• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Resurrection is it provable?

Left Coast

The Fabulous
Staff member
Premium Member
Interesting that you think I didn't read it. Of course it has both sides of the argument. Why would I read just one side of an argument? Do you?

Ken...I'm the one who put the article into the discussion that explained both sides of the discussion.

Yes. I have. relevance?

The relevance is that just because an early Christian letter says it's written by an Apostle doesn't mean it was.


Please don't use straman tactics by using Joseph smith. Your point is so illogical as to eradicate history. Show me one evidence that Paul didn't preach the Gospel

o_O:facepalm:

Ken. I didn't claim Paul didn't preach. You claimed that because he preached, that therefore he must have been right. That's not rational sir. It doesn't follow.

Is this really honest discussion?

It is on my end.

Actually I did. Maybe you forgot? Peter,

You don't have any writings of Peter.

John, Matthew, and quite possibly Mark. Luke spoke to the witnesses.

The Gospels aren't eyewitness accounts, Ken. The Synoptics don't even claim to be. The author of Luke names no witnesses to whom he allegedly spoke.

I just applied your logic. I'm glad you see the absurdity of it. But if the issue is that there are miracles and THAT is why you doubt it... why didn't you say that from the beginning?

I literally did. Way back in post #91. And I'm willing to bet you do as well, when it comes to any myths from other religions.

The invincible ignorance fallacy also known as argument by pigheadedness, (according to wikipedia)

"The method used in this fallacy is either to make assertions with no consideration of objections or to simply dismiss objections by calling them excuses, conjecture, etc. or saying that they are proof of nothing, all without actually demonstrating how the objection fit these terms. It is similar to the ad lapidem fallacy, in which the person rejects all the evidence and logic presented, without providing any evidence or logic that could lead to a different conclusion."

Much closer to what you've done in this exchange Ken. But the reader can decide.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
One way one can know if one account, by the way if you want to use the word "testimonial" you take on a burden of proof which you cannot seem to support, is to see if one has copied the other word for word in areas. As we do with the synoptic gospels. That tells us that they are not independent.
Interesting but we are talking about Paul vs the gospels

Given that we don't have word by word copies between paul and the gospels the sources are independent (using your rules)
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Because that is how debates are done.

Weren't you the one that lost it because your poor unsupported argument was refuted by Hitchens' Razor?
This is tedious and boring you always tend to make random and unrelated comments.

You said that apologetics are not scholars // you are expected to support that assertion
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
No, beyond the crucifixion there is no corroborating evidence for any of it. It's pure hearsy.



Your subjective and unevidenced claim, doesn't validate the hearsay claims in the gospels no.



Of course the provenance of any document is a vital piece of information that speaks to the historical credibility of that document, and would contribute to the credence of its claims. No one who understands how historians validate the historicity of claims, and artefacts would deny this.

You don't know the sources of the gospels, since they're anonymous and the claims unsubstantiated hearsay, so why you keep make assertions about "the sources" is again baffling. I recognise you are heavily emotionally invested in this belief, but you are misrepresenting subjective beliefs as if they represent facts, when they don't.
Jasus had a brother named James

Jesus had apostoles including one naned Peter one named john

Pilate was the guy in charge of the territory

Caiphas was the high priest

The names of the Cesar's are acurrate and the dates consistent

The names and dates of the Herods are correct

The gospels also record various places where the ministry of Jesus took place. We find that the cities that are mentioned in the four gospels are known to have existed in the first century. The exact location of almost all of them have been firmly established. This includes such cities as Nazareth, Cana, Bethlehem, Capernaum, Chorazin, Bethsaida and Tiberius. In other words, we are dealing with real places.

The structures of the houses is correct

The costumes mentioned in the gospels are correct

The most common names mentioned in the gospels (mary John joseph simon judas etc..) where also the most common names etc.

These are examples of verifiable historical facts......
.
Only a well informed author could have known this details , so like it or not, the gospels where written by people with accets to good sources
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
I just did explain it? I've explained it literally dozens of times to you, it never ever varies??

