Is this potential evidence for the resurrection of Christ?

[Trailblazer]

I agree and have said this earlier that I believe in the resurrection by faith. You on the other hand seem to be saying it did not happen for which you also have no evidence for this claim which means you claims because you cannot prove them are also a belief of faith but in the opposite direction.

No, they are not a belief on faith, they are a non-belief based upon lack of evidence.
This is basic logic.

 

[3rdAngel]

Thanks, I fixed my formatting.
I said "not everything in the Bible literally happened." I did not say that nothing in the Bible literally happened.

I will believe what scholars and historians say literally happened, but I have no reason to believe anything else literally happened. It might have happened or not, I just do not know, but if there is no evidence to prove it happened I am not going to believe it happened since there is no reason to do so.

I would not trust everything the scholars say and teach as they do not even agree among themselves. It was those who were also the so called scholars of the scriptures that were instrumental in crucifying the Messiah (JESUS) as they did not know that the scriptures pointed to him.

 

[3rdAngel]

No, they are not a belief on faith, they are a non-belief based upon lack of evidence. This is basic logic.

Rubbish! A belief is a belief. You either have evidence for your belief or you do not. If you do not then it is a belief based on faith because you have no evidence for it. I have peace in my faith. Yet you believe by faith my belief is not true and do not have evidence to prove it is not true. All this means is that you are simply living by faith because you cannot prove what I believe is not true. An argument in silence does not prove or disprove something is true or not true.

 

[Trailblazer]

I am not sure if you are understanding what I have posted to you. Your agreeing with me here.

What am I agreeing with?

 

[3rdAngel]

What am I agreeing with?

Your argument is the same as I am making for both believers and non believers. If there is no evidence for a belief it is simply faith based wheather you believe in God or do not believe in God.

 

[sojourner]

Your the one that said you believe the Apostolic teachings which are the scriptures not me. Now your trying to argue away the Apostolic teachings. This only shows you do not believe them IMO

Don’t misquote me. It’s disingenuous and, I believe, against forum rules. I maintain that the Apostles’ teaching goes beyond scripture. I never added the qualifier: “which are the scriptures.” I didn’t say that I don’t believe in the Apostles’ teaching. I said that there’s no evidence for the Resurrection, and that the Bible is not evidence.

Nonsense! The gospels were written in the lifetime of the Apostles and are Apostolic teachings on the life and words of JESUS

Not according to any scholars who are worth their salt.

Look at you, a teacher in a church, comparing the Apostolic teachings to Harry Potter

I’m comparing two examples of mythic genre and demonstrating how neither is historic evidence. That IS being a responsible teacher. Apparently, you simply spout fairy tales, which is irresponsible and no help to anyone.

I agree and have said this earlier that I believe in the resurrection by faith. You on the other hand seem to be saying it did not happen for which you also have no evidence for this claim which means you claims because you cannot prove them are also a belief of faith but in the opposite direction

No, I merely said that there is no evidence.

Your whole post is a misrepresentation of what I said. Therefore your entire answering argument is a straw man.

 

[Trailblazer]

I would not trust everything the scholars say and teach as they do not even agree among themselves.

I would not trust everything the Christians say and teach as they do not even agree among themselves.

It was those who were also the so called scholars of the scriptures that were instrumental in crucifying the Messiah (JESUS) as they did not know that the scriptures pointed to him.

You are absolutely right about that. The Jewish scholars missed recognizing Jesus because of a misinterpretation of their scriptures. They had confirmation bias because they were waiting for a Messiah made in their own image, based upon their interpretation of prophecies which was incorrect. The difference is that the non-religious scholars of this age have no bias since they have no beliefs to confirm. They are just trying to uncover the truth.

 

[sojourner]

Your argument is the same as I am making for both believers and non believers. If there is no evidence for a belief it is simply faith based wheather you believe in God or do not believe in God.

No, you’re misrepresenting the burden of proof. If there’s no evidence for existence, there’s no reason to believe in such existence. Non-existence does not require proof or evidence. Lack of evidence for existence is reasonable evidence for lack of existence. That’s how burden of proof works. You’re blowing smoke, you know it, and it’s a cheap waste of bandwidth and everyone’s time.

 

[3rdAngel]

So "faith-based" is not evidence-based. Meaning that it can't be proven to have happened. If it can't be proven, then there's no evidence to suggest that it did, in fact, happen. And we can't assume that it happened. Until the accounts are proven, they remain mythic in nature.

Nonesense. This is an argument in silence. If you believe there is no resurrection or no God and you have no evidence than that belief is simply a belief that does not have evidence. Therefore if you have no evidence that there was no ressurection or that there is no God then your belief is based on faith because you have no evidence for your belief. I am at peace with my belief and it is a belief in faith. Yours is a also a belief in faith in the opposite direction because you have no evidence that the resurrection did not occur the same as other believe by faith that there is a God or not a God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Your argument is the same as I am making for both believers and non believers. If there is no evidence for a belief it is simply faith based whether you believe in God or do not believe in God.

