Was the Resurrection a true, literal and physical event?

[Zzyzx]

.
Goose and Zzyzx have agreed to debate the topic of the truth of the resurrection.

Comments by others are welcome in a “comments” thread in General Chat.

It has been agreed that debate will be limited to ten posts each (after actual debate begins) and that certain “rules of debate” will be established as a basis for the debate. Toward that end I sent the following PM to Goose. He responded by PM and I encourage him to do so in this thread.

My suggestions toward a body of rules include:

1. Debate honestly and honorably with no questionable tactics or tricks
2. Ask not more than five questions per post (to be numbered for clarity)
3. Answer each numbered question in the next post or admit inability or unwillingness
4. Verify / substantiate all challenged claims or withdraw them forthwith
5. Use standard dictionary definitions for all words (no special meanings)
6. Avoid logical fallacies

Do you have other suggestions?

[Goose]

.
Why, Mr. Goose, I do declare that it appears at though you are AFRAID to debate Mr. Zzyzx on the topic of the resurrection.

Holy self-inflated egos Batman!:roll: That's your imagination getting the better of you.

Your gyrations and protestations make it ever more apparent that you prefer to jockey for position and critique style rather than to debate issues.

Hey, I could say the same about your avoidance of a methodology, not answering questions, and ignoring posts. I won't be so egotistical as to assume that you are "afraid" to debate me, but it certainly seems you are avoiding a transparent methodology that would expose your bias.

Regarding your emphasis on “methodology” – as repeatedly stated I do not subscribe to any particular methodology in debate but use whatever fits the circumstances. My overall guideline is honesty.

Hence you have little objectivity and no credibility. The best you can offer is your subjective opinion guided by your world view grounded in an anti-supernatural bias masquerading under the guise of "honesty."

1) What is your preferred “methodology”, Sir?

Are you even reading my posts? I gave it already earlier in this thread and you utterly ignored it. Here it is again:

The Methodology:

A "fact" shouldn't necessarily need to pass all of the listed criteria to be considered probable. Failing any one particular criterion does not necessarily make the fact false. Indeed very few, if any at all, ancient historical "facts" we rarely question would adequately pass all the requests of such a rigorous criteria as set out below. However, a fact that fails to pass a single criterion we would be justified in believing it to be improbable. Passing one or two should be sufficient to have the "fact" be at least considered probable. If a fact passes three I think we can be confident that it is very probable and so on. This methodology is not fool-proof of course as it is open to our biases and ultimately subjective to a degree. However, this seems to be the only way (I know of) to establish a reasonably objective treatment of evidence - i.e. pass the evidence through a standard set of criteria using a consistent methodology that can be applied to ALL ancient events. So, using criteria such as (but not limited to)...
1. Eyewitness attestation
2. Early attestation (the earlier the better - written during the lifetime of possible eyewitnesses is preferred)
3. Multiple independent attestation (independent does not mean non-Christian, but rather independent from other sources)
4. Enemy or neutral source attestation
5. The Principle of Embarrassment (If it's embarrassing or harmful to the case it is very likely that it is authentic or actually happened. It's very unlikely to have been propaganda simply “made up”)

This methodology can be applied to the potential facts that support a claim or to the claim itself. I prefer to apply this methodology to the potential facts that support the claim. In this way we avoid the fallacy of Begging the Question that the claim itself is true. Rather we look for the best explanation for the facts that pass the methodology. Would you agree to this? If not, why?

You apparently prefer a specific “methodology” which you seem hesitant to identify.

Is that specific enough for you?

If you cannot debate without achieving your ideal conditions, you are invited to say so honestly and to seek a more easily intimidated opponent.

It's more like I'm trying to achieve as much as possible before we begin fair, unbiased and rational conditions... so yes I would call those "ideal." You seem to object to this. One wonders why?

You are probably aware of my style of debate. If you are not, perusal of the “Flood Debate” in this sub-forum will provide that information. It is a straight-forward, no nonsense, no BS approach that is based upon some knowledge of science, observation of the real world I inhabit, and wide reading.

And people think I'm arrogant. Please spare us the self-serving propaganda.

If you are not comfortable debating against my style, kindly just acknowledge that rather than continuing the gyrations. Readers probably expect real debate rather than a dance.

Zzyzx, just give us your methodology for determining whether or not a claimed historical event is true. And answer the following questions and we can get down to business.

1. How do we know anything in ancient history happened, Zzyzx?

2. Verified by who? By what standard? "Substantiated" by who? By what standard?

Regarding your claim that I misunderstood or quoted out of context something you said:

Firstly, that quote from me is out of context. You inserted the "referring to the resurrection" which was NOT what I was referring to. I was asking a general question about history in response to your assertion, not making an assertion myself.

Here is the ACTUAL exchange from post #5:

We are looking at a historical question, therefore we should use the same idea for true as historians use. History deals more with degrees of probability rather than absolute certainty.

If you wish to acknowledge that the claimed resurrection cannot be defended as being more than “probable” you are NOT defending it as a literal event.

Zzyzx is now making up the rules for historical enquiry. Why, Zzyzx? Why wouldn't an event that was deemed "probable" (as "probable" as any other event from ancient history) using a historical methodology be literal? Care to explain to the class?

Now you are attempting to say that you were NOT talking about the “resurrection” in that quotation??????

Where in that quote did I talk about the resurrection? Notice I was stating we are looking at a historical question and history deals with degrees of probability. You then turned that into a strange straw man argument and asserted "If you wish to acknowledge that the claimed resurrection cannot be defended as being more than “probable” you are NOT defending it as a literal event."

Where THAT came from no one knows but you. And you've yet to explain why it is true. Hence the distraction with this little rant about me not being honest.

I leave it to readers to decide whether you are being truthful or not.

This whole little episode regarding my quote is Zzyzx'x attempt to draw the debate away from the fact that he has no methodology for determining history. He would rather take us down a little rabbit path over a quote I made in an attempt to paint me as dishonest. Is Zzyzx showing the resurrection to be false with this line of reasoning? No. At best he's merely calling into question my assertion that the resurrection is as true as any other ancient historical event that we take for granted. However, let's continue.

It appears to me as though you were clearly saying that the resurrection was as verifiable as any event of ancient history...

Zzzyx, you MUST cease these straw man arguments. You are breaking your own rules number 1 and 6. YOU are the one using the word "verifiable." That's YOUR word not mine. Please stop placing it in my mouth. Further, it's a word you have yet to even explain the meaning of in the context of historical enquiry never mind it not being used by historians in that same context.

...and that when confronted with evidence to the contrary, you claim to have been saying something different. However, that is my opinion and readers might reach a different conclusion.

You see folks, Zzyzx has pulled a little debater's slight-of-hand here. He says he has provided evidence to the contrary. But has he? No he hasn't. Zzyzx hasn't given ANY evidence. He has only ASSUMED he has. He has merely pointed to pyramids which no rational person would deny exist and has ASSUMED that the pyramids were built when he thinks they were, by the people he thinks built them for the reason he thinks they were built. Here's what Zzyzx will have much more difficulty proving: When the pyramids were built. Who built them. Why they were built. Who was the first pharaoh buried and so on. In addition to Zzyzx's already impressive list of logical fallacies in this thread we can now add Begging the Question.

2) Do you concede that the “resurrection” is LESS verifiable than other events of ancient history such as the building of pyramids?

Here's what I concede, Zzyzx. That there are structures in Egypt known as pyramids. Now you prove who they were built by, when and for what reason. Site your primary sources. Until you provide evidence and a methodology for evaluating that evidence and determining what is historically true (or agree to my methodology) you have no objective way to determine what is more or less probable than anything else. It's just your opinion. Don't you get this?

If so, I raise the point that since the LESS verifiable claimed event is used as THE basis of a major religion, there is reason to doubt the validity of that religion AND its claims that its namesake “arose from the dead”.

Your point is noted, but rendered impotent by your logical fallacies regarding the pyramids - categorical and Begging the Question. It's further rendered useless by the fact you have no methodology. We have no way to see where your conclusions may be flawed or biased. Further, even if your point were true, how does it prove the Rez untrue? It doesn't. The only thing "verifiable" by your methodology is that pyramids exist.

3) Do you maintain that a dead body actually, literally, physically came back to life?

Holy straw man factory Batman! I maintain that Jesus rose from the dead.

If so, perhaps you are unaware of what is known, by actual studies by forensic biologists, of what happens to a body after death occurs – in moderate atmospheric conditions of temperature, pressure and humidity.

What happens to the body after death?

1. Heart stops beating and/or lungs stop breathing.

2. Body cells no longer receive supplies of blood and oxygen.

Blood drains from capillaries in the upper surfaces and collects in the blood vessels in the lower surfaces.
Upper surfaces of the body become pale and the lower surfaces become dark.

3. Cells cease aerobic respiration, and are unable to generate the energy molecules needed to maintain normal muscle biochemistry.

Calcium ions leak into muscle cells preventing muscle relaxation.
Muscles stiffen and remain stiff (rigor mortis) until they begin to decompose.

4. Cells eventually die and the body loses its capacity to fight off bacteria.

5. The cells' own enzymes and bacterial activity cause the body to decompose - muscles lose their stiffness.
Timing?

Brain cells can die if deprived of oxygen for more than three minutes. Muscle cells live on for several hours. Bone and skin cells can stay alive for several days.
It takes around 12 hours for a human body to be cool to the touch and 24 hours to cool to the core.

Rigor mortis commences after three hours and lasts until 36 hours after death.
Forensic scientists use clues such as these for estimating the time of death.

http://www.deathonline.net/decompositio ... _stops.htm

Step 1: Initial decay
Initial decay occurs from 0 to 3 days after death. Although the body appears fresh from the outside, many things are going on inside the body to contribute to the process of decomposition. The bacteria that are normally inside the intestines of a living person begin to feed on the contents of the intestine and the intestine itself. Eventually these bacteria break out into the body cavity and start to digest other organs. Since the intestine is no longer intact, the body's digestive enzymes, which were kept safely inside the intestine and stomach, leak out and spread through the body helping to break down more organs and tissues. At the same time, enzymes inside individual cells leak out and digest the cell and its connections with other cells.

Let's not forget about the insects! From the moment of death flies are attracted to the smell of the decomposing body. Without the normal defenses of a living body, these flies are able to lay their eggs around wounds and other body openings (mouth, nose, eyes. etc.). Within 24 hours most of these eggs hatch and the larvae, or maggots, move into the body to feed on the dead tissue.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/20 ... .Gb.r.html

The above discussion is the professional opinion of a microbiologist who studies the matter of decomposition of human bodies after death.

That's all very interesting but what's your point? I already believe that Jesus died. You must as well otherwise you wouldn't have presented this tidbit.

4) Do you dispute the above description of what occurs to a body after death?

Nope, sounds like fun.

If you choose to not dispute the evidence above, but to claim that it does not apply in the case of the “resurrection”, you incur the burden of demonstrating exactly why a “special case” plea is justified for your argument -- based upon evidence (not conjecture or dogma).

I'm sure it did apply (especially number's 1-5), what's your point? Jesus was dead as a door nail, you obviously agree. I'm guessing you won't be appealing to the Swoon Theory, eh?

Zzyzx, is obviously getting restless and wants to move past all this methodology stuff. I'll make my opening post for the debate next.

[Goose]

Goose's opening post 1 of 10

I mentioned in my acceptance of Zzyzx'z challenge that I would use as my opening post in this head-to-head a cut and paste from another thread I started just to give him some time to study up. In that other thread Zzyzx made 7 posts but not once did he address the evidence/arguments presented or attempt to answer the question for debate. Let's see if he does any better here. I've modified it slightly to fit the question for debate in ths thread. "Was the Resurrection true?"

Taken from the thread Evidence for the Resurrection

I also believe there is a solid case for the Rez that meets a reasonable burden of proof for matters of history. Equal, at least, to that which we accept for other pivotal events in ancient history accepted as true and rarely questioned.

As indicated by the spectrum of the below quoted scholars and historians, I propose we can be reasonably certain some historical "facts" are probably true regardless of our philosophical predispositions. We can then look at theories that account for those facts.

The Methodology:

A "fact" shouldn't necessarily need to pass all of the listed criteria to be considered probable. Failing any one particular criterion does not necessarily make the fact false. Indeed very few, if any at all, ancient historical "facts" we rarely question would adequately pass all the requests of such a rigorous criteria as set out below. However, a fact that fails to pass a single criterion we would be justified in believing it to be improbable. Passing one or two should be sufficient to have the "fact" be at least considered probable. If a fact passes three I think we can be confident that it is very probable and so on. This methodology is not fool-proof of course as it is open to our biases and ultimately subjective to a degree. However, this seems to be the only way (I know of) to establish a reasonably objective treatment of evidence - i.e. pass the evidence through a standard set of criteria using a consistent methodology that can be applied to ALL ancient events. So, using criteria such as (but not limited to)...
1. Eyewitness attestation
2. Early attestation (the earlier the better - written during the lifetime of possible eyewitnesses is preferred)
3. Multiple independent attestation (independent does not mean non-Christian, but rather independent from other sources)
4. Enemy or neutral source attestation
5. The Principle of Embarrassment (If it's embarrassing or harmful to the case it is very likely that it is authentic or actually happened. It's very unlikely to have been propaganda simply “made up”)

Marcus J. Borg, a liberal theologian and "fellow" of the Jesus Seminar wrote, "The logic is straightforward: if a tradition appears in an early source and in another independent source, then not only is it early, but it is also unlikely to have been made up." Marcus J. Borg and N. T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus (1999), p. 12.

Historian Paul Maier notes, "Many facts from antiquity rest on just one ancient source, while two or three sources in agreement generally render the fact unimpeachable." Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness of Time: A Historian Looks a Christmas, Easter, and the Early Church (1991), p. 197.


As a side note, I’m confident we can reconcile alleged contradictions in the NT, demonstrate traditional authorship of the Gospels/Acts (i.g. The disciple Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew and so on. Just as we would for any other ancient document, see here ), and demonstrate the synoptics were written before 70AD. However, we'll forgo debate over the preceding to avoid rabbit trails and make it more of a challenge for the Rez theory. So, for the sake of argument in this thread we will assume:
1. The Bible is errant and not inspired by God. We'll consider it merely a collection of ancient writings.
2. The Gospels/Acts are technically anonymous and may or may not be eyewitness accounts.
3. The Gospels and other Christian/non-Christian accounts contain minor errors and contradictions in secondary details.
4. The Gospels/Acts were written after 70AD, but no later than 100AD.
5. Mark was the first Gospel written. The authors of Luke and Matthew used some of Mark as a source for their Gospels.


We could submit many, but to start, here are 5 "facts" that should pass enough of the listed criteria to be considered probable:


FACT 1. Jesus’ crucifixion and death

a) Early (and enemy) attestation from the Apostle Paul - (1 Thessalonians 5:9-10, 2:15; 1 Corinthians 1:23, 2:2 and early creedal passages in 1 Corinthians 15:3 - ca. 50-60AD)
b) Multiple attestation in all four Gospels and the Book of Acts (ca. 70-100AD)
c) Enemy/neutral attestation from Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities 18:64 - 96AD)
d) Enemy/neutral attestation from Roman historian Tacitus (Annals 15:44 - ca. 115AD)
e) Enemy/neutral attestation from Greek satirical writer Lucian (The Death of Peregrine, 11-13 - ca. 150AD)
f) Enemy/neutral attestation from Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a - ca. 200AD)
g) Principle of Embarrassment applies to the humiliating suffering and death of a supposed Messiah and the Son of God (as well as Principle of Dissimilarity from Jewish anticipation of a military type leader in the Messiah).

Atheist NT scholar Gerd Lüdemann acknowledged, "Jesus' death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable." Gerd Ludemann, The Resurrection of Christ, pg 50

The critical NT scholar and Jesus Seminar co-founder John Dominic Crossan wrote, "Jesus’ death by execution under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be. For, if no follower of Jesus had written anything for one hundred years after his crucifixion, we would still know about him from two authors not among his supporters. Their names are Flavius Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus...We have, in other words, not just Christian witnesses but one major Jewish and one major pagan historian who both agree on three points concerning Jesus: there was a movement, there was an execution because of that movement, but, despite that execution, there was a continuation of the movement." John Dominic Crossan, Who Killed Jesus?, pg. 5

Crossan also said, "Despite the differences between the studied impartiality of Josephus and the sneering partiality of Tacitus, they agree on three rather basic facts. First, there was some sort of a movement connected with Jesus. Second, he was executed by official authority presumably to stop the movement. Third, rather than being stopped, the movement continued to spread. There remain, therefore, these three: movement, execution, continuation. But the greatest of these is continuation." John Dominic Crossan, The Essential Jesus, p. 7.

John P. Meier wrote, "For two obvious reasons practically no one would deny the fact that Jesus was executed by crucifixion: (1) This central event is reported or alluded to not only by the vast majority of NT authors, but also by Josephus and Tacitus...(2) Such an embarrassing event created a major obstacle to converting Jews and Gentiles alike...that the Church struggled to overcome..." (John P. Meier, "The Circle of the Twelve: Did It Exist during Jesus' Public Ministry?", Journal of Biblical Literature 116 [1997] p. 664–665).


FACT 2. The tomb was discovered empty.

a) Early attestation from Paul - he implies an empty tomb (1 Cor. 15:3-4)
b) Multiple attestation from all four Gospels (the very early Pre-Markan Passion source probably contained the empty tomb)
c) The disciples were accused of stealing Jesus’ body by unbelieving Jews - indirect enemy confirmation that the tomb was empty (Matthew 28, Christian apologist Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho 108 - ca. 150AD; Christian apologist Tertullian De Spectaculis 30 - ca. 200AD)
d) The principle of embarrassment applies to the empty tomb reported as having been discovered by women
e) We have no record of Jesus’ corpse being produced only accusations that the disciples stole the body.
f) Setting the stage for the empty tomb was the honourable burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimethea (another fact we could admit as number 6 - but won't as it isn't really necessary to do so). It is attested by all four Gospels. As well Paul mentions the burial of Jesus(1 Cor 15). It also is strengthened by the Principle of Embarrassment where a Jewish member of the council, rather than a disciple or family member, that condemned Jesus was reported as honourably burring Jesus. This would have been offensive to the disciples and as such is unlikely to be a fabrication.

Liberal theologian John A. T. Robinson commented on the burial of Jesus, "[it is] one of the earliest and best–attested facts about Jesus." John A. T. Robinson, The Human Face of God (1973), p. 131.

William Wand, a past Oxford University church historian wrote, "All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favour [of the empty tomb], and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other grounds than that of scientific history." William Wand, Christianity: A Historical Religion? (1972), p. 93-94

NT critic D. H. Van Daalen wrote, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions." D.H. Van Daalen, The Real Resurrection(1972), p. 41.


FACT 3. The apostles sincerely believed Jesus rose from the dead and then appeared to them. So sincerely that some were willing to endure persecution and possibly even death because of this belief:

Claims of appearances to the disciples:
a) Early (and enemy) attestation from Paul (1 Cor. 15:4-8)
b) Multiple attestation from all four Gospels (even without the later addition of 16:9-20, early attestation in Mark's Gospel predicts the Rez and appearances in 8:31, 9:31, 10:34 and suggests there will be appearances made by Jesus 14:28, 16:6-7)
c) Multiple attestation from the Book of Acts (ch. 1-5, 10, 13, 17)
d) Possible neutral/enemy attestation from Tacitus (he may be inadvertently providing evidence that the apostles at least believed Jesus appeared to them in Annals 15:44 when he says, "...[Christianity] thus checked for the moment [by the crucifixion of Jesus], again broke out not only in Judea...")
e) Possible neutral/enemy attestation from Josephus (he may be reporting that the disciples at least believed Jesus appeared to them in Antiquities 18)
f) The Principle of Dissimilarity applies to the notion of a man/Messiah resurrecting from the dead before the end of time was contrary to Jewish belief and therefore reduces the odds it was "made up."
g) Principle of Embarrassment applies to the evidence that some disciples at the first instance did not believe but had doubts that Jesus was alive (Matthew 28:17, Luke 24:36-38, John 20:24-25).


Persecution and death of some disciples:
a) Early attestation from the Book of Acts (ch. 12 - death of James brother of John)
b) Early attestation from Clement of Rome (1 Clement 5 - ca. 95AD)
c) Attestation from Ignatius (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 3:2-3 - ca. 110AD)
d) Attestation from Polycarp (Letter to the Philippians 9 - ca. 110AD)
e) Attestation from Dionysius of Corinth (ca. 170AD - quoted by Eusebius EH 2:25:8)
f) Attestation from Tertullian (Scorpiace 15 - ca. 200AD)
g) Attestation from Origen (Contra Celsum 2:56,77 - ca. 230-250AD)


Atheist NT scholar Gerd Ludemann said, "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus' death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ." Gerd Ludemann, What Really Happened to Jesus? A Historical Approach to the Resurrection, (1995) p. 80. (It should be noted Ludemann believes these were visions)

Paula Fredriksen, a sceptical historian and scholar of religious studies, said in an interview with Peter Jennings (ABC) entitled The Search for Jesus in July 2000, "I know in [the disciples] own terms what they saw was the raised Jesus. That's what they say and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attest to their conviction that that's what they saw. I'm not saying that they really did see the raised Jesus. I wasn't there. I don't know what they saw. But I do know that as a historian that they must have seen something."



FACT 4. Paul, an enemy and persecutor of the church (Acts 8:3, 1 Cor. 15:9, Gal. 1:13) was transformed and became a prolific apostle because of his belief that a risen Jesus appeared to him. He was persecuted and reported as martyred.

Appearances of Jesus to Paul and his conversion:
a) Early, multiple and eyewitness attestation from Paul himself (1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1, Phil. 3)
b) Multiple and early attestation from the Book of Acts (ch. 9, 22, 26)

Paul’s suffering/martyrdom:
a) Early, multiple and eyewitness attestation from Paul for his suffering (2 Cor. 11, Phil. 1)
b) Multiple and early attestation from Book of Acts (ch. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23)
c) Early attestation from Clement of Rome (1 Clement 5)
d) Attestation from Polycarp (Letter to the Philippians 9:2)
e) Attestation from Tertullian (Scorpiace 15 and also quoted by Eusebius in EH 2:25:8)
f) Attestation from Dionysius of Corinth (c. 170AD - quoted by Eusebius in EH 2:25:8)
g) Attestation from Origen (Commentary on Genesis as quoted by Eusebius in EH 3:1)


FACT 5. James, brother of Jesus (Mark 6:3) and sceptic of His claims before the appearance of Jesus to him, was transformed and became a leader in the Church in Jerusalem. He was reported as martyred.

a) Principle of Embarrassment applies as Jesus' own family and brother James were described as sceptical prior to appearances (multiply attested - Matthew 13:57, Mark 3:21, 6:3-4, John 7:4-5)
b) Jesus appeared alive to James after His death (early and enemy attestation from Paul - 1 Cor. 15:7)
c) James is later described as an apostle by Paul(Gal 1:19) and leader in the early church in Jerusalem (Gal 2:9,12 and Acts 15)
d) Suffered and martyred - Enemy/neutral attestation from Josephus (ca. 96AD - Antiquities 20), further multiple attestation from Hegesippus (ca. 160AD - as quoted by Eusebius in EH 2:23), and Clement of Alexandria (ca. 180-200AD as quoted by Eusebius in EH 2:1).


Note that none of these 5 facts are supernatural or hard to believe on their own. They are all well attested with early and multiple sources. By any reasonable historical methodology these should be considered solid facts. Keep in mind on their own each fact presented does not build a strong case for the Rez. However, it is as a collective unit we must consider the evidence. Historians typically look for the best explanation that accounts for ALL the evidence. I posit the theory that God resurrected Jesus from the dead best accounts for ALL the evidence and combines explanatory power and scope given the context of Jesus' life and the claims made of Him and by Him. Since the rational position would be to go with the strongest explanation that accounts for ALL the evidence we should deem the Resurrection of Jesus as true.




Additional considerations and requests:
1. Persons who side with the weight of evidence, what the evidence suggests, and cogent arguments supported by good evidence could be described as taking a rational position. We would be justified in deeming "irrational" a position that denies evidence with out good reason and opposes strong arguments to side with weak unsupported arguments. On this, we can all agree.

2. As history deals more with degrees of probability rather than absolute certainty I would suggest the following. A single theory that has explanatory scope and power, given the context of surrounding events, and accounts for ALL the evidence should be considered more probable over a compilation of several theories stacked upon one another in an ad hoc manner. Especially if those ad hoc theories are speculation rich and evidence poor.

3. Please supply the methodology/criteria for questioning any one of these 5 facts (or any other evidence one wishes to refute or admit for consideration). We can then apply this methodology to other ancient historical facts. This will help us determine if the objection has credibility or is merely stemming from a bias against either the supernatural or Christianity. Simply making the objection, for example, that we cannot trust anything written by a Christian because they were biased is very problematic. Applying that overly simplistic criterion to the rest of ancient history would call almost all of it into question (even most of modern history).

If Zzyzx wishes to show the Rez to be untrue he should do one of two things (or both).

1. Provide an alternate theory that better accounts for ALL the evidence and has explantory power and scope. or/and;

2. Show WHY the evidence itself is false. (In this case we'll use the evidence for other ancient events around the time of Christ as a buffer to see if Zzyzx is just presenting a biased opinion or has a legitimate gripe - I suggest Caesar Crossing the Rubicon, Zzyzx can suggest another event if he wishes).

[Zzyzx]

.
Now that opposition “arguments” have gone beyond jockeying for position and attempting to belittle the person they STILL attempt to determine how Zzyzx is “allowed” to respond. That isn’t likely to happen as intended.

I suggest that we confine discussion to ideas rather than personalities. Is that possible for you Mr. Goose?

In this very first post of the “debate”, the “Resurrection Defense” has forfeited reason and evidence by evoking “goddidit” to “explain” the resurrection (see “I posit the theory” quoted near end of this post). “Miracle” claims cannot be verified (or disputed). They are simply matters of theology, opinion and conjecture.

Once “goddidit” has been evoked, anything is deemed possible because “god can do anything” according to some theories. No verification is provided to indicate that gods actually perform nature-defying feats. Reason no longer applies.

I will proceed as though the discussion was based on reason and evidence. For purposes of this debate only, I will assume that a person known as Jesus was crucified.

I will NOT agree (for lack of evidence) that:

• The body was known to be placed into a tomb
• The tomb was known to be guarded
• The tomb was known to be undisturbed (or disturbed)
• The tomb was known to be found empty
• An “angel” was involved
• There are eyewitness accounts of the event
• A body came back to life after being dead
• A resurrected Jesus physically appeared to anyone
• Accounts written long after the event can be considered accurate and complete

Note: I am NOT declaring that I know the above to be false, but that I do NOT accept them as true. Evidence has not been supplied (other than hearsay and opinion) that indicates to me that the claims are true.

The base issue is whether a dead body came back to life as depicted by biblical tales. Evidence has been presented in my earlier post regarding what occurs to a body upon death in the real world we inhabit. If death occurs, those processes are expected as determined by actual studies by medical and scientific investigators.

Deterioration of various internal organs, including the brain is noted by actual observation. The changes are understood to be irreversible (i.e., reversibility has not been demonstrated).

One who proposes that a body “comes back to life” after death has occurred might be expected to explain what has occurred to the decomposition processes and how the processes are reversed.

The “special plea” that “goddidit” is not accepted as debate – it is pure theology, opinion and conjecture.

Kindly explain to the readers of this thread the processes by which the supposed “came back to life” occurred citing real world evidence rather than mythology or theology.

I see no reason to attempt to compare biblical accounts of “the resurrection” to actual historical events. However, if that is to be done, I would compare those supposed events to the even older events related to King Tutankhamun (1341 BCE to 1323 BCE) Egyptian Pharaoh.

There is no doubt that King Tut (by whatever name known) existed, died, was mummified and was buried in a tomb. Evidence CLEARLY exists. The exact cause of death is disputed but the fact of death is not. Information regarding King Tut is readily available to all who seek. Beginning points of an Internet search might be:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutankhamun
http://history1900s.about.com/od/1920s/a/kingtut.htm
http://guardians.net/egypt/tut1.htm

By comparison, there is NOTHING to verify death, entombment or “resurrection” of Jesus other than hearsay recorded in multiple chapters of a single book – the authors, editors, translators, transcribers, revisionists, rewriters of which are NOT known.

Tutankhamun’s death is verified. No such thing is true regarding Jesus – particularly any claim that “he came back to life after being dead”.

“Evidence” submitted in the form of biblical quotations cannot be regarded as being anything other than self-serving propaganda by involved people. Gospel writers are NOT identified with certainty, no other information is available concerning the authors’ veracity, no verification of resurrection claims comes from extra-biblical sources.

Consider these “independent” sources:

Members of a political party write letters to other party members extolling the virtues of their founding father and their political party. Some of the letter writers borrow or copy from one another. None knows the founding father personally.

A committee from the National Convention selects letters from four staunch supporters to be included as chapters in their Party Handbook -- a book promoting the party and its founder. The committee rejects letters that do not convey the message they favor. The book is edited, revised and rewritten many times by unknown party workers.

