Can you please provide evidence for these Biblical events?

[Compassionist]

Can you please provide evidence for the following Biblical events?

1. Creation Miracles (Genesis 1–3)

Creation of the universe: God creates light, sky, land, seas, plants, stars, animals, and humans in six days.
Creation of angels: Implied in passages like Job 38:4–7; often considered an early act before physical creation.
Creation of Adam and Eve: God forms Adam from dust and breathes life into him; Eve is made from Adam’s rib.
Creation of other organisms: All species of plants and animals are said to have been created by divine command.
The Garden of Eden: A paradise created for Adam and Eve.
The Fall: The serpent speaks; Adam and Eve eat forbidden fruit and are evicted from Eden; curses are pronounced.

2. Early Genesis Miracles

The mark and protection of Cain (Genesis 4:15).
The longevity of pre-Flood humans (many living 900+ years).
Noah’s Flood (Genesis 6–9): God floods the entire world, saving only Noah, his family, and the animals in the ark.
The rainbow covenant: God sets a rainbow as a sign of the promise never again to flood the earth.
Confusion of languages at Babel (Genesis 11): Humanity’s speech is divided, and people scatter across the world.

3. Miracles in the Patriarchal Era (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph)

Call of Abram: God speaks directly to Abram (Genesis 12).
Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah: Fire and brimstone from heaven (Genesis 19).
Lot’s wife turned to salt (Genesis 19:26).
Birth of Isaac to elderly Sarah (Genesis 21).
God’s testing of Abraham: A ram provided in place of Isaac (Genesis 22).
Jacob’s ladder dream and wrestling with God (Genesis 28; Genesis 32).
Joseph’s prophetic dreams and interpretations (Genesis 37–41).

4. Miracles of Moses and the Exodus

The burning bush (Exodus 3).
Staff turned into a serpent (Exodus 4).
The Ten Plagues on Egypt (Exodus 7–12):

1. Water to blood
2. Frogs
3. Gnats or lice
4. Flies
5. Livestock disease
6. Boils
7. Hail
8. Locusts
9. Darkness
10. Death of the firstborn
The Passover protection (Israelites spared).
Parting of the Red Sea (Exodus 14).
Pillar of cloud by day and fire by night, guiding Israel.
Manna and quail were provided in the wilderness.
Water from the rock (Exodus 17).
Mount Sinai theophany: God’s voice, thunder, lightning, and tablets of stone.
Bronze serpent healing (Numbers 21).
Aaron’s rod budding (Numbers 17).
Moses’ radiant face after speaking with God (Exodus 34).

5. Miracles in the Time of Joshua, Judges, and Kings

Jordan River stops flowing so Israel can cross (Joshua 3).
Walls of Jericho fall (Joshua 6).
The sun stands still (Joshua 10).
Gideon’s fleece tests (Judges 6).
Samson’s strength feats (Judges 14–16).
Fire consumes Elijah’s offering on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18).
Elijah raises the widow’s son (1 Kings 17).
Elijah was taken up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kings 2).
Elisha parts the Jordan, purifies water, multiplies oil, raises the Shunammite’s son, feeds 100 men with loaves, heals Naaman’s leprosy, and makes an iron axe-head float (2 Kings 2–6).
The shadow on the sundial goes backwards for King Hezekiah (2 Kings 20).
Angelic destruction of the Assyrian army (2 Kings 19).
Daniel’s survival in the lions’ den (Daniel 6).
Three men survive the fiery furnace (Daniel 3).
Handwriting on the wall (Daniel 5).

6. Miracles in the Intertestamental and New Testament Era

Zechariah was struck mute until John the Baptist’s birth (Luke 1).
Virgin (immaculate) conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1; Luke 1).
Star of Bethlehem guiding the Magi (Matthew 2).
Angelic announcements to Mary, Joseph, and the shepherds.
John the Baptist’s prophetic calling before birth.

7. Miracles Performed by Jesus

Turning water into wine (John 2).
Healing the sick, blind, deaf, and lame (many Gospels).
Cleansing lepers (Matthew 8).
Casting out demons (Mark 5, etc.).
Feeding 5,000 (Matthew 14) and feeding 4,000 (Matthew 15).
Walking on water (Matthew 14).
Calming the storm (Mark 4).
Raising Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5).
Healing the centurion’s servant (Matthew 8).
Healing the bleeding woman (Mark 5).
Restoring sight to Bartimaeus (Mark 10).
Raising Lazarus from the dead (John 11).
The Transfiguration (Matthew 17).
Paying temple tax with a coin in a fish’s mouth (Matthew 17).
Cursing the barren fig tree (Mark 11).
The resurrection of Jesus (Matthew 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20).
Post-resurrection appearances (Luke 24; John 21).
Ascension into heaven (Acts 1).

