Did Jesus come back to life and 'ascend' into the sky?

[Zzyzx]

A KEY question is "Did Jesus come back to life and 'ascend' into the sky?"
Unless those claims are true, Christianity is based on fraud.

No contemporary historian, chronicler, recorder, or anyone else mentioned Jesus during his lifetime or told about anything he may have said or done.

Half a century later (40 to 60 years or more), four religion promoters wrote stories about him. The true identity of those 'gospel' writers is unknown to theologians and scholars, AND none of them can be shown to have personally witnessed anything Jesus may have said or done.

AND only ONE of the gospel writers (whoever wrote 'Luke' and 'Acts') described the 'ascension,' AND he admits in his introduction that he is recording what he heard from others.

Of course, Paul/Saul claimed to have met the dead man in a 'vision' (or hallucination or imagination) while blind and delusional for days (and also claiming to have taken a trip to 'the third heaven')

WHY accept such stories as truthful and accurate?

[SiNcE_1985]

So, you don't actually have a good argument.

Opinions.

I am convinced by the arguments.

Shocker. Got it. I mean, it's only one of the most important unproven claims ever made. If it's irrefutable, you could have easily converted me to at least deism just now. Oh well....

The arguments are what they are.

If you ain't convinced by them, then it ain't for you.

We've already been over this ad nauseum. Remember? Hint hint... Actual eyewitness corroboration with Caesar and Joseph Smith's findings of further revelation in the "golden plates"?

Yeah, and I addressed both.

Next..

Then in your worldview, ALL mere hearsay is credible. Right?

No, not all hearsay is credible, just like not all eyewitness testimony is credible.

So much for your gotcha moment.

Hearsay is credible, according to my standards, as long as the source of the hearsay is credible.

Now, I can care less whether you accept my standards...because after all, it is my standard.

You continue to try and belabor a point I never even made. I've explained this over and over again. Any and all resurrection claims, under your worldview, carry equal merit in "truthiness". Does this mean you accept all 'miraculous' claims, from every publication, as factual/actual events?

No, all claims aren't created equal, and would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

I don't know of any other resurrection cases, but in this particular case (with Jesus), evidence has been presented...and I find the evidence persuasive.

Plain and simple.

You think otherwise. Good for you.

Another gross misuse of the term. I will just keep repeating it, because it's fun at this point... You have no rebuttal to the fact that the Bible falls short, even using the lowest of standards, when comparing it's claims to other claims from antiquity. This is evident by the fact that you offer absolutely no rebuttal at all!

Opinions.

Hmm? So, believers are aware that the identified addition poses serious problems? Or is it just another example of believing spinners sinning a narrative?

?

Oh, I addressed it more than once. You handwaved it. By "handwave", I mean "an explanation that glosses over important details, steps, or complexities, often using vague language, intuition, or gestures to seem convincing without true rigor, like a magician distracting you."

Opinions.

I'm not interested in the footnotes to clarify a singular word/other. I've never quibbled with you over 'minor' errors in spelling/other. I'm instead talking about incompatibility. The fact that such an addition is identified, raises question to the historicity to ANY of it.

Um, no..because there is no need to throw the baby out with the bath water.

The historicity and value is in what the earliest manuscripts state.

The questionable, later addition is not valued and is to be taken with a grain of salt, if not completely discarded...which is what has been done.

Remember, according to your given worldview, the Bible only needs to present one identified problem.

Do you have one?

Why do you believe Mark 16:1-8 jives with Mark 16:9-20?

Because when I read it, I don't see any issues.

How many peer-reviewed theoretical sciences do you have to question? Oh, that's right, only the ones which press or contradict your interpreted claims of the Bible.

A reptile evolving to a bird not only contradicts my interpreted claims of the Bible.

But it contradicts my observations in nature.

[POI]

Opinions.

Again, with an improper use of the word.

I am convinced by the arguments.

Yes, even Mr. Hovind has followers. Heck, even "flat earthers" have followers.

The arguments are what they are. If you ain't convinced by them, then it ain't for you.

You have now spent two responses NOT giving me the "absolutely, positive, irrefutable evidence that there exists a cosmic creator of the universe." Since your objective here is to do 'god's work' and bring people to your believed creator, it's funny how you now instead go out of your way NOT to try and actually do it.

Yeah, and I addressed both. Next..

Yeah, via by way of fallacious reasoning.

No, not all hearsay is credible, just like not all eyewitness testimony is credible. So much for your gotcha moment.

Oh, it's a gotcha moment. And you've been got. While using THE given historical method - (in which you never offered any rebuttal for because you know you can't), and while also applying your own standard(s) for scholarly consensus - (in which I will disclose for you again below), why would you include the Bible as credible? I'll save you the time... You have to, because you are in (preservation/defense) mode.

Now, I can care less whether you accept my standards...because after all, it is my standard.

Venom, you do not even follow your OWN given standard. That's the problem. You trip all over yourself, at will, when it suits you. I'll explain more below.

I don't know of any other resurrection cases.

Really? Then you are nowhere near as well-versed as I gave you credit for... There has been plenty of resurrection claims. Based upon your own standards, you will have to employ fallacious reasoning to reject them, while still preserving yours.

Opinions.

Again, it's not an opinion. It's an observable fact. Which is why you must offer yet another handwave. You know the Bible falls short of any actual viable historical standard. Which is why you tuck tale and run from it, and rubberstamp a poorly executed (one-word) response instead.

Um, no..because there is no need to throw the baby out with the bath water. The historicity and value is in what the earliest manuscripts state. The questionable, later addition is not valued and is to be taken with a grain of salt, if not completely discarded...which is what has been done.

Please recall our last exchange, where you stated the following: "the vast majority of scholars on both sides (believers and unbelievers) of the equation agree". As I stated prior, for two sides that don't agree on most things, for them to come together on that point...this means that the evidence must be considerably more plausible than not."