1) Would any discerning person claim that the handbook represented independent and invariably accurate accounts of regarding the party or its founder?

The book is also copied over and over by hand through many generations and is translated through different languages.

2) Would anyone claim that the handbook was a credible source of reliable, accurate information about the founder AND about exact words used in conversations that were not recorded until generations after they supposedly occurred?

The writers tell stories about great achievements (which they did not witness) by the founder (who they do not know personally). They indicate that the founder could achieve superhuman results and perform feats of magic beyond the ability of any living human. They indicate that some people have seen such achievements – but do not include accounts by the people themselves.

3) Would anyone take seriously the claims of superhuman achievement and magical feats if no other verification of them could be supplied?

Copyright 2008 Zzyzx

Now, read the passage above replacing “letters” with “gospels”, “founder” with “Christ” and “Party Handbook” with “bible”.

In response to the “Facts” presented as “Resurrection Defense”:

FACT 1. Jesus’ crucifixion and death

For the purposes of this debate only, I do not disagree with the death of one called Jesus.

FACT 2. The tomb was discovered empty,

All “empty tomb” claims are taken from the Party Handbook. They are NOT independent and are not verified. Note: “attestation” means “somebody said”.

There is NO extra-biblical indication that burial in a tomb occurred. No evidence of a tomb provided by Joseph of Arimethea other than from the Party Handbook

Note: The Catholic Encyclopedia says regarding Joseph of Arimethea:

“All that is known for certain concerning him is derived from the canonical Gospels.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08520a.htm ”

The Catholic Church acknowledges that the ONLY information about the supposed “donor of the tomb” comes from the Party Handbook (and can hardly be considered as “certain” by anyone who does not accept the gospels as “certain” and above reproach).

It is interesting to note that no such tomb has been identified.

There is NO extra-biblical indication that a tomb was discovered empty – only accounts in the Party Handbook (including tales of “an angel” being involved) and various assumptions thereafter. Supposedly “independent” accounts are simply different chapters of “the bible” (which of the hundreds of bibles is usually not specified).

Compare this to the evidence regarding King Tut that is readily available to anyone AND which can be tested for accuracy.

An argument that depends upon the “principle of embarrassment” as “evidence” can be regarded as very weak. Note how often it is used.

FACT 3. The apostles sincerely believed Jesus rose from the dead and then appeared to them. So sincerely that some were willing to endure persecution and possibly even death because of this belief.

Many Japanese soldiers died during WWII believing Hirohito was a deity. Did that make it so?

People are often willing to die for what they believe. That willingness is NOT an indication that what they believe is true.

According to the Party Handbook some party members sincerely believed that the founder performed superhuman feats.

FACT 4. Paul, an enemy and persecutor of the church (Acts 8:3, 1 Cor. 15:9, Gal. 1:13) was transformed and became a prolific apostle because of his belief that a risen Jesus appeared to him. He was persecuted and reported as martyred.

One of the letter writers quoted in the Party Handbook had belonged to a different party and had converted. Great “meaning” is accorded to his conversion.

FACT 5. James, brother of Jesus (Mark 6:3) and sceptic of His claims before the appearance of Jesus to him, was transformed and became a leader in the Church in Jerusalem. He was reported as martyred.

Someone perhaps known to a letter writer, supposedly related to the founder, joined the party.

I posit the theory that God resurrected Jesus from the dead best accounts for ALL the evidence and combines explanatory power and scope given the context of Jesus' life and the claims made of Him and by Him. Since the rational position would be to go with the strongest explanation that accounts for ALL the evidence we should deem the Resurrection of Jesus as true.

Those who propose a theory are expected to demonstrate that it is true and viable.

The “evidence” presented is nothing more than conjecture, opinion, legend and hearsay (and of course, the “principle of embarrassment”).

The “claims made of him and by him” are hearsay recorded decades after they were supposedly uttered.

NO evidence has been presented to verify that gods perform magical tricks (or “miracles”).


Compare the “evidence” presented by Resurrection Defense to the evidence presented regarding decomposition of a body after death. Which is more credible?

Compare Resurrection Defense “evidence” to the evidence that King Tut was real, died and was buried. Which is more credible?

Wanting to believe something (such as bible stories) is NOT valid reason for casting aside reason, evidence and common sense. Many Christians, including early sects, regard(ed) the “resurrection” as NOT literal but figurative or mythical. That position I do not challenge.


Goose, when you have time, kindly quote the biblical passages that you intend to defend as being true.

[Goose]

Goose's post 2 of a possible 10

.
Now that opposition “arguments” have gone beyond jockeying for position and attempting to belittle the person they STILL attempt to determine how Zzyzx is “allowed” to respond. That isn’t likely to happen as intended.

You can respond as you wish. You see it as "jockeying for position." I see it as trying to avoid logical fallacies and keep the debate as fair as possible.

I suggest that we confine discussion to ideas rather than personalities. Is that possible for you Mr. Goose?

Don't take my pointing out your multiple fallacies and other non-sense personally, Zzyzx. I'm sure you're a great person.

In this very first post of the “debate”, the “Resurrection Defense” has forfeited reason and evidence by evoking “goddidit” to “explain” the resurrection (see “I posit the theory” quoted near end of this post). “Miracle” claims cannot be verified (or disputed). They are simply matters of theology, opinion and conjecture.

Wrong. A miracle claim can be shown to be false by direct evidence that proves it false. Or a naturalistic theory that is a better and more powerful explanation that accounts for all the evidence can show a miracle to be the less likely answer.

Once “goddidit” has been evoked, anything is deemed possible because “god can do anything” according to some theories. No verification is provided to indicate that gods actually perform nature-defying feats. Reason no longer applies.

I have one question that I hope you'll answer. If a miracle is the BEST explanation for the evidence and all the competing naturalistic theories either fail to account for all the evidence or have no evidence for support, on what grounds would you reject the supernatural explanation? If you hold that the supernatural can not possibly exist then you Beg the Question again. You can not be aware of all the evidence in existence past, present or future for the supernatural. Therefore, you must accept that there is at least a possibility that the supernatural exists. If the supernatural can possibly exist and it is the best explanation you can not rationally reject it with out committing a logical fallacy.

I will proceed as though the discussion was based on reason and evidence. For purposes of this debate only, I will assume that a person known as Jesus was crucified.

I will NOT agree (for lack of evidence) that:

• The body was known to be placed into a tomb
• The tomb was known to be guarded
• The tomb was known to be undisturbed (or disturbed)
• The tomb was known to be found empty
• An “angel” was involved
• There are eyewitness accounts of the event
• A body came back to life after being dead
• A resurrected Jesus physically appeared to anyone
• Accounts written long after the event can be considered accurate and complete

Note: I am NOT declaring that I know the above to be false, but that I do NOT accept them as true. Evidence has not been supplied (other than hearsay and opinion) that indicates to me that the claims are true.

Since you've only offered your opinion here I'll leave it at that. I'll also note that you've presented more straw men arguments. I did not present the tomb being guarded, the tomb was known to be undisturbed (or disturbed), an “angel” was involved, as part of my arguments. They would not adequately pass the methodology. Also, I've built the case with the assumption that there were no eyewitness accounts of the event.

(As a side note: You need to read this link concerning Strawmen Arguments. It's a fallacy you've made in this thread multiple times now. It's getting tiresome.)

The base issue is whether a dead body came back to life as depicted by biblical tales. Evidence has been presented in my earlier post regarding what occurs to a body upon death in the real world we inhabit. If death occurs, those processes are expected as determined by actual studies by medical and scientific investigators.

Deterioration of various internal organs, including the brain is noted by actual observation. The changes are understood to be irreversible (i.e., reversibility has not been demonstrated).

One who proposes that a body “comes back to life” after death has occurred might be expected to explain what has occurred to the decomposition processes and how the processes are reversed.

If a miracle could be explained in naturalistic terms it would NOT be a miracle. You are comitting another categorical fallacy here. Supernatural claims and natural claims have different qualities which by definition are what seperates them. You are wanting one category(the supernatural) to be explained by another category (the natural).

The “special plea” that “goddidit” is not accepted as debate – it is pure theology, opinion and conjecture.

Not accepted by who? Let me guess - atheists. The only way one would see the Resurrection of Jesus as Special Pleadingis if they rejected the supernatural a priori. Then one would seek to explain the Rez through naturalism as though only naturalism can solve questions. The claim is not that Jesus rose by natural means, but rather by supernatural. Therefore, it is not a case of Special Pleading. We are not saying Jesus died and then nature itself reversed the process or the laws of physics ceased by natural means - that would be Special Pleading. The claim is that God raised Jesus from the dead - that God acted in space and time is the best explanation. (The anti-supernatural bias and rigid adherence to science and naturalism from atheists is baffling considering most atheists claim to be "free-thinkers.")

Kindly explain to the readers of this thread the processes by which the supposed “came back to life” occurred citing real world evidence rather than mythology or theology.

If I could explain it in natural terms it wouldn't be a miracle and I'd know how to reverse death. It's strange because Zzyzx thinks that if we can not explain a miracle in naturalistic terms then that miracle is unverifiable. It's a fallicious and loaded request.

I see no reason to attempt to compare biblical accounts of “the resurrection” to actual historical events. However, if that is to be done, I would compare those supposed events to the even older events related to King Tutankhamun (1341 BCE to 1323 BCE) Egyptian Pharaoh.

You should have picked a better example with better evidence. There are many more unknowns about King Tut than knowns. But it's ironic that you are so confident and have "no doubt" about a person for which we don't know for sure the proper name, how old he was when he died, or the manner of death, or who this person's parents were and so on.

There is no doubt that King Tut (by whatever name known) existed, died, was mummified and was buried in a tomb. Evidence CLEARLY exists. The exact cause of death is disputed but the fact of death is not. Information regarding King Tut is readily available to all who seek. Beginning points of an Internet search might be:

What is the evidence that King Tut existed? Heck, they aren't even sure what his real name was or how old he was when he died or how he died. How can you possibly say there is "no doubt" that King Tut existed yet doubt the existence of Jesus or other characters from the Bible? Do you use the same critical methodology for the claims of King Tut? I don't think you do. Did you ask to see DNA "verifying" it actually IS King Tut? Where is the "verifiable" evidence? You are Begging the Question again and employing a double standard.

Also, everybody dies, THAT is a fact, yes. We don't need evidence that someone died to know they died. We just need to know that enough time has passed. I don't need to HOW Abraham Lincoln died to know that he died at SOME POINT. The circumstances surrounding Lincoln's death and that of King Tut are much more speculative, however. Of course the evidence that someone died is better than that for the Resurrection, all you need is to know they existed. If they existed, they died. We should look at the evidence for HOW King Tut died and compare that to the Resurrection. Just as you stated, "I would compare those supposed events to the even older events related to King Tutankhamun..." Death itself is not an event in the sense that the Resurrection or other historical events would be. It's like saying we have better evidence that King Tut breathed oxygen than Jesus rose from the dead. DUH! It's another fallacious comparison. We should compare the evidence for HOW King Tut died to the evidence for the Resurrection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutankhamun
http://history1900s.about.com/od/1920s/a/kingtut.htm
http://guardians.net/egypt/tut1.htm

By comparison, there is NOTHING to verify death, entombment or “resurrection” of Jesus other than hearsay recorded in multiple chapters of a single book – the authors, editors, translators, transcribers, revisionists, rewriters of which are NOT known.

First, I love it when people say things like "there is NOTHING to verify death, entombment or “resurrection” of Jesus other than..." Imagine a lawyer addressing the jury in his final statement,"OTHER THAN all the evidence my opponent has presented, ladies and gentleman of the jury, my opponent has presented NO evidence.

Secondly, where is the evidence to "verify" how King Tut died? Some think he was murdered by a blow to the head. Some think it was an accident. Some think he died because of infection from a broken leg. Some think the leg was broken during embalming. Some speculate he broke his leg by falling or in a chariot race. No one really knows because there is no direct evidence from ANY early source. Yet somehow you think there is better evidence for the circumstances surrounding King Tut's death.

Taken from your first source:

For a long time the cause of Tutankhamun's death was unknown, and it is still the root of much speculation. How old was the king when he died? Did he suffer from any physical abnormalities? Had he been murdered? Some of these questions were finally answered in early 2005 when the results of a set of CT scans on the mummy were released, but many still remain to be unsolved.

and later in summary

So the mystery surrounding [King Tut's] death continues.

Tutankhamun’s death is verified...

Why? Cuz there's a mummy in a sarcophagus? How do you know that's even King Tut in the sarcophagus? Why aren't you asking for DNA "verification"?

...No such thing is true regarding Jesus – particularly any claim that “he came back to life after being dead”.

Hello? Jesus is reported to have risen from the dead and ascended, we shouldn't expect there to be his remains. If there were that would be excellent evidence to show he didn't rise from the dead.

“Evidence” submitted in the form of biblical quotations cannot be regarded as being anything other than self-serving propaganda by involved people...

But you accept the scanty, biased and ambiguous evidence for King Tut.

...Gospel writers are NOT identified with certainty, no other information is available concerning the authors’ veracity,...

Oh, but King Tut's identity IS certain? What do we know about the recorders of King Tut's life? We know less about people like Manetho (who recorded the King's of Egypt in the 3rd century BC) than Tut himself. This is getting funnier by the second.

...no verification of resurrection claims comes from extra-biblical sources.

That's false. 1 Clement affirms the resurrection and is written in the late first century.

I'd suggest another comparison other than King Tut. Preferably a person or some event for which there is better evidence. You're making this too easy.



The "Party Handbook" anaolgy:

I was under the impression from our PM's that when Zzyzx said of himself, "I will present evidence, reasoning..." I took that mean Zzyzx would present evidence. Somehow Zzyzx thinks the following analogy and clinic on how to Beg the Questionis evidence and reasoning. Anyway, to be a good sport I'll play along.

Consider these “independent” sources:

Members of a political party write letters to other party members extolling the virtues of their founding father and their political party. Some of the letter writers borrow or copy from one another. None knows the founding father personally....

You Beg the Question that the writers did not know Jesus.

A committee from the National Convention selects letters from four staunch supporters to be included as chapters in their Party Handbook -- a book promoting the party and its founder. The committee rejects letters that do not convey the message they favor...

You Beg the Question that the Councils arbitrarily selected certain books and all others were destroyed. This is proven false by the simple fact we still have Gnostic texts in existence.

...The book is edited, revised and rewritten many times by unknown party workers.

Big time Begging the Question that the books were heavily edited and altered from earlier not having a resurrection to later having a resurrection.

1) Would any discerning person claim that the handbook represented independent and invariably accurate accounts of regarding the party or its founder?

Would any discerning person find an exercise in Begging the Question convincing?

The book is also copied over and over by hand through many generations and is translated through different languages.

All ancient books were copied by hand and subject to minor spelling and grammatical errors and such. But that doesn't bother you as long as it's not the Bible. By the way, it was translated from one language (Greek to English).

2) Would anyone claim that the handbook was a credible source of reliable, accurate information about the founder AND about exact words used in conversations that were not recorded until generations after they supposedly occurred?

You are Begging the Question that the Gospels "were not recorded until generations after they supposedly occurred." Assuming the gospels were not written by eyewitness or taken from eyewitness, they are all written during the life time of possible witnesses. Therefore, your "recorded until generations after" accusation is false.

The writers tell stories about great achievements (which they did not witness) by the founder (who they do not know personally). They indicate that the founder could achieve superhuman results and perform feats of magic beyond the ability of any living human. They indicate that some people have seen such achievements – but do not include accounts by the people themselves.

Aside from Begging the Question again that the writers did not know Jesus all you have presented is your anti-supernatural bias.

3) Would anyone take seriously the claims of superhuman achievement and magical feats if no other verification of them could be supplied?

How much and what kind of "verification" would you need Zzyzx? Something tells me no amount of "verification" for the supernatural would be enough for one that a priori dismisses the supernatural.

Now, read the passage above replacing “letters” with “gospels”, “founder” with “Christ” and “Party Handbook” with “bible”.

And that would prove what? It proves that you must resort to constructing fallacious analogies because you have no counter evidence.

FACT 2. The tomb was discovered empty,

All “empty tomb” claims are taken from the Party Handbook. They are NOT independent and are not verified. Note: “attestation” means “somebody said”.

That's incorrect. All four gospels report the discovery of the empty tomb with slightly different emphasis and details. Something we would expect if they were taken from different witnesses to the events. So to say they are dependent on one another for the Resurrection sequence is clearly false. Paul is independent of the Gospel and implies an empty tomb. Who are you expecting it to be "verified" by Zzyzx? Why don't you name the source it should have been verified by. That would help your argument. As it stands, simply saying they are "not verified" is really just an Argument from Silence.

There is NO extra-biblical indication that burial in a tomb occurred. No evidence of a tomb provided by Joseph of Arimethea other than from the Party Handbook

Gamaliel was a contemporary of Christ and a council member like Joseph of Arimethea and "... a fact beyond all doubt that in the second third of the first century Gamaliel (of whose father, Simon, nothing beyond his name is known) occupied a leading position in the highest court, the great council of Jerusalem, and that, as a member of that court, he received the cognomen "Ha-Za?en." Taken from here.

"When [Gamaliel] died the honor of the Torah ceased, and purity and piety became extinct" (Sot.ah 15:18).

Acts 5:34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law who was respected by all the people, stood up in the Council and ordered the men to be taken outside for a little while.

More on Gamaliel.

Despite Gamaliel's very high position, being presumably wealthy, being a Jew and therefore subject to Jewish burial customs in a tomb, we don't know where Gamaliel's tomb is either. So I hardly see this as a problem for the account of Joseph of Arimathea.

Note: The Catholic Encyclopedia says regarding Joseph of Arimethea:

“All that is known for certain concerning him is derived from the canonical Gospels.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08520a.htm ”

Right, all that is known for certain.But you don't like that certainty because it is found in the Bible, written by Christians. That's called the Gentic Fallacy

The Catholic Church acknowledges that the ONLY information about the supposed “donor of the tomb” comes from the Party Handbook (and can hardly be considered as “certain” by anyone who does not accept the gospels as “certain” and above reproach).

Historians do not need an ancient writing to be "certain" and "above reproach" before they use it in reconstructing the past. Historians that specialize in the first century AD Ancient Near East use the NT as a source for historical information. What exactly is the problem here?

It is interesting to note that no such tomb has been identified.

Identify Gamaliel's tomb and I'll buy your argument.

There is NO extra-biblical indication that a tomb was discovered empty – only accounts in the Party Handbook (including tales of “an angel” being involved) and various assumptions thereafter. Supposedly “independent” accounts are simply different chapters of “the bible” (which of the hundreds of bibles is usually not specified).

Which extra-biblical works should we expect the empty tomb to be mentioned in? You need to demonstrate WHERE and WHY we should expect this event to be mentioned in extra-biblical sources. All you are doing is poo-pooing the sources we have and then claiming it isn't mentioned anywhere else (Argument from Silence) as though that means something. How does this prove it false? It doesn't.

Compare this to the evidence regarding King Tut that is readily available to anyone AND which can be tested for accuracy.

You mean all that evidence that tells us who his parents were, how old he was when he died, and how he died. You mean all that evidence that we don't have? How do you test for the accuracy of evidence that doesn't exist? Where is all the contemporary unbiased evidence for King Tut?

An argument that depends upon the “principle of embarrassment” as “evidence” can be regarded as very weak. Note how often it is used.

You regard it as weak. Many historians regard it as quite strong. Some even regard it as the strongest. Note how often the following logical fallacies have been employed by Zzyzx in his arguments.

The Categorical fallacy (at least 3x)
Straw man arguments (I've lost count)
Non-sequitur fallacy
Red Herring fallacy
Genetic Fallacy (multiple times in this post)
Argument from Silence
And last but not least, Begging the Question (too many to count)

FACT 3. The apostles sincerely believed Jesus rose from the dead and then appeared to them. So sincerely that some were willing to endure persecution and possibly even death because of this belief.

Many Japanese soldiers died during WWII believing Hirohito was a deity. Did that make it so?

They were not in a position to know it was true. Also, Hirohito did nothing to prove his claim to deity.

People are often willing to die for what they believe. That willingness is NOT an indication that what they believe is true.

You've also presented yet another straw man argument. The Christian argument doesn't run: because the disciples died for what they believed, what they believed must be true. The argument runs: they wouldn't have knowingly died for a lie.

According to the Party Handbook some party members sincerely believed that the founder performed superhuman feats.

Extra-biblical sources confirm that Jesus was regarded as a "wonder worker" (Josephus), a "sorcerer"(Talmud), and founder of a "mischievous superstition" (Tacitus). This would be good evidence that others outside the Christian community either witnessed miracles performed by Jesus or had heard about them. At least these sources were reporting that some one believed Jesus performed wonders. Which is really all we should expect from non-Christian sources. If they were going out of their way in affirming Jesus' miracles or His resurrection you would probably be accusing them of either being forgeries or Christian sources and therefore from the "Party Handbook."

FACT 4. Paul, an enemy and persecutor of the church (Acts 8:3, 1 Cor. 15:9, Gal. 1:13) was transformed and became a prolific apostle because of his belief that a risen Jesus appeared to him. He was persecuted and reported as martyred.

One of the letter writers quoted in the Party Handbook had belonged to a different party and had converted. Great “meaning” is accorded to his conversion.

Right, you don't get your enemies to convert with tales and fables. Especially if conversion is going to lead you into harm's way.

FACT 5. James, brother of Jesus (Mark 6:3) and sceptic of His claims before the appearance of Jesus to him, was transformed and became a leader in the Church in Jerusalem. He was reported as martyred.

Someone perhaps known to a letter writer, supposedly related to the founder, joined the party.

Actually, James was known to multiple "letter writers."

I posit the theory that God resurrected Jesus from the dead best accounts for ALL the evidence and combines explanatory power and scope given the context of Jesus' life and the claims made of Him and by Him. Since the rational position would be to go with the strongest explanation that accounts for ALL the evidence we should deem the Resurrection of Jesus as true.

Those who propose a theory are expected to demonstrate that it is true and viable.

So you have no alternate theory then.

The “evidence” presented is nothing more than conjecture, opinion, legend and hearsay (and of course, the “principle of embarrassment”).

It blows the doors off the evidence for the life of King Tut, but you are pretty sure about him. In fact, I think you used the words "no doubt." Go figure.

The “claims made of him and by him” are hearsay recorded decades after they were supposedly uttered.

Maybe you can find some words spoken by King Tut and prove they were spoken by him and not hearsay or recorded decades after.

NO evidence has been presented to verify that gods perform magical tricks (or “miracles”).

...except for all the evidence that has been provided.

Compare the “evidence” presented by Resurrection Defense to the evidence presented regarding decomposition of a body after death. Which is more credible?

You are aware of course these are two different subjects right?

Compare Resurrection Defense “evidence” to the evidence that King Tut was real, died and was buried. Which is more credible?

This whole argument assumes the only way we can know someone existed, died and was buried is if we have their remains today. We should apply that overly simplistic criterion to the rest of history and see what happens.

Here's what we know about King Tut and his death. Taken from BBC News

Little is known about Tutankhamun's 10-year rule after he succeeded Akhenaten, who had abandoned Egypt's old gods in favour of monotheism.

From the same source regarding King Tut's death

Whatever the case, Mr Hawass, chairman of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, said he was confident that Tutankhamun, who died in 1352 BC, was not murdered.

"We don't know how the king died, but we are now sure that it was not murder. Maybe he died on his own," he said.

Modern Egyptoligists rely heavily on altered sources such as the Egyptian historian Manetho writing in the 3rd century BC, 1000 years after King Tut! Josephus records that Manetho admits to including "nameless oral tradition" and "myths and legends" in his accounts. The ironic thing is Manethos doesn't even mention King Tut in his King Lists. I guess that means King Tut probably didn't exist or wasn't a King of Egypt, eh?

Also, you have no way of "verifying" by your own standards that it even IS King Tut. It might be Steve the plumber in the sarcophagus and King Tut may never have existed. Tut could be a myth. You have to ASSUME it is King Tut because your methodology will only allow something to be "verified" if it still exists today. You don't trust the words of the ancients especially if it is hearsay and written decades after. All you have is a mummy to work with. So you obliterate most of history with your methodology. Now, if you hold that archaeology can confirm written accounts then you are using a double standard if you accept accounts written about Egyptian Kings but reject the Biblical accounts. If you hold that we can only know for certain that which is "verified" by archaeology then you again obliterate a very large portion of history.

Wanting to believe something (such as bible stories) is NOT valid reason for casting aside reason, evidence and common sense...

You must be joking. Your arguments contain an inordinate amount of logical fallacies combined with simply hand-waving the evidence. For one in that position to then claim they are the more rational and embrace evidence, reason, and logic is so blatantly false it's funny.

Many Christians, including early sects, regard(ed) the “resurrection” as NOT literal but figurative or mythical. That position I do not challenge.

What those other than the disciples and witnesses to the Rez believe(d) is a irrelevant and Red Herring fallacy.

Goose, when you have time, kindly quote the biblical passages that you intend to defend as being true.

I've already done so.

[Zzyzx]

.
Goose,

You are attempting to defend a story that, if it was true, would represent the greatest event in the history of the world – involving the greatest person that ever lived. Supposedly the creator of the entire universe visited the Earth for thirty years and performed miracles. Yet what you offer for “evidence” is a SINGLE book written by religious storytellers.

You are attempting to pass off that single book as though it represented multiple, independent sources. That may work when preaching to the choir but it won’t work here in debate.

You are presenting to the readers of this forum the skimpiest of “evidence” – hearsay and opinions – and asking them to believe that a dead body came back to life – an extraordinary and incredible claim – because you say so – based upon nothing but stories told by unknown people. It seems as though you insult their intelligence.

According to your interpretation, the “great miracle worker” left no sign other than an impression on a few believers and followers. Historians, commentators and others of the era apparently did not notice “the greatest event in the history of the world”. The “greatest person that ever lived”, a god among men, was evidently known only to a few religious nuts (called followers or disciples).

Your entire “argument” is an excuse for why there is no real evidence -- only hearsay, opinion and conjecture -- AND a critique of what you see as “logical fallacies” in my position. The REAL logical fallacy is your attempt to argue a case without evidence to support your contentions.

You may dislike my “Party Handbook” comparison to the New Testament, BUT readers can understand that it is “too close for comfort” and is fairly representative. As I have stated, I write for those readers who can understand and not for anyone whose mind is locked in concrete.

You and others who wish to believe that the resurrection occurred based on the thin “evidence” of bible stories and church dogma are certainly welcome to do so. However, when you attempt to convince thinking people that your tales are true, you may be asked to supply more than a SINGLE book and a pack of excuses.

Goose's post 2 of a possible 10

Zzyzx post 2 of 10

In this very first post of the “debate”, the “Resurrection Defense” has forfeited reason and evidence by evoking “goddidit” to “explain” the resurrection (see “I posit the theory” quoted near end of this post). “Miracle” claims cannot be verified (or disputed). They are simply matters of theology, opinion and conjecture.

Wrong. A miracle claim can be shown to be false by direct evidence that proves it false.

If a “miracle claim” can be shown to be false by direct evidence, it stands to reason that a “miracle claim” can be shown to be true by direct evidence.

You have stated that the resurrection, a “miracle claim”, is true. Kindly supply direct evidence to show it to be true.

Or a naturalistic theory that is a better and more powerful explanation that accounts for all the evidence can show a miracle to be the less likely answer.

Providing a “better explanation” does not prove anything false. “More likely” or “less likely” do NOT constitute proof of anything.

The “most likely” explanation for daylight and darkness for most of human history was “the sun circles the Earth”. That was evidently considered the “best explanation” by millions or billions of humans for thousands of years. HOWEVER, their beliefs did NOT make it true.

Your belief that a “miracle” occurred to “explain” an “event” that cannot be shown to have occurred is an example of “belief on faith”. Your belief does not make it true.

It is my opinion that the only “miracle” is that anyone believes the tales that you cite as “evidence”. I do not think that many would believe such stories if they were not “taught” to do so during childhood or in times of emotional distress.

Would anyone claim that the handbook was a credible source of reliable, accurate information about the founder AND about exact words used in conversations that were not recorded until generations after they supposedly occurred?

You are Begging the Question that the Gospels "were not recorded until generations after they supposedly occurred." Assuming the gospels were not written by eyewitness or taken from eyewitness, they are all written during the life time of possible witnesses. Therefore, your "recorded until generations after" accusation is false.

A generation is taken to be twenty-three to thirty years
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=generation
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define. ... &dict=CALD

I made no “accusation” and my statement is accurate. Do you have other comments?

That it may be “possible” that some supposed witnesses to the resurrection lived until writing of the “gospels” is NO evidence that any eyewitness accounts were included or considered in the writings. Because something is possible does NOT verify that it occurred.

Christian “arguments” in defense of bible stories often boil down to, “You can’t prove that it isn’t possible that such things happened”. That is NOT a valid defense of ideas put forth as being true.

A committee from the National Convention selects letters from four staunch supporters to be included as chapters in their Party Handbook -- a book promoting the party and its founder. The committee rejects letters that do not convey the message they favor...