8. Miracles in the Acts of the Apostles

Tongues of fire and the gift of languages at Pentecost (Acts 2).
Peter and John heal a lame man (Acts 3).
Peter raises Tabitha (Dorcas) from the dead (Acts 9).
Paul blinds and heals various people (Acts 13–28).
Earthquake freeing Paul and Silas from prison (Acts 16).
Paul survives a viper bite (Acts 28).
Philip’s teleportation (Acts 8).
Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead for lying (Acts 5).

9. Apocalyptic and Prophetic Miracles

Visions of Heaven and angels (Revelation 4–5).
Trumpet and bowl judgments: cosmic catastrophes, locusts, plagues, blood rivers, darkness.
Two witnesses calling down fire (Revelation 11).
The New Jerusalem descending from heaven (Revelation 21).
Creation of a new heaven and new earth (Revelation 21–22).
God dwelling with humanity eternally - the final miracle of restoration.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #190]

On Applying the Same Evidentiary Standard

How could you even know this, when we haven’t discussed any other text?

We have exchanged many posts in many threads over the 18 years I have been posting on this forum. You have defended the Christian worldview in most of your posts to me. You have NEVER defended the Secular or the Buddhist or the Jain or the Hindu or the Muslim or the Sikh or the Confucian or the Dao or the Bahai or the Jewish or the Shinto or the Cao Dai or the Tenrikyo or the Zoroastrian or the Rastafarian or the Unitarian Universal or the Wiccan or the Falun Gong or the Yazidi or the Animist worldview in any of your posts to me. This reveals how you treat the Bible and how you treat all the other books.

You can see the observable pattern even within just this discussion thread:

• lowering the independence threshold for early Christian sources
• treating internal attestation as strongly multiplicative
• minimizing the role of background regularities when assessing miracle claims

If you apply identical standards to:

• the Quran
• the Book of Mormon
• Greco-Roman miracle reports
• Buddhist resurrection claims
• Hindu avatar narratives

— then we are consistent.

If not, then asymmetry exists.

That was the concern I raised.

On “Accepting the Bible as True”

Nowhere in my argument did I say or use that “the Bible is true”.

Fair clarification.

You have not explicitly said, “The Bible is true.”

But you are treating:

• multiple New Testament texts
• creedal fragments
• Acts sermons
• Johannine narrative

as sufficiently reliable historical witnesses for establishing key facts.

That does not require affirming biblical inerrancy. Also, if you believe that some Biblical verses are true and some Biblical verses are false then how do you know which is true and which is false? The Bible is full of self-contradictions and inaccuracies. Please see: https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/categories.html

All of the Bible verses can't be true, but they can all be false.

But it does require assigning substantial historical credibility to the Bible.

My challenge is not that you “believe the Bible blindly.”

My challenge is whether:

The evidential weight you assign to early Christian texts is proportionate to the independence and corroboration available.

Neither Flavius Josephus nor Publius Cornelius Tacitus were eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus. So, what they wrote about Jesus is based on hearsay. That's not independent eyewitness testimony. There is also the issue of the “Testimonium Flavianum” passage containing later Christian interpolations.

On Bible vs Quran Contradictions

Two contradictory accounts existing isn’t reason to reject both or either of them.

The Bible and the Quran can't both be true, but they can both be false.

But contradiction plus insufficient independent verification does raise a symmetrical evidential problem.

The Quran claims:

• Jesus was not crucified
• Someone else was substituted
• Jesus was raised to heaven

The New Testament claims:

• Jesus was crucified
• Buried in a tomb
• Resurrected bodily

Both beliefs:

• arise within committed religious communities
• contain theological motivations
• lack contemporary neutral corroboration
• contain miracle claims

If we grant one high confidence based primarily on internal attestation and cumulative possibility, we must ask:

Would we grant the same confidence to the other using the same method?

That is the consistency test.

On Historical Analysis as the Arbiter

You say:

That’s what historical analysis is for, which is what I’ve been doing.

Agreed.

But historical analysis requires:

• evaluating source independence
• weighing background regularities
• considering common mechanisms (legend, proclamation shaping, memory stabilization)
• avoiding asymmetric thresholds

The methodological question is not whether analysis is being done.

