Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wow!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's remarkable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey guys, I wrote this quickly, late at night. Reading back I see several grammatical errors. Sorry, I only caught this after the window for edits had expired. Hopefully you can catch my drift nonetheless.

[Joab]

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

For added impact.

[no evidence no belief]

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

Taking the last paragraph first, it is certainly difficult to prove Jesus' body was maggot invested since it is impossible to prove Jesus even existed.

That is of course a valid point. A non-existing corpse would be infested by non-existing maggots, not by existing maggots.

But if we assume a person (let's call him Jesus) existed, died, and was NOT buried underground (covered with earth), then within 24 hours the eggs that flies would have inevitably placed on the body would have hatched, starting the maggot infestation.

[WinePusher]

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

The only person here who has a problem understanding the facts is you, not Overcomer or myself. Like I said, everything you've said thus far shows that you have no real understanding of how ancient history works. The fact is that texts in the ancient world were copied pretty frequently but this does not have any implication on whether or not the text is historically authentic and reliable. The fact that the subsequent copies were discovered centuries after the fact also means nothing since this is true for nearly all ancient historical texts. If we were to use your uninformed ideas then we would have to discard most of what we currently know about ancient history.

Get it yet dude? Cuz I'm getting tired of having to explain these basic concepts. Unless you can prove that there are extensive errors in the texts due to the copying, or perhaps the mode of oral transmission, then this is pretty much all irrelevant and pointless.

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

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

Please, show me the quote where he claimed that the text of the codex vaticanus was written by an eyewitness? The claim being made by many conservative biblical scholars is that the original manuscripts themselves were the products of eyewitness testimony, and since the subsequent copies accurately reflect what was written in the autographs they all contain eyewitness testimony.

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

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

Sorry, but this is debatable. There are obviously some textual variations and inconsistencies, but this wouldn't have any impact on the overall content found in the gospels. The goal of any historian is to determine whether a historical event did or did not happen, and minor textual variations are not a relevant factor.

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

You've probably won this game more times than any other user on this site. You continually spew out nonsense about maggots, Rudolph the red nose reindeer and other crazy stuff and you really have the nerve to talk down to other users?

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

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

I read the book several years ago, and while Ehrman is technically correct by pointing out the existence of textual variations and inconsistencies but he blows them out of proportions. Again, pointing out grammatical and syntactical errors in the text does nothing to debunk the content.

In other words, the idea that the variants in the NT manuscripts alter the theology of the NT is overstated at best. Unfortunately, as careful a scholar as Ehrman is, his treatment of major theological changes in the text of the NT tends to fall under one of two criticisms: Either his textual decisions are wrong, or his interpretation is wrong. Source

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

How am I trying to transform your position? I agree with the premise that textual variations and inconsistencies exist, but I am pointing out that it does not matter. I have said repeatedly that your lame point about copying is irrelevant and all you keep doing is ignoring it.

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

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

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

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

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

Here you are talking about nonsense like scientologists, aliens, cultists, santa, mohammed and here I am trying to have a serious discussion about miracles and the natural order. This is a serious topic and deserves a legitimate debate and apparently I'm not going to get it from you.

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

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

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

A corpse being cleaned and perfumed has no effect on flies laying eggs on it? The fact that the corpse was wrapped in linen and laid in a secluded tomb has no effect on flies laying eggs in it? The fact that Jesus body was not exposed to the open air for 24 hours and was wrapped in linen within a few hours of his death does not affect flies laying eggs in it? LOL, your juvenile, trollish claim was indefensible to begin with and your lame tempt to support it is hilarious. Honestly, repeatedly referring to the body of Jesus as maggot infested is not conducive to serious debate anyways, and is something a troll would say.

[WinePusher]

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

Why don't you try reading what I wrote again. I said I don't care about no evidence no belief's little expos'e about maggots and flies. And yes, I also don't care about theories and beliefs that have been thoroughly discredited, ie: young earth creationism and the Jesus myth theory (which you seem to be advocating here).

Contrary to your assertion that, 'As a pure historical event the resurrection is well supported. In terms of history the resurrection probably did happen' the 'evidence' which solely consists of the reports of the New Testament would never withstand the scrutiny of a court of law.

Considering this isn't a court of law, it is instead the field of ancient history, your point is moot. In terms of ancient history the resurrection has enough corresponding and circumstantial evidence to substantiate it. In a modern court of law it would obviously fail and be rejected, but the same is true for most other ancient historical events. If we were to subject the histories of ancient Greece and Rome to modern legal analysis we would probably have to disregard most of our current knowledge about those two civilizations. This is why modern legal theory and ancient historical methodology are two separate academic fields.

The 'evidence' consists of contradictory reports from anonymous reporters written decades after the alleged events. As you say [from a scientific point of view] '... the probability that miracles have and do occur is low....,' but asserting that it is 'possible' they occurred is as weak an argument as saying it is 'possible' Muhammed flew up to heaven on a winged horse or that I am a genius because my best friend says so.

