate its merits.

Scaling this down to historical standards, we have multiple sources of Jesus's death and resurrection. Remember, the Bible is not simply ONE source, but rather a COLLECTION of books from different sources compiled into one book or anthology.

Bible believers often attempt to claim that the gospels are “multiple sources� – even though the identity of writers is unknown AND there is strong evidence that they copied from one another or a common source.

Writings by several representatives of a company are selected by management to be included in company promotional literature. Some of the writings contain long passages that are identical word-for-word. Is the promotional literature from "multiple sources"?

So when someone uses one book in the Bible to corroborate with another book that is not necessarily circular reasoning because the books can be from different sources.

See company representatives above.

Many might say we don't have the originals, but then again we don't have a lot of the originals for other ancient sources neither.

Is someone here attempting to defend the truth and accuracy of other historical documents? I, for one, do NOT place great confidence in ancient documents of any kind. I place even less confidence in those that tell of magical characters and events.

They're possibly lost or were never fully compiled and put together in one source as a written account until later on; but nonetheless, we can still establish that the copies stem from earlier sources based on the details were included and weren't included.

Does any of that assure that the accounts are truthful and accurate? If Joe writes a story and one of his associates, Jane, writes a similar story and copies some parts of Joe's writing, do we conclude that it must be true?

[OpenYourEyes]

Give me an example of non-scientific verifiable evidence that would prove a resurrection.

Providing evidence for “resurrections� is YOUR (generic term) problem, NOT mine. I would not take or defend a position unless I knew that I had verifiable evidence.

Actually, to keep you from pushing the goal post, you should be obligated to answer, EVEN before the debate starts. For example, if you expect scientific evidence but yet your opponent presents historical evidence, then clearly the debate is a waste of time. BOTH participants went into the debate with false expectations and this is probably just one of the reasons your last 2 or 3 head-to-head opponents, including your current opponent, have gotten frustrated w/ you.

In your debate, you said that you wanted something more than "ancient stories" (or written accounts). I see that your example contains written records, like state records, deeds, documents from attorneys, etc. I'm assuming that the "verification" feature in your example are the multiple written sources that corroborate each other.

Notice that the sources I cite are disconnected from one another and are matters of official record AND are verifiable. I can produce original documents.

You have but the reason I asked is to keep you from changing the goal post. You claim that you want evidence, but it's only smart that your opponent know the type of evidence that you want so he or she can argue on that level. It's only smart that you know what you're talking by knowing what you want, and being CONSISTENT with that, so that if evidence is offered to your standard, you will know to concede.

So if I experienced something, and witnesses came in and gave testimony, and it was recorded, then those are multiple sources. By your standards, which hopefully remains consistent, you'd accept my claim.

NOWHERE have I agreed to accept a claim even with witness accounts. Produce the evidence and I (and readers) will evaluate its merits.

You're being vague which leaves room for you to shift the goal post. You said your goal was something more than just what's written, and now you're throwing in that it has to be "official records" after I gave you an example about multiple witnesses and it being documented.

I'm not sure what distinguishes your standards from an arbitrary standard that someone can just make up at the top of their head, and then keep changing the standard after someone offers evidence that is compatible to a vague standard that you throw out. This is why I asked for a SPECIFIC standard that you'd expect for proving the resurrection. You have history and then you have science. Both are the best tools we have for their respective areas of inquiries.

Scaling this down to historical standards, we have multiple sources of Jesus's death and resurrection. Remember, the Bible is not simply ONE source, but rather a COLLECTION of books from different sources compiled into one book or anthology.

Bible believers often attempt to claim that the gospels are “multiple sources� – even though the identity of writers is unknown AND there is strong evidence that they copied from one another or a common source.

My point was not just about the gospels, but rather the Bible overall. The resurrection is also talked about in 1 Corinthians 15 and in the book of Acts. I believe some of this already came up during your debate, but the point is these books that I mentioned are not from the same source.

Writings by several representatives of a company are selected by management to be included in company promotional literature. Some of the writings contain long passages that are identical word-for-word. Is the promotional literature from "multiple sources"?

In the case of the disciples, if they all experienced similar things, why would they need to write completely dissimilar accounts? The epistles and Acts are not identical to the gospels. John's Gospel is not really identical to the other 3 gospels. While the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) contain a lot of similarities, but there are some differences, as well. One hypothesis to explain both the similarities and differences is the two-source hypothesis.

Out of all of this, I simply hope that it registers with you that it is within the forum rules to use the Bible as historical evidence for claims that relate to history. You seriously need to figure out what you mean by "NON-scientific verifiable evidence that includes something more than written accounts", which by the way can include multiple witness accounts just as in my example.