It is whether the evidentiary bar is being set symmetrically.

On “Flawed Approach at Just About Every Turn”

You say my approach is flawed.

The core of my approach is this:

• Claims that overturn entrenched regularities require strong, independent corroboration.
• Internal-tradition multiplication must be carefully calibrated.
• Silence of opponents is weak evidence unless preservation expectation is strong.
• Cumulative cases must avoid circular reinforcement within a single transmission stream.

If those principles are flawed, then the critique must show:

• Why background regularities should not inform evidential threshold.
• Why internal multiplication within early religious communities should count as fully independent corroboration.
• Why absence of counter-literature should be treated as strong positive confirmation.

Those are methodological questions — not dismissals.

Final Clarification

This discussion is not about:

• Whether Jesus existed.
• Whether burial is possible.
• Whether resurrection is logically impossible.

It is about epistemic symmetry.

If:

• Early Christian sources suffice for “great confidence” burial.

Then:

• What would prevent the same reasoning from granting similar confidence to early Islamic miracle traditions?
• Or early Mormon golden plate testimony?
• Or ancient pagan resurrection cult narratives?

The question is not rhetorical.

It is methodological consistency.

Closing Note

I appreciate the dialogue as well.

We clearly disagree on:

• evidential calibration
• independence assessment
• threshold for “great confidence”

Our disagreement is philosophical and methodological.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #191]

I don’t see how rejecting some texts and not others means I use a different approach for Christian texts than the others. That doesn’t logically follow. If we talked about another text and I used different approaches, then you’d have some basis to your accusation.

Yes, I have treated Christian texts as historical sources to help establish (along with other texts, evidence, and lines of reasoning) Jesus’ existence and burial in a tomb because those are the sources we have that speak about it. I haven’t just accepted them as true because they are Christian. I don’t reject the Qur’an because it’s Muslim. I’ve presented historical criteria. If you want to make a case that the Qur'an's claims are historical, do so and I'll take the exact same historical approach.

There is nothing new about the case itself or the possible flaws in your approach I’ve already addressed, so I’ll let my posts stand there on both fronts.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #192]

On Alleged Asymmetry in Method

I don’t see how rejecting some texts and not others means I use a different approach for Christian texts than the others.

I did not argue that rejecting some texts automatically proves asymmetry.

My point was narrower:

When a religious text is:

• the primary source of the claim
• written by adherents
• promoting theological conclusions
• lacking independent contemporary corroboration

— then the evidentiary calibration must be consistent across traditions.

The test is not whether you reject other texts.

The test is whether:

The same criteria you use to establish burial in the New Testament would, if applied symmetrically, allow similar confidence in comparable claims from other religious traditions.

That is the methodological question. It is a consistency check.

On Using Christian Texts as Historical Sources

I haven’t just accepted them as true because they are Christian.

Agreed — you have not argued “they are true because they are Scripture.”

You have appealed to:

• multiple attestation
• embarrassment
• cultural plausibility
• absence of counter-tradition
• Roman burial norms

Those are legitimate historical criteria.

The dispute is not whether you are using criteria.

The dispute is whether:

• the sources are sufficiently independent
• the cumulative case avoids internal-correlation inflation
• silence arguments are given more weight than warranted

That is a calibration disagreement, not a charge of blind acceptance.

On the Qur’an Challenge

If you want to make a case that the Qur'an's claims are historical, do so and I'll take the exact same historical approach.

That is precisely the consistency question.

For example:

The Qur’an claims:
• Jesus was not crucified.
• A substitute was crucified instead.

That claim:

• comes from a religious text written decades later.
• reflects theological commitments.
• lacks contemporary corroboration.

Would you treat Qur’anic attestation as cumulative, independent, and plausibility-enhancing in the same way?

If not, then what is the methodological distinction?

That is not rhetorical — it is asking for a principled difference.

On “Nothing New” and Letting Posts Stand

There is nothing new about the case itself or the possible flaws in your approach I’ve already addressed.

Fair — and I agree that we are circling around a core methodological divide rather than discovering new data.

The divide can be stated precisely:

You hold that:

• Internal attestation + plausible cultural fit + absence of refutation = Great confidence in burial.

I hold that:

• Internal attestation + plausible cultural fit + absence of refutation = Possibility, but not high-confidence historical anchor for extraordinary inference.

That is the fault line.

Clarifying the Core Disagreement One Last Time

We agree:

• Priors can be overridden.
• Burial is plausible.
• Christian texts are legitimate historical sources.
• Cumulative reasoning is valid in principle.