You Beg the Question that the Councils arbitrarily selected certain books and all others were destroyed. This is proven false by the simple fact we still have Gnostic texts in existence.

Kindly quote any statement from me that states that “all others were destroyed”. I did NOT say any such thing. You did.

Since you raise the issue, were attempts made by the early church to destroy “non-conforming” documents, including Gnostic texts? Were the Gnostic texts preserved by the Catholic Church?

Once “goddidit” has been evoked, anything is deemed possible because “god can do anything” according to some theories. No verification is provided to indicate that gods actually perform nature-defying feats. Reason no longer applies.

I have one question that I hope you'll answer. If a miracle is the BEST explanation for the evidence and all the competing naturalistic theories either fail to account for all the evidence or have no evidence for support, on what grounds would you reject the supernatural explanation?

The best “explanation” of WHAT evidence? You have presented NO evidence that a body came back to life. Hearsay is NOT evidence.

The BEST explanation for biblical “miracle” claims, including the “resurrection” is, in my opinion, that they are fables and legends – that they did not happen literally and physically.

There is little or no evidence that “miracles” actually occurred other than the tales told by supporters and believers. According to your sources, the sun supposedly darkened (or delayed setting another time) and people worldwide do not notice or record the event, for instance. One might wonder why the phenomena only occurred (supposedly occurred) in the Mediterranean region.

After a hero dies it is not uncommon for humans to glorify and exaggerate her/his story. “He walked on water” is a common example and is a common “miracle claim”. As an allegory it makes sense. As a physical “truth” it does not.

If you hold that the supernatural can not possibly exist then you Beg the Question again.

I do NOT “hold that the supernatural cannot possibly exist”. What gave you that idea? If you wish to criticize my positions kindly criticize my actual positions, not ones that you invent or suggest for me.

My actual position is, “Evidence has not been presented that would convince me that invisible super beings exist or that they perform nature-defying magical tricks”.

If you feel it necessary to make up things that I did NOT say to attack, that seems to indicate an inability to effectively address what I DO say.

You can not be aware of all the evidence in existence past, present or future for the supernatural.

I cannot be aware of past, present or future of the supernatural – AND neither can you – and neither can anyone else. Yet you are attempting to defend what you identify as supernatural. Good luck.

Therefore, you must accept that there is at least a possibility that the supernatural exists. If the supernatural can possibly exist and it is the best explanation you can not rationally reject it with out committing a logical fallacy.

I accept the possibility that the supernatural exists. I await the evidence. I will not accept stories told by proponents of any of the thousands of different religions and different gods without evidence to substantiate claims.

I have made an open invitation to any existing gods to contact me and to any promoter of gods to provide evidence. Neither has happened.

Note: I am NOT declaring that I know the above to be false, but that I do NOT accept them as true. Evidence has not been supplied (other than hearsay and opinion) that indicates to me that the claims are true.

Since you've only offered your opinion here I'll leave it at that.

I identify my opinions and encourage you to do likewise.

I'll also note that you've presented more straw men arguments. I did not present the tomb being guarded, the tomb was known to be undisturbed (or disturbed), an “angel” was involved, as part of my arguments. They would not adequately pass the methodology. Also, I've built the case with the assumption that there were no eyewitness accounts of the event.

Had you read my post it would have been obvious that I did NOT credit you with any of the positions to which you object. I simply stated what I, personally, do not accept as being true regarding the “resurrection tale”. If you agree, fine. If you disagree, fine. There is no logical fallacy in my stating what I do not accept.

If a miracle could be explained in naturalistic terms it would NOT be a miracle. You are comitting another categorical fallacy here. Supernatural claims and natural claims have different qualities which by definition are what seperates them. You are wanting one category(the supernatural) to be explained by another category (the natural).

You may call it whatever you wish. If a “miracle” is claimed, a “miracle” needs to be demonstrated. Hearsay isn’t proof. Ancient tales are not proof.

What IS being offered to convince readers that a “miracle” occurred?

The “special plea” that “goddidit” is not accepted as debate – it is pure theology, opinion and conjecture.

Not accepted by who? Let me guess - atheists.

An honorable debater does not expect opinion and conjecture to be accepted as evidence in a debate. An intelligent debater does not expect theology to be accepted as evidence by Non-Theists.

Do you contend that personal opinion and conjecture ARE acceptable as evidence in debate and that Non-Theists should accept theological arguments as evidence?

The claim “goddidit” is a personal OPINION and conjecture, it is not fact. It is not verified. It carries no more weight than any other personal opinion or conjecture in debate – none at all.

The claim is not that Jesus rose by natural means, but rather by supernatural. Therefore, it is not a case of Special Pleading.

Then SHOW the evidence of supernaturalism. Demonstrate that it occurs.

If you cannot, all that you say is conjecture.

You are ASSUMING that supernaturalism occurred. You are claiming that “it must have been a miracle”. Arising from the dead does NOT fit with nature or the real world – so supernatural “explanations” must be claimed (always without evidence that supernatural events actually occur).

All you have offered as “evidence” are tales by people who believe in “miracles” saying that they saw a “miracle”.

We are not saying Jesus died and then nature itself reversed the process or the laws of physics ceased by natural means - that would be Special Pleading. The claim is that God raised Jesus from the dead - that God acted in space and time is the best explanation. (The anti-supernatural bias and rigid adherence to science and naturalism from atheists is baffling considering most atheists claim to be "free-thinkers.")

If you maintain that “goddidit” (performed a “miracle” of resurrection) kindly demonstrate using something other than opinion and conjecture that gods bring people back to life.

If you maintain that the processes of nature did NOT apply in the example you cite, you ARE making a special plea. You are claiming that what we know of nature did not apply in the story you tell. And perhaps pigs can fly and gods can ascend in storybook tales.

Read again the part about maggots invading dead bodies within three days.

Kindly explain to the readers of this thread the processes by which the supposed “came back to life” occurred citing real world evidence rather than mythology or theology.

If I could explain it in natural terms it wouldn't be a miracle and I'd know how to reverse death. It's strange because Zzyzx thinks that if we can not explain a miracle in naturalistic terms then that miracle is unverifiable. It's a fallicious and loaded request.

HOW exactly are you verifying that a supernatural “miracle” occurred?

You are supposedly attempting to demonstrate that the claimed resurrection DID occur. All you are demonstrating is why you cannot do so.

While I sympathize with the difficulty encountered by those who attempt to defend without evidence, this IS a debate forum and positions ARE expected to be verified by something other than personal opinion and conjecture.

I see no reason to attempt to compare biblical accounts of “the resurrection” to actual historical events. However, if that is to be done, I would compare those supposed events to the even older events related to King Tutankhamun (1341 BCE to 1323 BCE) Egyptian Pharaoh.

You should have picked a better example with better evidence. There are many more unknowns about King Tut than knowns. But it's ironic that you are so confident and have "no doubt" about a person for which we don't know for sure the proper name, how old he was when he died, or the manner of death, or who this person's parents were and so on.

There are many things unknown about King Tut.

HOWEVER, a LOT more is known about him than about Jesus – a supposed demi-god, miracle worker, King of the Jews, leader of multitudes, namesake of a major religion . . . . .

What is the evidence that King Tut existed?

There is a body, a very elaborate tomb and a wealth of burial goods. The presence of the elaborate tomb and the extensive burial goods indicate that a very important person, such as an emperor, was buried there.

Do you dispute any of the above?

Kindly supply equivalent evidence to support your “resurrection” story.

Heck, they aren't even sure what his real name was or how old he was when he died or how he died. How can you possibly say there is "no doubt" that King Tut existed yet doubt the existence of Jesus or other characters from the Bible?

We are not debating the existence of biblical characters. You are attempting to demonstrate that one of the characters died and “miraculously” came back to life.

So far, you have provided . . . . . stories.

Do you use the same critical methodology for the claims of King Tut? I don't think you do. Did you ask to see DNA "verifying" it actually IS King Tut? Where is the "verifiable" evidence? You are Begging the Question again and employing a double standard.

I use no “methodology” in comparing the resurrection story to an actual event of history. Evidence of the latter DOES exist. A person (by whatever name known) died, was mummified and was buried in an elaborate tomb suitable for an emperor. The evidence is a priceless treasure of human history and is well known to millions of people. Do you doubt its existence?

Evidence of the “resurrection” is a SINGLE book of stories by “followers” (“party hacks” in my estimation).

You are attempting to pass off a single book as though it represented multiple, independent sources. ONE BOOK is all you have.

By comparison, there is NOTHING to verify death, entombment or “resurrection” of Jesus other than hearsay recorded in multiple chapters of a single book – the authors, editors, translators, transcribers, revisionists, rewriters of which are NOT known.

First, I love it when people say things like "there is NOTHING to verify death, entombment or “resurrection” of Jesus other than..." Imagine a lawyer addressing the jury in his final statement,"OTHER THAN all the evidence my opponent has presented, ladies and gentleman of the jury, my opponent has presented NO evidence.

Imagine an attorney presenting the “evidence” of the “resurrection” to a jury – a single book, written by supporters, that makes the claim that a dead body came back to life “miraculously” – and NO further evidence.

Supposedly the greatest event in human history and the greatest person that ever lived - - - - and all the evidence is - - - - a single book.

If the biblical account of the “resurrection” was presented to an impartial jury (if such thing existed) with all the “evidence” presented here, I rather doubt that such a jury would find the account credible. In fact, I suspect that the attorney would be “laughed out of court”.

I also doubt that such a jury would accept unsupported tales as a valid basis for a religion.

Secondly, where is the evidence to "verify" how King Tut died? Some think he was murdered by a blow to the head. Some think it was an accident. Some think he died because of infection from a broken leg. Some think the leg was broken during embalming. Some speculate he broke his leg by falling or in a chariot race. No one really knows because there is no direct evidence from ANY early source. Yet somehow you think there is better evidence for the circumstances surrounding King Tut's death.

Correction: I stated very clearly that his DEATH was not questioned (i.e., he did die) – and that the means of death was uncertain.

I had stipulated earlier that I did not, for the purposes of this debate, question the life and death of one called Jesus.

Do you wish to debate the existence and supposed significance of Jesus as well as the supposed “resurrection”?

Hello? Jesus is reported to have risen from the dead and ascended, we shouldn't expect there to be his remains. If there were that would be excellent evidence to show he didn't rise from the dead.

Correct: You have NO evidence supporting the story of Jesus’ death and resurrection (“remains” or otherwise). You present stories and make excuses for the absence of evidence (and criticize those who ask for evidence and reject as hearsay the unverified tales you offer).

Evidence” submitted in the form of biblical quotations cannot be regarded as being anything other than self-serving propaganda by involved people...

But you accept the scanty, biased and ambiguous evidence for King Tut.

Correction: I accept the physical evidence regarding King Tut. There IS a body and a wealth of other actual material – a LOT more than mere tales as in the case of the claimed resurrection.

This is getting funnier by the second.

You're making this too easy.

Yes, in your mind congratulate and applaud yourself for being convincing and humorous. Readers may have a different opinion.

You appear to be writing for your ego. I am writing for the readers.

FACT 2. The tomb was discovered empty,

All “empty tomb” claims are taken from the Party Handbook. They are NOT independent and are not verified. Note: “attestation” means “somebody said”.

That's incorrect. All four gospels report the discovery of the empty tomb with slightly different emphasis and details.

All four chapters from the same book (the Party Handbook) tell similar stories. Is that surprising?

Something we would expect if they were taken from different witnesses to the events. So to say they are dependent on one another for the Resurrection sequence is clearly false.

It is generally accepted that at least some of the gospel writers, whoever they were, copied from one another. Do you dispute this?

Paul is independent of the Gospel and implies an empty tomb.

Is Paul independent of the Bible?

You STILL have a single book source no matter how you attempt to slice it and dice it. ONE book making incredible (too extraordinary and improbable to be believed) unsubstantiated claims does NOT constitute evidence – its use constitutes a textbook example of circular “reasoning”.

Who are you expecting it to be "verified" by Zzyzx?

I DO NOT expect you to be able to verify anything regarding the “resurrection” – and you are proving me correct.

Why don't you name the source it should have been verified by. That would help your argument. As it stands, simply saying they are "not verified" is really just an Argument from Silence.

I am not expected, by rational people, to supply a possible source of information to support YOUR argument. Your lack of evidence is not my problem.

Those who make the claim are expected to verify the claim. You may begin whenever you are ready.

A defense of the “miracle” would be VERY easy and conclusive if you could simply supply evidence instead of opinions.

Note: The Catholic Encyclopedia says regarding Joseph of Arimethea:

“All that is known for certain concerning him is derived from the canonical Gospels.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08520a.htm ”

Right, all that is known for certain.But you don't like that certainty because it is found in the Bible, written by Christians. That's called the Gentic Fallacy

You are right. I do NOT accept the bible as proof of anything – I do not accept a single source as proof of anything -- nor do many other people (some of whom are readers of these threads). What are you offering to convince those who do not already believe the biblical tales?

If your “proof” is the bible, you are unconvincing except to those who accept the bible as true and accurate.

Do you accept the Koran as proof that Jesus was not divine? If not, why not. It is a holy book. Why prefer one unverified book over another unverified book (except for personal preference)?

Regarding an issue as fundamental to Christianity as the supposed “resurrection”, proof ONLY from the bible is CIRCULAR reasoning (perhaps you should look up that term and cite a reference) is utterly unconvincing except to those taught, trained, or indoctrinated to believe that the bible is true and accurate.

The Catholic Church acknowledges that the ONLY information about the supposed “donor of the tomb” comes from the Party Handbook (and can hardly be considered as “certain” by anyone who does not accept the gospels as “certain” and above reproach).

Historians do not need an ancient writing to be "certain" and "above reproach" before they use it in reconstructing the past. Historians that specialize in the first century AD Ancient Near East use the NT as a source for historical information. What exactly is the problem here?

If the Catholic Church, keeper of the faith for many centuries, is uncertain about the supposed donor of the tomb, the donor is probably uncertain. Do you possess information not available to the Catholic Church?

It is interesting to note that no such tomb has been identified.

Identify Gamaliel's tomb and I'll buy your argument.

Whether you “buy” my argument or not is immaterial. The point stands that no Jesus tomb has been identified.

Claiming “well the other guy’s tomb can’t be identified either” is a rather amateurish defense for your lack of evidence.

There is NO extra-biblical indication that a tomb was discovered empty – only accounts in the Party Handbook (including tales of “an angel” being involved) and various assumptions thereafter. Supposedly “independent” accounts are simply different chapters of “the bible” (which of the hundreds of bibles is usually not specified).

Which extra-biblical works should we expect the empty tomb to be mentioned in?

NONE. I do not expect an empty tomb to be mentioned in any credible extra-biblical source because I do not expect that there was any such thing as the biblically described “empty tomb”.

Those who attempt to convince others that an empty tomb existed are expected to provide evidence to support their theories (not mere excuses for the absence of evidence).

You need to demonstrate WHERE and WHY we should expect this event to be mentioned in extra-biblical sources.

The greatest event in the history of mankind, the greatest person that ever lived – and you claim that I am expected to identify where accounts should be found??????

God appears on Earth and you need MY help to document the event????

You are kidding, right?

All you are doing is poo-pooing the sources we have and then claiming it isn't mentioned anywhere else (Argument from Silence) as though that means something. How does this prove it false? It doesn't.

You have presented NO credible “sources” other than biblical tales to verify a supposed incredible event (the greatest event in the history of the world – the demonstration of the divinity of your favorite godman).

I do not accept circular reasoning. You have a single source regarding the “resurrection”.

It is your position to provide evidence to back your claims. It is NOT my position to suggest where evidence should be found. Nice try.

Compare this to the evidence regarding King Tut that is readily available to anyone AND which can be tested for accuracy.

You mean all that evidence that tells us who his parents were, how old he was when he died, and how he died. You mean all that evidence that we don't have? How do you test for the accuracy of evidence that doesn't exist? Where is all the contemporary unbiased evidence for King Tut?

Better yet, I will tell you where the body is.

FACT 3. The apostles sincerely believed Jesus rose from the dead and then appeared to them. So sincerely that some were willing to endure persecution and possibly even death because of this belief.

Many Japanese soldiers died during WWII believing Hirohito was a deity. Did that make it so?

They were not in a position to know it was true. Also, Hirohito did nothing to prove his claim to deity.

Nevertheless, the Japanese soldiers died believing that Hirohito was a deity. Many were evidently convinced that it was glorious to “die for their god”.

Does that not demonstrate that people are willing to die for a belief that is not true (unless you accept that Hirohito WAS a deity)?

You are in no better a position to know that Jesus was a deity than the Japanese were to know the same about Hirohito.

Jesus cannot be shown to have done anything to prove any claim to deity – except in bible stories.

People are often willing to die for what they believe. That willingness is NOT an indication that what they believe is true.

You've also presented yet another straw man argument. The Christian argument doesn't run: because the disciples died for what they believed, what they believed must be true. The argument runs: they wouldn't have knowingly died for a lie.

DEMONSTRATE that “they wouldn’t have knowingly died for a lie”. That is an assumption and an opinion. It is NOT fact.

According to the Party Handbook some party members sincerely believed that the founder performed superhuman feats.

Extra-biblical sources confirm that Jesus was regarded as a "wonder worker" (Josephus), a "sorcerer"(Talmud), and founder of a "mischievous superstition" (Tacitus). This would be good evidence that others outside the Christian community either witnessed miracles performed by Jesus or had heard about them. At least these sources were reporting that some one believed Jesus performed wonders. Which is really all we should expect from non-Christian sources. If they were going out of their way in affirming Jesus' miracles or His resurrection you would probably be accusing them of either being forgeries or Christian sources and therefore from the "Party Handbook."

What you have demonstrated is the lack of evidence – and made excuses for the lack.

FACT 4. Paul, an enemy and persecutor of the church (Acts 8:3, 1 Cor. 15:9, Gal. 1:13) was transformed and became a prolific apostle because of his belief that a risen Jesus appeared to him. He was persecuted and reported as martyred.

One of the letter writers quoted in the Party Handbook had belonged to a different party and had converted. Great “meaning” is accorded to his conversion.

Right, you don't get your enemies to convert with tales and fables. Especially if conversion is going to lead you into harm's way.

The CIA demonstrates that it is very possible to convert enemies. Do you doubt that enemies are converted or that they are told lies by government operatives?

Are you aware that the readers of this thread are not stupid or gullible?

FACT 5. James, brother of Jesus (Mark 6:3) and sceptic of His claims before the appearance of Jesus to him, was transformed and became a leader in the Church in Jerusalem. He was reported as martyred.

Someone perhaps known to a letter writer, supposedly related to the founder, joined the party.

Actually, James was known to multiple "letter writers."

Okay, someone perhaps known to several letter writers . . . . . .

Can you demonstrate that the writers personally KNEW James? How can you do that if you cannot verify exactly who the writers were? If they mention knowing James is it certain that they actually, personally knew him? Is it possible that they are relaying hearsay or that their statements were modified by later revisionists?

If hearsay and revision CANNOT be eliminated, how can one state with certainty the nature of relationship between James and the letter writers?

I posit the theory that God resurrected Jesus from the dead best accounts for ALL the evidence and combines explanatory power and scope given the context of Jesus' life and the claims made of Him and by Him. Since the rational position would be to go with the strongest explanation that accounts for ALL the evidence we should deem the Resurrection of Jesus as true.

Those who propose a theory are expected to demonstrate that it is true and viable.

So you have no alternate theory then.

Alternative theory for WHAT – an event that you cannot show to be more than a myth? Why would I offer an “alternative theory” for a myth?

All WHAT evidence – tales in a single book?

The “evidence” presented is nothing more than conjecture, opinion, legend and hearsay (and of course, the “principle of embarrassment”).

It blows the doors off the evidence for the life of King Tut, but you are pretty sure about him. In fact, I think you used the words "no doubt." Go figure.

“Blows the doors off King Tut”?????

Is this statement intended as comedy?

Wanting to believe something (such as bible stories) is NOT valid reason for casting aside reason, evidence and common sense...

You must be joking. Your arguments contain an inordinate amount of logical fallacies combined with simply hand-waving the evidence. For one in that position to then claim they are the more rational and embrace evidence, reason, and logic is so blatantly false it's funny.

While you are humoring yourself, readers are free to understand that “wanting to believe” is NOT valid reason to set aside reason, evidence and common sense to accept ancient tales of a dead body coming back to life (and other magical tricks credited to “gods” to impress and frighten humans into worshiping as clerics direct).

They may think it humorous that you dismiss or dispute the existence of King Tut in spite of actual, physical existence (including a body and impressive grave objects) – while accepting hearsay from a single source to support your belief that a dead body came back to life.

[Goose]

Goose's post 3 of a possible 10

A few observations as a reminder to keep this debate on track. As is so often the case with this debate over the Rez it digresses off topic and off the evidence. Filtering through Zzyzx 's last post I found very little actual substance amidst the rhetoric and bluster.

1. Zzyzx has yet to present ANY direct evidence for his case that the Resurrection is untrue.

2. Zzyzx has presented no methodology for establishing whether or not a historical event is true. He is therefore relegated to offering his biased opinion.

3. He accepts the historicity and death of a person (Tut) for which the evidence is much more dubious than that for Christ. He has yet to offer the actual evidence for Tut.

4. The core of his position revolves around A) a rejection of the supernatural (though he says he is open to the possibility). B) A rejection of the evidence primarily because it comes from the "Party Handbook." Not because the evidence itself is false. This is the Genetic Fallacy.

5. Zzyzx has yet to answer the following questions:

1. How do we know anything in ancient history happened, Zzyzx?

2. Verified by who? By what standard? "Substantiated" by who? By what standard?

We can also now add to this list of unanswered questions the following:
If a miracle is the BEST explanation for the evidence and all the competing naturalistic theories either fail to account for all the evidence or have no evidence for support, on what grounds would you reject the supernatural explanation?

Zzyzx's response to this question was to assert there is no evidence. He did NOT answer the question.

6. There are two debates running simultaneously. One has to with the topic for debate. One does not.

Debate 1: Is whether the evidence for the Rez is as good as other historical events that we generally take for granted. Zzyzx has picked up this argument to challenge my assertion that the evidence is as good, maybe even better for the Rez. I think Zzyzx is running with this because he cannot find evidence for his case that the Rez is untrue. It's a distraction technique. But this is not a truth argument. It is really an argument designed to challenge our biases and methodologies. Many sceptics accept historical events as true because someone else has told them those facts are true. Yet, the same sceptic rejects the Rez wholesale. But when the sceptic is forced to dig into history and the methods historians use to determine history, the sceptic will begin to find the evidence for the Rez is quite good in comparison to other generally accepted facts. This becomes disturbing for the sceptic and he must then create "special" methods for evaluating in a vacuum the historical truth of Christianity justified by philosophical defences of their non-belief. But ultimately this argument does not prove the Rez true or false.

Debate 2: Was the Resurrection true? I've offered a methodology for determining the truth of a historical event. A methodology used by historians. I've also offered evidence. Zzyzx has not commented on the methodology I've offered nor offered one of his own. He therefore has no method for showing the Rez to be objectively false. He has offered his opinions. Period.

I've offered two methods by which Zzyzx could show the Rez to be false from my post 1 of 10.

1. Provide an alternate theory that better accounts for ALL the evidence and has explanatory power and scope. or/and;

2. Show WHY the evidence itself is false. (In this case we'll use the evidence for other ancient events around the time of Christ as a buffer to see if Zzyzx is just presenting a biased opinion or has a legitimate gripe - I suggest Caesar Crossing the Rubicon, Zzyzx can suggest another event if he wishes).

He has done neither.

7. Zzyzx thinks that because the 27 books of the New Testament happen to be bound together in a book called the Bible that this means there is only "one source." However, the NT writings were never contained in a "Bible" when they were written. That is a later development. Further, he is incorrect that ALL the evidence comes from the Bible as we shall see. So to say that everything comes from "one source" (meaning the Bible is the "source") is erroneous. Watch how many times Zzyzx appeals to this as though it actually proves something.


Most of Zzyzx's responses at this stage of the debate has nothing to do with determining whether the Rez was true or false. I'll keep most responses short as we are now at a point where we are debating for the sake of debating. If it doesn't directly relate to establishing whether or not the Rez was true, it won't receive much attention from me.

Goose,

You are attempting to defend a story that, if it was true, would represent the greatest event in the history of the world – involving the greatest person that ever lived. Supposedly the creator of the entire universe visited the Earth for thirty years and performed miracles. Yet what you offer for “evidence” is a SINGLE book written by religious storytellers.

And your job is to show the evidence is false. You need to get busy on that. Whining about what you think is a lack of evidence doesn't make it untrue.

You are attempting to pass off that single book as though it represented multiple, independent sources. That may work when preaching to the choir but it won’t work here in debate.

You reveal your ignorance every time you tell us the evidence comes from a "single book."

You are presenting to the readers of this forum the skimpiest of “evidence” – hearsay and opinions – and asking them to believe that a dead body came back to life – an extraordinary and incredible claim – because you say so – based upon nothing but stories told by unknown people. It seems as though you insult their intelligence.

You need to present a methodology for evaluating what constitutes "the skimpiest of evidence" or an abundance. With out that you're blowing wind. Let's then apply that methodology to the "skimpy" evidence for Tut, a person you have "no doubt" about.

According to your interpretation, the “great miracle worker” left no sign other than an impression on a few believers and followers. Historians, commentators and others of the era apparently did not notice “the greatest event in the history of the world”. The “greatest person that ever lived”, a god among men, was evidently known only to a few religious nuts (called followers or disciples).

Let's put this silly argument to rest shall we?

Tiberius Caesar was the emperor in power during the life of Jesus and had god-like status. Yet we have only 10 extant references to him within 150 years of his life, most Roman and therefore biased. By comparison, there are approximately 42 sources that make some reference to Jesus in the first 150 years after his death (some Christian and some not). Even if we remove the Christian sources for Jesus we're at a tie of 9 each. Considering Tiberius' had many more subjects than Jesus during their respective time on earth, do you still feel the same way?

Even your own beloved King Tut has trouble drumming up evidence for himself yet he had god-like status as a pharoah. Little is actually known about him. Even Egyptian historians listing the Kings of Egypt failed to mention him. But you are convinced beyong any doubt about King Tut. Can anyone say double standard?

Your entire “argument” is an excuse for why there is no real evidence -- only hearsay, opinion and conjecture -- AND a critique of what you see as “logical fallacies” in my position. The REAL logical fallacy is your attempt to argue a case without evidence to support your contentions.

...except for all the evidence that has presented. You know, all that evidence you've essentially ignored. Why don't you define what constitutes "real evidence" instead of just saying stuff like this. Then we can apply that across the board. You're just blowing more hot air.

You may dislike my “Party Handbook” comparison to the New Testament, BUT readers can understand that it is “too close for comfort” and is fairly representative. As I have stated, I write for those readers who can understand and not for anyone whose mind is locked in concrete.

If an analogy is "fairy representative" by necessity it also contains elements that are NOT representative. Which parts are representative and which are not? We don't know because Zzyzx has failed to offer the EVIDENCE for his pet analogy. He has just assumed his analogy is true and expects people to buy it because he thinks it's "fairy representative."

You and others who wish to believe that the resurrection occurred based on the thin “evidence” of bible stories and church dogma are certainly welcome to do so. However, when you attempt to convince thinking people that your tales are true, you may be asked to supply more than a SINGLE book and a pack of excuses.

Hey, I'm still waiting for you to pony up some evidence for Tut. So far all you've got is a boy in bag and fancy coffin. But that's enough for Zzyzx to have "no doubt."


Zzyzx post 2 of 10

In this very first post of the “debate”, the “Resurrection Defense” has forfeited reason and evidence by evoking “goddidit” to “explain” the resurrection (see “I posit the theory” quoted near end of this post). “Miracle” claims cannot be verified (or disputed). They are simply matters of theology, opinion and conjecture.

Wrong. A miracle claim can be shown to be false by direct evidence that proves it false.

If a “miracle claim” can be shown to be false by direct evidence, it stands to reason that a “miracle claim” can be shown to be true by direct evidence.

You have stated that the resurrection, a “miracle claim”, is true. Kindly supply direct evidence to show it to be true.

Kindly read my post 1 of 10 again. Try actually addressing the evidence and arguments this time rather than telling us we have no evidence other than a "single book."

Or a naturalistic theory that is a better and more powerful explanation that accounts for all the evidence can show a miracle to be the less likely answer.

Providing a “better explanation” does not prove anything false. “More likely” or “less likely” do NOT constitute proof of anything.

Zzyzx is making excuses for not having a better explanation. However, in matters of history this is generally how it's done - the best explanation prevails as the the truth. If you don't like the methodology you should present your own rather than whining about the one I've presented.

The “most likely” explanation for daylight and darkness for most of human history was “the sun circles the Earth”. That was evidently considered the “best explanation” by millions or billions of humans for thousands of years. HOWEVER, their beliefs did NOT make it true.

You are back to your categorical fallacy again. The assertion that the sun circles the earth or vice versa is not a historical question. In this case those beliefs were shown false by evidence. I'll add that the sun revolving around the earth is not a factual assertion by the writers of the Bible and more importantly is another Red Herring fallacy combined with the categorical. When ever you find the evidence that the Rez was false you be sure to present it.