You have sealed your fate. I'm addressing incompatibility at the end of Mark. And according to your own given standard, both sides of the isle agree it is not compatible. Mark 16:9-20 is widely considered incompatible with the rest of the Gospel of Mark based on both external (manuscript) evidence and internal (stylistic and thematic) evidence. Most scholars agree these verses were a later addition to complete the Gospel's original abrupt ending.

Checkmate. I'll await the crash out, or the spinning until nausea occurs.

Do you have one?

Yes. And I'm already smack-dab in the middle of an apologetic spinning session. Meaning, (paraphrased) - "let's not get rid of all of it, just because of the ending in Mark -- which is the part about a resurrection claim BTW.". Well, according to scholarly consensus, it is incompatible. But yea, let's just ignore that little tid-bit.

Because when I read it, I don't see any issues.

According to your own given standard, the scholars know way more than you. And most/all agree it is incompatible. Please try again.

A reptile evolving to a bird not only contradicts my interpreted claims of the Bible. But it contradicts my observations in nature.

The brain rot is strong here... You are forced to step all over yourself, in favor of a book filled with stories that even consensus scholarship concludes are fiction. The majority of Biblical scholars and historians generally agree that a number of major Biblical events in the Old Testament are mythological or legendary in nature and did not happen as described.

Mic drop.

[William]

[Replying to Zzyzx in post #1]

A KEY question is "Did Jesus come back to life and 'ascend' into the sky?"
Unless those claims are true, Christianity is based on fraud.

No contemporary historian, chronicler, recorder, or anyone else mentioned Jesus during his lifetime or told about anything he may have said or done.

Half a century later (40 to 60 years or more), four religion promoters wrote stories about him. The true identity of those 'gospel' writers is unknown to theologians and scholars, AND none of them can be shown to have personally witnessed anything Jesus may have said or done.

AND only ONE of the gospel writers (whoever wrote 'Luke' and 'Acts') described the 'ascension,' AND he admits in his introduction that he is recording what he heard from others.

Of course, Paul/Saul claimed to have met the dead man in a 'vision' (or hallucination or imagination) while blind and delusional for days (and also claiming to have taken a trip to 'the third heaven')

WHY accept such stories as truthful and accurate?

Perhaps the key to answering the question is that it gives purpose and meaning to the
living poor - who make up the majority of those who believe (accept) such stories as truthful and accurate.

In the real, relational terms of those who work vs. those who own:

The bulk of Christian believers are those who work. They are the global working class and peasantry.

The Christian world, demographically, is a sea of laborers, service workers, and small farmers. The capitalists, rentiers, and major owners among them are a small minority, even if their influence over doctrine, media, and politics has been, and often remains, disproportionately large.

The pattern is clear throughout The Humanities, be that political, scholarly, military culturally.
It is my opinion that Christianity is the invention of the rich non-worker as a successful means of controlling the poor masses.

As such, I can accept that the whole is built upon a fiction and am tasked with working out what the problems with that are now (rather than what they have been) and if these problems are something we should be concerned about.

I had a yap with AI about it and then asked it to summarize the conversation.

Summary of the Conversation

1. Initial Question: "Who make up the bulk of Christian believers—the poor or the rich?"

Answer: Demographically, the global poor and working class comprise the overwhelming majority.

2. Refinement: We refined the question from passive wealth categories to active class terms: those who work vs. those who own.

Answer: The bulk of believers are workers (proletariat, peasantry). The institution, however, has historically functioned to serve ruling-class interests by pacifying and controlling that bulk.

3. Your Opinion Emerged: Prompted by a skeptic's challenge to the historical truth of the Resurrection and Ascension, you posited that Christianity is essentially a fiction invented by the rich (non-workers) as a tool for social control.

4. Historical Tension: While acknowledging the potent control function of institutionalized Christianity (especially post-Constantine), I noted its origins were bottom-up—in a subversive, lower-class Jewish apocalyptic movement. The ruling class later co-opted and repurposed this movement, overlaying it with top-down motifs (divine sonship, physical resurrection/ascension) familiar from imperial Roman/Greek ideology to make it a stabilizing force.

5. Core Realization: You then made the crucial observation: the "divine" narrative doesn't transfer power to humans; it has always been a mask for human power. The god-king, the divine right, the sacred hierarchy—all were narrative technologies to legitimize earthly authority.

6. The Present Problem: Therefore, the central issue today is not the fiction itself, but the crisis of legitimacy and meaning that occurs when the mask is removed. If obedience was once justified by "God's will," what is the honest, secular foundation for social cohesion, morality, and political authority in a post-fictional age?

7. The Final Challenge: The conversation concludes at this practical, philosophical juncture. The task is no longer deconstruction, but construction: devising a workable, humane social contract and shared meaning that does not rely on a celestial fiction, acknowledging that real power has always been, and will remain, human.

eta:
The Maker in the Mirror:
Power, Presence, and the End of the Two-World Illusion

[SiNcE_1985]

Yes, even Mr. Hovind has followers. Heck, even "flat earthers" have followers.

Heck, even Jesus have followers.

You have now spent two responses NOT giving me the "absolutely, positive, irrefutable evidence that there exists a cosmic creator of the universe." Since your objective here is to do 'god's work' and bring people to your believed creator, it's funny how you now instead go out of your way NOT to try and actually do it.

You know me...and you know where I'm at with it.

It is disingenuous of you to maintain this^, when it was you who created a thread on the KCA at my request, and you didn't even show up for it...when I was there, ready to go.

Remember that?

Readers are welcome to check out that thread, where I had to dang near pull your teeth in efforts to get you to engage me in debate, and you STILL didn't engage.

Plus, my past posts/threads speak for themselves.