Nonbelievers do not have "faith" that God does not exist. They simply do not believe that God exists, because they do not recognize the evidence as evidence.

 

[3rdAngel]

No, you’re misrepresenting the burden of proof. If there’s no evidence for existence, there’s no reason to believe in such existence. Non-existence does not require proof or evidence. Lack of evidence for existence is reasonable evidence for lack of existence. That’s how burden of proof works. You’re blowing smoke, you know it, and it’s a cheap waste of bandwidth and everyone’s time.

There is no burden of proof my me I freely admit that my belief in the resurrection which is based on the eyewitness accounts of Apostolic teachings (the scriptures) is true by faith. I feel no burden to prove anything here and freely admit that my belief is based on faith. You on the other hand do not believe the Apostolic teachings and have no evidence that the resurrection did not happen so your belief is also based on faith because you have no evidence for your belief which you cannot prove.

 

[sojourner]

Nonesense. This is an argument in silence

More falsehood. This is not an argument from silence. It’s simple lack of evidence.

we don’t need to provide evidence that leprechauns don’t exist, because there’s no evidence for anyone to assume that they do exist. The lack of evidence for their existence IS evidence for their non-existence.

 

[3rdAngel]

Nonbelievers do not have "faith" that God does not exist. They simply do not believe that God exists, because they do not recognize the evidence as evidence.

Sure they do. If you do not believe in something without evidence then it is a belief that has no evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, you’re misrepresenting the burden of proof. If there’s no evidence for existence, there’s no reason to believe in such existence. Non-existence does not require proof or evidence. Lack of evidence for existence is reasonable evidence for lack of existence. That’s how burden of proof works. You’re blowing smoke, you know it, and it’s a cheap waste of bandwidth and everyone’s time.

I really do not think she understands. Some people just do not understand how logic works so there is no point trying to reason with them. They will just keep saying the same things over and over again.

 

[3rdAngel]

More falsehood. This is not an argument from silence. It’s simple lack of evidence. we don’t need to provide evidence that leprechauns don’t exist, because there’s no evidence for anyone to assume that they do exist. The lack of evidence for their existence IS evidence for their non-existence.

Where is your evidence then that the resurrection did not happen? If you have no evidence your argument is simply one of silence that cannot be proven one way or another. Your belief therefore is also one of faith in not believing in the resurrection which you cannot prove did not happen. At least my faith is based on those who saw it. Yours is based on nothing because you do not believe the Apostolic teachings.

 

[3rdAngel]

I really do not think she understands. Some people just do not understand how logic works so there is no point trying to reason with them. They will just keep saying the same things over and over again.

Indeed. Perhaps this could be applied to you? Do you agree that someone not believing that there is a God is a belief? If someone does not believe in a God or for example a resurrection it is a belief that someone does not believe in God or the resurrection. Sound logical to you?

 

[Trailblazer]

Sure they do. If you do not believe in something without evidence then it is a belief that has no evidence.

If you do not believe in something then it is not a belief.
If you do not believe in something due to lack of evidence it is a non-belief.

 

[Trailblazer]

Indeed. Perhaps this could be applied to you? Do you agree that someone not believing that there is a God is a belief?

Yes, I disagree. Someone not believing in God is a non-belief in God.

 

[3rdAngel]

If you do not believe in something then it is not a belief.
If you do not believe in something due to lack of evidence it is a non-belief.

Nonsense you ignoring my questions to you. Do you agree that someone not believing that there is a God is a belief? If someone does not believe in a God or for example a resurrection it is a belief that someone does not believe in God or the resurrection. Sound logical to you?

 

[sojourner]

There is no burden of proof my me I freely admit that my belief in the resurrection which is based on the eyewitness accounts of Apostolic teachings (the scriptures) is true by faith. I feel no burden to prove anything here and freely admit that my belief is based on faith. You on the other hand do not believe the Apostolic teachings and have no evidence that the resurrection did not happen so your belief is also based on faith because you have no evidence for your belief which you cannot prove.

It doesn’t matter what you feel. If you make a claim, the burden is upon you to provide evidence for that claim. That’s how rules of evidence work. You have no evidence here, because all you have is 1) belief (which is not evidence), and 2) the Bible (which is also not evidence.). You may believe in the Resurrection, but there is no evidence for it. And that’s the point of the thread: no biblical evidence.

OTOH, yes, I do believe the Apostles’ teaching, I don’t care whether the Resurrection is an actual event in history, and I freely admit that there’s no evidence for it as an historical event. I believe the Resurrection is a theological construct that demonstrates several spiritual truths.