We disagree about:

• Whether source independence has been sufficiently demonstrated.
• Whether silence from opponents is strong confirmatory evidence.
• Whether cumulative internal tradition reaches “great confidence.”
• Whether the evidential threshold has been met.

That is not about rejecting Christianity.

It is about epistemic threshold.

Closing Reflection

If we both apply:

• identical standards to Christian texts
• identical standards to Islamic texts
• identical standards to Greco-Roman miracle claims
• identical standards to secular ancient claims

— then the only remaining disagreement is evidential strength assessment.

That is a rational and respectable place to end or continue.

And I appreciate that the disagreement has remained methodological rather than personal. Most religious books make extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims require proportionate evidence. You have not provided proportionate evidence for the extraordinary claims made in the Bible or any other religious book. My position is that all religions are man-made and all religious books were written by people. I am not convinced that any religion is the truth about reality. If anyone can provide me with extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claims made in any religious or secular book, I will change my position based on the evidence.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #193]


You want to check my consistency on analyzing these claimse:

(a) Jesus was not crucified
(b) A substitute was crucified instead

I would treat the Qur’an as one source of those claims because it claims to be one source of those claims. Are there other texts you want to include making these claims? Also, the above claims are not an embarrassing detail for the author, isn’t absent counter-tradition, that counter-tradition predates it by centuries, and these claims aren’t in line with any known Roman crucifixion norms. I’m applying identical standards.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #194]

On Treating the Qur’an as “One Source”

I would treat the Qur’an as one source of those claims because it claims to be one source of those claims.

That is fair.

But notice what that establishes methodologically:

• The Qur’an is a late theological text.
• It asserts a historical claim.
• It does not provide contemporaneous corroboration.
• It reflects the theological commitments of its community.

That is exactly the same structural category as:

• The Gospel narratives
• Acts sermons
• Early Christian proclamation

So the methodological symmetry question is not about counting sources.

It is about evidential weight assigned to internally theological tradition.

On “Other Texts Making These Claims”

Are there other texts you want to include making these claims?

Yes — there were early heterodox Christian traditions (e.g., some Gnostic or docetic strands) that denied crucifixion or claimed substitution-like narratives.

But even if we bracket those:

The Qur’an still represents a theologically motivated community making a historical claim centuries later.

The methodological question becomes:

Why is early theological attestation sufficient for high confidence in burial, but late theological attestation insufficient for reconsidering crucifixion?

The distinction must rest on more than chronology alone.

On Embarrassment Criterion

These claims are not embarrassing details for the author.

Correct.

But embarrassment is only one probabilistic factor. The Biblical story is a story of divine victory through resurrection. It is not at all embarrassing. It would have been embarrassing only if Jesus had not been resurrected in the story.

You argued earlier that Joseph of Arimathea is unlikely to be invented because:

• He was part of the Sanhedrin.
• It would be awkward for Christians.

That is a plausibility argument — not decisive evidence. Why didn't anyone who actually witnessed the crucifixion and resurrection write about it on the day the resurrection happened? If I had witnessed the resurrection of someone who was killed by crucifixion, I would have written about it. It's an extraordinary event. Definitely something worth writing about. If Jesus was actually crucified and resurrected, he could have written about it using stars in the night sky. It would have been an extraordinary method of convincing humans who want evidence for extraordinary claims. Since God is allegedly all-knowing, he knew I would be asking about it now. Doesn't God want to save me from being tortured in hell forever? Why didn't he write the story of the resurrection using stars in all human languages so all humans could read it in their native language? Surely, an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving God could easily have done this?

I agree that the Qur’an’s denial of crucifixion is not embarrassing for Muslims.

On Counter-Tradition Predating It by Centuries

That counter-tradition predates it by centuries.

Chronology matters — but it is not self-authenticating.

Earlier tradition is:

• Closer in time.
• Potentially less layered.

But early traditions can still undergo:

• Rapid theological stabilization.
• Liturgical crystallization.
• Narrative harmonization.

The mere fact that Christian crucifixion claims predate Qur’anic denial does not automatically guarantee historical accuracy.

It only gives them temporal priority.

Temporal priority is evidentially relevant — but not decisive.

On Roman Crucifixion Norms

These claims aren’t in line with known Roman crucifixion norms.

That is a stronger historical argument.

But notice the symmetry:

The Qur’an’s substitution claim conflicts with Roman execution norms.

Resurrection conflicts with biological norms.

