The Resurrection is it provable?

[Brian2]

Reply to post 213

You asserted that the biblical claims are credible, because a majority of biblical authors support each other.

That is not a bare appeal to numbers, that is saying that more than one witness is better than just one witness.
Do you see the difference?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think we tend to place a modern-western thought to the culture of 2000 years ago. If I deliver to you a verbal message - I delivered to you personally the message.

If someone delivered a message to you verbally about what happened to someone else, that's not an eyewitness account.

If after being with someone for 30 years and write a "biography" - it probably is worth the read.

Who do you think did this?

No... that isn't what it says. (Again, you can disagree with me but it still isn't what it said)

It kind of does say that ... "handed down to us." And we already know that such stories were circulated and passed along orally for quite a while, before anyone had eventually written them down. Not a lot of people were literate back then.

In Luke he is talking about the time when the Apostles were wit Jesus. In Acts, he hung around the Apostles (as well as Paul). So, you are right... he isn't the "eyewitness" of the life of Jesus... but he did speak, hung around with, heard the preaching of what happened, watched the miracles et al when he hung around them in the book of Acts.

Now... I know you are skeptical and I am fine with that. But there isn't anything that debunks my logic (yet)

Well, the Gospels are actually anonymous so there's that.

This conversation is about eyewitness accounts to the resurrection. We started off with the idea that Luke is an eyewitness account, then it moved to the idea that Luke was just writing down other peoples' eyewitness accounts. The example you gave there was someone sitting down with someone and taking their deposition. Which isn't what happened with Luke either. So at this point, we're pretty far removed from any eyewitness accounts.

(Never mind the fact that eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable so I'm not sure why we're trying to hang our hats on them, but that's an entirely different discussion.)[/QUOTE]

 

[Brian2]

Reply to post 214

???

Luke was not a disciple of Jesus in the Gospels and Mark also was not.
If those names were added it is because it had been passed down that these were the authors.

 

[Brian2]

Reply to post 215

What? You claimed "unquestioned existence of Paul and his proximity to the life of Jesus which verifies the life and death of Jesus." Paul neither met nor knew nor Jesus, thus your claim is demonstrably false?

To claim that Paul started believing in Jesus soon after the death of Jesus if all of the Jews of the day in and around Jerusalem knew that Jesus had not existed and knew that this non existent Jesus was not crucified, is beyond ridiculous.
The other Jews never claimed that Jesus did not exist. That is a recent invention and plainly ridiculous in the extreme.

 

[Brian2]

People troll all the time. It’s not new.

Do you actually believe that Paul, someone who would know if Jesus existed and was crucified, started preaching about a non existent Jew who was crucified and resurrected, when all the Jews would know at that time, that Jesus did not even exist and was not crucified?
Or are you just trolling?

 

[Brian2]

Find us a source that predates it.

Nobody knows the dates of the writing of the gospels but the evidence, without the naturalistic presumption that prophecy is not true, points to pre 70AD dating.

 

[leroy]

Only two of the Gospels, both of which were written about 55 to 65 years after the crucifixion support the virgin birth myth.

And why did you say "the apostles"? Only Peter and one or two others are ever heard of after the crucifixion with the exception of some events recently after the crucifixion in Acts..

relevance of your comment?

 

[Kenny]

As was pointed out above, Dr Erhman attributes his agnosticism originally to what he calls the problem of suffering. His historical study of the bible and gospels are objective, and he is a credible historian, his work certainly isn't moulded by his lack of belief, if anything his work contributed to that.

Objective is very subjective.

One could also say that "Cold-case Christianity" atheist Wallace was also very objective.
One could also say that atheist journalist L. Strobel was also very objective.

So, again, a matter of perspective.

But I understand where you are coming from and you have every right to your position.

 

[paarsurrey]

That is the problem. You are only following a very small part of it. That is not "following the Bible". And the New Covenant is far from clear. There is quite a bit of disagreement about it among just Christians.

But just for fun, let's see if you are "following the Bible". Quote the verses of the New Covenant, in context,. tell us what you think that they mean, and how one follows them.

"Quote the verses of the New Covenant, in context,. tell us what you think that they mean, and how one follows them "

A good question!