So far from going out of my way to not do God's work.

I'm here, ain't I?

Oh, it's a gotcha moment. And you've been got. While using THE given historical method - (in which you never offered any rebuttal for because you know you can't), and while also applying your own standard(s) for scholarly consensus - (in which I will disclose for you again below), why would you include the Bible as credible? I'll save you the time... You have to, because you are in (preservation/defense) mode.

If scholarly consensus is that Jesus existed (which, it is), then obviously they've drawn this conclusion based on the historical method.

I view the Bible credible because it is internally consistent, in my opinion.

Now, I just threw you an alley oop so that you can dunk it, by articulating how it isn't internally consistent.

Create one of your infamous threads, or do whatever it is you do.

Really? Then you are nowhere near as well-versed as I gave you credit for...

Guilty as charged.

There has been plenty of resurrection claims. Based upon your own standards, you will have to employ fallacious reasoning to reject them, while still preserving yours.

Oh? Ok...enlighten me on claims of which..

1. Person X predicted both their future and immediate death at the hands of others.

2. Person X was killed violently at the hands of others.

3. Person X was buried in a tomb/grave/casket.

4. Person X's tomb/casket/grave was discovered empty of his/her body.

5. People genuinely believed that they seen Person X alive, fine, and in good health.

Second, even if a person checks each of those 5 off the list, this would still be proof of a God who exists, and performs miracles...as I believe anyway.

So hey..good luck with that one, buddy.

Again, it's not an opinion. It's an observable fact. Which is why you must offer yet another handwave. You know the Bible falls short of any actual viable historical standard. Which is why you tuck tale and run from it, and rubberstamp a poorly executed (one-word) response instead.

Um, no.

When I say "opinions", I am responding to a statement of zero substance.

Since the statement has zero substance, it is not worth it for me to provide a thoughtful response to zero substance.

So, I say "opinions"...and keep it moving.

Please recall our last exchange, where you stated the following: "the vast majority of scholars on both sides (believers and unbelievers) of the equation agree". As I stated prior, for two sides that don't agree on most things, for them to come together on that point...this means that the evidence must be considerably more plausible than not."

You have sealed your fate. I'm addressing incompatibility at the end of Mark. And according to your own given standard, both sides of the isle agree it is not compatible. Mark 16:9-20 is widely considered incompatible with the rest of the Gospel of Mark based on both external (manuscript) evidence and internal (stylistic and thematic) evidence. Most scholars agree these verses were a later addition to complete the Gospel's original abrupt ending.

Checkmate. I'll await the crash out, or the spinning until nausea occurs.

First of all, I'm not aware of scholars concluding that the interpolation of Mark's ending being discarded because of any incompatibilities that it has with the rest of the book.

However, I am aware of it being discarded, because it is not included in the earliest manuscripts we have of the book.

I need specifics as to what/why it is found to be incompatible.

In fact, I just reread verses 9-20 and I simply do not see any red flags of incompatibility.

I don't see it, probably because there isn't any incompatibilities, and this is just a prime example of skeptics being skeptics.

Yes. And I'm already smack-dab in the middle of an apologetic spinning session. Meaning, (paraphrased) - "let's not get rid of all of it, just because of the ending in Mark

One bad grape on the vine doesn't tarnish the other 75.

-- which is the part about a resurrection claim BTW.".

Verses 6-7 is all we need to get the "He is risen" point across...and that's what we got.

We are cool with that.

Well, according to scholarly consensus, it is incompatible. But yea, let's just ignore that little tid-bit.

Notice you ain't drop one example of this incompatibility yet.

Not one tid bit.

According to your own given standard, the scholars know way more than you. And most/all agree it is incompatible. Please try again.

Still nothing.

The brain rot is strong here... You are forced to step all over yourself, in favor of a book filled with stories that even consensus scholarship concludes are fiction. The majority of Biblical scholars and historians generally agree that a number of major Biblical events in the Old Testament are mythological or legendary in nature and did not happen as described.

Mic drop.

Guess what, the majority of Christian/Jewish scholars and historians don't generally agree with that.

Next..

[POI]

It is disingenuous of you to maintain this

No it's not. I do not expect you to recall any and all exchanges we've ever had. If you want to make such a BOLD claim, at least state the topic. And if you are still stuck on the KCA, I've addressed this with you, and others. Since it's likely (absolutely nothing) never actually existed, then there is no logical necessity for a creator.

If scholarly consensus is that Jesus existed (which, it is), then obviously they've drawn this conclusion based on the historical method. I view the Bible credible because it is internally consistent, in my opinion. Now, I just threw you an alley oop so that you can dunk it, by articulating how it isn't internally consistent. Create one of your infamous threads, or do whatever it is you do.

You have a very short memory. Based upon YOUR epistemology, you can conclude that a Jesus existed, but you must then reject Christianity, as the same majority scholarship rejects the literal claimed events in which you require to be literal.

Guilty as charged.

No wonder you are so "lost in the sauce". Here I thought I was conversing with an opponent which was aware of such comparative historical claims from antiquity.

Oh? Ok...enlighten me on claims of which..

1. Person X predicted both their future and immediate death at the hands of others.

2. Person X was killed violently at the hands of others.

3. Person X was buried in a tomb/grave/casket.

4. Person X's tomb/casket/grave was discovered empty of his/her body.

5. People genuinely believed that they seen Person X alive, fine, and in good health.

Second, even if a person checks each of those 5 off the list, this would still be proof of a God who exists, and performs miracles...as I believe anyway.

So hey..good luck with that one, buddy.

No need for luck. All such claims are from hearsay alone. And hearsay is NOT verified eyewitness attestation, as much you would like for it to be.

Um, no. When I say "opinions", I am responding to a statement of zero substance. Since the statement has zero substance, it is not worth it for me to provide a thoughtful response to zero substance. So, I say "opinions"...and keep it moving.