Both appeal to divine intervention.

So the methodological question becomes:

Do we reject Qur’anic substitution because it conflicts with Roman practice?

If yes, then:

Do we apply the same biological norm constraint to resurrection?

Consistency requires symmetry in how background regularities are treated.

On “I’m Applying Identical Standards”

You may very well be.

The real consistency test is this:

When evaluating:

Christian burial + resurrection
vs
Islamic crucifixion denial

Do you:

• Give greater evidential weight to earlier tradition?
• Require external corroboration?
• Demand independent transmission streams?
• Discount theological motivation?

If the criteria are:

• Early
• Multiply attested
• Not easily embarrassing
• Culturally plausible

— then crucifixion clears that threshold.

But resurrection requires an additional step:

• Overturning entrenched biological regularity.

That is where methodological escalation occurs.

And that is not asymmetry.

It is proportionality to explanatory scope.

The Core Distinction

Crucifixion:
• Fits Roman practice.
• Is multiply attested, but NOT by eye witnesses writing their independent accounts on the day the crucifixion allegedly happened.
• Is not biologically extraordinary.

Resurrection:
• Requires suspension of biological irreversibility.
• Has no independent analogues.
• Depends entirely on internal proclamation testimony.

That is why evidential threshold changes at Step 3, not Step 2.

Final Clarification

You are correct that the Qur’an is a single late source and therefore historically weak for overturning earlier testimony. However, if the Quran is authored by an all-knowing and all-powerful God, then it would be entirely possible for such a being to raise Jesus to heaven and let someone else be crucified in his place. As I mentioned in my previous post, I am not convinced that any religious book is authored or, at the very least, directly inspired by God or Gods.

Internal early Christian theological testimony must be carefully calibrated when used to anchor extraordinary causal claims. Please explain to me why Jesus didn't write the resurrection story using stars. I am convinced that all religious books are fiction written by people. This is why we don't have evidence of the extraordinary claims made in religious books. If you have any extraordinary evidence for any of the extraordinary claims in the Bible, please show me the evidence.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #195]

I would treat the Qur’an as one source of those claims because it claims to be one source of those claims.

That is fair.

But notice what that establishes methodologically:

• The Qur’an is a late theological text.
• It asserts a historical claim.
• It does not provide contemporaneous corroboration.
• It reflects the theological commitments of its community.

That is exactly the same structural category as:

• The Gospel narratives
• Acts sermons
• Early Christian proclamation

So the methodological symmetry question is not about counting sources.

It is about evidential weight assigned to internally theological tradition.

You asked me “Would you treat Qur’anic attestation as cumulative, independent, and plausibility-enhancing in the same way? If not, then what is the methodological distinction?”

I was directly answering those questions. We distinguish the Qur’an as one source and Paul, Mark, M, L, and John as distinct sources because they are distinct sources with their own unique material that isn’t clearly just an embellishment (like say the Gospel of Peter centuries later). The Qur’an is not a collection of sources like the Bible is. That’s a clear methodological distinction.

The Qur’an still represents a theologically motivated community making a historical claim centuries later.

I don’t fault the Qur’an for being a theologically motivated community; that is irrelevant. Every source is motivated by their worldview, whether theological or secular.

The methodological question becomes:

Why is early theological attestation sufficient for high confidence in burial, but late theological attestation insufficient for reconsidering crucifixion?

The distinction must rest on more than chronology alone.

I never said early theological attestation is sufficient for high confidence or that late attestation is insufficient. Being closer to the supposed event is better, but I also mentioned various other factors that the historian would take into account to judge level of confidence.

These claims are not embarrassing details for the author.

Correct.

But embarrassment is only one probabilistic factor.

Yes, but when laying out all the factors, you’ve got to talk about each individual factor. I’ve never said one by itself was enough.

The Biblical story is a story of divine victory through resurrection. It is not at all embarrassing. It would have been embarrassing only if Jesus had not been resurrected in the story.

Most Jews seemed to expect the Messiah to live a long, blessed life and overthrow their oppressors. Having your Messiah die before gaining any real political power is an embarrassing detail. Other Messianic sects, when their leaders died, the followers dispersed or found a new Messiah figure.

For Matthew to include a detail about a member of the Sanhedrin, which was an enemy to the early Christian movement, being the one to bury Jesus is an embarrassing detail.

This detail (and no detail) is to be considered alone; all evidence is weighed together. Each piece of evidence not being individually decisive is completely irrelevant as historical reasoning doesn’t work that way; it considers all evidences together.