Regards
_______
5*42

 

[Kenny]

Not if there is no evidence to corroborate there ever were any eyewitnesses, then no this wouldn't satisfy the methods of historical verification. The Gospels being anonymous, and everything in them beyond the crucifixion being unsubstantiated by any independent source, is simply hearsay. Of course I'm not sure what you mean by admissible, they simply are hearsay rather then reliable historical evidence.

Well... that isn't quite the report I get from reading the Gospels. So I'm not sure what you mean by inadmissible.

But, understanding the approach that you are coming from, I respect your position even if I believe you are wrong.

 

[Kenny]

Luke wasn't the author, the gospel was anonymous, and the name assigned later to lend it credence, and there is no evidence the author sat down with anyone, only the claim. An eyewitness account is just that, a second hearsay account of someone claiming to be an eyewitness differs and of course loses some credence, but the gospels can't even be claimed to be the that, it is an anonymous claim, that there were eyewitnesses, and what they allegedly claimed to see, and even the earliest was written decades after the events they allegedly portray.

LINK

"The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward. Most scholars date the composition of the combined work to around 80–90 AD, although some others suggest 90–110, and there is textual evidence (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) that Luke–Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century."

So beyond there being no evidence of eyewitnesses, and the authorship being anonymous hearsay, this suggest eyewitnesses would be extremely unlikely, given estimates of average life expectancy in that epoch were 30 to 40 years.

It seems like, in accordance to what you are basing it from, that from the plethora of comments I am eliciting from you that I am sticking a nerve.

From the diet of the sites you are reading from, I understand why you hold to that position. The diet of what I gather my information from (such as the renown encyclopedia Britannica), I wouldn't agree.

But I respect your position even though I wouldn't agree with it.

 

[Kenny]

I don't see the relevance sorry, this just seems like whataboutism? I'd be more than happy to accept the plays attributed to William Shakespeare were in fact not written by him. Since the authorship seems trivial in comparison to the literary work itself. Whereas your beliefs are done if Jesus didn't exist, and my atheism is not affected at all just because someone called Jesus existed.



His existence would not lend any credence per se, to the supernatural claims made about him, his non-existence clearly would. So clearly you're projecting here, as whilst you obviously have a strong motive for wanting it to be true, I clearly have no stake in the question either way.

I also have not denied he existed, in fact I stated plainly there is a consensus among historians that he did, the only thing I disputed was your biased claim there was "strong proof he existed", which simply isn't the case of course.

Yes.. I quite understand you position.

I look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion. But I respect your right to hold a different position.

 

[Kenny]

If someone delivered a message to you verbally about what happened to someone else, that's not an eyewitness account.

If the person that delivered it to me was an eyewitness... its a deposition (which is what I have been saying)

Who do you think did this?

Not holding on to the exact years, but I follow the traditional viewpoints of who wrote what. Luke would be my logical conclusion (at least according to my logic) for Luke and Acts.

It kind of does say that ... "handed down to us." And we already know that such stories were circulated and passed along orally for quite a while, before anyone had eventually written them down. Not a lot of people were literate back then.

Again... imv, Luke was with them for decades. Apparently there were enough people that were literate that they copied and past around the letters.

Well, the Gospels are actually anonymous so there's that.

This conversation is about eyewitness accounts to the resurrection. We started off with the idea that Luke is an eyewitness account, then it moved to the idea that Luke was just writing down other peoples' eyewitness accounts. The example you gave there was someone sitting down with someone and taking their deposition. Which isn't what happened with Luke either. So at this point, we're pretty far removed from any eyewitness accounts.

(Never mind the fact that eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable so I'm not sure why we're trying to hang our hats on them, but that's an entirely different discussion.)

Yes... you are right. The Gospels doesn't say "signed by". So we are relegated to what we believe would be a logical conclusion.

Certainly anyone could say that my logic (tradition) is wrong. We do know that they weren't written by the same person and that they all say the same thing on the basic message and on some things that happened.

Luke was a physician so most likely a good note taker. (We do know that there are some people who have photographic memories). I don't find any reason not to believe what was written.

Acts is filled with verifiable times, happenings, distances, cities et al. (Please don't equate that with fictional stories that also have the same information but are fictional).

Anyhow... regardless:

we each are going to come to our conclusions and live life according to our belief system. I call that free will which I subscribe to. And I support everyone's right to come to their conclusion.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If the person that delivered it to me was an eyewitness... its a deposition (which is what I have been saying)

That's not what has been done here.