Your belief that a “miracle” occurred to “explain” an “event” that cannot be shown to have occurred is an example of “belief on faith”. Your belief does not make it true.

You Beg the Question that the Rez did not occur. That's a judgement you can not make with credibility because you have no methodology.

It is my opinion that the only “miracle” is that anyone believes the tales that you cite as “evidence”. I do not think that many would believe such stories if they were not “taught” to do so during childhood or in times of emotional distress.

That opinion means nothing coming from one that can't offer a transparent methodology for determining history, can't define what "verified" means in the context of historical enquiry and believes with "no doubt" King Tut existed.

Would anyone claim that the handbook was a credible source of reliable, accurate information about the founder AND about exact words used in conversations that were not recorded until generations after they supposedly occurred?

You are Begging the Question that the Gospels "were not recorded until generations after they supposedly occurred." Assuming the gospels were not written by eyewitness or taken from eyewitness, they are all written during the life time of possible witnesses. Therefore, your "recorded until generations after" accusation is false.

A generation is taken to be twenty-three to thirty years
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=generation
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define. ... &dict=CALD

I made no “accusation” and my statement is accurate. Do you have other comments?

Now that you've defined what you mean by "generation" I agree that the gospels were probably written within 2-3 generations. However, by your own definition Paul wrote his letters during the first generation. He places himself as witness to the resurrected Christ. The writer of Acts confirms this. Further, simply stating they were not written until generations after means nothing as these writings were written during the life of possible witnesses to the risen Christ. What you need to do is demonstrate the contents are false. Much of ancient history (and modern) is written generations after. Saying this means nothing and does not make the core unhistorical. You shoulder the burden of proof here to show the writers were either mistaken, embellished or out-and-out lied - which is ultimately what you are implying. Let's see some evidence.

That it may be “possible” that some supposed witnesses to the resurrection lived until writing of the “gospels” is NO evidence that any eyewitness accounts were included or considered in the writings. Because something is possible does NOT verify that it occurred.

Why would you assume there are no eyewitnesses accounts included when we are told there were? Luke 1:1-4 Since many people have attempted to write an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were passed down to us by those who had been eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning, I, too, have carefully investigated everything from the beginning and have decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. Oh wait, you don't believe them because it's in the Bible...

Witnesses, whether or not they wrote the work in question, have a correcting effect. We can go to a witness and confirm an account. The writers are much less likely to lie or embellish if they know there are witnesses available that will expose the falsehood. It's reasonable to think that any person who was implicated in lie would confess or offer counter testimony to save themselves from the persecution that would ensue.

Christian “arguments” in defense of bible stories often boil down to, “You can’t prove that it isn’t possible that such things happened”. That is NOT a valid defense of ideas put forth as being true.

I agree. And that is exactly what has NOT happened. I've offered a methodology and evidence. You've offered squat.

A committee from the National Convention selects letters from four staunch supporters to be included as chapters in their Party Handbook -- a book promoting the party and its founder. The committee rejects letters that do not convey the message they favor...

You Beg the Question that the Councils arbitrarily selected certain books and all others were destroyed. This is proven false by the simple fact we still have Gnostic texts in existence.

Kindly quote any statement from me that states that “all others were destroyed”. I did NOT say any such thing. You did.

It's part and parcel of that argument. But you are correct you did not state that. I apologize. I should have said You Beg the Question that the Councils arbitrarily selected certain books ...and left it at that. If you are going to ask something silly like "Do you deny this?" Then you need to furnish the evidence first so I can determine whether it's true or not.

Since you raise the issue, were attempts made by the early church to destroy “non-conforming” documents, including Gnostic texts? Were the Gnostic texts preserved by the Catholic Church?

See what I mean? It's part and parcel of the argument. Hey, it's your argument. You show us that you've actually read the primary texts that support the argument and present some evidence for a change. Don't get me to do your homework.

Once “goddidit” has been evoked, anything is deemed possible because “god can do anything” according to some theories. No verification is provided to indicate that gods actually perform nature-defying feats. Reason no longer applies.

I have one question that I hope you'll answer. If a miracle is the BEST explanation for the evidence and all the competing naturalistic theories either fail to account for all the evidence or have no evidence for support, on what grounds would you reject the supernatural explanation?

The best “explanation” of WHAT evidence? You have presented NO evidence that a body came back to life. Hearsay is NOT evidence.

The BEST explanation for biblical “miracle” claims, including the “resurrection” is, in my opinion, that they are fables and legends – that they did not happen literally and physically.

There is little or no evidence that “miracles” actually occurred other than the tales told by supporters and believers. According to your sources, the sun supposedly darkened (or delayed setting another time) and people worldwide do not notice or record the event, for instance. One might wonder why the phenomena only occurred (supposedly occurred) in the Mediterranean region.

After a hero dies it is not uncommon for humans to glorify and exaggerate her/his story. “He walked on water” is a common example and is a common “miracle claim”. As an allegory it makes sense. As a physical “truth” it does not.

Something smells like fish. What a long-winded way to avoid answering a question. It was just a general question Zzyzx. I'll ask it again and see if you answer this time. If a miracle is the BEST explanation for the evidence and all the competing naturalistic theories either fail to account for all the evidence or have no evidence for support, on what grounds would you reject the supernatural explanation?

If you hold that the supernatural can not possibly exist then you Beg the Question again.

I do NOT “hold that the supernatural cannot possibly exist”. What gave you that idea? If you wish to criticize my positions kindly criticize my actual positions, not ones that you invent or suggest for me.

My actual position is, “Evidence has not been presented that would convince me that invisible super beings exist or that they perform nature-defying magical tricks”.

Oh, in that case no problem then. I was under the impression you were trying to objectively prove the Resurrection untrue, not just spouting-off to us all the subjective reasons why YOU don't believe it.

If you feel it necessary to make up things that I did NOT say to attack, that seems to indicate an inability to effectively address what I DO say.

You haven't really said anything yet so I've got to attack something or I'll die of boredom!

You can not be aware of all the evidence in existence past, present or future for the supernatural.

I cannot be aware of past, present or future of the supernatural – AND neither can you – and neither can anyone else. Yet you are attempting to defend what you identify as supernatural. Good luck.

Luck has nothing to do with it.

Therefore, you must accept that there is at least a possibility that the supernatural exists. If the supernatural can possibly exist and it is the best explanation you can not rationally reject it with out committing a logical fallacy.

I accept the possibility that the supernatural exists. I await the evidence. I will not accept stories told by proponents of any of the thousands of different religions and different gods without evidence to substantiate claims.

OK, let's test that claim of yours. Here is a link to ABC News (it's about 2 min) reporting a story of a 65 year old woman that had a severe cerebral hemorrhage. In the report the doctor said she was "essentially considered brain dead." She recovered and the same doctor said he's been there ten years and "never seen anything quite like this before." The doctors have no explanation. The family is deeply religious and claims a miracle. If a miracle is the BEST explanation, why would you reject it?

I have made an open invitation to any existing gods to contact me and to any promoter of gods to provide evidence. Neither has happened.

That of course begs the question that the Rez is NOT evidence provided by God. If I demanded that President Bush show up at my house tomorrow at 3:00 in the afternoon and he doesn't show. Is that evidence that Bush doesn't exist?

Note: I am NOT declaring that I know the above to be false, but that I do NOT accept them as true. Evidence has not been supplied (other than hearsay and opinion) that indicates to me that the claims are true.

Since you've only offered your opinion here I'll leave it at that.

I identify my opinions and encourage you to do likewise.

We must conclude virtually everything you offer is your opinion because we have no methodology to judge it by.

If a miracle could be explained in naturalistic terms it would NOT be a miracle. You are comitting another categorical fallacy here. Supernatural claims and natural claims have different qualities which by definition are what separates them. You are wanting one category(the supernatural) to be explained by another category (the natural).

You may call it whatever you wish. If a “miracle” is claimed, a “miracle” needs to be demonstrated. Hearsay isn’t proof. Ancient tales are not proof.

You mean they are not "proof" to you. You can't speak objectively because you have no objective method for determining proof, evidence or historical truth. It's just your biased opinion. By the way, hearsay can sometimes be evidence. You should look it up. Circumstantial evidence was enough to convict and kill Timothy McVeigh.

What IS being offered to convince readers that a “miracle” occurred?

This thread is not about "convincing." It's about determining "Was the Rez true?" Every person requires something a little different to be "convinced." Whether you or anybody else is "convinced" is irrelevant. The Rez is either true or false.

The “special plea” that “goddidit” is not accepted as debate – it is pure theology, opinion and conjecture.

Not accepted by who? Let me guess - atheists.

An honorable debater does not expect opinion and conjecture to be accepted as evidence in a debate. An intelligent debater does not expect theology to be accepted as evidence by Non-Theists.

Do you contend that personal opinion and conjecture ARE acceptable as evidence in debate and that Non-Theists should accept theological arguments as evidence?

Zzyzx, all you've offered so far is your opinion and conjecture as evidence so you must think offering an opinion and conjecture IS acceptable in debate. In fact, I don't think you offered ANY evidence for your positions regarding Tut OR the Rez. And where have I presented a theological argument AS evidence?

The claim “goddidit” is a personal OPINION and conjecture, it is not fact. It is not verified. It carries no more weight than any other personal opinion or conjecture in debate – none at all.

There you go with the "verified" term again. What do you mean by verified? A miracle is not being offered as an opinion but rather as the best explanation of the facts. If the explanation that a miracle happened is the BEST explanation why would you reject it?

The claim is not that Jesus rose by natural means, but rather by supernatural. Therefore, it is not a case of Special Pleading.

Then SHOW the evidence of supernaturalism...

We may be looking at evidence for the supernatural in the Rez.

...Demonstrate that it occurs.

I gave you a link to a reported miracle. What more "demonstration" would you like?

If you cannot, all that you say is conjecture.

Have you conceded that it is NOT Special Pleading? Is that why you've introduced this Red Herring request?

You are ASSUMING that supernaturalism occurred...

No, I'm not assuming it. I'm saying it is the best explanation. If you have a better one you should present it.

...You are claiming that “it must have been a miracle”. Arising from the dead does NOT fit with nature or the real world – so supernatural “explanations” must be claimed (always without evidence that supernatural events actually occur).

Except for the evidence that supernatural events do occur. Like the evidence for the Rez and the link to ABC News.

All you have offered as “evidence” are tales by people who believe in “miracles” saying that they saw a “miracle”.

And you have yet to demonstrate WHY we shouldn't believe them. Oh by the way, all you've offered for King Tut is what? A mummy and a sarcophagus.

We are not saying Jesus died and then nature itself reversed the process or the laws of physics ceased by natural means - that would be Special Pleading. The claim is that God raised Jesus from the dead - that God acted in space and time is the best explanation. (The anti-supernatural bias and rigid adherence to science and naturalism from atheists is baffling considering most atheists claim to be "free-thinkers.")

If you maintain that “goddidit” (performed a “miracle” of resurrection) kindly demonstrate using something other than opinion and conjecture that gods bring people back to life.

That's a fallacious and loaded request. The Rez is not a claim that gods bring people back to life. It is that God raised Jesus once. How would you like me to "demonstrate" that? I'll ask you to "demonstrate" how King Tut died using the same method you suggest. Right after you show that it even IS King Tut.

If you maintain that the processes of nature did NOT apply in the example you cite, you ARE making a special plea. You are claiming that what we know of nature did not apply in the story you tell. And perhaps pigs can fly and gods can ascend in storybook tales.

I've already explained why it's not a Special Plea.

Taken from the link I already gave you here on Special Pleading

Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption.

Read again the part about maggots invading dead bodies within three days.

What about it?

Kindly explain to the readers of this thread the processes by which the supposed “came back to life” occurred citing real world evidence rather than mythology or theology.

If I could explain it in natural terms it wouldn't be a miracle and I'd know how to reverse death. It's strange because Zzyzx thinks that if we can not explain a miracle in naturalistic terms then that miracle is unverifiable. It's a fallacious and loaded request.

HOW exactly are you verifying that a supernatural “miracle” occurred?

I don't know what you mean by "verifying." You throw that word around like it proves something. But you can't even define it in the context that you mean it to be applied.

You are supposedly attempting to demonstrate that the claimed resurrection DID occur. All you are demonstrating is why you cannot do so.

You mean I haven't demonstrated that I can "verify" it by Zzyzx's now infamous secret and mysterious way of "verifying" a historical event? Is that what you mean?

While I sympathize with the difficulty encountered by those who attempt to defend without evidence, this IS a debate forum and positions ARE expected to be verified by something other than personal opinion and conjecture.

All I ask is that you qualify "verified." Telling us that something isn't "verified" but not telling us how that thing is expected to be "verified" is meaningless. Tell us what you mean so we can apply it to other historical events.

Hey, while you're at it. Let's see you "verify" King Tut.

I see no reason to attempt to compare biblical accounts of “the resurrection” to actual historical events. However, if that is to be done, I would compare those supposed events to the even older events related to King Tutankhamun (1341 BCE to 1323 BCE) Egyptian Pharaoh.

You should have picked a better example with better evidence. There are many more unknowns about King Tut than knowns. But it's ironic that you are so confident and have "no doubt" about a person for which we don't know for sure the proper name, how old he was when he died, or the manner of death, or who this person's parents were and so on.

There are many things unknown about King Tut.

HOWEVER, a LOT more is known about him than about Jesus – a supposed demi-god, miracle worker, King of the Jews, leader of multitudes, namesake of a major religion . . . . .

What is known about King Tut? Cite your primary sources. (primary sources Zzyzx, not someone else's interpretation of those sources).


OK, it's my turn to play the hyper-sceptic game. Yippee!

What is the evidence that King Tut existed?

There is a body, a very elaborate tomb and a wealth of burial goods. The presence of the elaborate tomb and the extensive burial goods indicate that a very important person, such as an emperor, was buried there.

Now how is THAT evidence that King Tut existed? That is evidence that there is an elaborate tomb with burial goods in it. Probably someone that had money is buried there. That could be many people.

Do you dispute any of the above?

I dispute it's King Tut. It's your claim. You provide the evidence. So far you've got a mummy (that could be ANYBODY), a really nice coffin and some stuff in a tomb. You also need to answer why Manetho doesn't mention King Tut. I think Tut is a myth. Prove me wrong.

Kindly supply equivalent evidence to support your “resurrection” story.

You don't get off that easy. How do you know it's King Tut in the tomb? Where is your "verifiable" evidence? Where is your unbiased evidence that doesn't come from the Egyptian "Party Handbook"?

Heck, they aren't even sure what his real name was or how old he was when he died or how he died. How can you possibly say there is "no doubt" that King Tut existed yet doubt the existence of Jesus or other characters from the Bible?

We are not debating the existence of biblical characters. You are attempting to demonstrate that one of the characters died and “miraculously” came back to life.

So far, you have provided . . . . . stories.

Nice dodge!

Do you use the same critical methodology for the claims of King Tut? I don't think you do. Did you ask to see DNA "verifying" it actually IS King Tut? Where is the "verifiable" evidence? You are Begging the Question again and employing a double standard.

I use no “methodology” in comparing the resurrection story to an actual event of history. Evidence of the latter DOES exist. A person (by whatever name known) died, was mummified and was buried in an elaborate tomb suitable for an emperor. The evidence is a priceless treasure of human history and is well known to millions of people. Do you doubt its existence?

I'm playing the part of the sceptic here using your methodology. I doubt it's King Tut. You keep telling me it is. But all you've offered as evidence is a mummy and a tomb built for a rich person. Probably you are going to offer some ancient inscriptions or writings as evidence at some point. But who knows who wrote them or when. It's probably all made up.

Evidence of the “resurrection” is a SINGLE book of stories by “followers” (“party hacks” in my estimation).

You are attempting to pass off a single book as though it represented multiple, independent sources. ONE BOOK is all you have.

It's mountains compared to what you've offered for King Tut. You don't even know Tut's real name.

By comparison, there is NOTHING to verify death, entombment or “resurrection” of Jesus other than hearsay recorded in multiple chapters of a single book – the authors, editors, translators, transcribers, revisionists, rewriters of which are NOT known.

First, I love it when people say things like "there is NOTHING to verify death, entombment or “resurrection” of Jesus other than..." Imagine a lawyer addressing the jury in his final statement,"OTHER THAN all the evidence my opponent has presented, ladies and gentleman of the jury, my opponent has presented NO evidence.

Imagine an attorney presenting the “evidence” of the “resurrection” to a jury – a single book, written by supporters, that makes the claim that a dead body came back to life “miraculously” – and NO further evidence.

Supposedly the greatest event in human history and the greatest person that ever lived - - - - and all the evidence is - - - - a single book.

If the biblical account of the “resurrection” was presented to an impartial jury (if such thing existed) with all the “evidence” presented here, I rather doubt that such a jury would find the account credible. In fact, I suspect that the attorney would be “laughed out of court”.

I also doubt that such a jury would accept unsupported tales as a valid basis for a religion.

While you busy laughing you can read this link about Simon Greenleaf.

Secondly, where is the evidence to "verify" how King Tut died? Some think he was murdered by a blow to the head. Some think it was an accident. Some think he died because of infection from a broken leg. Some think the leg was broken during embalming. Some speculate he broke his leg by falling or in a chariot race. No one really knows because there is no direct evidence from ANY early source. Yet somehow you think there is better evidence for the circumstances surrounding King Tut's death.

Correction: I stated very clearly that his DEATH was not questioned (i.e., he did die) – and that the means of death was uncertain.

And I explained why your comparison is fallacious. But you ignored that part I see.

Do you wish to debate the existence and supposed significance of Jesus as well as the supposed “resurrection”?

Why do you wish to keep changing the subject?

Hello? Jesus is reported to have risen from the dead and ascended, we shouldn't expect there to be his remains. If there were that would be excellent evidence to show he didn't rise from the dead.

Correct: You have NO evidence supporting the story of Jesus’ death and resurrection (“remains” or otherwise)...

...except all the evidence that has been presented. Why don't you define what you believe is "evidence." You keep saying there is NO evidence. I could say the same about Tut.

..You present stories and make excuses for the absence of evidence (and criticize those who ask for evidence and reject as hearsay the unverified tales you offer).

It's not an excuse if your request for evidence that doesn't exist is based upon a logical fallacy.

Evidence” submitted in the form of biblical quotations cannot be regarded as being anything other than self-serving propaganda by involved people...

But you accept the scanty, biased and ambiguous evidence for King Tut.

Correction: I accept the physical evidence regarding King Tut. There IS a body and a wealth of other actual material – a LOT more than mere tales as in the case of the claimed resurrection.

You don't even know it IS King Tut because you have no methodology to establish it is. You reject the testimony of the ancients so you have your mummy and tomb. You are ASSUMING it is King Tut.

You appear to be writing for your ego. I am writing for the readers...

My ego isn't big enough to think that readers are swayed by what I have to say. I don't place myself on such a lofty pedestal.

FACT 2. The tomb was discovered empty,

All “empty tomb” claims are taken from the Party Handbook. They are NOT independent and are not verified. Note: “attestation” means “somebody said”.

That's incorrect. All four gospels report the discovery of the empty tomb with slightly different emphasis and details.

All four chapters from the same book (the Party Handbook) tell similar stories. Is that surprising?

No. It tells me there is confirmation through multiple attestation.

Something we would expect if they were taken from different witnesses to the events. So to say they are dependent on one another for the Resurrection sequence is clearly false.

It is generally accepted that at least some of the gospel writers, whoever they were, copied from one another. Do you dispute this?

That they "copied" the Rez accounts? Yes. If you think the Rez accounts were "copied," you should provide evidence.

Paul is independent of the Gospel and implies an empty tomb.

Is Paul independent of the Bible?

Clearly you do not understand what historians mean by "independent."

You STILL have a single book source no matter how you attempt to slice it and dice it. ONE book making incredible (too extraordinary and improbable to be believed) unsubstantiated claims does NOT constitute evidence – its use constitutes a textbook example of circular “reasoning”.

If secular and atheist historians and scholars use the Bible for a source of historical information (the non supernatural of course) why do YOU have such a problem with it? The 5 facts I've presented are non-supernatural and even agreed to by some critical and atheists scholars. What is the real problem?

Who are you expecting it to be "verified" by Zzyzx?

I DO NOT expect you to be able to verify anything regarding the “resurrection” – and you are proving me correct.

Of course not because you haven't let anyone else in on your little secret - what Zzyzx means by "verify."

Why don't you name the source it should have been verified by. That would help your argument. As it stands, simply saying they are "not verified" is really just an Argument from Silence.

I am not expected, by rational people, to supply a possible source of information to support YOUR argument. Your lack of evidence is not my problem.

So you say it should be verified by a source other than the Bible. I then ask you which source. You don't have a clue and that becomes MY problem that there isn't evidence that you can't identify WHERE and WHY it should appear? Obviously you can't defend your own arguments. When asked to clarify you just tell me it's my problem.

Those who make the claim are expected to verify the claim. You may begin whenever you are ready.

Try to keep up Zzyzx. I began a few posts ago.

Note: The Catholic Encyclopedia says regarding Joseph of Arimethea:

“All that is known for certain concerning him is derived from the canonical Gospels.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08520a.htm ”

Right, all that is known for certain.But you don't like that certainty because it is found in the Bible, written by Christians. That's called the Gentic Fallacy

You are right. I do NOT accept the bible as proof of anything – I do not accept a single source as proof of anything -- nor do many other people (some of whom are readers of these threads). What are you offering to convince those who do not already believe the biblical tales?

Every time you make this silly statement that there is only "a single source" you reveal a profound ignorance of the evidence at hand. Irenaeus tells us Clement knew Peter and Paul. Paul mentions Clement in his letters. It's possible Clement may have even been a witness to the risen Christ perhaps one of the 500 (but this would be only speculative). Clement wrote his first epistle around the same time as the Gospel of John (some place it earlier than John). Here's what he said about the Rez.

1Clement 24:1-2 Let us understand, dearly beloved, how the Master continually showeth unto us the resurrection that shall be hereafter; whereof He made the Lord Jesus Christ the firstfruit, when He raised Him from the dead.

and later

1Clememtn 42:5-6 Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come.

Still think ALL we have is one source - i.e the Bible?

If your “proof” is the bible, you are unconvincing except to those who accept the bible as true and accurate.

In this thread I'm using the Bible the same way historians would. I've already conceded for the sake of argument that there are minor errors and discrepancies. Now, if you wish to say the NT writings are entirely untrue and inaccurate you shoulder the burden of proof to do so as this is not a majority held position among scholars and historians.

Do you accept the Koran as proof that Jesus was not divine? If not, why not...

Because it's written too late.

...It is a holy book. Why prefer one unverified book over another unverified book (except for personal preference)?

That would be an entirely different debate. Let's try to stay on topic shall we?

Regarding an issue as fundamental to Christianity as the supposed “resurrection”, proof ONLY from the bible is CIRCULAR reasoning (perhaps you should look up that term and cite a reference) is utterly unconvincing except to those taught, trained, or indoctrinated to believe that the bible is true and accurate.

I've already blown away your "proof ONLY from the bible" with 1Clement. But then you'll probably call that "amateurish" and ignore it. That seems to be the trend so far when you are faced with evidence that counters your assertions.

The Catholic Church acknowledges that the ONLY information about the supposed “donor of the tomb” comes from the Party Handbook (and can hardly be considered as “certain” by anyone who does not accept the gospels as “certain” and above reproach).

Historians do not need an ancient writing to be "certain" and "above reproach" before they use it in reconstructing the past. Historians that specialize in the first century AD Ancient Near East use the NT as a source for historical information. What exactly is the problem here?

If the Catholic Church, keeper of the faith for many centuries, is uncertain about the supposed donor of the tomb, the donor is probably uncertain. Do you possess information not available to the Catholic Church?

Where did you read the Catholic Church was uncertain? I don't base my belief on what the Catholic Church believes or doesn't believe. I base my belief on the evidence.

It is interesting to note that no such tomb has been identified.

Identify Gamaliel's tomb and I'll buy your argument.

Whether you “buy” my argument or not is immaterial. The point stands that no Jesus tomb has been identified.

Claiming “well the other guy’s tomb can’t be identified either” is a rather amateurish defense for your lack of evidence.

You see, when Zzyzx's arguments are crushed by a cogent argument that has evidence to back it he calls it "a rather amateurish defense." He ignores the evidence and the arguments. He just calls them "amateurish." But his argument that we haven't found a tomb is supposed to prove something profound and is supposed to be sophisticated and convincing.

There is NO extra-biblical indication that a tomb was discovered empty – only accounts in the Party Handbook (including tales of “an angel” being involved) and various assumptions thereafter. Supposedly “independent” accounts are simply different chapters of “the bible” (which of the hundreds of bibles is usually not specified).

Which extra-biblical works should we expect the empty tomb to be mentioned in?

NONE. I do not expect an empty tomb to be mentioned in any credible extra-biblical source because I do not expect that there was any such thing as the biblically described “empty tomb”.

And you say that Christians use circular reasoning!That's priceless! Hey if you aren't expecting the empty tomb to be mentioned in an extra-biblical source why do ask for it?

Those who attempt to convince others that an empty tomb existed are expected to provide evidence to support their theories (not mere excuses for the absence of evidence).

Evidence has been provided. You just ignore it. Seems to be a common trend.

You need to demonstrate WHERE and WHY we should expect this event to be mentioned in extra-biblical sources.

The greatest event in the history of mankind, the greatest person that ever lived – and you claim that I am expected to identify where accounts should be found??????

God appears on Earth and you need MY help to document the event????

You are kidding, right?

Hey, if you're unwilling (or more likely unable) to defend your own argument intelligently you probably shouldn't use them.

All you are doing is poo-pooing the sources we have and then claiming it isn't mentioned anywhere else (Argument from Silence) as though that means something. How does this prove it false? It doesn't.

You have presented NO credible “sources” other than biblical tales to verify a supposed incredible event (the greatest event in the history of the world – the demonstration of the divinity of your favorite godman).

There you go with other than again. You need to demonstrate WHY the sources we have are mistaken, lying or not "credible." Repeatedly telling us they come from "one source" and the "Party Handbook" as evidence they are not "credible" is meaningless.

I do not accept circular reasoning...

Except when you are the originator.

... You have a single source regarding the “resurrection”.

It's actually funny how many times you've made this erroneous statement in this thread.

It is your position to provide evidence to back your claims. It is NOT my position to suggest where evidence should be found. Nice try.

I've given plenty of evidence. Your best rebuttal so far has been the "Party Handbook" analogy and to merely keep saying it's from a "single" source - like that is supposed to be an argument.

Compare this to the evidence regarding King Tut that is readily available to anyone AND which can be tested for accuracy.

You mean all that evidence that tells us who his parents were, how old he was when he died, and how he died. You mean all that evidence that we don't have? How do you test for the accuracy of evidence that doesn't exist? Where is all the contemporary unbiased evidence for King Tut?

Better yet, I will tell you where the body is.

Yeah cuz he's dead and didn't rise from the grave. Before you tell me where the body is, prove to me that the body IS King Tut.

FACT 3. The apostles sincerely believed Jesus rose from the dead and then appeared to them. So sincerely that some were willing to endure persecution and possibly even death because of this belief.

Many Japanese soldiers died during WWII believing Hirohito was a deity. Did that make it so?

They were not in a position to know it was true. Also, Hirohito did nothing to prove his claim to deity.

Nevertheless, the Japanese soldiers died believing that Hirohito was a deity. Many were evidently convinced that it was glorious to “die for their god”.

Does that not demonstrate that people are willing to die for a belief that is not true (unless you accept that Hirohito WAS a deity)?

I don't know if Hirohito was a god. You haven't presented any evidence yet. What did he do to prove he was a deity? The disciples had proof of the validity of Jesus' claims. The Japanese soldiers did not.

You are in no better a position to know that Jesus was a deity than the Japanese were to know the same about Hirohito.

I'm not but the disciples were. Your Japanese heroes died for something they THOUGHT was true. They weren't in a position to KNOW if it were true.

Jesus cannot be shown to have done anything to prove any claim to deity – except in bible stories.

"Except in Bible Stories". That's the big pink elephant sitting in the room beside you.

People are often willing to die for what they believe. That willingness is NOT an indication that what they believe is true.

You've also presented yet another straw man argument. The Christian argument doesn't run: because the disciples died for what they believed, what they believed must be true. The argument runs: they wouldn't have knowingly died for a lie.

DEMONSTRATE that “they wouldn’t have knowingly died for a lie”. That is an assumption and an opinion. It is NOT fact.

Would you die for a what you KNEW to be a lie? I doubt it.

According to the Party Handbook some party members sincerely believed that the founder performed superhuman feats.

Extra-biblical sources confirm that Jesus was regarded as a "wonder worker" (Josephus), a "sorcerer"(Talmud), and founder of a "mischievous superstition" (Tacitus). This would be good evidence that others outside the Christian community either witnessed miracles performed by Jesus or had heard about them. At least these sources were reporting that some one believed Jesus performed wonders. Which is really all we should expect from non-Christian sources. If they were going out of their way in affirming Jesus' miracles or His resurrection you would probably be accusing them of either being forgeries or Christian sources and therefore from the "Party Handbook."