Obviously it is possible that Muhammad flew into heaven on a winged horse. The question is whether or not this event has any historical credibility. Again, science has by no means showed that it's laws are completely inviolable which means that miracles are possible by definition. So the argument against the resurrection that many nonbelievers seem to be making (its impossible for dead people to come back to life) is not valid in this sense.

[no evidence no belief]

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

The only person here who has a problem understanding the facts is you, not Overcomer or myself. Like I said, everything you've said thus far shows that you have no real understanding of how ancient history works. The fact is that texts in the ancient world were copied pretty frequently but this does not have any implication on whether or not the text is historically authentic and reliable. The fact that the subsequent copies were discovered centuries after the fact also means nothing since this is true for nearly all ancient historical texts. If we were to use your uninformed ideas then we would have to discard most of what we currently know about ancient history.

Get it yet dude? Cuz I'm getting tired of having to explain these basic concepts. Unless you can prove that there are extensive errors in the texts due to the copying, or perhaps the mode of oral transmission, then this is pretty much all irrelevant and pointless.

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

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

Please, show me the quote where he claimed that the text of the codex vaticanus was written by an eyewitness? The claim being made by many conservative biblical scholars is that the original manuscripts themselves were the products of eyewitness testimony, and since the subsequent copies accurately reflect what was written in the autographs they all contain eyewitness testimony.

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

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

Sorry, but this is debatable. There are obviously some textual variations and inconsistencies, but this wouldn't have any impact on the overall content found in the gospels. The goal of any historian is to determine whether a historical event did or did not happen, and minor textual variations are not a relevant factor.

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

You've probably won this game more times than any other user on this site. You continually spew out nonsense about maggots, Rudolph the red nose reindeer and other crazy stuff and you really have the nerve to talk down to other users?

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

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

I read the book several years ago, and while Ehrman is technically correct by pointing out the existence of textual variations and inconsistencies but he blows them out of proportions. Again, pointing out grammatical and syntactical errors in the text does nothing to debunk the content.

You know what, this is a marginally relevant issue. Let's assume you're right. Let's assume that the Vatican and the very publishers of the Bible are wrong, and you are right. Let's assume that the portions that are irrefutably undeniably forgeries are actually not forgeries, the portions that are irrefutably undeniably mistranslations ("Mary was a virgin") actually aren't mistranslations etc.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that through centuries of editing, copying and translating of written words which arrived to the anonymous author through who knows how many cycles of verbal telling, somehow the words of the witnesses to the events themselves were preserved exactly.

Let's assume that. Just for the sake of argument.

What does that mean: That a half dozen people claim to have seen a corpse fly. That it wasn't a later addition or forgery or mistranslation. That people who actually were there, claim to have seen a corpse fly.

Are you saying that because a half dozen people claim to have seen a corpse fly, therefore we should believe a corpse actually flew?

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

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

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

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

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

Here you are talking about nonsense like scientologists, aliens, cultists, santa, mohammed and here I am trying to have a serious discussion about miracles and the natural order. This is a serious topic and deserves a legitimate debate and apparently I'm not going to get it from you.

I am trying to have a serious discussion as well.

I make a valid point. You may choose to address it or ignore it, you may agree with it or not, but it's wrong for you to just laugh it off as nonsense and allege that you are trying to debate on a serious level and I'm not.

This is my point: You agree that if that which overwhelming empirical data shows to be impossible is indeed impossible, then the resurrection didn't happen, right?

You agree that the only way one can contemplate the Resurrection having happened is if you posit for the sake of argument that it is sometimes possible for the laws of nature to be broken and for that which overwhelming empirical evidence shows to be impossible to actually become possible.

Belief in the resurrection of necessity implies belief in the laws of nature being temporarily suspended, right?

Now. If you allow that the laws of nature can be suspended and that physically impossible things can happen, who are you to say that the Resurrection is an example of such an instance, but Mohammed's ascension to the Heavens on a flying horse isn't?

If you allow that the impossible is possible, I don't see how any claim deserves to be taken more or less seriously than any other. Everything is possible.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say? Will you respond to the substance of my argument, or will you just brush it off?

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

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

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

A corpse being cleaned and perfumed has no effect on flies laying eggs on it?

None whatsoever

The fact that the corpse was wrapped in linen and laid in a secluded tomb has no effect on flies laying eggs in it?

It might have taken flies a couple of hours longer to get to it. Or it might be that a tomb would be an area where there would be ahigher concentration of flies, meaning that they would get to the cadaver faster than if Jesus had just been dropped in a ditch. I don't know.

The fact that Jesus body was not exposed to the open air for 24 hours and was wrapped in linen within a few hours of his death does not affect flies laying eggs in it?

You're right, this might have slowed the flies down by a couple of hours. So I guess the maggots would have hatched 26 hours after death, not 24. Meaning they would have been infesting the corpse for 46 hours at the point of alleged resurrection, not 48.