Not holding on to the exact years, but I follow the traditional viewpoints of who wrote what. Luke would be my logical conclusion (at least according to my logic) for Luke and Acts.

The Gospels are anonymous.

Again... imv, Luke was with them for decades. Apparently there were enough people that were literate that they copied and past around the letters.

The Gospels are anonymous.

So you're of the mind that that was no oral transmission before anything was recorded? That it was recorded on paper right from the start? Why do you believe that?

Yes... you are right. The Gospels doesn't say "signed by". So we are relegated to what we believe would be a logical conclusion.

They are not eyewitness accounts by any stretch of the imagination. I mean, you can believe they are, but that doesn't make it so.

Certainly anyone could say that my logic (tradition) is wrong. We do know that they weren't written by the same person and that they all say the same thing on the basic message and on some things that happened.

Luke was a physician so most likely a good note taker. (We do know that there are some people who have photographic memories). I don't find any reason not to believe what was written.

Of course you don't, because you already believe the Bible is accurate on all counts.
But we're still not talking about an eyewitness account.

Acts is filled with verifiable times, happenings, distances, cities et al. (Please don't equate that with fictional stories that also have the same information but are fictional).

So in other words, don't apply the same standards evenly across all written works.
Give special consideration to the holy book of your choice, because .... you already believe it??

Anyhow... regardless:

we each are going to come to our conclusions and live life according to our belief system. I call that free will which I subscribe to. And I support everyone's right to come to their conclusion.

I do as well.
I care about believing in as many true things as possible, and not believing in as many false things as possible.[/QUOTE]

 

[Kenny]

That's not what has been done here.

IYO.

The Gospels are anonymous.

Yes... but you equate "anonymous" as "they didn't write it". I subscribe to traditional verification.

The Gospels are anonymous.

So you're of the mind that that was no oral transmission before anything was recorded? That it was recorded on paper right from the start? Why do you believe that?

It's a shame you would twist what I am saying -- a strawman.

Please go back to the definition of "biography" for Luke and Acts.

They are not eyewitness accounts by any stretch of the imagination. I mean, you can believe they are, but that doesn't make it so.

Likewise, you can believe they aren't, but that doesn't make it so. I trust Matthew and John to be written by the same. Mark is writing it as a follower of Peter (an eyewitness)

Of course you don't, because you already believe the Bible is accurate on all counts.
But we're still not talking about an eyewitness account.

I understand, as a skeptic, you would hold to that position.

So in other words, don't apply the same standards evenly across all written works.
Give special consideration to the holy book of your choice, because .... you already believe it??

The big difference is that the "fictional" books are listed as "fictional". so not the same standard.

I do as well.
I care about believing in as many true things as possible, and not believing in as many false things as possible.

I can concur with your statement.

 

[SkepticThinker]

IYO.

In "Luke's" own words.

Yes... but you equate "anonymous" as "they didn't write it". I subscribe to traditional verification.

As in, we don't know that a guy named "Luke" wrote it.

Of course you subscribe to and believe in whatever the church you follow believes. That's part of the problem.

It's a shame you would twist what I am saying -- a strawman.

Um, it's called asking you a question based on something you've just said, to better understand where you're coming from. Notice the question marks?
It would be cool if you'd have answered it.

Please go back to the definition of "biography" for Luke and Acts.

You mean, "an account of someone's life written by someone else" ... ? That's what a biography is.

Likewise, you can believe they aren't, but that doesn't make it so. I trust Matthew and John to be written by the same. Mark is writing it as a follower of Peter (an eyewitness)

You and I have just finished demonstrating that Luke is not an eyewitness account. "Luke's" own words demonstrate that.

I understand, as a skeptic, you would hold to that position.

You don't have to be a skeptic to understand how Luke is not an eyewitness account. We can just use the definition of "eyewitness account" as we've been doing.

The big difference is that the "fictional" books are listed as "fictional". so not the same standard.

Who says the Bible isn't fictional? Or doesn't have fictional parts?

Many book(s), whether fiction or non-fiction mention actual people, places, and events that existed and occurred at the time they were written, or refer to actual people, places or events from history. But the fact that they may mention a real person or place, doesn't mean everything else in the book is true.

How about the Iliad? Do you consider that fictional?
How about the Qu'ran? People say that's non-fiction. So, is it?

I can concur with your statement.

[/QUOTE]

 

[leroy]

What does finely tuned mean to you? .