What you have demonstrated is the lack of evidence – and made excuses for the lack.

And what you have failed to do AGAIN is address the evidence and arguments presented. Zzyzx response to evidence seems to be there is no evidence. But somehow he thinks there is good evidence for Tut. But he doesn't even know Tut's real name or how old he was when he died or who his parents were. Bizarre.

FACT 4. Paul, an enemy and persecutor of the church (Acts 8:3, 1 Cor. 15:9, Gal. 1:13) was transformed and became a prolific apostle because of his belief that a risen Jesus appeared to him. He was persecuted and reported as martyred.

One of the letter writers quoted in the Party Handbook had belonged to a different party and had converted. Great “meaning” is accorded to his conversion.

Right, you don't get your enemies to convert with tales and fables. Especially if conversion is going to lead you into harm's way.

The CIA demonstrates that it is very possible to convert enemies. Do you doubt that enemies are converted or that they are told lies by government operatives?

I doubt that hard core enemies like Paul are converted by lies. If you are saying Paul was converted by a lie you should demonstrate that. Otherwise you've offered nothing here.

FACT 5. James, brother of Jesus (Mark 6:3) and sceptic of His claims before the appearance of Jesus to him, was transformed and became a leader in the Church in Jerusalem. He was reported as martyred.

Someone perhaps known to a letter writer, supposedly related to the founder, joined the party.

Actually, James was known to multiple "letter writers."

Okay, someone perhaps known to several letter writers . . . . . .

Do you actually have a point to make here?

Can you demonstrate that the writers personally KNEW James? How can you do that if you cannot verify exactly who the writers were? If they mention knowing James is it certain that they actually, personally knew him? Is it possible that they are relaying hearsay or that their statements were modified by later revisionists?

I don't need to demonstrate that the writers knew James. That's your request and your argument. You should present evidence that they didn't know him not ask more questions. If you have evidence that James was not a sceptic, not a witness to the risen Christ, and did not convert and become a leader you should present it - not make requests for more evidence. The evidence we have suggests these are true.

I can play your game too. Can you "verify" those that wrote about Tut actually knew him? Can you "verify" who the writers were? Is it possible they are relying on hearsay? We could ask all the same questions about some one you have "no doubt" about and I would wager we would find there is more evidence for the identity of the gospel writers than there is for the recorders of Tut's life.

If hearsay and revision CANNOT be eliminated, how can one state with certainty the nature of relationship between James and the letter writers?

No one is saying we can establish with "certainty". We don't need to. We need evidence and cogent arguments. That should be enough for any rational person. It's enough for historians. If you have textural evidence that the evidence for James was "revised" you should present it. Otherwise, you are throwing cr@p against the wall to see what sticks.

I posit the theory that God resurrected Jesus from the dead best accounts for ALL the evidence and combines explanatory power and scope given the context of Jesus' life and the claims made of Him and by Him. Since the rational position would be to go with the strongest explanation that accounts for ALL the evidence we should deem the Resurrection of Jesus as true.

Those who propose a theory are expected to demonstrate that it is true and viable.

So you have no alternate theory then.

Alternative theory for WHAT – an event that you cannot show to be more than a myth? Why would I offer an “alternative theory” for a myth?

All WHAT evidence – tales in a single book?

Is your alternate theory that it is ALL a myth or just the Rez? If it's that the whole NT is a myth you need to demonstrate that as it is certainly not a majority held position by scholars or historians. If you are telling us the Rez ONLY is a myth, then on what grounds or methodology do you conclude this? I'm guessing you'll appeal to your anti-supernatural bias that you say you don't have.

The “evidence” presented is nothing more than conjecture, opinion, legend and hearsay (and of course, the “principle of embarrassment”).

It blows the doors off the evidence for the life of King Tut, but you are pretty sure about him. In fact, I think you used the words "no doubt." Go figure.

“Blows the doors off King Tut”?????

Is this statement intended as comedy?

The comical part here is you have "no doubt" about King Tut but have yet to produce a scrap of evidence that he existed. You keep pointing to a mummy and a tomb as though that proves something.

Wanting to believe something (such as bible stories) is NOT valid reason for casting aside reason, evidence and common sense...

You must be joking. Your arguments contain an inordinate amount of logical fallacies combined with simply hand-waving the evidence. For one in that position to then claim they are the more rational and embrace evidence, reason, and logic is so blatantly false it's funny.

While you are humoring yourself, readers

[Zzyzx]

.
Zzyzx post 3 of 10
Part 1 (length limitation)


Mr. Goose,

You are attempting to defend what, if it was true, would be the most important event in human history, a visit from “our creator” which included a claimed demonstration of the ability to “rise from the dead”. What you have presented as “evidence”, claimed or implied, is:

1. “Multiple attestations” by fervent believers (hearsay and testimonials)
2. “It is a miracle because goddidit” (an unverified theological claim)
3. “It is true because the bible tells me so” (circular “reasoning”, theology)
4. “The principle of embarrassment” (extremely weak non-argument)
5. “The bible is history” (the bible is theology with occasional “history”)
6. Excuses for lack of evidence
7. Demands that personal theories be proved wrong

Plus a condescending and pseudo-superior attitude in lieu of evidence of an actual “return from the dead”.

In consideration for readers I have divided my response into what I consider Main Points and Secondary Points – and have omitted what I consider as superfluous issues. If Mr. Goose thinks that I have disregarded important issues or significant points he thinks he has made, he is free to point out the oversight.

------------------------ Main Points ------------------------------

You appear to be writing for your ego. I am writing for the readers...

My ego isn't big enough to think that readers are swayed by what I have to say. I don't place myself on such a lofty pedestal.

As a realist, I understand and accept that people can be “swayed” (influenced) by what they read.

I do not claim special ability beyond that of any reasonably intelligent and articulate person to present influential arguments to others. However, I do understand that readers may choose to accept certain ideas presented as being useful in their thought processes.

I write for those people and I know that what I write has some effect upon others from what is said in threads and in personal messages.

If you realize that your words have little or no effect upon others, perhaps it would be wise to consider why. You may be sending different messages than you think you are sending and/or your message may be of little interest or value to readers.

What message are you sending to readers Goose? The message I would receive as an observer is that you are trying VERY hard to “win” a debate for ego purposes (and perhaps, incidentally, to “defend the faith”). I would conclude that you are willing to use any tactic to “win” – and therefore would not trust you to be honest or honorable. As an uninvolved observer, I would also see attempts to act superior and condescending in lieu of presenting convincing arguments.

Those messages may be far more important than what is said about the topic itself because they the attitudes the writings convey reveal aspects of the person behind the posts. The cost of “winning” a battle or two MAY be to “lose the war”. This is a “war” in a way -- we post here to promote ideas we hold dear.

My ideas and objectives are clearly presented for all to know – I encourage people to think and decide for themselves on ALL issues based upon evidence NOT upon hearsay or emotion alone. I do NOT expect or encourage anyone to accept what I say as truth – but to consider “convergence of evidence” to make their own decisions.

My contention is, “The creator of the universe and the originator of life visited the Earth for thirty years – and here is why there is NO evidence that it happened except one book of stories written by people wanting to start a new religion”.

In answer to the suggestion that there IS other evidence, remove the bible stories telling of a body raised from the dead and show what is left.

1. Zzyzx has yet to present ANY direct evidence for his case that the Resurrection is untrue

That is correct. Zzyzx will not present any direct evidence that the resurrection story is untrue – nor will he present (or be expected to present) any evidence that ANY story is untrue. He will not (nor be expected to) demonstrate that a character presented in stories did not do what the stories proclaim.

The “prove my claims false” is an admission that a person cannot prove their claims true – if they had evidence they could be convincing by presenting their case honestly and openly RATHER than expecting their ideas to be accepted unless “proved false”. That is a massive error in “reasoning” that may work in debate with a weak opponent or when presented to an uncritically accepting “choir” audience.

2. Zzyzx has presented no methodology for establishing whether or not a historical event is true. He is therefore relegated to offering his biased opinion.

That is correct. Zzyzx CLEARLY states that he is presenting his opinion (unless otherwise identified). A statement to that effect appears in his signature.

I encourage Goose to acknowledge when he is stating opinion and identify when he thinks he is stating fact.

[ Kindly explain to the readers of this thread the processes by which the supposed “came back to life” occurred citing real world evidence rather than mythology or theology.

If I could explain it in natural terms it wouldn't be a miracle and I'd know how to reverse death. It's strange because Zzyzx thinks that if we can not explain a miracle in naturalistic terms then that miracle is unverifiable. It's a fallacious and loaded request.

HOW exactly are you verifying that a supernatural “miracle” occurred?

I don't know what you mean by "verifying." You throw that word around like it proves something. But you can't even define it in the context that you mean it to be applied.

Thank you for acknowledging that your arguments are NOT based in real world considerations but are supernatural (and thus unverifiable).

“Verify” means (according to Merriam Webster) “to establish truth, accuracy, or reality”.

Repeating over and over “it is true because the bible says so” is NOT verification by any definition and is NOT convincing to any but bible believers. Notice that I am not a bible believer and neither are some other readers of this thread.

ALL you are saying is “the resurrection is true because the bible says it is true”.

You are claiming that “miracles” occur because the bible says they occur.

Are you talking only to yourself and other bible believers? Do you realize that many people do NOT accept the bible as historical, literal, or true?

3. He accepts the historicity and death of a person (Tut) for which the evidence is much more dubious than that for Christ. He has yet to offer the actual evidence for Tut.

I leave it to the reader to decide whether the evidence to support the existence and death of a person who has been identified by Egyptologists as an Egyptian Pharaoh identified as King Tutankhamun is “more dubious than that for Christ” – actually for “Christ’s supposed resurrection, the topic of this debate -- (an actual body, actual multiple artifacts, an actual tomb – vs. bible stories).

If the evidence to support the “resurrection” was as strong as that for the existence of King Tut (by whatever name known), I would NOT argue that it is doubtful to have occurred in reality just as I would NOT argue against the existence of King Tut.

In fact, the “evidence” to support the “resurrection” is unsupported stories.

4. The core of his position revolves around A) a rejection of the supernatural (though he says he is open to the possibility). B) A rejection of the evidence primarily because it comes from the "Party Handbook." Not because the evidence itself is false. This is the Genetic Fallacy.

More correctly stated:

A) Open to the possibility of supernatural events IF EVIDENCE is presented (not opinions or hearsay).

B) Does not accept bible stories (opinions, hearsay and testimonials) as evidence of supernaturalism. Note: non-acceptance of bible stories is based upon LACK of evidence of truth (not upon source alone). I do not accept claims made in the koran for the same reason.

5. Zzyzx has yet to answer the following questions:

1. How do we know anything in ancient history happened, Zzyzx?

I accept existence of some historical events based upon convergence of evidence (information drawn from various sources) and from direct evidence (such as the body, grave goods and tomb associated with King Tut).

Note: we are not discussing general history, but a specific event or non-event that you maintain is literal truth. I ask that the literal truth be shown to exist.

I do not accept your repeated excuses for failure to supply evidence that would be regarded as convincing by a discriminating reader (who had not pre-committed to accepting the tale).

2. Verified by who? By what standard? "Substantiated" by who? By what standard?

We can also now add to this list of unanswered questions the following:
If a miracle is the BEST explanation for the evidence and all the competing naturalistic theories either fail to account for all the evidence or have no evidence for support, on what grounds would you reject the supernatural explanation?

Zzyzx's response to this question was to assert there is no evidence. He did NOT answer the question

.
A “miracle” can be arbitrarily suggested to “explain” ANY event and CAN be offered as the “best explanation”. There is NO assurance that what is offered as the “best” explanation is a TRUE explanation.

In the case of the “resurrection”, the story itself appears only in religious literature AND the “explanation” is a religious explanation. A story is told about a “god” coming back to life. That is only a STORY – it is not known except through bible tales. Then the “explanation” offered is “goddidit”.

The religionist ASSUMES that the story is true and that the “explanation” offered is true – and demands that someone who does not accept the story provide a better explanation.

That is no more valid or meaningful than asking someone to provide a “better explanation” for a tale concerning Sherlock Holmes or Allah or Thor.

Zzyzx HAS stated very clearly that the best explanation, in his opinion, for the “resurrection” story is that it is a FABLE and a LEGEND.

6. There are two debates running simultaneously. One has to with the topic for debate. One does not.

Debate 2: Was the Resurrection true? I've offered a methodology for determining the truth of a historical event. A methodology used by historians. I've also offered evidence. Zzyzx has not commented on the methodology I've offered nor offered one of his own. He therefore has no method for showing the Rez to be objectively false. He has offered his opinions. Period.

Zzyzx does NOT seek to show that the “resurrection” is objectively false – realizing that proving non-existence or non-occurrence is a fool’s errand. Instead, I ask that those who make a claim of objective truth provide evidence to support their contentions (something more than conjecture, hearsay and “goddidit”).

Your entire “argument” is an excuse for why there is no real evidence -- only hearsay, opinion and conjecture -- AND a critique of what you see as “logical fallacies” in my position. The REAL logical fallacy is your attempt to argue a case without evidence to support your contentions. [/b]

...except for all the evidence that has presented. You know, all that evidence you've essentially ignored.
Why don't you define what constitutes "real evidence" instead of just saying stuff like this.

I have indicated what I consider real evidence with the example of King Tut (by whatever name known).

Then we can apply that across the board. You're just blowing more hot air.

To dispense with the “hot air” in this debate, kindly present in simple form the evidence that a dead body came back to life. NOTE: “multiple attestations” (quotes) collected from among fervent believers do not constitute evidence.

There are “multiple attestations” that Allah is the one true god. Do the “multiple attestations” make it true?

[Zzyzx]

.
Zzyzx post 3 of 10
Part 2
-------------------------- Secondary Points -------------------------

I've offered two methods by which Zzyzx could show the Rez to be false from my post 1 of 10.

Zzyzx is not constrained by the suggestions made by Goose.

Zzyzx will NOT show the “resurrection” to be false – but will continue to state that there is insufficient evidence (other than stories in a single book) to reasonably and rationally conclude that such an event occurred.

7. Zzyzx thinks that because the 27 books of the New Testament happen to be bound together in a book called the Bible that this means there is only "one source." However, the NT writings were never contained in a "Bible" when they were written.

The bible IS a book – of writings collected, edited, transcribed, revised and rewritten by churchmen.

As such, it cannot be considered “multiple sources”.

That is a later development. Further, he is incorrect that ALL the evidence comes from the Bible as we shall see. So to say that everything comes from "one source" (meaning the Bible is the "source") is erroneous.

Kindly list in straightforward manner the evidence for a “resurrected Jesus” NOT from the bible (and not from closely connected church sources).
1.
2.
3.

Most of Zzyzx's responses at this stage of the debate has nothing to do with determining whether the Rez was true or false. I'll keep most responses short as we are now at a point where we are debating for the sake of debating. If it doesn't directly relate to establishing whether or not the Rez was true, it won't receive much attention from me.

Excellent.

Goose maintains that the resurrection is true (a dead body came back to life). If true the story of the creator of the universe visiting the Earth, being killed and coming back to life – it would be the greatest event in the history of the mankind.

I ask for evidence other than a storybook.

You are attempting to defend a story that, if it was true, would represent the greatest event in the history of the world – involving the greatest person that ever lived. Supposedly the creator of the entire universe visited the Earth for thirty years and performed miracles. Yet what you offer for “evidence” is a SINGLE book written by religious storytellers.

And your job is to show the evidence is false. You need to get busy on that. Whining about what you think is a lack of evidence doesn't make it untrue.

Correction: I will continue to point out to readers that the person making the claim that a dead body came back to life has the burden of proving that the event actually occurred – and that no such proof has been supplied.

I will continue to maintain that it is irrational and incoherent to demand “prove that a dead body did not come back to life”.

You have presented exactly NOTHING that indicates that a dead body actually came back to life OR that the supposed “resurrected” person existed after death (other than stories by “disciples”).

I have presented evidence regarding what occurs to a body after death. If you claim that this did NOT occur in the case you cite, you have the burden of proving that nature did not apply in that instance.

Even your own beloved King Tut has trouble drumming up evidence for himself yet he had god-like status as a pharoah. Little is actually known about him. Even Egyptian historians listing the Kings of Egypt failed to mention him. But you are convinced beyong any doubt about King Tut. Can anyone say double standard?

I have no “beloved King Tut”. Relying upon emotionalism in lieu of argument does not add to your credibility.

I DO state that there IS evidence for the existence of King Tut (by whatever name known). There IS a body, grave goods and a tomb suitable for a Pharaoh.

I do NOT question that King Tut (by whatever name known) existed, died and was buried in a tomb. Do you?

I DO question that Jesus died and came back to life because there is no evidence other than religionist stories and claims that a “resurrected” Jesus existed.

Kindly demonstrate to readers that you have evidence for the existence of a “resurrected Jesus” that is as strong as the evidence for the existence of King Tut OR admit that you cannot.

You may dislike my “Party Handbook” comparison to the New Testament, BUT readers can understand that it is “too close for comfort” and is fairly representative. As I have stated, I write for those readers who can understand and not for anyone whose mind is locked in concrete.

If an analogy is "fairy representative" by necessity it also contains elements that are NOT representative. Which parts are representative and which are not? We don't know because Zzyzx has failed to offer the EVIDENCE for his pet analogy. He has just assumed his analogy is true and expects people to buy it because he thinks it's "fairy representative."

One is not expected to present “evidence of his pet analogy”. It was properly regarded as an analogy and is not subject to expectation of “proof”.

I am comfortable allowing readers to decide if they consider the analogy to be appropriate.

You and others who wish to believe that the resurrection occurred based on the thin “evidence” of bible stories and church dogma are certainly welcome to do so. However, when you attempt to convince thinking people that your tales are true, you may be asked to supply more than a SINGLE book and a pack of excuses.

Hey, I'm still waiting for you to pony up some evidence for Tut. So far all you've got is a boy in bag and fancy coffin. But that's enough for Zzyzx to have "no doubt."

Yes, strangely enough, I accept that a dead body in an elaborate tomb IS evidence that the person entombed 1) died, and 2) was an important person – probably a pharaoh.

Is there some reason that I should conclude otherwise?

Is there comparable evidence to support the tale of Jesus?

Or a naturalistic theory that is a better and more powerful explanation that accounts for all the evidence can show a miracle to be the less likely answer.

Providing a “better explanation” does not prove anything false. “More likely” or “less likely” do NOT constitute proof of anything.

Zzyzx is making excuses for not having a better explanation. However, in matters of history this is generally how it's done - the best explanation prevails as the the truth. If you don't like the methodology you should present your own rather than whining about the one I've presented.

As stated repeatedly, in my opinion, the “best explanation” for the “resurrection” is that it is a fable or legend.

I base this conclusion on:

1. An absence of “convergence of evidence” from wide and independent sources that a dead body actually came back to life

2. Knowledge that upon death certain, known and studied decomposition processes occur that are considered irreversible (reversibility has not been demonstrated)

3. Refusal to accept a “supernatural” explanation that has NOT been demonstrated to have occurred

When ever you find the evidence that the Rez was false you be sure to present it.

“Prove my claim false – because I cannot prove it true”.

If you could prove your claims true, you would present evidence and would not depend upon repeatedly asking that I prove them false. If you could prove your claims true I would NOT argue.

You present nothing that can even remotely be considered evidence or proof that a dead body came back to life. Bible stories may be “proof” enough for ardent believers – but you are not debating an ardent believer and the readers of this thread include people who are not ardent believers.

Christian “arguments” in defense of bible stories often boil down to, “You can’t prove that it isn’t possible that such things happened”. That is NOT a valid defense of ideas put forth as being true.

I agree. And that is exactly what has NOT happened. I've offered a methodology and evidence. You've offered squat.

Thank you for acknowledging that your argument is NOT to present convincing argument but to demand that your claims be “proved false”.

Since you raise the issue, were attempts made by the early church to destroy “non-conforming” documents, including Gnostic texts? Were the Gnostic texts preserved by the Catholic Church?

See what I mean? It's part and parcel of the argument. Hey, it's your argument. You show us that you've actually read the primary texts that support the argument and present some evidence for a change. Don't get me to do your homework.

Notice that I asked two questions. I made NO “charge”. I made NO claim to have read “primary texts”.

Do the questions make you uncomfortable enough to state that I made a “charge”, rather than answering the questions?

[What a long-winded way to avoid answering a question. It was just a general question Zzyzx. I'll ask it again and see if you answer this time. If a miracle is the BEST explanation for the evidence and all the competing naturalistic theories either fail to account for all the evidence or have no evidence for support, on what grounds would you reject the supernatural explanation?

I will answer AGAIN that when “evidence” consists of nothing more than tales told, the BEST explanation is, in my opinion, not a “miracle” but a conclusion that the story is a FABLE.

When encountering an occurrence in nature that I do not understand I do NOT invent “explanations” or look to “supernaturalism” for “answers”, but acknowledge that I cannot identify the cause – or, in other words, acknowledge that “I don’t know the answer”.

It may be tempting to “explain” events as “miracles” (an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs) rather than acknowledging that the answer is unknown.

I do not regard stories about “miracles”, such as dead bodies coming back to life (in opposition to all we know about nature) as being credible “explanations” – particularly when there is no evidence that the event occurred (other than tales by believers).

If you hold that the supernatural can not possibly exist then you Beg the Question again.

I do NOT “hold that the supernatural cannot possibly exist”. What gave you that idea? If you wish to criticize my positions kindly criticize my actual positions, not ones that you invent or suggest for me.

My actual position is, “Evidence has not been presented that would convince me that invisible super beings exist or that they perform nature-defying magical tricks”.

Oh, in that case no problem then. I was under the impression you were trying to objectively prove the Resurrection untrue, not just spouting-off to us all the subjective reasons why YOU don't believe it.

I do not attempt to prove non-existence or non-occurrence.

My position is correctly and clearly stated.

You have maintained that the “resurrection” actually occurred. I have asked that the position be demonstrated to be true and correct.

If you feel it necessary to make up things that I did NOT say to attack, that seems to indicate an inability to effectively address what I DO say.

You haven't really said anything yet so I've got to attack something or I'll die of boredom!

I leave it for readers to decide if I have said anything worthy of consideration. I realize that you are not likely to regard what I say as anything other than what you must counter to “win”.

You could relieve your boredom by attempting to find extra-biblical evidence that the “resurrection” actually occurred. That quest would keep you occupied for some time.

You can not be aware of all the evidence in existence past, present or future for the supernatural.

I cannot be aware of past, present or future of the supernatural – AND neither can you – and neither can anyone else. Yet you are attempting to defend what you identify as supernatural. Good luck.

Luck has nothing to do with it.

Your argument DEPENDS upon your claim of knowledge that a supernatural event occurred. Yet you cannot verify that supernatural events (particularly dead bodies coming back to life) actually occur.

Try stating your case without supernaturalism (remembering that some who read these comments do not accept supernaturalism or nature-defying “miracles” as being literally true).

Therefore, you must accept that there is at least a possibility that the supernatural exists. If the supernatural can possibly exist and it is the best explanation you can not rationally reject it with out committing a logical fallacy.

I accept the possibility that the supernatural exists. I await the evidence. I will not accept stories told by proponents of any of the thousands of different religions and different gods without evidence to substantiate claims.

OK, let's test that claim of yours. Here is a link to ABC News (it's about 2 min) reporting a story of a 65 year old woman that had a severe cerebral hemorrhage. In the report the doctor said she was "essentially considered brain dead." She recovered and the same doctor said he's been there ten years and "never seen anything quite like this before." The doctors have no explanation. The family is deeply religious and claims a miracle. If a miracle is the BEST explanation, why would you reject it?

It has NOT been demonstrated that “a miracle is the best explanation”. ALL that has been shown is that 1) the woman recovered, 2) doctors do not know why or how she recovered, 3) doctors have not seen a similar recovery, 4) a religious family claims it is a miracle.

A “miracle” is defined as: “an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs”

OR “an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment”.

I will accept the SECOND definition – the report indicates an unusual event. However, I will NOT accept that anyone knows that the woman’s recovery is due to divine intervention – because there is no evidence of divine intervention.

Instead, I would say, quite honestly, that I do not know how or why the woman recovered – and the doctors don’t either – and you don’t either.

Some may choose to ASSUME that divine intervention occurred; however, they do not KNOW that to be true.

Note: I am NOT declaring that I know the above to be false, but that I do NOT accept them as true. Evidence has not been supplied (other than hearsay and opinion) that indicates to me that the claims are true.

Since you've only offered your opinion here I'll leave it at that.

I identify my opinions and encourage you to do likewise.

We must conclude virtually everything you offer is your opinion because we have no methodology to judge it by.

Is what you offer fact and NOT opinion?

When you state that the resurrection occurred is that statement fact or opinion?

When you express doubt that King Tut (by whatever name known) existed, are you stating fact?

If a miracle could be explained in naturalistic terms it would NOT be a miracle. You are comitting another categorical fallacy here. Supernatural claims and natural claims have different qualities which by definition are what separates them. You are wanting one category(the supernatural) to be explained by another category (the natural).

You may call it whatever you wish. If a “miracle” is claimed, a “miracle” needs to be demonstrated. Hearsay isn’t proof. Ancient tales are not proof.

You mean they are not "proof" to you. You can't speak objectively because you have no objective method for determining proof, evidence or historical truth. It's just your biased opinion. By the way, hearsay can sometimes be evidence. You should look it up. Circumstantial evidence was enough to convict and kill Timothy McVeigh.

You are dead wrong.

Circumstantial evidence and hearsay are NOT interchangeable terms.

McVeigh was NOT convicted on hearsay evidence. The “rule of evidence” in court is clear:

In keeping with the three evidentiary requirements, the Hearsay Rule, as outlined in the FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE , prohibits most statements made outside a courtroom from being used as evidence in court. This is because statements made out of court normally are not made under oath, a judge or jury cannot personally observe the demeanor of someone who makes a statement outside the courtroom, and an opposing party cannot cross-examine such a declarant (the person making the statement). Out-of-court statements hinder the ability of the judge or jury to probe testimony for inaccuracies caused by AMBIGUITY , insincerity, faulty perception, or erroneous memory. Thus, statements made out of court are perceived as untrustworthy.
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/633569

What IS being offered to convince readers that a “miracle” occurred?

This thread is not about "convincing." It's about determining "Was the Rez true?" Every person requires something a little different to be "convinced." Whether you or anybody else is "convinced" is irrelevant. The Rez is either true or false.

“True or false” is a conclusion based on what is observed or known.

Debate is intended to convince – My objective is to convince readers that there is reason to doubt that the resurrection story is anything more than myth or legend.

What is your motivation to debate the issue?

The “special plea” that “goddidit” is not accepted as debate – it is pure theology, opinion and conjecture.

Not accepted by who? Let me guess - atheists.

An honorable debater does not expect opinion and conjecture to be accepted as evidence in a debate. An intelligent debater does not expect theology to be accepted as evidence by Non-Theists.

Do you contend that personal opinion and conjecture ARE acceptable as evidence in debate and that Non-Theists should accept theological arguments as evidence?

Zzyzx, all you've offered so far is your opinion and conjecture as evidence so you must think offering an opinion and conjecture IS acceptable in debate. In fact, I don't think you offered ANY evidence for your positions regarding Tut OR the Rez. And where have I presented a theological argument AS evidence? [/quote]
“Goddidit” is a theological argument.

I have asked questions that you cannot answer with credibility to defend the claim that a dead body came back to life.

The claim “goddidit” is a personal OPINION and conjecture, it is not fact. It is not verified. It carries no more weight than any other personal opinion or conjecture in debate – none at all.

There you go with the "verified" term again. What do you mean by verified? A miracle is not being offered as an opinion but rather as the best explanation of the facts. If the explanation that a miracle happened is the BEST explanation why would you reject it?

Correction: the BEST explanation for the clam that a dead body came back to life is, in my opinion, that the story is a myth.

I have NEVER encountered a situation in which I consider a “miracle” to be the “best explanation”. I look for real causes. If I cannot “explain” a situation I do NOT say “goddidit” – I admit that I do not know what I do not know.

I consider verification to be “to establish truth, accuracy or reality”. Typically that requires “convergence of evidence” – information drawn from a variety of independent (not associated), impartial (if possible) sources

The claim is not that Jesus rose by natural means, but rather by supernatural. Therefore, it is not a case of Special Pleading.

Then SHOW the evidence of supernaturalism...

We may be looking at evidence for the supernatural in the Rez.

Demonstrate that it occurs.

I gave you a link to a reported miracle. What more "demonstration" would you like? [/quote]
You are supposedly attempting to demonstrate that the resurrection occurred. I would “like” for you to demonstrate that exactly or acknowledge that you cannot.

“Reported miracles” are NOT evidence of miracles – they are stories of miracles. Opinions about miracles are NOT evidence of miracles. Legends of miracles are NOT miracles.

You are ASSUMING that supernaturalism occurred...

No, I'm not assuming it. I'm saying it is the best explanation. If you have a better one you should present it.