And when I use THE historical method to plug in the claims from the Bible, it fares objectively low, in comparison to many/most other claims from antiquity. We already went over a few in the last thread.

First of all, I'm not aware of scholars concluding that the interpolation of Mark's ending being discarded because of any incompatibilities that it has with the rest of the book.

You are now aware that the added ending is not compatible, per scholarly consensus. Do you state otherwise? If so, per YOUR standard, and per your prior response(s). I can ignore your 'opinions', and defer to the scholars over yours.

I need specifics as to what/why it is found to be incompatible.

All you need to know is that the majority states it is incompatible. If you need specifics on top of this, you are then moving the goalposts. Again, pick a lane Venom.

In fact, I just reread verses 9-20 and I simply do not see any red flags of incompatibility. I don't see it, probably because there isn't any incompatibilities, and this is just a prime example of skeptics being skeptics.

Well, according to YOU, the scholars know more. And since they mostly confirm incompatibility, then you must concede. Unless you now wish to move the goalposts.

One bad grape on the vine doesn't tarnish the other 75.

Another goalpost move, coming from a claimed "Biblical Inerrantist".

Verses 6-7 is all we need to get the "He is risen" point across...and that's what we got. We are cool with that.

Since we now objectively know Mark 16 has been tampered with, why should anyone even trust what verses 6-7 asserts? Remember, none of this was preserved either. We are addressing copies of copies of copies of copies.

Still nothing.

More handwaving. Figures.

Guess what, the majority of Christian/Jewish scholars and historians don't generally agree with that. Next..

Yes, they do...

The vast majority of Biblical and historical scholars agree that many Bible stories aren't literal history but incorporate myth, allegory, oral tradition, and historical memory, functioning as theological narratives with deeper spiritual meanings, rather than strict factual accounts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historici ... %20reality).

Sorry dude, you were indoctrinated into the wrong religion. Maybe now you can stop denying the peer-reviewed theoretical sciences.

[SiNcE_1985]

No it's not. I do not expect you to recall any and all exchanges we've ever had. If you want to make such a BOLD claim, at least state the topic. And if you are still stuck on the KCA, I've addressed this with you, and others. Since it's likely (absolutely nothing) never actually existed, then there is no logical necessity for a creator.

Conversation for another day.

You have a very short memory. Based upon YOUR epistemology, you can conclude that a Jesus existed, but you must then reject Christianity, as the same majority scholarship rejects the literal claimed events in which you require to be literal.

Um, no.

Again, two things can be true at the same time.

Scholars may be in almost universal agreement that Jesus of Nazareth existed, while at the same time divided on whether he is the risen Messiah.

So slow your road.

No need for luck. All such claims are from hearsay alone. And hearsay is NOT verified eyewitness attestation, as much you would like for it to be.

I already shared my stance on hearsay testimony.

And when I use THE historical method to plug in the claims from the Bible, it fares objectively low, in comparison to many/most other claims from antiquity. We already went over a few in the last thread.

That's your assessment. I beg to differ.

You are now aware that the added ending is not compatible, per scholarly consensus. Do you state otherwise? If so, per YOUR standard, and per your prior response(s). I can ignore your 'opinions', and defer to the scholars over yours.

Reading comprehension.

I'm saying the added ending is not compatible with the earliest manuscripts..but it isn't incompatible with Christian doctrine or the Gospel, in general.

All you need to know is that the majority states it is incompatible.
If you need specifics on top of this, you are then moving the goalposts. Again, pick a lane Venom.

So basically, "I don't have specifics. I'm just saying shit".

That's what I got out of it.

Well, according to YOU, the scholars know more. And since they mostly confirm incompatibility, then you must concede. Unless you now wish to move the goalposts.

I'm not granting you that that is what scholars are saying in this regard.

Another goalpost move, coming from a claimed "Biblical Inerrantist".

Um, no.

Biblical inerrancy is the idea that the Bible is without error or mistakes, in its original writings from the authors who wrote it.

That has nothing to do with translation, or scribal errors...or later interpolations.

Here, hold this L.

Since we now objectively know Mark 16 has been tampered with, why should anyone even trust what verses 6-7 asserts?

It was tampered with LATER.

If I, in 2025, decided to take the Declaration of Independence and add to it...and you know full well that what I added to it isn't what the earliest copies have...do you throw out the entire Declaration of Independence because of my later addition?

No, you wouldn't.

Well, don't do it for Gospel of Mark.

Remember, none of this was preserved either. We are addressing copies of copies of copies of copies.

What a foolish statement to make.

The copies of copies of copies, is precisely what makes the books preserved.

If I make 500,000 copies of X...and a 100 copies gets destroyed or lost...guess what, the other 499,000 are still preserved.

The more copies you have, the more it is preserved..and the Bible is the most copied book in the history of copying books.

Which means that folks were serious about keeping the message preserved and intact...because God's word is serious business.

Or did you not know that?

Here, hold this L.

No charge for the lesson.

Yes, they do...

The vast majority of Biblical and historical scholars agree that many Bible stories aren't literal history but incorporate myth, allegory, oral tradition, and historical memory, functioning as theological narratives with deeper spiritual meanings, rather than strict factual accounts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historici ... %20reality).

Sorry dude, you were indoctrinated into the wrong religion. Maybe now you can stop denying the peer-reviewed theoretical sciences.

I specifically said CHRISTIAN scholars/historians.

[POI]

Um, no. Again, two things can be true at the same time. Scholars may be in almost universal agreement that Jesus of Nazareth existed, while at the same time divided on whether he is the risen Messiah. So slow your road.

You are applying wishful thinking. Most scholars include most scholars -- (believing or not). BTW, its "slow your roll."