Why didn't anyone who actually witnessed the crucifixion and resurrection write about it on the day the resurrection happened? If I had witnessed the resurrection of someone who was killed by crucifixion, I would have written about it. It's an extraordinary event. Definitely something worth writing about. If Jesus was actually crucified and resurrected, he could have written about it using stars in the night sky. It would have been an extraordinary method of convincing humans who want evidence for extraordinary claims. Since God is allegedly all-knowing, he knew I would be asking about it now. Doesn't God want to save me from being tortured in hell forever? Why didn't he write the story of the resurrection using stars in all human languages so all humans could read it in their native language? Surely, an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving God could easily have done this?

This assumes writing material was readily available, that the witnesses cared as much about your modern historical concerns, that even if we had a text with that claim and a date you wouldn’t just argue that we can’t be sure they are telling the truth, that it happened on that day or that they wrote it then.

You then fall back to expecting God to provide perfect epistemological clarity, which when we discussed it earlier, you eventually admitted that shouldn’t be the standard.

Do we reject Qur’anic substitution because it conflicts with Roman practice?

If yes, then:

Do we apply the same biological norm constraint to resurrection?

Consistency requires symmetry in how background regularities are treated.

No, we reject Qur’anic substitution for the cumulative case of reasons I talked about, so your conditional fails.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #196]

1. On the Qur’an vs the New Testament as “Collections of Sources”

We distinguish the Qur’an as one source and Paul, Mark, M, L, and John as distinct sources because they are distinct sources with their own unique material… The Qur’an is not a collection of sources like the Bible is. That’s a clear methodological distinction.

It is a distinction — but not yet a decisive one.

The relevant question is not whether the New Testament is a compilation of texts.

The relevant question is:

Are those texts independent witnesses to the specific event in question?

Multiple documents do not automatically equal multiple independent streams of event memory.

If:

• Paul reflects early proclamation tradition,
• Mark reflects narrative crystallization of that proclamation,
• Matthew and Luke redactionally build on Mark plus shared oral tradition,
• John reflects a later theological development within the same movement,

then we may be dealing with one stabilized proclamation stream rather than multiple independent event-level witnesses.

That is the methodological issue — not whether the Qur’an is a single text and the New Testament is multiple texts.

2. On Theological Motivation Being “Irrelevant”

Every source is motivated by their worldview, whether theological or secular.

Correct — but degree and direction of motivation matter.

A source whose central theological claim depends on an event has a stronger incentive to narratively stabilize that event than a peripheral observer would.

This is not dismissing theological sources.

It is recognizing that:

• Identity-forming events are especially prone to narrative consolidation.
• Foundational events are especially prone to interpretive shaping.

That is not anti-religious; it is sociological realism.

3. On Early vs Late Attestation

I never said early theological attestation is sufficient by itself… I mentioned other factors.

That is fair.

Chronology alone is not decisive.

But chronology plus internal circulation plus lack of independent contemporaneous documentation leaves open the possibility of early stabilization rather than direct eyewitness reporting.

The point is not that early = false.

The point is that early ≠ automatically insulated from communal shaping.

4. On Embarrassment and Messianic Expectations

Having your Messiah die before gaining power is embarrassing.

It is embarrassing relative to certain Jewish expectations — agreed.

But resurrection theology immediately reframes crucifixion as divine victory.

So the embarrassment is short-lived within the narrative arc.

As for Joseph:

Yes, including a Sanhedrin member is rhetorically interesting.

But it can function theologically as:

• Demonstrating fulfillment of Isaiah 53 (“with a rich man in his death”).
• Showing that even among opponents there were righteous dissenters.
• Providing honorable burial contrast.

So while embarrassment has some weight, divine victory through resurrection makes the story glorious rather than embarrassing.

5. On Cumulative Reasoning

Each piece of evidence not being individually decisive is irrelevant; historical reasoning weighs everything together.

Agreed.

The question is not whether cumulative reasoning is valid.

The question is whether the cumulative case consists of:

• genuinely independent evidential strands
or
• correlated strands arising from the same proclamation core.

If the strands are correlated, cumulative strength increases more slowly than if they are independent.

That is a structural point, not a demand for 100% certainty.

6. On “Why Didn’t Eyewitnesses Write Immediately?”

You respond:

This assumes writing materials were available… that witnesses cared about modern historical concerns… that you wouldn’t doubt it anyway.

Fair points about ancient literacy and expectations.