The BEST explanation for the resurrection story, in my opinion, is that the story is a myth.

Each time you refer to the “best” explanation for the “resurrection” tale, I will respond that the best explanation in my opinion is that the tale is fable, fiction or fraud.

You are claiming that “it must have been a miracle”. Arising from the dead does NOT fit with nature or the real world – so supernatural “explanations” must be claimed (always without evidence that supernatural events actually occur).

Except for the evidence that supernatural events do occur. Like the evidence for the Rez and the link to ABC News.

The occurrence of UNEXPLAINED events is NOT (repeat NOT) evidence of miracles (if miracle implies divine intervention). It is an indication that we do not understand the cause and effect of every situation. It does NOT mean that “goddidit”.

If one defines “miracle” as simply “an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment” -- WITHOUT divine implication, I can accept the statement. However, I do not use the term defined in that manner.

Lack of knowledge about any event does NOT imply that gods cause events to occur (or not occur).

All you have offered as “evidence” are tales by people who believe in “miracles” saying that they saw a “miracle”.

And you have yet to demonstrate WHY we shouldn't believe them.

Testimonials and hearsay that are unsupported are NOT regarded as reliable. If you wish to believe whatever anyone says or writes that is your business; however, rational people question what they are told.

Oh by the way, all you've offered for King Tut is what? A mummy and a sarcophagus.

Yes, that is all.

And what have you offered to substantiate that a dead body came back to life as you claim? Storybook tales.

We are not saying Jesus died and then nature itself reversed the process or the laws of physics ceased by natural means - that would be Special Pleading. The claim is that God raised Jesus from the dead - that God acted in space and time is the best explanation. (The anti-supernatural bias and rigid adherence to science and naturalism from atheists is baffling considering most atheists claim to be "free-thinkers.")

If you maintain that “goddidit” (performed a “miracle” of resurrection) kindly demonstrate using something other than opinion and conjecture that gods bring people back to life.

That's a fallacious and loaded request. The Rez is not a claim that gods bring people back to life. It is that God raised Jesus once. How would you like me to "demonstrate" that?

Demonstrating the truth of your arguments is YOUR problem, not mine.

You claim to know that “goddidit”. I ask that you show me and the readers how you know that.

I'll ask you to "demonstrate" how King Tut died using the same method you suggest. Right after you show that it even IS King Tut.

Notice that I have NOT claimed to know how King Tut died. In fact, I specifically said that the cause of death is not known.

Why would you ask me to demonstrate how death occurred when I have clearly stated that it is not known?

However, you HAVE claimed that a dead body came back to life. I ask you to verify that claim with something other than hearsay, biblical quotations and assumptions. If you cannot do so, you have FAILED to demonstrate that the resurrection is true (which is the subject of this debate).

;] b]If you maintain that the processes of nature did NOT apply in the example you cite, you ARE making a special plea. You are claiming that what we know of nature did not apply in the story you tell. And perhaps pigs can fly and gods can ascend in storybook tales.

I've already explained why it's not a Special Plea.

Taken from the link I already gave you here on Special Pleading

Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption.

Agreed: “attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc, without justifying the exemption”.

The “rule or principle” involved is that dead bodies decompose and do not come back to life.

The exception claimed is that the dead body of one known as Jesus DID come back to life.

The “justification” offered is “goddidit”.

That is invalid because a claim that god or leprechauns or fairies “did it” is NOT justification. Such a claim can be made by anyone regarding any event – thus cannot be considered justification at all.

Thus: you have made a special plea

Read again the part about maggots invading dead bodies within three days.

What about it?

That is what happens to dead bodies. There is NO evidence to show that any body has “come back to life” except n fairytales (unless you can DEMONSTRATE otherwise).

You are supposedly attempting to demonstrate that the claimed resurrection DID occur. All you are demonstrating is why you cannot do so.

You mean I haven't demonstrated that I can "verify" it by Zzyzx's now infamous secret and mysterious way of "verifying" a historical event? Is that what you mean?

Correction: you have not verified your claim that a dead body came back to life by ANY means other than citing hearsay and testimonials.

Zzyzx makes no claim regarding verifying historical accounts.

I will allow readers to decide whether you are presenting evidence or making excuses for lack of evidence.

It might be convincing if you could present evidence for the supposed most important event in the history of mankind that is at least as strong as the evidence that an Egyptian pharaoh died and was buried.

While I sympathize with the difficulty encountered by those who attempt to defend without evidence, this IS a debate forum and positions ARE expected to be verified by something other than personal opinion and conjecture.

All I ask is that you qualify "verified." Telling us that something isn't "verified" but not telling us how that thing is expected to be "verified" is meaningless. Tell us what you mean so we can apply it to other historical events.

Hey, while you're at it. Let's see you "verify" King Tut.

I am satisfied that readers understand that King Tut (by whatever name known) existed, died, was mummified, and was entombed in an elaborate way suitable for a pharaoh of his era.

That is what I mean by “verified”.

FACT 2. The tomb was discovered empty,

All “empty tomb” claims are taken from the Party Handbook. They are NOT independent and are not verified. Note: “attestation” means “somebody said”.

That's incorrect. All four gospels report the discovery of the empty tomb with slightly different emphasis and details.

All four chapters from the same book (the Party Handbook) tell similar stories. Is that surprising?

No. It tells me there is confirmation through multiple attestation.

“Multiple attestation” means that several people said something.

There were “multiple attestations” that Hirohito was divine. Did the “multiple attestations” make it true in that case? If not, what would make “multiple attestations” true in the case you offer?

Something we would expect if they were taken from different witnesses to the events. So to say they are dependent on one another for the Resurrection sequence is clearly false.

It is generally accepted that at least some of the gospel writers, whoever they were, copied from one another. Do you dispute this?

That they "copied" the Rez accounts? Yes. If you think the Rez accounts were "copied," you should provide evidence.

I asked if the gospel writers copied from one another – period.

The reason I asked is to demonstrate that the gospels are NOT independent writings – and to cast doubt upon a claim that they are actual accounts by the writers.

Copying from other sources to write an account does NOT constitute an original or an independent account.

When a source is known to be NOT original and Not independent in some respects, ALL that is said is subject to doubt – particularly when little or nothing is known about the writers.

Paul is independent of the Gospel and implies an empty tomb.

Is Paul independent of the Bible?

Clearly you do not understand what historians mean by "independent."

If you are using a specialized definition of “independent” in debate you are expected to define the term as it is being used.

I seem to recall that we agreed to use standard definitions of words in this debate. Is my memory of that faulty?

You STILL have a single book source no matter how you attempt to slice it and dice it. ONE book making incredible (too extraordinary and improbable to be believed) unsubstantiated claims does NOT constitute evidence – its use constitutes a textbook example of circular “reasoning”.

If secular and atheist historians and scholars use the Bible for a source of historical information (the non supernatural of course) why do YOU have such a problem with it? The 5 facts I've presented are non-supernatural and even agreed to by some critical and atheists scholars. What is the real problem?

As stated, the problem is that you are using a single source to “verify itself” – “the resurrection is true because the bible says so” – and nothing more.

In reasoned debate a source is NOT cited to support its own tale – and a single source quoted to verify itself is known by the technical term “circular reasoning”.

Who are you expecting it to be "verified" by Zzyzx?

I DO NOT expect you to be able to verify anything regarding the “resurrection” – and you are proving me correct.

Of course not because you haven't let anyone else in on your little secret - what Zzyzx means by "verify."

By “verify” Zzyzx means, “to establish the truth, accuracy, or reality” (as per Merriam Webster). That is NOT a secret dictionary.

You have not verified or supported by any means other than hearsay and testimonial.

I am not expected, by rational people, to supply a possible source of information to support YOUR argument. Your lack of evidence is not my problem.

So you say it should be verified by a source other than the Bible. I then ask you which source. You don't have a clue and that becomes MY problem that there isn't evidence that you can't identify WHERE and WHY it should appear? Obviously you can't defend your own arguments. When asked to clarify you just tell me it's my problem.

Correction: I say that “rising from the dead of Jesus Christ” (the most important event in the history of mankind – if it was true) should be verified by MORE than just a single book (and its “independent” chapters).

I am NOT obligated to demonstrate where YOUR evidence should come from. Being unable to verify what you say is your problem. If there are no sources other than the bible, say so -- admit that bible stories are your only “evidence”.

Likewise, I am not obligated to tell Leprechaun fanciers where they should expect to find evidence to support their claims.

Those who make the claim are expected to verify the claim. You may begin whenever you are ready.

Try to keep up Zzyzx. I began a few posts ago.

You have presented stories that you seem to think constitutes evidence.

At the same time you dispute actual evidence of a body in a tomb.

Note: The Catholic Encyclopedia says regarding Joseph of Arimethea:

“All that is known for certain concerning him is derived from the canonical Gospels.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08520a.htm ”

Right, all that is known for certain.But you don't like that certainty because it is found in the Bible, written by Christians. That's called the Gentic Fallacy

You are right. I do NOT accept the bible as proof of anything – I do not accept a single source as proof of anything -- nor do many other people (some of whom are readers of these threads). What are you offering to convince those who do not already believe the biblical tales?

Every time you make this silly statement that there is only "a single source" you reveal a profound ignorance of the evidence at hand. Irenaeus tells us Clement knew Peter and Paul. Paul mentions Clement in his letters. It's possible Clement may have even been a witness to the risen Christ perhaps one of the 500 (but this would be only speculative). Clement wrote his first epistle around the same time as the Gospel of John (some place it earlier than John). Here's what he said about the Rez.

1Clement 24:1-2 Let us understand, dearly beloved, how the Master continually showeth unto us the resurrection that shall be hereafter; whereof He made the Lord Jesus Christ the firstfruit, when He raised Him from the dead.

and later

1Clememtn 42:5-6 Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come.

Still think ALL we have is one source - i.e the Bible?

Is THIS the “independent source”, Clement, that you cite?

The First Epistle of Clement, (literally, Clement to Corinth; Greek, Κλήμεντος πρὸς Κορινθίους, Klēmentos pros Korinthious) dates from the late first or early second century, and ranks with the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Seven Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch as one of the earliest — if not the earliest — of extant Christian documents outside the canonical New Testament. No where in the epistle itself is Clement named as its author. Rather the epistle is written with its opening line in the name of "the Church of God which sojourns in Rome" to "the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth." However, scholarly consensus is overwhelmingly in favour of its authenticity,[2] however there are a number of questions raised by the Dutch Radical Critics that have been largely ignored but remain as yet unanswered[3]. Many scholars believe 1 Clement was written circa 95-97 AD.
The traditional date for Clement's epistle is at the end of the reign of Domitian, or circa 96 AD, by taking the phrase "sudden and repeated misfortunes and hindrances which have befallen us" (1:1) for a reference to persecutions under Domitian. Confirmation of the date comes from the fact that the church at Rome is called "ancient" and that the presbyters installed by the apostles have died (44:2), and a second ecclesiastical generation has also passed on (44:3).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistles_of_Clement

Do you offer as being independent an “epistle” written 100 years CE by a person believed to be a churchman?

[Goose]

Goose's post 4 of a possible, but probably not necessary, 10

Well, I'm not sure what the point of continuing is. Zzyzx was the one that challenge me to a head-to-head titled:
"Was the Resurrection a true, literal and physical event?" He then agreed to simply make this "Was the Resurrection True?" I affirm the positive and Zzyzx the negative. However, in his last post Zzyzx has conceded the following:

Zzyzx does NOT seek to show that the “resurrection” is objectively false – realizing that proving non-existence or non-occurrence is a fool’s errand

It seems like Zzyzx has finally woken up and smelt the coffee. If you don't seek to show the Rez objectively false WHY did you challenge me to debate it's truth? I've provided a methodology used by historians for showing the Rez true. Zzyzx has failed to comment on the methodology or offer a clear method of his own. He has also failed to address the evidence and arguments presented in post one of ten and failed to offer any evidence for his own case. I'm always reluctant to claim victory in a debate but what else should I conclude here?


At any rate, we'll continue. Much of Zzyzx's last post is more of the same tired rhetoric and covering old ground. I'm going to trim it down to the relevant parts.

Some new observations:

8. Zzyzx is confusing "convincing" with truth. He seems to think that if I can't "convince" him then the Rez is untrue. However, this thread is "Was the Rez true?" It is NOT "Is the Rez convincing to Sceptics like Zzyzx?" We don't determine truth by whether or not we can "convince" another person - that would make truth subjective. The rational person knows that there are objective truths. If something is true it is objectively true whether or not another person says they are "convinced" or not. I have offered an objective methodology for determining truth. Zzyzx seems to think truth is subjective. Whether Zzyzx or any one else is "convinced" is irrelevant. The Rez is either true or false.

9. Zzyzx's main argument for the explanation of the evidence.

As stated repeatedly, in my opinion, the “best explanation” for the “resurrection” is that it is a fable or legend.

Your fable and legend theory falls flat under scrutiny. Paul was writing far too early for fact to have been replaced by legend and fable. Paul was writing with in twenty years and he affirms the Rez. In fact, even some critical and sceptical scholars (I can provide a list if you wish) concede the creedal passages found in Paul's writings such as First Corinthians 15:1-8 originated with in only months of the crucifixion. Even if we use later dating for the Gospels from 70AD to 100AD it is still too early to have fact entirely replaced by fable. Your fable and legend theory is further obliterated by the lack of explanatory power. Why would the writers propagate and embellish legends and fables that would potentially put themselves and other prospective converts into persecution and even harm's way. Your theory fails to answer this. Also, fables and legends are highly unlikely to convince Paul, an enemy of the church, and James a sceptic. You need to present additional theories to account for why these men converted.

10. Zzyzx has finally given us a definition of what he means by verify - “to establish truth, accuracy, or reality”.

I consider verification to be “to establish truth, accuracy or reality”. Typically that requires “convergence of evidence” – information drawn from a variety of independent (not associated), impartial (if possible) sources

At long last we find out what Zzyzx means by "verified." Now let's apply that to the existence of King Tut. Can Zzyzx establish the truth, accuracy or reality that Tut existed using information drawn from a variety of independent (not associated), impartial (if possible) sources? Let's see if he can. It's his criterion he is requesting of the Rez. He should demonstrate that it can be applied to other historical events such as the existence of King Tut with out failing the existence of King Tut, something Zyzx believes with "no doubt." I would like to see him apply this criterion and method to see if Zzyzx can "verify" the existence of King Tut. This will confirm whether or not Zzyzx employs a double standard. I think he does.

11. Zzyzx's argument over the lack of evidence. I'll demonstrate why this is a stupid argument in a moment. Actually, it's not even an argument it's an unfounded and unqualifiable subjective statement.

12. Taken from the comments thread, but I think relevant here.

I promote no particular “methodology” regarding history, but consider historical claims from a perspective of science.

Yet science cannot answer a historical question using the scientific method. History is technically strictly speaking non-repeatable or observable and therefore cannot be subjected to the scientific process. This is another categorical fallacy. It would be the same type of fallacy to consider whether logic is logical from a perspective of science. Or to consider whether truth exists from a perspective of science.



Zzyzx post 3 of 10
Part 1 (length limitation)

Mr. Goose,

You are attempting to defend what, if it was true, would be the most important event in human history, a visit from “our creator” which included a claimed demonstration of the ability to “rise from the dead”. What you have presented as “evidence”, claimed or implied, is:

1. “Multiple attestations” by fervent believers (hearsay and testimonials)

You reject their testimony because they ARE believers. That's the Genetic Fallacy.

2. “It is a miracle because goddidit” (an unverified theological claim)

Not quite. A miracle is the best explanation.

3. “It is true because the bible tells me so” (circular “reasoning”, theology)

Still using that silly argument? Already blew that one away with First Clement. But I see rather than conceding you're incorrect you've adjusted your position. We'll get to that.

4. “The principle of embarrassment” (extremely weak non-argument)

Hey, if it's good enough for professional historians it's good enough for me.

5. “The bible is history” (the bible is theology with occasional “history”)

What is the methodology you use to differentiate between history and non-history? At this point it seems to be what you like and don't like.

6. Excuses for lack of evidence

This is your silliest argument of all of them. It's not even an argument. Simply saying there is a lack of evidence is not proof that there is lack of evidence. It's just an unqualifiable personal opinion. I could do that with ANYTHING. Allow me to demonstrate:

Holocaust believer: Here is the evidence for the Holocaust...
Holocaust denier: I don't believe it. If the Holocaust really happened the way people say it did, there should be MORE evidence. It is the most horrific atrocity in modern history. There should MUCH more evidence!
Holocaust believer: How much more and what kind and where would you expect to see this additional evidence?
Holocaust denier: I don't know. It's the worst atrocity in modern history and you need my help documenting it? Your lack of evidence isn't MY problem!

Stupid non-argument.

7. Demands that personal theories be proved wrong

Where has this been done.


------------------------ Main Points ------------------------------

You appear to be writing for your ego. I am writing for the readers...

My ego isn't big enough to think that readers are swayed by what I have to say. I don't place myself on such a lofty pedestal.

<snipped Zzyzx's off-topic rant and soap-box sermon>

The ironic part here is you have perceived this to be a "Main Point" and spent more time ranting and defending yourself than actually debating the topic.

... I would conclude that you are willing to use any tactic to “win” – and therefore would not trust you to be honest or honorable....

Hey Zzyzx, you should take your own advice:

I suggest that we confine discussion to ideas rather than personalities. Is that possible for you Mr. Goose?

You keep trying to paint me with this "dishonest" brush. Which is of course an ad hominem fallacy. One thing I've found in debating is that when one's opponent has nothing left to say other than just calling you dishonest your opponent has essentially said, "You've
kicked my butt and I can't deal with it."

1. Zzyzx has yet to present ANY direct evidence for his case that the Resurrection is untrue

That is correct. Zzyzx will not present any direct evidence that the resurrection story is untrue...

Then why are we debating? Besides, that's not what you said in our PM's to one another. I'll remind you.

I will present evidence, reasoning, criticism and questions to demonstrate that arguments proposing the theory of a literal “resurrection” has not been substantiated.

Why are you changing your tune?

... – nor will he present (or be expected to present) any evidence that ANY story is untrue. He will not (nor be expected to) demonstrate that a character presented in stories did not do what the stories proclaim.

That's up to you. But it smacks of coping-out.

2. Zzyzx has presented no methodology for establishing whether or not a historical event is true. He is therefore relegated to offering his biased opinion.

That is correct. Zzyzx CLEARLY states that he is presenting his opinion (unless otherwise identified). A statement to that effect appears in his signature.

I encourage Goose to acknowledge when he is stating opinion and identify when he thinks he is stating fact.

The reason you are relegated to the side-line position of opinion only is you have no methodology for establishing a "fact."

HOW exactly are you verifying that a supernatural “miracle” occurred?

I don't know what you mean by "verifying." You throw that word around like it proves something. But you can't even define it in the context that you mean it to be applied.

Thank you for acknowledging that your arguments are NOT based in real world considerations but are supernatural (and thus unverifiable).

Why? Because I don't know what you mean by "verify"?

“Verify” means (according to Merriam Webster) “to establish truth, accuracy, or reality”.

OK. Now how does one do that with a historical question? Let's see you "verify" the existence of King Tut using that definition. On your marks, set, go...

ALL you are saying is “the resurrection is true because the bible says it is true”.

You've got that in quotes. Where did I say “the resurrection is true because the bible says it is true.” Are you even making an attempt to understand the arguments put forth?

You are claiming that “miracles” occur because the bible says they occur.

Wrong.

Are you talking only to yourself and other bible believers? Do you realize that many people do NOT accept the bible as historical, literal, or true?

There are atheist and critical historians and scholars that do accept much of the historicity of the NT (with the exception of the supernatural). Why don't you?

3. He accepts the historicity and death of a person (Tut) for which the evidence is much more dubious than that for Christ. He has yet to offer the actual evidence for Tut.

I leave it to the reader to decide whether the evidence to support the existence and death of a person who has been identified by Egyptologists as an Egyptian Pharaoh identified as King Tutankhamun is “more dubious than that for Christ” – actually for “Christ’s supposed resurrection, the topic of this debate -- (an actual body, actual multiple artifacts, an actual tomb – vs. bible stories).

Still can't find any evidence for the existence of Tut, eh?

If the evidence to support the “resurrection” was as strong as that for the existence of King Tut (by whatever name known), I would NOT argue that it is doubtful to have occurred in reality just as I would NOT argue against the existence of King Tut.

This type of statement would carry SO much more weight if you could ACTUALLY provide the EVIDNCE for Tut. The comical part here is every time you say, "King Tut (by whatever name known)" in the context of certainty. If it was so certain why the caveat by whatever name known. You don't even know his real name! Don't you see the irony here?

4. The core of his position revolves around A) a rejection of the supernatural (though he says he is open to the possibility). B) A rejection of the evidence primarily because it comes from the "Party Handbook." Not because the evidence itself is false. This is the Genetic Fallacy.

More correctly stated:

A) Open to the possibility of supernatural events IF EVIDENCE is presented (not opinions or hearsay).

What kind of evidence do you want?

B) Does not accept bible stories (opinions, hearsay and testimonials) as evidence of supernaturalism. Note: non-acceptance of bible stories is based upon LACK of evidence of truth (not upon source alone). I do not accept claims made in the koran for the same reason.

That's your personal feelings on the matter. What is your methodology for rejecting it when you obviously accept the ancient accounts for the existence of King Tut.

5. Zzyzx has yet to answer the following questions:

1. How do we know anything in ancient history happened, Zzyzx?

I accept existence of some historical events based upon convergence of evidence (information drawn from various sources) and from direct evidence (such as the body, grave goods and tomb associated with King Tut).

No, I don't think you do. Show us the convergence of evidence for the existence of King Tut? At this stage ALL you have is one line of evidence - archaeological. That is NOT a convergence of evidence. You have a double standard. Not to mention a convergence of evidence doesn't prove a historical matter with certainty. We use a convergence of evidence to build an inductive argument. How is that different than what I've done in post one of ten? It isn't.

Note: we are not discussing general history, but a specific event or non-event that you maintain is literal truth. I ask that the literal truth be shown to exist.

Read my post one of ten.

2. Verified by who? By what standard? "Substantiated" by who? By what standard?

We can also now add to this list of unanswered questions the following:
If a miracle is the BEST explanation for the evidence and all the competing naturalistic theories either fail to account for all the evidence or have no evidence for support, on what grounds would you reject the supernatural explanation?

Zzyzx's response to this question was to assert there is no evidence. He did NOT answer the question

.
A “miracle” can be arbitrarily suggested to “explain” ANY event and CAN be offered as the “best explanation”. There is NO assurance that what is offered as the “best” explanation is a TRUE explanation.

Firstly, you still have not answered the second question Verified by who? By what standard? "Substantiated" by who? By what standard?

Secondly, we can apply the same reasoning to a naturalistic explanation for an event. A naturalistic theory can be offered for any event as well and there is no assurance it is true either. So your own objection fails your own theory that it is all a fable or legend. This is why the rational person goes with the BEST explanation that has explanatory power and scope and accounts for all the evidence. Do you disagree?

If you reject the BEST explanation BECAUSE it is supernatural you reject the conclusion based upon presuppositions not because of evidence, reason and logic.

6. There are two debates running simultaneously. One has to with the topic for debate. One does not.

Debate 2: Was the Resurrection true? I've offered a methodology for determining the truth of a historical event. A methodology used by historians. I've also offered evidence. Zzyzx has not commented on the methodology I've offered nor offered one of his own. He therefore has no method for showing the Rez to be objectively false. He has offered his opinions. Period.

Zzyzx does NOT seek to show that the “resurrection” is objectively false – realizing that proving non-existence or non-occurrence is a fool’s errand. Instead, I ask that those who make a claim of objective truth provide evidence to support their contentions (something more than conjecture, hearsay and “goddidit”).

Then WHY on God's green earth did you challenge me to a debate on "Was the Rez True?" What a complete waste of time.

Your entire “argument” is an excuse for why there is no real evidence -- only hearsay, opinion and conjecture -- AND a critique of what you see as “logical fallacies” in my position. The REAL logical fallacy is your attempt to argue a case without evidence to support your contentions. [/b]

...except for all the evidence that has presented. You know, all that evidence you've essentially ignored. Why don't you define what constitutes "real evidence" instead of just saying stuff like this.

I have indicated what I consider real evidence with the example of King Tut (by whatever name known).

Of course a mummy, coffin, and tomb are evidence. But evidence of what? When do we get to see the evidence that it IS King Tut? Where is the convergence of evidence you rely so heavily upon? You STILL have not provided any. So I am forced to conclude one of the following:

1. You make unsupported claims.
2. You can't find the evidence.
3. You don't know HOW to find the evidence.
4. You can't be bothered.
5. You are regretting using King Tut now because you are realizing it exposes your bias and are simply hoping no one will notice how silly your argument is looking.
5. All of the above.



I've moved the next part back into the "main points." It's odd that Zzyzx slipped this one, a core part of his arguments that was shown false, into the "secondary points" post but had his little rant about me being dishonest at the beginning of the "main points" post. Go figure.

7. Zzyzx thinks that because the 27 books of the New Testament happen to be bound together in a book called the Bible that this means there is only "one source." However, the NT writings were never contained in a "Bible" when they were written. That is a later development. Further, he is incorrect that ALL the evidence comes from the Bible as we shall see. So to say that everything comes from "one source" (meaning the Bible is the "source") is erroneous.

Kindly list in straightforward manner the evidence for a “resurrected Jesus” NOT from the bible (and not from closely connected church sources).
1.
2.
3.

Notice what Zzyzx has done here. THIS IS IMPORTANT TO TAKE NOTE. Instead of acknowledging he has been shown wrong and his statements erroneous by direct evidence (from First Clement), Zzyzx has changed his position and made another request to fit his new position. It's no longer "one source" (meaning the Bible), but NOW it's "one source" meaning closely connected CHURCH SOURCES. You see, Zzyzx has raised the bar when provided evidence to answer an objection. We are now justified in concluding that there will be no amount of evidence that will convince someone like Zzyzx. He'll just keep changing his position and raising the bar arbitrarily. If I were to meet his pet request (which is really a debating tactic to take the focus off the fact he has been clearly shown wrong) and find 3 sources for his list, he would probably come back and say, "Well that's not enough, I need 5 more. Oh, and they all need to be enemy sources as well." And so on and so forth...



Zzyzx post 3 of 10
Part 2
-------------------------- Secondary Points -------------------------

Zzyzx will NOT show the “resurrection” to be false...

Then it's game over for you.

...– but will continue to state that there is insufficient evidence (other than stories in a single book) to reasonably and rationally conclude that such an event occurred.

Reasonably and rationally by what standard or methodology? Your personal one?

King Tut vs the Rez:

Goose maintains that the resurrection is true (a dead body came back to life). If true the story of the creator of the universe visiting the Earth, being killed and coming back to life – it would be the greatest event in the history of the mankind.

I ask for evidence other than a storybook.

"Other than" - Just can't get away from that can you. Hey, I ask for evidence that King Tut existed OTHER THAN a mummy, coffin and tomb. Now what?

You are attempting to defend a story that, if it was true, would represent the greatest event in the history of the world – involving the greatest person that ever lived. Supposedly the creator of the entire universe visited the Earth for thirty years and performed miracles. Yet what you offer for “evidence” is a SINGLE book written by religious storytellers.

And your job is to show the evidence is false. You need to get busy on that. Whining about what you think is a lack of evidence doesn't make it untrue.

Correction: I will continue to point out to readers that the person making the claim that a dead body came back to life has the burden of proving that the event actually occurred – and that no such proof has been supplied.

Your rhetoric would carry more weight if you could prove, by the same methodology and standard you request the Rez to be proven, that King Tut existed.

You have presented exactly NOTHING that indicates that a dead body actually came back to life OR that the supposed “resurrected” person existed after death (other than stories by “disciples”).

I could say the same about you and the existence of your boyfriend King Tut.

I DO state that there IS evidence for the existence of King Tut (by whatever name known). There IS a body, grave goods and a tomb suitable for a Pharaoh.

Yes, yes, yes. We all know you've stated that many times. But HOW do you KNOW that mummy IS King Tut. Still waiting...

I do NOT question that King Tut (by whatever name known) existed, died and was buried in a tomb. Do you?

I question it IS King Tut, you have yet to demonstrate that it is. Actually, I'm now inclined to think you haven't got a clue how to even begin to demonstrate that it is King Tut.

Kindly demonstrate to readers that you have evidence for the existence of a “resurrected Jesus” that is as strong as the evidence for the existence of King Tut OR admit that you cannot.

Dude, you don't even know if the unknown mummy's name even IS King Tut!

You and others who wish to believe that the resurrection occurred based on the thin “evidence” of bible stories and church dogma are certainly welcome to do so. However, when you attempt to convince thinking people that your tales are true, you may be asked to supply more than a SINGLE book and a pack of excuses.

Hey, I'm still waiting for you to pony up some evidence for Tut. So far all you've got is a boy in bag and fancy coffin. But that's enough for Zzyzx to have "no doubt."

Yes, strangely enough, I accept that a dead body in an elaborate tomb IS evidence that the person entombed 1) died, and 2) was an important person – probably a pharaoh.