I already shared my stance on hearsay testimony.

Hearsay statements, offered to prove the truth of a matter asserted, is generally inadmissible in court because its unreliable secondhand information -- preventing cross-examination and/or verification of the original speaker to test their credibility. Since such a claim hinge(s) upon firsthand vetted eyewitnesses accounts, for which we have NONE, you are S.O.L. Sorry dude.

That's your assessment. I beg to differ.

Another mere handwave. Typical.

I'm saying the added ending is not compatible with the earliest manuscripts..but it isn't incompatible with Christian doctrine or the Gospel, in general.

If you want to get THIS general, then practically anything really goes. This is nothing more than an apologetic pivot. The later additions demonstrate how 'Mark' is even less trustworthy.

So basically, "I don't have specifics. I'm just saying shit". That's what I got out of it.

I'm mimicking your M.O. Venom. If you don't like it, then stop doing it. Again, please recall exactly what you stated prior: "for two sides that don't agree on most things, for them to come together on that point...this means that the evidence must be considerably more plausible than not."

You never bothered to argue the actual WHY(s). You just gave what you gave above, in that it must be more plausible because both sides align. As I stated, if you wish to live by the sword, then you most certainly will also die by the sword. So, I ask anew, like I repeatedly did in the other thread, for which you ignored. Are you going to continue to:

a) appeal to authority/majority
b) pivot

I know it sucks for you, being you are caught in between a rock and hard place,... But hey, it is what it is...

I'm not granting you that that is what scholars are saying in this regard.

Then you are wrong, again.

Um, no. Biblical inerrancy is the idea that the Bible is without error or mistakes, in its original writings from the authors who wrote it. That has nothing to do with translation, or scribal errors...or later interpolations.

I'm responding to your statement -- "One bad grape on the vine doesn't tarnish the other 75."

The addition of verses Mark 16:9-20 (modifies/changes) historicity. Therefore, all it takes is one "bad grape" and it is game over for you, unless you continue to want to pivot some more...?

It was tampered with LATER.

Here's a question you cannot answer. Please demonstrate what exactly was contained in the actual original manuscript of Mark? This is my point, the fact that we have evidence of "revision", by other anonymous unvetted author(s), does not help your faith-based cause in the least.

If I, in 2025, decided to take the Declaration of Independence and add to it...and you know full well that what I added to it isn't what the earliest copies have...do you throw out the entire Declaration of Independence because of my later addition?

This is a BAD analogy. Without knowing what was in the actual original document, it's a free-for-all.

What a foolish statement to make.

Oh wow! You can provide scholars with the preserved original(s)? Again, I won't hold my breath.

The copies of copies of copies, is precisely what makes the books preserved.

What makes something preserved is when you actually HAVE the originals. We don't. You have absolutely NO IDEA what was modified and where? Welp, we know later writers CHANGED things. Who the hell know what else was changed (for decades or more)? And to add further insult to injury, we do not know who actually wrote and/or changed what? The reason this is paramount here is because the claim(s) to a one-time claimed miraculous event rise and fall based upon verified eyewitness attestation -- in which you agree we do not have. Doh!

If I make 500,000 copies of X...and a 100 copies gets destroyed or lost...guess what, the other 499,000 are still preserved. The more copies you have, the more it is preserved..and the Bible is the most copied book in the history of copying books. Which means that folks were serious about keeping the message preserved and intact...because God's word is serious business. Or did you not know that?

LOL! The earliest full copy we have spans century(s) later. So yea, making a "ga-jillion" copies, centuries later, only verifies if changes were still made centuries later as well. No one is arguing for that. But we have no clue as to what was changed for the first century or more.?.?.?.?

I specifically said CHRISTIAN scholars/historians.

The response includes them. Sorry, you either need to stick to your guns and go down with the ship here, or, pivot. I know it sucks for you. But hey, this is what you get when you shill out bad apologetics for a "risen Jesus".

[SiNcE_1985]

You are applying wishful thinking. Most scholars include most scholars

Yeah, but those scholars may be divided on specifics while in agreement on generalities.

Next..

-- (believing or not). BTW, its "slow your roll."

Oh, is that right?

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... our%20road

It could go either way.

Gotcha moment; failed yet again.

Here, hold this L.

Hearsay statements, offered to prove the truth of a matter asserted, is generally inadmissible in court because its unreliable secondhand information -- preventing cross-examination and/or verification of the original speaker to test their credibility. Since such a claim hinge(s) upon firsthand vetted eyewitnesses accounts, for which we have NONE, you are S.O.L. Sorry dude.

Yeah, but the problem with that is; this ain't court.

And my standards are my standards.

If I view a person as reliable and trustworthy, then I'll accept their hearsay testimony.

If you want to get THIS general, then practically anything really goes. This is nothing more than an apologetic pivot. The later additions demonstrate how 'Mark' is even less trustworthy.

Opinions.

I'm mimicking your M.O. Venom. If you don't like it, then stop doing it. Again, please recall exactly what you stated prior: "for two sides that don't agree on most things, for them to come together on that point...this means that the evidence must be considerably more plausible than not."

You never bothered to argue the actual WHY(s). You just gave what you gave above, in that it must be more plausible because both sides align. As I stated, if you wish to live by the sword, then you most certainly will also die by the sword. So, I ask anew, like I repeatedly did in the other thread, for which you ignored. Are you going to continue to:

a) appeal to authority/majority
b) pivot

I know it sucks for you, being you are caught in between a rock and hard place,... But hey, it is what it is...

If both sides are willing to agree that Jesus exist, then that's where both sides agree the evidence is pointing.

And the fact that some of these scholars aren't Christian, this conclusion that they draw based on the evidence is completely unbiased.

And unbiased opinions are something that I value.

You don't have to value it^, but I do.

That is why.