FT simply means that the parameters are narrow….FT by itself doesn’t imply a designer,

1 to say that a video game is FT to save the princes simply means that if you change the parametrs a tiny bit it would be impossible to save the princess…….(for example if you modify the code such that Mario jumps 1% less than before there would be obstacles impossible to overcome)

2 to say that the universe is FT for life simply means that if you change say gravity such that it becomes 1% stronger the universe would have been a life prohibiting universe.

So obviously the designers could have created the video game or the universe such that the parameters are not so narrow, but that would change the fact that 1 and 2 are examples of FT .. this is trivially true, I don’t understand why are you pushing that objection .

 

[Kenny]

In "Luke's" own words.


As in, we don't know that a guy named "Luke" wrote it.

Of course you subscribe to and believe in whatever the church you follow believes. That's part of the problem.


Um, it's called asking you a question based on something you've just said, to better understand where you're coming from. Notice the question marks?
It would be cool if you'd have answered it.


You mean, "an account of someone's life written by someone else" ... ? That's what a biography is.


You and I have just finished demonstrating that Luke is not an eyewitness account. "Luke's" own words demonstrate that.


You don't have to be a skeptic to understand how Luke is not an eyewitness account. We can just use the definition of "eyewitness account" as we've been doing.


Who says the Bible isn't fictional? Or doesn't have fictional parts?

Many book(s), whether fiction or non-fiction mention actual people, places, and events that existed and occurred at the time they were written, or refer to actual people, places or events from history. But the fact that they may mention a real person or place, doesn't mean everything else in the book is true.

How about the Iliad? Do you consider that fictional?
How about the Qu'ran? People say that's non-fiction. So, is it?

OK... so you subscribe to a different point of view.

How you came to the position that at anytime I said Luke was an eyewitness is beyond me.

Certainly you can say the Bible is fictional or has fictional parts... but it would be an opinion (as you could also say mine is an opinion.)

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "What your church believes" - I believe because of what I have studied.

As well as we don't know that Luke didn't write it. I subscribe to the traditional position that he did.

"Um, it's called asking you a question based on something you've just said, to better understand where you're coming from. Notice the question marks?
It would be cool if you'd have answered it." Sorry... remind me which question? (We have gone so far and wide, it would be easier if you could repeat if - if there is that grace)

Yes... a biography as in "I talked to the eyewitnesses and this is what they said".

But you can believe differently. We each have our own journey.

 

[CG Didymus]

Only two of the Gospels, both of which were written about 55 to 65 years after the crucifixion support the virgin birth myth.

Other than the two gospel stories, is the virgin birth mentioned anywhere else in the NT? And I wonder when the legends of the virgin birth started to emerge? And when the infancy gospels got written?

 

[SkepticThinker]

OK... so you subscribe to a different point of view.

I'm going by the words I've quoted from the Bible.

How you came to the position that at anytime I said Luke was an eyewitness is beyond me.

So you don't think Luke was an eyewitness? If that's the case, why did you bring up depositions?

Certainly you can say the Bible is fictional or has fictional parts... but it would be an opinion (as you could also say mine is an opinion.)

Are you claiming that everything contained in the Bible is non-fiction? If that is your claim, how did you draw such a conclusion (Please notice these are questions ).

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "What your church believes" - I believe because of what I have studied.

As well as we don't know that Luke didn't write it. I subscribe to the traditional position that he did.

I'm saying you believe it because you are a believer in the religion you follow. You believe what your holy book says.

If we don't know either way, then on what basis can you draw the conclusion that he did? "Tradition" doesn't cut it.

"Um, it's called asking you a question based on something you've just said, to better understand where you're coming from. Notice the question marks?
It would be cool if you'd have answered it." Sorry... remind me which question? (We have gone so far and wide, it would be easier if you could repeat if - if there is that grace)

Sure, no problem ...

So you're of the mind that that was no oral transmission before anything was recorded? That it was recorded on paper right from the start? Why do you believe that? (If you do).

Yes... a biography as in "I talked to the eyewitnesses and this is what they said".

That's not the definition that was given. This actually the definition of hearsay. You can't testify in a court room that you heard something from another guy and claim that's an eyewitness account.
A person can write a biography of another person without having ever met them.

I think maybe you're thinking of an autobiography?

But you can believe differently. We each have our own journey.

True that.