"Probably" a pharoah? I thought you had "no doubt." Hey I accept that a person entombed is evidence that a person died too. Which Pharaoh and how do you know with "no doubt"?

Is there some reason that I should conclude otherwise? [regarding Tut]

Wouldn't that be the “Prove my claim false – because I cannot prove it true” argument you keep whining about?

Is there comparable evidence to support the tale of Jesus?

Yup, see post one of ten.

You are supposedly attempting to demonstrate that the resurrection occurred. I would “like” for you to demonstrate that exactly or acknowledge that you cannot.

You still haven't told us how we "demonstrate" an event in history to have occurred. You keep making this request as though it means something. "Demonstrate" King Tut existed.




The Party Handbook Analogy:

If an analogy is "fairy representative" by necessity it also contains elements that are NOT representative. Which parts are representative and which are not? We don't know because Zzyzx has failed to offer the EVIDENCE for his pet analogy. He has just assumed his analogy is true and expects people to buy it because he thinks it's "fairy representative."

One is not expected to present “evidence of his pet analogy”. It was properly regarded as an analogy and is not subject to expectation of “proof”.

I think Zzyzx doesn't know where or how to find evidence for his pet analogy. He's been called on it and just says, "One is not expected to present evidence of his pet analogy."

I base this conclusion [fable and legend]on:

1. An absence of “convergence of evidence” from wide and independent sources that a dead body actually came back to life

2. Knowledge that upon death certain, known and studied decomposition processes occur that are considered irreversible (reversibility has not been demonstrated)

3. Refusal to accept a “supernatural” explanation that has NOT been demonstrated to have occurred

1. Yet you accept the existence of King Tut for which you do not have a convergence of evidence 2. Is an appeal to naturalism and a straw man argument. Jesus did not rise by natural means. 3. Is your subjective rejection of the supernatural.

If you could prove your claims true, you would present evidence and would not depend upon repeatedly asking that I prove them false. If you could prove your claims true I would NOT argue.

The method and evidence to prove the Rez true has been provided in post one of ten. You just keep ignoring it and telling us there is no evidence.

You present nothing that can even remotely be considered evidence or proof that a dead body came back to life. Bible stories may be “proof” enough for ardent believers – but you are not debating an ardent believer and the readers of this thread include people who are not ardent believers.

See what I mean?

Christian “arguments” in defense of bible stories often boil down to, “You can’t prove that it isn’t possible that such things happened”. That is NOT a valid defense of ideas put forth as being true.

I agree. And that is exactly what has NOT happened. I've offered a methodology and evidence. You've offered squat.

Thank you for acknowledging that your argument is NOT to present convincing argument but to demand that your claims be “proved false”.

Talk about twisting someone's words. WOW! But you are correct about one thing. I am not trying to present a "convincing" argument. I'm not trying to convince those that are not convincible. I am showing the Rez to be true. I've done this by providing a method used by historians for establishing historical truth and provided the evidence.

Since you raise the issue, were attempts made by the early church to destroy “non-conforming” documents, including Gnostic texts? Were the Gnostic texts preserved by the Catholic Church?

See what I mean? It's part and parcel of the argument. Hey, it's your argument. You show us that you've actually read the primary texts that support the argument and present some evidence for a change. Don't get me to do your homework.

Notice that I asked two questions. I made NO “charge”. I made NO claim to have read “primary texts”.

You ask questions because you've probably heard these arguments from some one else (probably on this forum or in a book) and it sounded good. You've never actually looked into the evidence that supports the arguments. You just believe it's true because it supports your world view. Am I wrong? If so, prove me wrong by supplying some evidence from a primary text to support your own arguments.

Do the questions make you uncomfortable enough to state that I made a “charge”, rather than answering the questions?

Not at all Zzyzx. At this stage all you've done is ask questions. You haven't provided evidence and can't seem to find it so I'll conclude it's wishful thinking on your part.


Regarding the supernatural:

Try stating your case without supernaturalism..

The 5 facts presented are not supernatural themselves. There could be naturalistic explanations for them. We are looking for the BEST explanation.

...(remembering that some who read these comments do not accept supernaturalism or nature-defying “miracles” as being literally true).

That's only a problem if they dismiss the supernatural a priori. If a supernatural explanation is the BEST explanation for a series of facts they should accept the supernatural explanation. That would be rational and consistent with the position that one accepts the possibility of the supernatural.

Therefore, you must accept that there is at least a possibility that the supernatural exists. If the supernatural can possibly exist and it is the best explanation you can not rationally reject it with out committing a logical fallacy.

I accept the possibility that the supernatural exists. I await the evidence. I will not accept stories told by proponents of any of the thousands of different religions and different gods without evidence to substantiate claims.

OK, let's test that claim of yours. Here is a link to ABC News (it's about 2 min) reporting a story of a 65 year old woman that had a severe cerebral haemorrhage. In the report the doctor said she was "essentially considered brain dead." She recovered and the same doctor said he's been there ten years and "never seen anything quite like this before." The doctors have no explanation. The family is deeply religious and claims a miracle. If a miracle is the BEST explanation, why would you reject it?

It has NOT been demonstrated that “a miracle is the best explanation”. ALL that has been shown is that 1) the woman recovered,...

...from death!

2) doctors do not know why or how she recovered,..

..IOW there's no naturalistic explanation.

3) doctors have not seen a similar recovery,...

Correct.

4) a religious family claims it is a miracle

Why do you not believe it?

A “miracle” is defined as: “an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs”

OR “an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment”.

I will accept the SECOND definition – the report indicates an unusual event. However, I will NOT accept that anyone knows that the woman’s recovery is due to divine intervention – because there is no evidence of divine intervention.

Except that the family claims divine intervention probably due them praying for it.

Instead, I would say, quite honestly, that I do not know how or why the woman recovered – and the doctors don’t either – and you don’t either.

You say you don't know. If you do not know that it is not a miracle. You must allow for that possibility. If the BEST explanation is a miracle, why reject it? When some one returns from being brain dead and those around that person claim God's intervention - a miracle - and there is no other competing theory or evidence for a competing theory (such as the equipment used to diagnose here death was shown faulty) then I feel confident that a miracle is the BEST explanation. Is it absolutely certain? No. But the rational person goes with the BEST explanation. Only when further evidence shows that explanation false, do we conclude the previous explanation is untrue. Science operates under a similar mandate.

You are claiming that “it must have been a miracle”. Arising from the dead does NOT fit with nature or the real world – so supernatural “explanations” must be claimed (always without evidence that supernatural events actually occur).

Except for the evidence that supernatural events do occur. Like the evidence for the Rez and the link to ABC News.

The occurrence of UNEXPLAINED events is NOT (repeat NOT) evidence of miracles (if miracle implies divine intervention). It is an indication that we do not understand the cause and effect of every situation. It does NOT mean that “goddidit”.

We don't need to the cause and effect of the situation to draw the conclusion that God performed a miracle. If a miracle is requested and then claimed to have taken place and it's the BEST explanation for the evidence we are justified in concluding that a miracle happened.

When you state that the resurrection occurred is that statement fact or opinion?

A historical fact (remember I see something that is historically true as a historical fact). The Rez is shown to be a fact by the methodology and evidence in post one of ten. You can't dispute it because you have no methodology and won't touch the evidence or methodology presented.


Other issues:

You may call it whatever you wish. If a “miracle” is claimed, a “miracle” needs to be demonstrated. Hearsay isn’t proof. Ancient tales are not proof.

You mean they are not "proof" to you. You can't speak objectively because you have no objective method for determining proof, evidence or historical truth. It's just your biased opinion. By the way, hearsay can sometimes be evidence. You should look it up. Circumstantial evidence was enough to convict and kill Timothy McVeigh.

You are dead wrong.

Circumstantial evidence and hearsay are NOT interchangeable terms.

McVeigh was NOT convicted on hearsay evidence.

You should pay closer attention. I didn't say McVeigh was convicted on hearsay, but on circumstantial evidence.

The “rule of evidence” in court is clear:

In keeping with the three evidentiary requirements, the Hearsay Rule, as outlined in the FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE , prohibits most statements made outside a courtroom from being used as evidence in court. This is because statements made out of court normally are not made under oath, a judge or jury cannot personally observe the demeanor of someone who makes a statement outside the courtroom, and an opposing party cannot cross-examine such a declarant (the person making the statement). Out-of-court statements hinder the ability of the judge or jury to probe testimony for inaccuracies caused by AMBIGUITY , insincerity, faulty perception, or erroneous memory. Thus, statements made out of court are perceived as untrustworthy.
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/633569

First, we are ASSUMING that the writers were not eyewitnesses. I could build a case that for example Matthew and John were eyewitnesses and wrote their respective Gospels. The evidence for the authorship of these books is just as good as that for other secular works such Caesar's Gallic/Civil War Commentaries. But for the sake of argument and to make it easier for you I've assumed they are hopelessly anonymous. Secondly, you should have kept reading. A few sentences later in your source:

Not all out-of-court statements or assertions are impermissible hearsay. If an attorney wishes the judge or jury to consider the fact that a certain statement was made, but not the truthfulness of that statement, the statement is not hearsay and may be admitted as evidence. Suppose a hearing is held to determine a woman's mental competence. Out of court, when asked to identify herself, the woman said, "I am the pope." There is little question that the purpose of introducing that statement as evidence is not to convince the judge or jury that the woman actually is the pope; the truthfulness of the statement is irrelevant. Rather, the statement is introduced to show the woman's mental state; her belief that she is the pope may prove that she is not mentally competent. On the other hand, a defendant's out-of-court statement "I am the murderer," offered in a murder trial to prove that the defendant is the murderer, is hearsay.

The case in post one of ten does not use the Bible's assertion that Jesus rose from the dead to prove that Jesus rose from the dead. Therefore, the evidence presented in post one of ten isn't necessarily inadmissible. But most importantly, we aren't looking at a court of law case but a court of history case. The vast majority of history is reported as hearsay, now what?

What IS being offered to convince readers that a “miracle” occurred?

This thread is not about "convincing." It's about determining "Was the Rez true?" Every person requires something a little different to be "convinced." Whether you or anybody else is "convinced" is irrelevant. The Rez is either true or false.

“True or false” is a conclusion based on what is observed or known.

Let's apply that to King Tut. What is observed? A mummy, coffin and tomb. What is known? That a mummy, tomb and coffin exist. Now "convince" me it's true King Tut existed.

The “special plea” that “goddidit” is not accepted as debate – it is pure theology, opinion and conjecture.

Not accepted by who? Let me guess - atheists.

An honorable debater does not expect opinion and conjecture to be accepted as evidence in a debate. An intelligent debater does not expect theology to be accepted as evidence by Non-Theists.

Do you contend that personal opinion and conjecture ARE acceptable as evidence in debate and that Non-Theists should accept theological arguments as evidence?

Zzyzx, all you've offered so far is your opinion and conjecture as evidence so you must think offering an opinion and conjecture IS acceptable in debate. In fact, I don't think you offered ANY evidence for your positions regarding Tut OR the Rez. And where have I presented a theological argument AS evidence?

“Goddidit” is a theological argument.

You don't seem to know the difference between an argument and a conclusion. A miracle occurred is a conclusion to an argument, not an argument. I didn't present a theological argument AS evidence.

I have asked questions that you cannot answer with credibility to defend the claim that a dead body came back to life.

Questions mean jack-squat. They are just questions. I'm not defending the Rez. We are debating whether the Rez was true. Not whether you think my answers are credible.

All you have offered as “evidence” are tales by people who believe in “miracles” saying that they saw a “miracle”.

And you have yet to demonstrate WHY we shouldn't believe them.

Testimonials and hearsay that are unsupported are NOT regarded as reliable. If you wish to believe whatever anyone says or writes that is your business; however, rational people question what they are told.

Rational people do not presume guilt with out evidence. Rational people presume innocence until guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Rational people do NOT assume another person is lying until there is conclusive evidence that the person is lying or mistaken. You haven't provided even a shred of evidence to cause us to think the writers were lying or mistaken. If anything there are indicators of truthful accounts such as the inclusion of embarrassing elements.

You claim to know that “goddidit”. I ask that you show me and the readers how you know that.

It's the best explanation for the evidence given the surrounding circumstances or Jesus' life, that's how I know.

I'll ask you to "demonstrate" how King Tut died using the same method you suggest. Right after you show that it even IS King Tut.

Notice that I have NOT claimed to know how King Tut died. In fact, I specifically said that the cause of death is not known.

You have however, claimed that it is King Tut in the tomb. So you can go ahead and "demonstrate" that to be true any time you are ready.

However, you HAVE claimed that a dead body came back to life. I ask you to verify that claim with something other than hearsay, biblical quotations and assumptions. If you cannot do so, you have FAILED to demonstrate that the resurrection is true (which is the subject of this debate).

You can ask for whatever you want. But your preconceived and double standard requests do not prove the Rez false. You're criterion here for a historical event to be true is that it must be "verified" with something other than hearsay, biblical (or biased sources), quotations and assumptions. You defined verified as "to establish truth, accuracy, or reality." I'll make you a deal. You apply that criterion to the existence of King Tut and show us using that criterion that the existence of King Tut is "verified" and I'll see if I can then do it with the Rez.

;] b]If you maintain that the processes of nature did NOT apply in the example you cite, you ARE making a special plea. You are claiming that what we know of nature did not apply in the story you tell. And perhaps pigs can fly and gods can ascend in storybook tales.

I've already explained why it's not a Special Plea.

Taken from the link I already gave you here on Special Pleading

Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption.

Agreed: “attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc, without justifying the exemption”.

The “rule or principle” involved is that dead bodies decompose and do not come back to life.

The exception claimed is that the dead body of one known as Jesus DID come back to life.

The “justification” offered is “goddidit”.

No. The justification is that the supernatural can possibly exist. Considering Jesus claimed his Rez would happen it fits the context of events. If the supernatural can possible exist, then God raised Jesus from the dead is the best explanation. When are going to get this? Like I said earlier the only way one would see this as special pleading is if they dismissed the supernatural a priori and assumed that naturalism can solve a historical question. You must commit a fallacy to see this as the fallacy of special pleading. Actually, if I am committing the fallacy of Special Pleading you are committing the same fallacy as well. It is a generally accepted truth that the context of Jesus' life is reported to be steeped in the supernatural. Jesus' Rez is claimed by his followers to be a miracle by God. To try and explain his miracles through the eyes of naturalism and assume the supernatural does not exist is a Special Plea.

It might be convincing if you could present evidence for the supposed most important event in the history of mankind that is at least as strong as the evidence that an Egyptian pharaoh died and was buried.

Hey King Tut(by whatever name known) is the most famous pharaoh in popular media. Convince me he existed, died and was buried in the tomb you think he was buried in. Prove to me he wasn't thrown in grave somewhere and the person you think is King Tut is not an impostor.

While I sympathize with the difficulty encountered by those who attempt to defend without evidence, this IS a debate forum and positions ARE expected to be verified by something other than personal opinion and conjecture.

All I ask is that you qualify "verified." Telling us that something isn't "verified" but not telling us how that thing is expected to be "verified" is meaningless. Tell us what you mean so we can apply it to other historical events.

Hey, while you're at it. Let's see you "verify" King Tut.

I am satisfied that readers understand that King Tut (by whatever name known) existed, died, was mummified, and was entombed in an elaborate way suitable for a pharaoh of his era.

You mean you are satisfied with basing a belief on NO evidence?

That is what I mean by “verified”.

All you told us is that you are satisfied that someone was existed, died, was mummified, and was entombed. You are ASSUMING it is King Tut. So if you are satisfied assuming something to be true that means it's verified.

Something we would expect if they were taken from different witnesses to the events. So to say they are dependent on one another for the Resurrection sequence is clearly false.

It is generally accepted that at least some of the gospel writers, whoever they were, copied from one another. Do you dispute this?

That they "copied" the Rez accounts? Yes. If you think the Rez accounts were "copied," you should provide evidence.

I asked if the gospel writers copied from one another – period.

Rather than go down a rabbit trail here and make it easier for the sceptic I've assumed in post one of ten that Mark's gospel was used as a source for some of Matthew and Luke at the points where they agree. However, where they differ we have no reason to assume Matthew or Luke copied from Mark. The Rez sequences in the Gospels beginning with the discovery of the empty tomb differ in emphasis and secondary details. There is no reason to think they "copied" each other here. You are committing the logical fallacy of a non-sequitur. You are jumping from "copied" parts to "copied" the while thing when the evidence directly shows otherwise.

Copying from other sources to write an account does NOT constitute an original or an independent account.

We don't need all the Gospels to be "independent." Even if we assume for the sake of argument Matthew and Luke are not independent and sat down one afternoon and copied Mark verbatim we still have Mark, John, Acts, First Clement and Paul (and possibly the source "Q"). That's plenty of early independent sources by ancient standards. A boat load compard to that for King Tut.

When a source is known to be NOT original and Not independent in some respects, ALL that is said is subject to doubt – particularly when little or nothing is known about the writers.

You don't KNOW they were not independent you are assuming it. There are other explanations for similar content which I won't go into here. More importantly, to say that because there is similarity between works means ALL that is said is subject to doubt is a non-sequitur.

Paul is independent of the Gospel and implies an empty tomb.

Is Paul independent of the Bible?

Clearly you do not understand what historians mean by "independent."

If you are using a specialized definition of “independent” in debate you are expected to define the term as it is being used.

I seem to recall that we agreed to use standard definitions of words in this debate. Is my memory of that faulty?

You just demonstrated in the previous sequence regarding the alleged "copying" of works what is meant by "independent." You just said this a second ago:

Copying from other sources to write an account does NOT constitute an original or an independent account.

Why are you playing dumb now?

If secular and atheist historians and scholars use the Bible for a source of historical information (the non supernatural of course) why do YOU have such a problem with it? The 5 facts I've presented are non-supernatural and even agreed to by some critical and atheists scholars. What is the real problem?

As stated, the problem is that you are using a single source to “verify itself” – “the resurrection is true because the bible says so” – and nothing more.

You didn't answer the question. I'll repeat it. If secular and atheist historians and scholars use the Bible for a source of historical information (the non supernatural of course) why do YOU have such a problem with it?

In reasoned debate a source is NOT cited to support its own tale – and a single source quoted to verify itself is known by the technical term “circular reasoning”.

We've already dealt with the "single source" fallacy. Circular reasoning is when you assume the conclusion to be true in one of the premises of the argument. Go back to post one of ten and show me where this is the case. You need to take some time to understand the arguments there. It's a tad advanced, I know, but do try. If you object to the writings in the NT I ask what sources do you have for the existence of King Tut that would not employ "circular reasoning" as you understand it to be applied with the Bible?

You are right. I do NOT accept the bible as proof of anything – I do not accept a single source as proof of anything -- nor do many other people (some of whom are readers of these threads). What are you offering to convince those who do not already believe the biblical tales?

Every time you make this silly statement that there is only "a single source" you reveal a profound ignorance of the evidence at hand. Irenaeus tells us Clement knew Peter and Paul. Paul mentions Clement in his letters. It's possible Clement may have even been a witness to the risen Christ perhaps one of the 500 (but this would be only speculative). Clement wrote his first epistle around the same time as the Gospel of John (some place it earlier than John). Here's what he said about the Rez.

1Clement 24:1-2 Let us understand, dearly beloved, how the Master continually showeth unto us the resurrection that shall be hereafter; whereof He made the Lord Jesus Christ the firstfruit, when He raised Him from the dead.

and later

1Clememtn 42:5-6 Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come.

Still think ALL we have is one source - i.e the Bible?

Is THIS the “independent source”, Clement, that you cite?

Yup, that's him. He's independent of the Bible and written during the first century just like the NT. You've been shown that the there is more than "one source" - the Bible. But instead of acknowledging your error you just change your position. Nice move!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistles_of_Clement

Do you offer as being independent an “epistle” written 100 years CE by a person believed to be a churchman?

It's written 95-97AD (the same time approximately some scholars date the Gospel of John). Are you now changing your tune? Now the sources must be non-biblical AND non-church, is that right?

[Goose]

I'm reposting because I couldn't get in to edit. Very frustrating

Goose's post 4 of a possible, but probably not necessary, 10

Well, I'm not sure what the point of continuing is. Zzyzx was the one that challenge me to a head-to-head titled:
"Was the Resurrection a true, literal and physical event?" He then agreed to simply make this "Was the Resurrection True?" I affirm the positive and Zzyzx the negative. However, in his last post Zzyzx has conceded the following:

Zzyzx does NOT seek to show that the “resurrection” is objectively false – realizing that proving non-existence or non-occurrence is a fool’s errand

It seems like Zzyzx has finally woken up and smelt the coffee. If you don't seek to show the Rez objectively false WHY did you challenge me to debate it's truth? I've provided a methodology used by historians for showing the Rez true. Zzyzx has failed to comment on the methodology or offer a clear method of his own. He has also failed to address the evidence and arguments presented in post one of ten and failed to offer any evidence for his own case. I'm always reluctant to claim victory in a debate but what else should I conclude here?


At any rate, we'll continue. Much of Zzyzx's last post is more of the same tired rhetoric and covering old ground. I'm going to trim it down to the relevant parts.

Some new observations:

8. Zzyzx is confusing "convincing" with truth. He seems to think that if I can't "convince" him then the Rez is untrue. However, this thread is "Was the Rez true?" It is NOT "Is the Rez convincing to Sceptics like Zzyzx?" We don't determine truth by whether or not we can "convince" another person - that would make truth subjective. The rational person knows that there are objective truths. If something is true it is objectively true whether or not another person says they are "convinced" or not. I have offered an objective methodology for determining truth. Zzyzx seems to think truth is subjective. Whether Zzyzx or any one else is "convinced" is irrelevant. The Rez is either true or false.

9. Zzyzx's main argument for the explanation of the evidence.

As stated repeatedly, in my opinion, the “best explanation” for the “resurrection” is that it is a fable or legend.

Your fable and legend theory falls flat under scrutiny. Paul was writing far too early for fact to have been replaced by legend and fable. Paul was writing with in twenty years and he affirms the Rez. In fact, even some critical and sceptical scholars (I can provide a list if you wish) concede the creedal passages found in Paul's writings such as First Corinthians 15:1-8 originated with in only months of the crucifixion. Even if we use later dating for the Gospels from 70AD to 100AD it is still too early to have fact entirely replaced by fable. Your fable and legend theory is further obliterated by the lack of explanatory power. Why would the writers propagate and embellish legends and fables that would potentially put themselves and other prospective converts into persecution and even harm's way. Your theory fails to answer this. Also, fables and legends are highly unlikely to convince Paul, an enemy of the church, and James a sceptic. You need to present additional theories to account for why these men converted.

10. Zzyzx has finally given us a definition of what he means by verify - “to establish truth, accuracy, or reality”.

I consider verification to be “to establish truth, accuracy or reality”. Typically that requires “convergence of evidence” – information drawn from a variety of independent (not associated), impartial (if possible) sources

At long last we find out what Zzyzx means by "verified." Now let's apply that to the existence of King Tut. Can Zzyzx establish the truth, accuracy or reality that Tut existed using information drawn from a variety of independent (not associated), impartial (if possible) sources? Let's see if he can. It's his criterion he is requesting of the Rez. He should demonstrate that it can be applied to other historical events such as the existence of King Tut with out failing the existence of King Tut, something Zyzx believes with "no doubt." I would like to see him apply this criterion and method to see if Zzyzx can "verify" the existence of King Tut. This will confirm whether or not Zzyzx employs a double standard. I think he does.

11. Zzyzx's argument over the lack of evidence. I'll demonstrate why this is a stupid argument in a moment. Actually, it's not even an argument it's an unfounded and unqualifiable subjective statement.

12. Taken from the comments thread, but I think relevant here.

I promote no particular “methodology” regarding history, but consider historical claims from a perspective of science.

Yet science cannot answer a historical question using the scientific method. History is technically strictly speaking non-repeatable or observable and therefore cannot be subjected to the scientific process. This is another categorical fallacy. It would be the same type of fallacy to consider whether logic is logical from a perspective of science. Or to consider whether truth exists from a perspective of science.



Zzyzx post 3 of 10
Part 1 (length limitation)

Mr. Goose,

You are attempting to defend what, if it was true, would be the most important event in human history, a visit from “our creator” which included a claimed demonstration of the ability to “rise from the dead”. What you have presented as “evidence”, claimed or implied, is:

1. “Multiple attestations” by fervent believers (hearsay and testimonials)

You reject their testimony because they ARE believers. That's the Genetic Fallacy.

2. “It is a miracle because goddidit” (an unverified theological claim)

Not quite. A miracle is the best explanation.

3. “It is true because the bible tells me so” (circular “reasoning”, theology)

Still using that silly argument? Already blew that one away with First Clement. But I see rather than conceding you're incorrect you've adjusted your position. We'll get to that.

4. “The principle of embarrassment” (extremely weak non-argument)

Hey, if it's good enough for professional historians it's good enough for me.

5. “The bible is history” (the bible is theology with occasional “history”)

What is the methodology you use to differentiate between history and non-history? At this point it seems to be what you like and don't like.

6. Excuses for lack of evidence

This is your silliest argument of all of them. It's not even an argument. Simply saying there is a lack of evidence is not proof that there is lack of evidence. It's just an unqualifiable personal opinion. I could do that with ANYTHING. Allow me to demonstrate:

Holocaust believer: Here is the evidence for the Holocaust...
Holocaust denier: I don't believe it. If the Holocaust really happened the way people say it did, there should be MORE evidence. It is the most horrific atrocity in modern history. There should MUCH more evidence!
Holocaust believer: How much more and what kind and where would you expect to see this additional evidence?
Holocaust denier: I don't know. It's the worst atrocity in modern history and you need my help documenting it? Your lack of evidence isn't MY problem!

Stupid non-argument.

7. Demands that personal theories be proved wrong

Where has this been done.


------------------------ Main Points ------------------------------

You appear to be writing for your ego. I am writing for the readers...

My ego isn't big enough to think that readers are swayed by what I have to say. I don't place myself on such a lofty pedestal.

<snipped Zzyzx's off-topic rant and soap-box sermon>

The ironic part here is you have perceived this to be a "Main Point" and spent more time ranting and defending yourself than actually debating the topic.

... I would conclude that you are willing to use any tactic to “win” – and therefore would not trust you to be honest or honorable....

Hey Zzyzx, you should take your own advice:

I suggest that we confine discussion to ideas rather than personalities. Is that possible for you Mr. Goose?

You keep trying to paint me with this "dishonest" brush. Which is of course an ad hominem fallacy. One thing I've found in debating is that when one's opponent has nothing left to say other than just calling you dishonest your opponent has essentially said, "You've
kicked my butt and I can't deal with it."

1. Zzyzx has yet to present ANY direct evidence for his case that the Resurrection is untrue

That is correct. Zzyzx will not present any direct evidence that the resurrection story is untrue...

Then why are we debating? Besides, that's not what you said in our PM's to one another. I'll remind you.

I will present evidence, reasoning, criticism and questions to demonstrate that arguments proposing the theory of a literal “resurrection” has not been substantiated.

Why are you changing your tune?

... – nor will he present (or be expected to present) any evidence that ANY story is untrue. He will not (nor be expected to) demonstrate that a character presented in stories did not do what the stories proclaim.

That's up to you. But it smacks of coping-out.

2. Zzyzx has presented no methodology for establishing whether or not a historical event is true. He is therefore relegated to offering his biased opinion.

That is correct. Zzyzx CLEARLY states that he is presenting his opinion (unless otherwise identified). A statement to that effect appears in his signature.

I encourage Goose to acknowledge when he is stating opinion and identify when he thinks he is stating fact.

The reason you are relegated to the side-line position of opinion only is you have no methodology for establishing a "fact."

HOW exactly are you verifying that a supernatural “miracle” occurred?

I don't know what you mean by "verifying." You throw that word around like it proves something. But you can't even define it in the context that you mean it to be applied.

Thank you for acknowledging that your arguments are NOT based in real world considerations but are supernatural (and thus unverifiable).

Why? Because I don't know what you mean by "verify"?

“Verify” means (according to Merriam Webster) “to establish truth, accuracy, or reality”.

OK. Now how does one do that with a historical question? Let's see you "verify" the existence of King Tut using that definition. On your marks, set, go...

ALL you are saying is “the resurrection is true because the bible says it is true”.

You've got that in quotes. Where did I say “the resurrection is true because the bible says it is true.” Are you even making an attempt to understand the arguments put forth?

You are claiming that “miracles” occur because the bible says they occur.

Wrong.

Are you talking only to yourself and other bible believers? Do you realize that many people do NOT accept the bible as historical, literal, or true?

There are atheist and critical historians and scholars that do accept much of the historicity of the NT (with the exception of the supernatural). Why don't you?

3. He accepts the historicity and death of a person (Tut) for which the evidence is much more dubious than that for Christ. He has yet to offer the actual evidence for Tut.

I leave it to the reader to decide whether the evidence to support the existence and death of a person who has been identified by Egyptologists as an Egyptian Pharaoh identified as King Tutankhamun is “more dubious than that for Christ” – actually for “Christ’s supposed resurrection, the topic of this debate -- (an actual body, actual multiple artifacts, an actual tomb – vs. bible stories).