I'm responding to your statement -- "One bad grape on the vine doesn't tarnish the other 75."

The addition of verses Mark 16:9-20 (modifies/changes) historicity. Therefore, all it takes is one "bad grape" and it is game over for you, unless you continue to want to pivot some more...?

We disagree.

I already stated my position on the one bad grape thing...and I'm not about to go back and forth with you about it.

Here's a question you cannot answer. Please demonstrate what exactly was contained in the actual original manuscript of Mark?

I don't know...but since we don't have the original manuscripts of any ancient documents, that shouldn't be a point of emphasis.

This is my point, the fact that we have evidence of "revision", by other anonymous unvetted author(s), does not help your faith-based cause in the least.

It helps my faith-based cause that we have earlier manuscripts which gets us closer to the originals.

The closer you get to the originals, the more truth value you obtain.

If that's not good enough for you, too bad.

This is a BAD analogy. Without knowing what was in the actual original document, it's a free-for-all.

It doesn't matter. We don't have to have the original document.

Obviously, if the earliest copies dont have verses 9-20, then the verses weren't in the original.

Oh wow! You can provide scholars with the preserved original(s)? Again, I won't hold my breath.

Um, no.

Scholars don't need originals to establish the historicity of other ancient documents...so no need to get all crazy and demand that of the Gospels.

What makes something preserved is when you actually HAVE the originals. We don't.

We don't have the originals for any ancient document, yet, historians are still able to do... history.

I guess the accessibility of original documents just ain't needed for historical inquiry..unlike what you seem to be inaccurately suggesting.

You have absolutely NO IDEA what was modified and where? Welp, we know later writers CHANGED things. Who the hell know what else was changed (for decades or more)?

If the later additions means it can't be trusted...then the earlier texts without the additions means it can.

So, where do you draw the line?

You draw the line by acknowledging the interpolation and informing the reader of it (should you decide to include it in the text), or you don't include the verses at all.

That is about the best we can/will do.

If that's not good enough for you, oh well.

And to add further insult to injury, we do not know who actually wrote and/or changed what? The reason this is paramount here is because the claim(s) to a one-time claimed miraculous event rise and fall based upon verified eyewitness attestation -- in which you agree we do not have. Doh!

We have what we have.

Going back and forth with a person who admitted he won't believe regardless of what we have, is crazy work on my end.

LOL! The earliest full copy we have spans century(s) later.

Yeah, but some of the early Church Fathers were already either quoting from or alluding to the Gospels centuries before that..which takes us to the second century.

And pieces of certain manuscripts that were discovered, can be dated also to the second century.

Obviously, fragmented pieces of text is all part of an earlier, bigger story and narrative.

So yea, making a "ga-jillion" copies, centuries later, only verifies if changes were still made centuries later as well. No one is arguing for that. But we have no clue as to what was changed for the first century or more.?.?.?.?

We don't, but what we have is good enough for us, and in comparison to other ancient works that are still viewed as viable despite not having no where near the copies or preservation as the Bible.

The response includes them. Sorry, you either need to stick to your guns and go down with the ship here, or, pivot. I know it sucks for you. But hey, this is what you get when you shill out bad apologetics for a "risen Jesus".

Opinions.

[POI]

Yeah, but those scholars may be divided on specifics while in agreement on generalities. Next..

You can't have it both ways Venom. You are, again, tripping all over yourself. The same scholars, which is almost all of them, agree a Jesus existed, just like they almost all unanimously agree that the "Adam and Eve" story, "the Exodus", etc, were not literal tales. So, again... Do you:

a) appeal to authority/majority
b) pivot

As for a Jesus, and the sighted stories in Genesis/Exodus, you cannot choose both, for logical and obvious reasons. It's one or the other.

It could go either way.

WOW! I actually learned something from you here today. Go figure. Too bad it only pertains to a mere synonym of a given street slang term.

Yeah, but the problem with that is; this ain't court. And my standards are my standards. If I view a person as reliable and trustworthy, then I'll accept their hearsay testimony.

Based upon THE historical method, for which you continue to completely handwave without offering any (alternative standard in its place) in evaluating/discerning veracity, the gospels possess objectively low levels of trustworthiness. This is NOT opinion. Address the historical method for details.

Opinions.

Another handwave... Before continuing in this discussion, you may want to assure that your electrolytes are in balance, so you to not get a hand cramp.

If both sides are willing to agree that Jesus exist, then that's where both sides agree the evidence is pointing. And the fact that some of these scholars aren't Christian, this conclusion that they draw based on the evidence is completely unbiased. And unbiased opinions are something that I value. You don't have to value it^, but I do. That is why.

Great! Then since you believe that many claims from the Bible were literal events, while most scholars, on both sides of the isle do not, you have a major choice to make here....

a) abandon your faith
b) pivot severely

What's it going to be? If you choose a), then congrats on remaining consistent in your epistemology. If you instead opt for option b), then you can maybe begin to join logic and reason again, by no longer being forced to deny peer-reviewed theoretical sciences irrationally. But you will still have a major uphill battle, as you will then need to find out how to place all those square pegs into all those round holes. That will be a 'B" I'm sure... Decisions decision...? Let me know what you have decided? Inquiring minds want to know?

We disagree. I already stated my position on the one bad grape thing...and I'm not about to go back and forth with you about it.

You don't need to go back and forth. Remember what I asked you in the last thread... How many deemed untrue claims from the Bible have to occur, based upon scholarly consensus, before you chuck the book out the window? 1, 2, 5, 7?

Well, since we agree verses 9-20 is untrue, as you admit it is a 'tampered' addition, then it's already game over, as you stated you would only need 1. So, I guess you are a generic theist/deist now?

I don't know...