LOL, your juvenile, trollish claim was indefensible to begin with and your lame tempt to support it is hilarious. Honestly, repeatedly referring to the body of Jesus as maggot infested is not conducive to serious debate anyways, and is something a troll would say.

Flies lay eggs on corpses. How juvenile and trollish of me to assume that Jesus being a corpse, flies would lay eggs on it. It truly is a far-fetched notion, isn't it?

[Danmark]

. . . .
Obviously it is possible that Muhammad flew into heaven on a winged horse. . . .

That well sums up the credulity required to believe in religious mythology, whether Christian or Islamic.

[Joab]

Obviously it is possible that Muhammad flew into heaven on a winged horse

Obviously, are you serious? Obviously?

[no evidence no belief]

Obviously it is possible that Muhammad flew into heaven on a winged horse. The question is whether or not this event has any historical credibility.

Ok! Great!

So if an event is possible, and it has historical credibility, then it merits being considered possibly true?

Let's take it one step at a time: Flying horses, talking donkeys, flying corpses and talking snakes are all possible by your definition, right? Is it also possible to teleport to a spaceship hiding behind a comet by committing suicide? I'm not asking this to be silly. This is a serious question. If your definition of possible encompasses flying horses and decomposing corpses coming back to life, does it also encompass teleportation? Possible or impossible? Which one is it?


Assuming you will agree that under your definition it is possible, let's move on to the next step.

To establish the validity of a claim, you said you have to couple the notion of whether the event is possible with the notion of whether it has any historical credibility.

Let's do that.

The resurrection of Jesus:
It is possible (by your definition) and on a scale from 1 to 10, it would probably score a 7 on historical credibility.

The ascension of Mohammed on a flying horse:
It is possible (by your definition) and on a scale from 1 to 10, it would probably score a 7 on historical credibility.

The teleportation via suicide of Heaven's Gate Cultists:
It is possible (by your definition) and on a scale from 1 to 10, it absolutely scores a 10, There is ABSOLUTELY ZERO DOUBT WHATSOEVER about the empirical events of the cultists expressing a belief in teleportation via suicide, and carrying it out while a comet was visible.

The historicity and accuracy of the reports of resurrection and Mohammed's ascension is very debatable, whereas the historicity of the Heaven's Gate suicide pact is undisputed.

So if your formula for believing a supernatural claim is:

Is it possible + historically credible = It happened

then it is far more reasonable to believe in Heaven's Gate than in the Resurrection or Mohammed's ascension.

Could you please confirm that based on YOUR definition of what should be believed, you've converted from Christianity to Heaven's Gate Cult and will commit suicide when the next comet shows up? Hey, it's possible that it's true, and it's more historically credible than the Resurrection.

OR

Could it be that you have a double standard, and that you only apply this absurd criterion for belief in the supernatural to claims you're emotionally invested in?

[no evidence no belief]

Recap of Winepusher's justification for believing in the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus:

"Overwhelming empirical, testable, repeatable medical, biological, chemical and physical evidence shows that the cadaver of Jesus did NOT come back to life and did NOT fly into the sky. BUT, we are not 100% certain about the validity of this evidence. We are only about 99.999999999999999999999999999999% certain. There is a 0.00000000000000000000000000001% chance that everything we know about science, which enables us to perform heart transplants, build iphones and land unmanned vehicles on Mars is fundamentally wrong on every level and yet somehow still works.

As insane as it may seem to believe that something with a 0.000000000000000000000000001% chance happened, I do so because my belief is based on very very strong and credible direct testimony from reliable eyewitnesses..... mmm, wait, no it's not. My belief is based on the copies of the translations of the copies of the translations of the copies of the oral retelling of the oral retelling of the oral retelling of the oral retelling of the oral retelling of a tale that may or may not have been originally told by apostles who may or may not actually have ever existed and may or may not have witnessed the events and may or may not have told them accurately"

I have a question for you Winepusher: Why is it that you believe claims which have overwhelming, almost conclusive, evidence against them and very weak circumstantial historical evidence for them, but you don't believe claims which have only somewhat strong evidence against them, and confirmed eyewitness testimony of interviewable witnesses as evidence for them?

For example, why don't you believe in bigfoot?
Unlike the resurrection, which violates absolutely everything we know about almost every branch of science, the existence of bigfoot doesn't violate the laws of physics, doesn't violate the laws of chemistry, it just seems to violate some of what we know about biology. Furthermore, unlike the resurrection, which is supported by the copy of the translation of the copy of the translation of multiple layers of verbal hearsay by anonymous sources, the existence of bigfoot is supported by direct eyewitnesses alive today, with names, addresses, social security numbers, etc. You yourself can go and interview a bigfoot expert who has seen bigfoot multiple times, and he will share the first hand eyewitness testimony with you directly.

It seems that if you were in the business of believing unlikely stuff and were gonna be consistent rather than biased, there are loads of claims which, though unlikely, are several orders of magnitude more probable than a 30AD flying corpse.