Still can't find any evidence for the existence of Tut, eh?

If the evidence to support the “resurrection” was as strong as that for the existence of King Tut (by whatever name known), I would NOT argue that it is doubtful to have occurred in reality just as I would NOT argue against the existence of King Tut.

This type of statement would carry SO much more weight if you could ACTUALLY provide the EVIDNCE for Tut. The comical part here is every time you say, "King Tut (by whatever name known)" in the context of certainty. If it was so certain why the caveat by whatever name known. You don't even know his real name! Don't you see the irony here?

4. The core of his position revolves around A) a rejection of the supernatural (though he says he is open to the possibility). B) A rejection of the evidence primarily because it comes from the "Party Handbook." Not because the evidence itself is false. This is the Genetic Fallacy.

More correctly stated:

A) Open to the possibility of supernatural events IF EVIDENCE is presented (not opinions or hearsay).

What kind of evidence do you want?

B) Does not accept bible stories (opinions, hearsay and testimonials) as evidence of supernaturalism. Note: non-acceptance of bible stories is based upon LACK of evidence of truth (not upon source alone). I do not accept claims made in the koran for the same reason.

That's your personal feelings on the matter. What is your methodology for rejecting it when you obviously accept the ancient accounts for the existence of King Tut.

5. Zzyzx has yet to answer the following questions:

1. How do we know anything in ancient history happened, Zzyzx?

I accept existence of some historical events based upon convergence of evidence (information drawn from various sources) and from direct evidence (such as the body, grave goods and tomb associated with King Tut).

No, I don't think you do. Show us the convergence of evidence for the existence of King Tut? At this stage ALL you have is one line of evidence - archaeological. That is NOT a convergence of evidence. You have a double standard. Not to mention a convergence of evidence doesn't prove a historical matter with certainty. We use a convergence of evidence to build an inductive argument. How is that different than what I've done in post one of ten? It isn't.

Note: we are not discussing general history, but a specific event or non-event that you maintain is literal truth. I ask that the literal truth be shown to exist.

Read my post one of ten.

2. Verified by who? By what standard? "Substantiated" by who? By what standard?

We can also now add to this list of unanswered questions the following:
If a miracle is the BEST explanation for the evidence and all the competing naturalistic theories either fail to account for all the evidence or have no evidence for support, on what grounds would you reject the supernatural explanation?

Zzyzx's response to this question was to assert there is no evidence. He did NOT answer the question

.
A “miracle” can be arbitrarily suggested to “explain” ANY event and CAN be offered as the “best explanation”. There is NO assurance that what is offered as the “best” explanation is a TRUE explanation.

Firstly, you still have not answered the second question Verified by who? By what standard? "Substantiated" by who? By what standard?

Secondly, we can apply the same reasoning to a naturalistic explanation for an event. A naturalistic theory can be offered for any event as well and there is no assurance it is true either. So your own objection fails your own theory that it is all a fable or legend. This is why the rational person goes with the BEST explanation that has explanatory power and scope and accounts for all the evidence. Do you disagree?

If you reject the BEST explanation BECAUSE it is supernatural you reject the conclusion based upon presuppositions not because of evidence, reason and logic.

6. There are two debates running simultaneously. One has to with the topic for debate. One does not.

Debate 2: Was the Resurrection true? I've offered a methodology for determining the truth of a historical event. A methodology used by historians. I've also offered evidence. Zzyzx has not commented on the methodology I've offered nor offered one of his own. He therefore has no method for showing the Rez to be objectively false. He has offered his opinions. Period.

Zzyzx does NOT seek to show that the “resurrection” is objectively false – realizing that proving non-existence or non-occurrence is a fool’s errand. Instead, I ask that those who make a claim of objective truth provide evidence to support their contentions (something more than conjecture, hearsay and “goddidit”).

Then WHY on God's green earth did you challenge me to a debate on "Was the Rez True?" What a complete waste of time.

Your entire “argument” is an excuse for why there is no real evidence -- only hearsay, opinion and conjecture -- AND a critique of what you see as “logical fallacies” in my position. The REAL logical fallacy is your attempt to argue a case without evidence to support your contentions. [/b]

...except for all the evidence that has presented. You know, all that evidence you've essentially ignored. Why don't you define what constitutes "real evidence" instead of just saying stuff like this.

I have indicated what I consider real evidence with the example of King Tut (by whatever name known).

Of course a mummy, coffin, and tomb are evidence. But evidence of what? When do we get to see the evidence that it IS King Tut? Where is the convergence of evidence you rely so heavily upon? You STILL have not provided any. So I am forced to conclude one of the following:

1. You make unsupported claims.
2. You can't find the evidence.
3. You don't know HOW to find the evidence.
4. You can't be bothered.
5. You are regretting using King Tut now because you are realizing it exposes your bias and are simply hoping no one will notice how silly your argument is looking.
5. All of the above.



I've moved the next part back into the "main points." It's odd that Zzyzx slipped this one, a core part of his arguments that was shown false, into the "secondary points" post but had his little rant about me being dishonest at the beginning of the "main points" post. Go figure.

7. Zzyzx thinks that because the 27 books of the New Testament happen to be bound together in a book called the Bible that this means there is only "one source." However, the NT writings were never contained in a "Bible" when they were written. That is a later development. Further, he is incorrect that ALL the evidence comes from the Bible as we shall see. So to say that everything comes from "one source" (meaning the Bible is the "source") is erroneous.

Kindly list in straightforward manner the evidence for a “resurrected Jesus” NOT from the bible (and not from closely connected church sources).
1.
2.
3.

Notice what Zzyzx has done here. THIS IS IMPORTANT TO TAKE NOTE. Instead of acknowledging he has been shown wrong and his statements erroneous by direct evidence (from First Clement), Zzyzx has changed his position and made another request to fit his new position. It's no longer "one source" (meaning the Bible), but NOW it's "one source" meaning closely connected CHURCH SOURCES. You see, Zzyzx has raised the bar when provided evidence to answer an objection. We are now justified in concluding that there will be no amount of evidence that will convince someone like Zzyzx. He'll just keep changing his position and raising the bar arbitrarily. If I were to meet his pet request (which is really a debating tactic to take the focus off the fact he has been clearly shown wrong) and find 3 sources for his list, he would probably come back and say, "Well that's not enough, I need 5 more. Oh, and they all need to be enemy sources as well." And so on and so forth...



Zzyzx post 3 of 10
Part 2
-------------------------- Secondary Points -------------------------

Zzyzx will NOT show the “resurrection” to be false...

Then it's game over for you.

...– but will continue to state that there is insufficient evidence (other than stories in a single book) to reasonably and rationally conclude that such an event occurred.

Reasonably and rationally by what standard or methodology? Your personal one?

King Tut vs the Rez:

Goose maintains that the resurrection is true (a dead body came back to life). If true the story of the creator of the universe visiting the Earth, being killed and coming back to life – it would be the greatest event in the history of the mankind.

I ask for evidence other than a storybook.

"Other than" - Just can't get away from that can you. Hey, I ask for evidence that King Tut existed OTHER THAN a mummy, coffin and tomb. Now what?

You are attempting to defend a story that, if it was true, would represent the greatest event in the history of the world – involving the greatest person that ever lived. Supposedly the creator of the entire universe visited the Earth for thirty years and performed miracles. Yet what you offer for “evidence” is a SINGLE book written by religious storytellers.

And your job is to show the evidence is false. You need to get busy on that. Whining about what you think is a lack of evidence doesn't make it untrue.

Correction: I will continue to point out to readers that the person making the claim that a dead body came back to life has the burden of proving that the event actually occurred – and that no such proof has been supplied.

Your rhetoric would carry more weight if you could prove, by the same methodology and standard you request the Rez to be proven, that King Tut existed.

You have presented exactly NOTHING that indicates that a dead body actually came back to life OR that the supposed “resurrected” person existed after death (other than stories by “disciples”).

I could say the same about you and the existence of your boyfriend King Tut.

I DO state that there IS evidence for the existence of King Tut (by whatever name known). There IS a body, grave goods and a tomb suitable for a Pharaoh.

Yes, yes, yes. We all know you've stated that many times. But HOW do you KNOW that mummy IS King Tut. Still waiting...

I do NOT question that King Tut (by whatever name known) existed, died and was buried in a tomb. Do you?

I question it IS King Tut, you have yet to demonstrate that it is. Actually, I'm now inclined to think you haven't got a clue how to even begin to demonstrate that it is King Tut.

Kindly demonstrate to readers that you have evidence for the existence of a “resurrected Jesus” that is as strong as the evidence for the existence of King Tut OR admit that you cannot.

Dude, you don't even know if the unknown mummy's name even IS King Tut!

You and others who wish to believe that the resurrection occurred based on the thin “evidence” of bible stories and church dogma are certainly welcome to do so. However, when you attempt to convince thinking people that your tales are true, you may be asked to supply more than a SINGLE book and a pack of excuses.

Hey, I'm still waiting for you to pony up some evidence for Tut. So far all you've got is a boy in bag and fancy coffin. But that's enough for Zzyzx to have "no doubt."

Yes, strangely enough, I accept that a dead body in an elaborate tomb IS evidence that the person entombed 1) died, and 2) was an important person – probably a pharaoh.

"Probably" a pharoah? I thought you had "no doubt." Hey I accept that a person entombed is evidence that a person died too. Which Pharaoh and how do you know with "no doubt"?

Is there some reason that I should conclude otherwise? [regarding Tut]

Wouldn't that be the “Prove my claim false – because I cannot prove it true” argument you keep whining about?

Is there comparable evidence to support the tale of Jesus?

Yup, see post one of ten.

You are supposedly attempting to demonstrate that the resurrection occurred. I would “like” for you to demonstrate that exactly or acknowledge that you cannot.

You still haven't told us how we "demonstrate" an event in history to have occurred. You keep making this request as though it means something. "Demonstrate" King Tut existed.




The Party Handbook Analogy:

If an analogy is "fairy representative" by necessity it also contains elements that are NOT representative. Which parts are representative and which are not? We don't know because Zzyzx has failed to offer the EVIDENCE for his pet analogy. He has just assumed his analogy is true and expects people to buy it because he thinks it's "fairy representative."

One is not expected to present “evidence of his pet analogy”. It was properly regarded as an analogy and is not subject to expectation of “proof”.

I think Zzyzx doesn't know where or how to find evidence for his pet analogy. He's been called on it and just says, "One is not expected to present evidence of his pet analogy."

I base this conclusion [fable and legend]on:

1. An absence of “convergence of evidence” from wide and independent sources that a dead body actually came back to life

2. Knowledge that upon death certain, known and studied decomposition processes occur that are considered irreversible (reversibility has not been demonstrated)

3. Refusal to accept a “supernatural” explanation that has NOT been demonstrated to have occurred

1. Yet you accept the existence of King Tut for which you do not have a convergence of evidence 2. Is an appeal to naturalism and a straw man argument. Jesus did not rise by natural means. 3. Is your subjective rejection of the supernatural.

If you could prove your claims true, you would present evidence and would not depend upon repeatedly asking that I prove them false. If you could prove your claims true I would NOT argue.

The method and evidence to prove the Rez true has been provided in post one of ten. You just keep ignoring it and telling us there is no evidence.

You present nothing that can even remotely be considered evidence or proof that a dead body came back to life. Bible stories may be “proof” enough for ardent believers – but you are not debating an ardent believer and the readers of this thread include people who are not ardent believers.

See what I mean?

Christian “arguments” in defense of bible stories often boil down to, “You can’t prove that it isn’t possible that such things happened”. That is NOT a valid defense of ideas put forth as being true.

I agree. And that is exactly what has NOT happened. I've offered a methodology and evidence. You've offered squat.

Thank you for acknowledging that your argument is NOT to present convincing argument but to demand that your claims be “proved false”.

Talk about twisting someone's words. WOW! But you are correct about one thing. I am not trying to present a "convincing" argument. I'm not trying to convince those that are not convincible. I am showing the Rez to be true. I've done this by providing a method used by historians for establishing historical truth and provided the evidence.

Since you raise the issue, were attempts made by the early church to destroy “non-conforming” documents, including Gnostic texts? Were the Gnostic texts preserved by the Catholic Church?

See what I mean? It's part and parcel of the argument. Hey, it's your argument. You show us that you've actually read the primary texts that support the argument and present some evidence for a change. Don't get me to do your homework.

Notice that I asked two questions. I made NO “charge”. I made NO claim to have read “primary texts”.

You ask questions because you've probably heard these arguments from some one else (probably on this forum or in a book) and it sounded good. You've never actually looked into the evidence that supports the arguments. You just believe it's true because it supports your world view. Am I wrong? If so, prove me wrong by supplying some evidence from a primary text to support your own arguments.

Do the questions make you uncomfortable enough to state that I made a “charge”, rather than answering the questions?

Not at all Zzyzx. At this stage all you've done is ask questions. You haven't provided evidence and can't seem to find it so I'll conclude it's wishful thinking on your part.


Regarding the supernatural:

Try stating your case without supernaturalism..

The 5 facts presented are not supernatural themselves. There could be naturalistic explanations for them. We are looking for the BEST explanation.

...(remembering that some who read these comments do not accept supernaturalism or nature-defying “miracles” as being literally true).

That's only a problem if they dismiss the supernatural a priori. If a supernatural explanation is the BEST explanation for a series of facts they should accept the supernatural explanation. That would be rational and consistent with the position that one accepts the possibility of the supernatural.

Therefore, you must accept that there is at least a possibility that the supernatural exists. If the supernatural can possibly exist and it is the best explanation you can not rationally reject it with out committing a logical fallacy.

I accept the possibility that the supernatural exists. I await the evidence. I will not accept stories told by proponents of any of the thousands of different religions and different gods without evidence to substantiate claims.

OK, let's test that claim of yours. Here is a link to ABC News (it's about 2 min) reporting a story of a 65 year old woman that had a severe cerebral haemorrhage. In the report the doctor said she was "essentially considered brain dead." She recovered and the same doctor said he's been there ten years and "never seen anything quite like this before." The doctors have no explanation. The family is deeply religious and claims a miracle. If a miracle is the BEST explanation, why would you reject it?

It has NOT been demonstrated that “a miracle is the best explanation”. ALL that has been shown is that 1) the woman recovered,...

...from death!

2) doctors do not know why or how she recovered,..

..IOW there's no naturalistic explanation.

3) doctors have not seen a similar recovery,...

Correct.

4) a religious family claims it is a miracle

Why do you not believe it?

A “miracle” is defined as: “an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs”

OR “an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment”.

I will accept the SECOND definition – the report indicates an unusual event. However, I will NOT accept that anyone knows that the woman’s recovery is due to divine intervention – because there is no evidence of divine intervention.

Except that the family claims divine intervention probably due them praying for it.

Instead, I would say, quite honestly, that I do not know how or why the woman recovered – and the doctors don’t either – and you don’t either.

You say you don't know. If you do not know that it is not a miracle. You must allow for that possibility. If the BEST explanation is a miracle, why reject it? When some one returns from being brain dead and those around that person claim God's intervention - a miracle - and there is no other competing theory or evidence for a competing theory (such as the equipment used to diagnose here death was shown faulty) then I feel confident that a miracle is the BEST explanation. Is it absolutely certain? No. But the rational person goes with the BEST explanation. Only when further evidence shows that explanation false, do we conclude the previous explanation is untrue. Science operates under a similar mandate.

You are claiming that “it must have been a miracle”. Arising from the dead does NOT fit with nature or the real world – so supernatural “explanations” must be claimed (always without evidence that supernatural events actually occur).

Except for the evidence that supernatural events do occur. Like the evidence for the Rez and the link to ABC News.

The occurrence of UNEXPLAINED events is NOT (repeat NOT) evidence of miracles (if miracle implies divine intervention). It is an indication that we do not understand the cause and effect of every situation. It does NOT mean that “goddidit”.

We don't need to the cause and effect of the situation to draw the conclusion that God performed a miracle. If a miracle is requested and then claimed to have taken place and it's the BEST explanation for the evidence we are justified in concluding that a miracle happened.

When you state that the resurrection occurred is that statement fact or opinion?

A historical fact (remember I see something that is historically true as a historical fact). The Rez is shown to be a fact by the methodology and evidence in post one of ten. You can't dispute it because you have no methodology and won't touch the evidence or methodology presented.


Other issues:

You may call it whatever you wish. If a “miracle” is claimed, a “miracle” needs to be demonstrated. Hearsay isn’t proof. Ancient tales are not proof.

You mean they are not "proof" to you. You can't speak objectively because you have no objective method for determining proof, evidence or historical truth. It's just your biased opinion. By the way, hearsay can sometimes be evidence. You should look it up. Circumstantial evidence was enough to convict and kill Timothy McVeigh.

You are dead wrong.

Circumstantial evidence and hearsay are NOT interchangeable terms.

McVeigh was NOT convicted on hearsay evidence.

You should pay closer attention. I didn't say McVeigh was convicted on hearsay, but on circumstantial evidence.

The “rule of evidence” in court is clear:

In keeping with the three evidentiary requirements, the Hearsay Rule, as outlined in the FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE , prohibits most statements made outside a courtroom from being used as evidence in court. This is because statements made out of court normally are not made under oath, a judge or jury cannot personally observe the demeanor of someone who makes a statement outside the courtroom, and an opposing party cannot cross-examine such a declarant (the person making the statement). Out-of-court statements hinder the ability of the judge or jury to probe testimony for inaccuracies caused by AMBIGUITY , insincerity, faulty perception, or erroneous memory. Thus, statements made out of court are perceived as untrustworthy.
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/633569

First, we are ASSUMING that the writers were not eyewitnesses. I could build a case that for example Matthew and John were eyewitnesses and wrote their respective Gospels. The evidence for the authorship of these books is just as good as that for other secular works such Caesar's Gallic/Civil War Commentaries. But for the sake of argument and to make it easier for you I've assumed they are hopelessly anonymous. Secondly, you should have kept reading. A few sentences later in your source:

Not all out-of-court statements or assertions are impermissible hearsay. If an attorney wishes the judge or jury to consider the fact that a certain statement was made, but not the truthfulness of that statement, the statement is not hearsay and may be admitted as evidence. Suppose a hearing is held to determine a woman's mental competence. Out of court, when asked to identify herself, the woman said, "I am the pope." There is little question that the purpose of introducing that statement as evidence is not to convince the judge or jury that the woman actually is the pope; the truthfulness of the statement is irrelevant. Rather, the statement is introduced to show the woman's mental state; her belief that she is the pope may prove that she is not mentally competent. On the other hand, a defendant's out-of-court statement "I am the murderer," offered in a murder trial to prove that the defendant is the murderer, is hearsay.

The case in post one of ten does not use the Bible's assertion that Jesus rose from the dead to prove that Jesus rose from the dead. Therefore, the evidence presented in post one of ten isn't necessarily inadmissible. But most importantly, we aren't looking at a court of law case but a court of history case. The vast majority of history is reported as hearsay, now what?

What IS being offered to convince readers that a “miracle” occurred?

This thread is not about "convincing." It's about determining "Was the Rez true?" Every person requires something a little different to be "convinced." Whether you or anybody else is "convinced" is irrelevant. The Rez is either true or false.

“True or false” is a conclusion based on what is observed or known.

Let's apply that to King Tut. What is observed? A mummy, coffin and tomb. What is known? That a mummy, tomb and coffin exist. Now "convince" me it's true King Tut existed.

The “special plea” that “goddidit” is not accepted as debate – it is pure theology, opinion and conjecture.

Not accepted by who? Let me guess - atheists.

An honorable debater does not expect opinion and conjecture to be accepted as evidence in a debate. An intelligent debater does not expect theology to be accepted as evidence by Non-Theists.

Do you contend that personal opinion and conjecture ARE acceptable as evidence in debate and that Non-Theists should accept theological arguments as evidence?

Zzyzx, all you've offered so far is your opinion and conjecture as evidence so you must think offering an opinion and conjecture IS acceptable in debate. In fact, I don't think you offered ANY evidence for your positions regarding Tut OR the Rez. And where have I presented a theological argument AS evidence?

“Goddidit” is a theological argument.

You don't seem to know the difference between an argument and a conclusion. A miracle occurred is a conclusion to an argument, not an argument. I didn't present a theological argument AS evidence.

I have asked questions that you cannot answer with credibility to defend the claim that a dead body came back to life.

Questions mean jack-squat. They are just questions. I'm not defending the Rez. We are debating whether the Rez was true. Not whether you think my answers are credible.

All you have offered as “evidence” are tales by people who believe in “miracles” saying that they saw a “miracle”.

And you have yet to demonstrate WHY we shouldn't believe them.

Testimonials and hearsay that are unsupported are NOT regarded as reliable. If you wish to believe whatever anyone says or writes that is your business; however, rational people question what they are told.

Rational people do not presume guilt with out evidence. Rational people presume innocence until guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Rational people do NOT assume another person is lying until there is conclusive evidence that the person is lying or mistaken. You haven't provided even a shred of evidence to cause us to think the writers were lying or mistaken. If anything there are indicators of truthful accounts such as the inclusion of embarrassing elements.

You claim to know that “goddidit”. I ask that you show me and the readers how you know that.

It's the best explanation for the evidence given the surrounding circumstances or Jesus' life, that's how I know.

I'll ask you to "demonstrate" how King Tut died using the same method you suggest. Right after you show that it even IS King Tut.

Notice that I have NOT claimed to know how King Tut died. In fact, I specifically said that the cause of death is not known.

You have however, claimed that it is King Tut in the tomb. So you can go ahead and "demonstrate" that to be true any time you are ready.

However, you HAVE claimed that a dead body came back to life. I ask you to verify that claim with something other than hearsay, biblical quotations and assumptions. If you cannot do so, you have FAILED to demonstrate that the resurrection is true (which is the subject of this debate).

You can ask for whatever you want. But your preconceived and double standard requests do not prove the Rez false. You're criterion here for a historical event to be true is that it must be "verified" with something other than hearsay, biblical (or biased sources), quotations and assumptions. You defined verified as "to establish truth, accuracy, or reality." I'll make you a deal. You apply that criterion to the existence of King Tut and show us using that criterion that the existence of King Tut is "verified" and I'll see if I can then do it with the Rez.

;] b]If you maintain that the processes of nature did NOT apply in the example you cite, you ARE making a special plea. You are claiming that what we know of nature did not apply in the story you tell. And perhaps pigs can fly and gods can ascend in storybook tales.

I've already explained why it's not a Special Plea.

Taken from the link I already gave you here on Special Pleading

Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption.

Agreed: “attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc, without justifying the exemption”.

The “rule or principle” involved is that dead bodies decompose and do not come back to life.

The exception claimed is that the dead body of one known as Jesus DID come back to life.

The “justification” offered is “goddidit”.

No. The justification is that the supernatural can possibly exist. Considering Jesus claimed his Rez would happen it fits the context of events. If the supernatural can possible exist, then God raised Jesus from the dead is the best explanation. When are going to get this? Like I said earlier the only way one would see this as special pleading is if they dismissed the supernatural a priori and assumed that naturalism can solve a historical question. You must commit a fallacy to see this as the fallacy of special pleading. Actually, if I am committing the fallacy of Special Pleading you are committing the same fallacy as well. It is a generally accepted truth that the context of Jesus' life is reported to be steeped in the supernatural. Jesus' Rez is claimed by his followers to be a miracle by God. To try and explain his miracles through the eyes of naturalism and assume the supernatural does not exist is a Special Plea.

It might be convincing if you could present evidence for the supposed most important event in the history of mankind that is at least as strong as the evidence that an Egyptian pharaoh died and was buried.

Hey King Tut(by whatever name known) is the most famous pharaoh in popular media. Convince me he existed, died and was buried in the tomb you think he was buried in. Prove to me he wasn't thrown in grave somewhere and the person you think is King Tut is not an impostor.

While I sympathize with the difficulty encountered by those who attempt to defend without evidence, this IS a debate forum and positions ARE expected to be verified by something other than personal opinion and conjecture.

All I ask is that you qualify "verified." Telling us that something isn't "verified" but not telling us how that thing is expected to be "verified" is meaningless. Tell us what you mean so we can apply it to other historical events.

Hey, while you're at it. Let's see you "verify" King Tut.

I am satisfied that readers understand that King Tut (by whatever name known) existed, died, was mummified, and was entombed in an elaborate way suitable for a pharaoh of his era.

You mean you are satisfied with basing a belief on NO evidence?

That is what I mean by “verified”.

All you told us is that you are satisfied that someone was existed, died, was mummified, and was entombed. You are ASSUMING it is King Tut. So if you are satisfied assuming something to be true that means it's verified.

Something we would expect if they were taken from different witnesses to the events. So to say they are dependent on one another for the Resurrection sequence is clearly false.

It is generally accepted that at least some of the gospel writers, whoever they were, copied from one another. Do you dispute this?

That they "copied" the Rez accounts? Yes. If you think the Rez accounts were "copied," you should provide evidence.

I asked if the gospel writers copied from one another – period.

Rather than go down a rabbit trail here and make it easier for the sceptic I've assumed in post one of ten that Mark's gospel was used as a source for some of Matthew and Luke at the points where they agree. However, where they differ we have no reason to assume Matthew or Luke copied from Mark. The Rez sequences in the Gospels beginning with the discovery of the empty tomb differ in emphasis and secondary details. There is no reason to think they "copied" each other here. You are committing the logical fallacy of a non-sequitur. You are jumping from "copied" parts to "copied" the while thing when the evidence directly shows otherwise.

Copying from other sources to write an account does NOT constitute an original or an independent account.

We don't need all the Gospels to be "independent." Even if we assume for the sake of argument Matthew and Luke are not independent and sat down one afternoon and copied Mark verbatim we still have Mark, John, Acts, First Clement and Paul (and possibly the source "Q"). That's plenty of early independent sources by ancient standards. A boat load compard to that for King Tut.

When a source is known to be NOT original and Not independent in some respects, ALL that is said is subject to doubt – particularly when little or nothing is known about the writers.

You don't KNOW they were not independent you are assuming it. There are other explanations for similar content which I won't go into here. More importantly, to say that because there is similarity between works means ALL that is said is subject to doubt is a non-sequitur.

Paul is independent of the Gospel and implies an empty tomb.

Is Paul independent of the Bible?

Clearly you do not understand what historians mean by "independent."

If you are using a specialized definition of “independent” in debate you are expected to define the term as it is being used.

I seem to recall that we agreed to use standard definitions of words in this debate. Is my memory of that faulty?

You just demonstrated in the previous sequence regarding the alleged "copying" of works what is meant by "independent." You just said this a second ago:

Copying from other sources to write an account does NOT constitute an original or an independent account.

Why are you playing dumb now?

If secular and atheist historians and scholars use the Bible for a source of historical information (the non supernatural of course) why do YOU have such a problem with it? The 5 facts I've presented are non-supernatural and even agreed to by some critical and atheists scholars. What is the real problem?

As stated, the problem is that you are using a single source to “verify itself” – “the resurrection is true because the bible says so” – and nothing more.

You didn't answer the question. I'll repeat it. If secular and atheist historians and scholars use the Bible for a source of historical information (the non supernatural of course) why do YOU have such a problem with it?

In reasoned debate a source is NOT cited to support its own tale – and a single source quoted to verify itself is known by the technical term “circular reasoning”.

We've already dealt with the "single source" fallacy. Circular reasoning is when you assume the conclusion to be true in one of the premises of the argument. Go back to post one of ten and show me where this is the case. You need to take some time to understand the arguments there. It's a tad advanced, I know, but do try. If you object to the writings in the NT I ask what sources do you have for the existence of King Tut that would not employ "circular reasoning" as you understand it to be applied with the Bible?

You are right. I do NOT accept the bible as proof of anything – I do not accept a single source as proof of anything -- nor do many other people (some of whom are readers of these threads). What are you offering to convince those who do not already believe the biblical tales?

Every time you make this silly statement that there is only "a single source" you reveal a profound ignorance of the evidence at hand. Irenaeus tells us Clement knew Peter and Paul. Paul mentions Clement in his letters. It's possible Clement may have even been a witness to the risen Christ perhaps one of the 500 (but this would be only speculative). Clement wrote his first epistle around the same time as the Gospel of John (some place it earlier than John). Here's what he said about the Rez.

1Clement 24:1-2 Let us understand, dearly beloved, how the Master continually showeth unto us the resurrection that shall be hereafter; whereof He made the Lord Jesus Christ the firstfruit, when He raised Him from the dead.

and later

1Clememtn 42:5-6 Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come.

Still think ALL we have is one source - i.e the Bible?

Is THIS the “independent source”, Clement, that you cite?

Yup, that's him. He's independent of the Bible and written during the first century just like the NT. You've been shown that the there is more than "one source" - the Bible. But instead of acknowledging your error you just change your position. Nice move!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistles_of_Clement

Do you offer as being independent an “epistle” written 100 years CE by a person believed to be a churchman?

It's written 95-97AD (the same time approximately some scholars date the Gospel of John). Are you now changing your tune? Now the sources must be non-biblical AND non-church, is that right?