BINGO! No one knows. And not only do we not know what the original state(s), we do not know who wrote it either. Which then means we logically do not know where they obtained their source information. Which also means we do not know of their motivation(s) for writing what they wrote. But we DO know tampering took place. We were able to catch the later ones. Too bad all the earlier copies are long-gone. There is no way to compare what else may have been tampered with?..?? Just like there is no way to know of the true motivation(s), as we cannot identify the source, unlike the writings of Paul for instance.

but since we don't have the original manuscripts of any ancient documents, that shouldn't be a point of emphasis.

I've already explained. In using THE historical method, the already identified OTHER factors validate these other claims. However, where the Gospels are concerned, we do not have any of them. So basically, it is quite circular to believe the claims of the Gospels, merely because the claim(s) are made, without being able to also cross-reference any other points of reference - like we can with other claims from antiquity. And why can't we? Because there aren't any, like there is with many other claims from ancient antiquity. :/

It helps my faith-based cause that we have earlier manuscripts which gets us closer to the originals. The closer you get to the originals, the more truth value you obtain. If that's not good enough for you, too bad.

Then your standard is to the point of blind faith and circular reasoning alone. The Bible fails THE historical method, while using even the lowest of standards. Again, we do not have the originals. A matter of fact, decades and decades pass before we even get close to finding a full manuscript. Many gospels were written and only (4) made the cut, via the 'church'. All sorts of stuff were written and was not preserved. But with what we DO have, we have evidence of tampering. Which leads us to believe the tampering did not merely start when we happen to find it in a preserved re-copied copy.

The term tampering is NOT compatible with truth.

It doesn't matter. We don't have to have the original document. Obviously, if the earliest copies dont have verses 9-20, then the verses weren't in the original.

Since you do not know WHAT was in the original, then you cannot tell me that verses 6-7 were even in there.

Um, no. Scholars don't need originals to establish the historicity of other ancient documents...so no need to get all crazy and demand that of the Gospels.

We have confirmed tampering Venom. The oldest found copy of Mark 16 dates to the 300's AD. If your view is that Mark was originally written before 100 AD, then this is a minimum of 200 years for taperers to tamper. But I'm sure there was not. No, it ONLY started "LATER."

We don't have the originals for any ancient document, yet, historians are still able to do... history.

Yes. This is because they can find external evidence(s) to validate the claim(s). However, with the Gospels, all we have are the Gospels. And we know they possess tampering. Yet again, using THE historical method, the Gospels are QUITE limited. This is where a whole heap of faith is required.

If the later additions means it can't be trusted...then the earlier texts without the additions means it can.

Then you would HAVE to assume that the tampering ONLY started later. Again, this is a faith claim. Remember, we are talking about Scripture here. Not any other run-o-da-mill human compiled collection of writings.

So, where do you draw the line? You draw the line by acknowledging the interpolation and informing the reader of it (should you decide to include it in the text), or you don't include the verses at all. That is about the best we can/will do. If that's not good enough for you, oh well.

See above.

We have what we have. Going back and forth with a person who admitted he won't believe regardless of what we have, is crazy work on my end.

This is code for, "we've got very little, but I believe it anyways". Why can I say this about you? You have no counter argument (in regard to how poorly the Gospels stand against the historical method).

Yeah, but some of the early Church Fathers were already either quoting from or alluding to the Gospels centuries before that..which takes us to the second century.

LOL! Wow, which means we only have 100-150+ years of unverified, unvetted, unsupervised, and unregulated possible tampering; instead of 200-250+ years. Weee!

And pieces of certain manuscripts that were discovered, can be dated also to the second century. Obviously, fragmented pieces of text is all part of an earlier, bigger story and narrative.

Hahahaha! I'm not going to keep belaboring the same obvious points. In your faith, you are forced to cling to scraps alone, literally.

We don't, but what we have is good enough for us, and in comparison to other ancient works that are still viewed as viable despite not having no where near the copies or preservation as the Bible.

LOL! Again, address the historical method. The Gospels fail objectively -- when compared to the many aforementioned characters, (for which you brought forth), from antiquity.

Opinions.

Another massive handwave.

[SiNcE_1985]

You can't have it both ways Venom. You are, again, tripping all over yourself. The same scholars, which is almost all of them, agree a Jesus existed, just like they almost all unanimously agree that the "Adam and Eve" story, "the Exodus", etc, were not literal tales. So, again... Do you:

a) appeal to authority/majority
b) pivot

As for a Jesus, and the sighted stories in Genesis/Exodus, you cannot choose both, for logical and obvious reasons. It's one or the other

You are WRONG..and the fact that you can't see the error of your ways, is quite remarkable.

No, it can't be the same scholars, because some of those scholars include Judeo-Christians, who obviously wouldn't take the mythical/legendary position as it pertains to Adam/Eve, the Exodus, the Flood, etc.

Being wrong all the time doesn't seem to bother you..but it should.

WOW! I actually learned something from you here today. Go figure. Too bad it only pertains to a mere synonym of a given street slang term.

I'm from the streets.

Based upon THE historical method, for which you continue to completely handwave without offering any (alternative standard in its place) in evaluating/discerning veracity, the gospels possess objectively low levels of trustworthiness. This is NOT opinion. Address the historical method for details.

I disagree with your premise that the resurrection account, and Jesus' existence in general...does not meet the standards of the historical method.

Another handwave... Before continuing in this discussion, you may want to assure that your electrolytes are in balance, so you to not get a hand cramp.

Sometimes, a handwave is all a response is worth.

Great! Then since you believe that many claims from the Bible were literal events, while most scholars, on both sides of the isle do not, you have a major choice to make here....

a) abandon your faith
b) pivot severely

What's it going to be? If you choose a), then congrats on remaining consistent in your epistemology. If you instead opt for option b), then you can maybe begin to join logic and reason again, by no longer being forced to deny peer-reviewed theoretical sciences irrationally. But you will still have a major uphill battle, as you will then need to find out how to place all those square pegs into all those round holes. That will be a 'B" I'm sure... Decisions decision...? Let me know what you have decided? Inquiring minds want to know?