However, the underlying question remains epistemically relevant:

If:

• The resurrection is the central salvific event of human history,
• Eternal destiny hinges upon believing it,
• God desires universal salvation,

then the absence of:

• contemporaneous inscription,
• public Roman record,
• independent non-Christian documentation,

is not a trivial issue.

The stars-in-the-sky example is rhetorical — but it highlights a deeper point:

Why would divine communication about eternal stakes rely solely on internally transmitted community testimony?

That is not demanding “perfect epistemological clarity.”

It is questioning proportionality between claim magnitude and evidential mode.

7. On Biological Norms vs Roman Norms

No, we reject Qur’anic substitution for cumulative reasons, so your conditional fails.

Let’s clarify the symmetry issue.

If Qur’anic substitution is rejected partly because:

• It conflicts with established Roman execution norms,
• It lacks early attestation,
• It lacks multiple early sources,

then resurrection must also be evaluated against:

• Established biological regularities,
• Lack of independent contemporary documentation,
• Dependence on internal proclamation.

The issue is not identical reasons.

It is consistency in how background regularities are weighted.

Roman execution norms constrain substitution claims.

Biological irreversibility constrains resurrection claims.

Symmetry lies in applying regularity constraints proportionately.

8. Where the Disagreement Ultimately Lies

You argue:

• The cumulative case for burial reaches high confidence.
• The independence of sources is sufficiently demonstrated.
• The Qur’an fails under the same criteria.

I argue:

• Burial is possible, but independence remains contestable.
• Resurrection requires additional threshold beyond burial possibility.
• Internal proclamation streams must be carefully calibrated before being treated as multiplicative.

This is not skepticism for its own sake.

It is evidential proportionality relative to claim magnitude.

Final Clarification

The core divide is not:

• Christian vs Muslim.
• Early vs late.
• Theological vs secular.

It is this:

Does the available historical evidence, given its transmission structure and correlation profile, rise to the level required to ground a singular, causality-transcending event?

You say yes.

I say not yet. I am still waiting for extraordinary evidence to prove the extraordinary claims of the Bible. Why would an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful God cause the existence of so many contradictory religions on Earth and punish non-Christians with eternal torture in hell after predestining their non-Christian beliefs? It makes zero sense. I am still convinced that all religions are man-made and the extraordinary claims made by religions are fictitious.

That is the epistemic fault line.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #197]

Even in your scenario, the “plus shared oral tradition of M and L” would be an additional source from the early proclamation of Mark. Embarrassing details being short-lived is irrelevant because it’s about the initial historicity, the question of whether it lived at all. There is no reason to expect inscriptions, public Roman records, or non-Christians caring about the historicity of Jesus’ burial or writing about it. Your critique of God’s choice of communication is irrelevant to whether Jesus was buried in a tomb. Your claimed ‘asymmetry’ isn’t valid because it treats things as 1to1 when it’s really like 10to10 and the 10 things on each side vary somewhat. You haven’t clarified what “extraordinary evidence” means or that it is a valid request to be waiting for. Your other critiques, while good questions to ask, and I think good answers are available, are irrelevant to the topic under discussion.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #198]

1. On M and L as “Additional Sources”

Even in your scenario, the “plus shared oral tradition of M and L” would be an additional source from the early proclamation of Mark.

Only if that oral tradition represents an independent transmission stream.

If M and L derive from:

• the same early kerygmatic core,
• circulated within overlapping communities,
• stabilized before written crystallization,

then they are not independent eyewitness streams, but derivative narrative developments.

Independence is not:

“Different document = different source.”

It is:

“Distinct transmission lineage not genealogically dependent on the same stabilized proclamation.”

That is a standard principle in source criticism.

2. On Embarrassment Being “Short-Lived”

Embarrassing details being short-lived is irrelevant because it’s about whether it lived at all.

The embarrassment criterion has limited force if the alleged embarrassment is:

• rapidly reframed theologically,
• incorporated into divine-necessity narrative,
• transformed into fulfillment motif.

The crucifixion becomes:

• redemptive necessity,
• prophetic fulfillment,
• glorious divine victory.

The “embarrassing” element of crucifixion immediately serves theological ends, so its evidential weight weakens.

Embarrassment must be genuine tension, not narratively exploitable reversal.

3. On Expectation of Roman Records or Inscriptions

There is no reason to expect inscriptions, public Roman records, or non-Christians caring about the historicity of Jesus’ burial.