A or B, huh?

This is the false dichotomy fallacy.

Just one fallacy after another.

It's a crying shame.

You don't need to go back and forth. Remember what I asked you in the last thread... How many deemed untrue claims from the Bible have to occur, based upon scholarly consensus, before you chuck the book out the window? 1, 2, 5, 7?

Well, since we agree verses 9-20 is untrue, as you admit it is a 'tampered' addition, then it's already game over, as you stated you would only need 1. So, I guess you are a generic theist/deist now?

First of all, I never once said that verses 9-20 is untrue...so everything you said after that false (and disingenuous) premise is just as false as the premise itself.

Not only didn't I say it, but I stated that those verses could very well be historical.

Remember that?

Here, hold this L.

BINGO! No one knows. And not only do we not know what the original state(s), we do not know who wrote it either. Which then means we logically do not know where they obtained their source information. Which also means we do not know of their motivation(s) for writing what they wrote. But we DO know tampering took place. We were able to catch the later ones. Too bad all the earlier copies are long-gone. There is no way to compare what else may have been tampered with?..?? Just like there is no way to know of the true motivation(s), as we cannot identify the source, unlike the writings of Paul for instance.

The early church leaders seemed to have a good grasp on who wrote what.

They were living close to the times and events in question, than the skeptics living 2,000 later on internet message forums who has a lot to say about stuff that don't concern them.

I'm rocking with the early church leaders. If it was good enough for them, it's good enough for me.

I've already explained. In using THE historical method, the already identified OTHER factors validate these other claims. However, where the Gospels are concerned, we do not have any of them. So basically, it is quite circular to believe the claims of the Gospels, merely because the claim(s) are made, without being able to also cross-reference any other points of reference - like we can with other claims from antiquity. And why can't we? Because there aren't any, like there is with many other claims from ancient antiquity. :/

"I'm not eating the prison food regardless of what they serve, because the food just isn't good".

"Even if the food was good in prison, I still wouldn't eat it".

That is basically what you're saying. We don't have this/that...but even if we had it, I still wouldn't believe it.

That's some crazy work right there.

Anyways, no matter what you say we have; I'm convinced by the little we do have.

Then your standard is to the point of blind faith and circular reasoning alone. The Bible fails THE historical method, while using even the lowest of standards. Again, we do not have the originals. A matter of fact, decades and decades pass before we even get close to finding a full manuscript. Many gospels were written and only (4) made the cut, via the 'church'. All sorts of stuff were written and was not preserved. But with what we DO have, we have evidence of tampering. Which leads us to believe the tampering did not merely start when we happen to find it in a preserved re-copied copy.

If we had the originals, would you believe it?

No?

Moving along.

Since you do not know WHAT was in the original, then you cannot tell me that verses 6-7 were even in there.

Oh, well, all the documents/manuscripts that pertains to all the evidence involving your beloved Julius Caesar...guess what? We don't have the original documents of any of it.

So, since we don't have the originals, you can't tell me what was originally there... therefore, the entire thing can't be trusted.

Now, how you love that?

So, the entire genre of history is flushed down the toilet based on such ridiculous standards.

Crazy work.

We have confirmed tampering Venom. The oldest found copy of Mark 16 dates to the 300's AD. If your view is that Mark was originally written before 100 AD, then this is a minimum of 200 years for taperers to tamper. But I'm sure there was not. No, it ONLY started "LATER."

Nonsense.

If the book was tampered with, then we would have evidence of this tampering...we would have copies upon copies with all different kinds of variations and interpolations.

But we don't have that, do we? No, we don't.

All we have is an interpolation from someone who felt compelled to add chapter due to the chapters abrupt ending.

The other 15 chapters are the same across the board.

Yes. This is because they can find external evidence(s) to validate the claim(s). However, with the Gospels, all we have are the Gospels.

Nonsense.

This is based on the false premise that the Gospels need external evidence supporting it in order to be validated.

The Gospels are independent books which validate each other.

And we know they possess tampering. Yet again, using THE historical method, the Gospels are QUITE limited. This is where a whole heap of faith is required.

Opinions.

Then you would HAVE to assume that the tampering ONLY started later. Again, this is a faith claim. Remember, we are talking about Scripture here. Not any other run-o-da-mill human compiled collection of writings.

Well, once you provide evidence of some earlier tampering, I'll take it into consideration.

After all, for all we know, all ancient writings could have been tampered with..since we don't have the originals of any of it...according to your ridiculous, laymen, unscholarly standard(s).

This is code for, "we've got very little, but I believe it anyways". Why can I say this about you? You have no counter argument (in regard to how poorly the Gospels stand against the historical method).

Um, no.

We have a lot, that's why I believe.

Obviously, it can never be enough to a person who won't believe regardless of how much we have.

As I said, we have what we have.

LOL! Wow, which means we only have 100-150+ years of unverified, unvetted, unsupervised, and unregulated possible tampering; instead of 200-250+ years. Weee!

And since the originals were written between the 50s-60s CE, which is only 20-25 years after the events in question, we can narrow it down even further.

Weee!

Hahahaha! I'm not going to keep belaboring the same obvious points. In your faith, you are forced to cling to scraps alone, literally.

The same obvious point is this; we have what we have.

And I'm convinced with what we have.

LOL! Again, address the historical method. The Gospels fail objectively -- when compared to the many aforementioned characters, (for which you brought forth), from antiquity.

Nah, no originals from those cats. We need originals.

No originals = no trust. This is your logic...now apply this silly logic to those aforementioned characters, and proceed to wiping them, along with history, from......HISTORY.