I disagree. If Jesus was truly the Son of God, born of a virgin, who performed miracles, was crucified and resurrected with many witnesses, we should expect Roman records to show that these events took place. The fact that Roman records are absent for these alleged events shows that the stories are fictitious.

If:

• A man publicly executed returned bodily to life,
• Appeared to many,
• Generated rapid public proclamation,

then some official Roman records beyond internal community literature would be expected.

The burial question is not fully separable from its narrative context.

If burial anchors resurrection, the magnitude of the larger claim affects evidential expectation.

That is not irrelevant — it is inferential context.

4. On God’s Communication Being “Irrelevant”

Your critique of God’s communication is irrelevant to whether Jesus was buried in a tomb.

I disagree. The event of burial is not isolated from the virgin birth, the miracles, the crucifixion and the resurrection. The burial is what allegedly happened after the alleged crucifixion and the alleged resurrection.

5. On Alleged “1 to 1 vs 10 to 10” Asymmetry

Your asymmetry treats things as 1 to 1 when it’s really like 10 to 10 and the 10 things vary somewhat.

The asymmetry concern is structural, not numerical.

If:

• Christian burial + resurrection rests on internal early proclamation streams,
• Qur’anic substitution rests on late theological stream,

then chronology, multiplicity, and cultural plausibility differ.

However, resurrection uniquely introduces:

• biological irregularity,
• absence of analogues,
• dependency on proclamation testimony.

That additional explanatory magnitude is what shifts evidential burden.

It is not a 1:1 comparison because the causal scope differs.

6. On “Extraordinary Evidence” Being Undefined

You argue I have not defined it clearly.

Here is a clear definition:

Extraordinary evidence is evidence that is sufficiently strong, independent, and resistant to common alternative explanations such that it outweighs entrenched background regularities and explanatory competitors.

For example, if there was a hair from Jesus which showed maternal chromosomes from Mary and divine chromosomes from God, that would count as extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claim that Jesus had a virgin birth.

7. On “Irrelevant Critiques”

Your other critiques are irrelevant to the topic under discussion.

The topic for this thread is all the events I listed in the first post in this thread. The Bible makes many extraordinary claims without providing any extraordinary evidence for the alleged extraordinary events, e.g. the Six-Day Creation story, Noah's global flood, the virgin birth of Jesus, the miracles of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, etc. My critiques are very relevant to proving all the extraordinary claims to be true instead of false.

[William]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #199]

3. On Expectation of Roman Records or Inscriptions
There is no reason to expect inscriptions, public Roman records, or non-Christians caring about the historicity of Jesus’ burial.
I disagree. If Jesus was truly the Son of God, born of a virgin, who performed miracles, was crucified and resurrected with many witnesses, we should expect Roman records to show that these events took place. The fact that Roman records are absent for these alleged events shows that the stories are fictitious.

If:

• A man publicly executed returned bodily to life,
• Appeared to many,
• Generated rapid public proclamation,

then some official Roman records beyond internal community literature would be expected.

The burial question is not fully separable from its narrative context.

If burial anchors resurrection, the magnitude of the larger claim affects evidential expectation.

That is not irrelevant — it is inferential context.

You're suggesting that given the magnitude of the claims—a public execution, a bodily resurrection, rapid proclamation—we should expect some non-Christian, official Roman documentation to exist. Its absence counts against historicity.

A few considerations:

Survival rates of Roman records are extremely low. We lack official documentation for countless events we know historically occurred, including many crucifixions, provincial administrative matters, and even major political events.

Roman authorities generally did not document executions of obscure provincial subjects unless they involved sedition against the state at a level requiring imperial attention. A Galilean preacher in Jerusalem would not meet that threshold.

The resurrection itself would not be something Roman officials could document as an observed fact—they would at most record the earlier execution and the later disturbance if the empty tomb caused unrest. No such disturbance made it into surviving records.

The earliest Christian preaching began within weeks in the same city, yet no surviving Roman or Jewish source from that time directly contests the empty tomb or resurrection claims—they later attribute it to theft. This suggests the factual premise (empty tomb) was not publicly disputed, even if the explanation was.

The absence of Roman documentation is therefore consistent with what we know about Roman record-keeping practices and survival rates. It doesn't decisively cut either way.

I think there is a clutching of straws here, and a lack of understanding of those times and how Romans react. What IS noted historically is that once the movement became apparent, Rome THEN attempted to squash it, BUT what happened in the end was ROME adopted it and made it the state religion...

The absence of contemporary Roman records proves little. The presence of later Roman response (first hostile, then embracing) is actually more telling.