It's defined in the dictionary and I am happy to use that definition.



If you falsely accuse me of dishonesty on this again I will report it.

Evidence
noun
  1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
That is the very last time I am posting that for you, and if you persist in falsely claiming that I have not given you this, or that I don't always use the same definition, then again I will start reporting it, as that is what is dishonest here.
No you haven't explain what would you accept as evidence for ancient historical facts ...


Please stop that dishonest game
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
What objective or historical evidence, independent of the subjective claims in the bible and your religion, can you demonstrate that these eyewitnesses existed, and that the claims as to what they witnessed is accurate?

There is no evidence to corroborate the gospels beyond the crucifixion, including of course the claims there were eyewitnesses.

I just wanted to point out how much more effective your second approach to the same problem was than the first. In the first, you phrased it as a question, and got a response of the form, "I'm not looking that up for you." The implication is that the evidence exists and that you are too uniformed or lazy to be aware of it, or even how to find it. Imagine if you had also written the first comment as a statement, "You have no evidence." So far, you've had more success with the approach taken in the second comment - no response, no rebuttal. Debate over.

I only mention it because it's a topic that's been on my mind for months, and I have begun making the effort to NOT ask questions that I know the answer to (it's a habit of thought and a style of writing that has been hard to break), and simply state what might have gone into a rhetorical question as a declarative statement. When I'm told about spiritual truths one has discovered on his journey of discovery, for example, I used to ask for examples, but that would be fruitless and run on for several posts, asking repeatedly in vain for cooperation, for an answer. Now, I just post comments like, "I'd ask you for your evidence, but I know you have none." No rebuttal is ever offered, and so, the issue is resolved and debate over with one post.

if 2 different testimonials differ on some points, this counts as very strong evidence that the testimonials are independent rather than one copying from the other

Agreed, at least in the area of disagreement, but what good is their testimony then? The value of independent observers is that when they agree, they corroborate one another, and that where they contradict one another, at least one is wrong, emphasizing the unreliability of such testimony and making neither story trustworthy even if one is accurate.

Whether if they where anonymous or not is irrelevant/ as long as they where well informed and had the intention of honesty report what they think happened, the source is reliable

That's why it is useful to know something about these people such as their character, how they process information, and their agendas. You seem to assume that they are all trustworthy and only interested in telling the truth. You're assuming that they are critical thinkers and not easily suggestible. What if I told you that there was another witness, Norm of Ephesus, the cook for the apostles, who says that there was no resurrection, just a plan to disseminate the story that there was to make it seem that a deity had come to earth to give the words they put in his mouth seem more authoritative. And what if Lester of Nazareth, Norm's sous chef, corroborated that? Would you believe them? They're eyewitnesses, or so we're told, and their stories, which might be independent, corroborate one another. No? Good thinking.

And unlike those claiming the miraculous revivification of a demigod three days dead, these people are saying something believable, something known to be common in the affairs of men: other people telling tales.

How can one know if 2 testimonials are independent rather than one being copied from the other?

Assuming they agree, you can't if you don't know the people involved, their characters, their agendas, and their histories. Consider Norm and Lester. There is no way to know anything about whether they conspired or were independent witnesses, nor whether they were telling the truth.

The skeptic doubts both accounts, even the likelier one from Norm and Lester, because they're just words from anonymous people about whom we know too little to trust their accounts. The critical thinker simply need more than biblical scripture. Bottom line: words are never evidence of anything except that somebody chose to write or say them. They cannot be consider correct without corroboration using physical evidence.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Interesting but we are talking about Paul vs the gospels

Given that we don't have word by word copies between paul and the gospels the sources are independent (using your rules)


We were? Why even talk about Paul? Paul never supported the bodily resurrection. You appear to be confused again. If we are talking about the resurrectin that is mainly a gospel topic, not a one that involves Paul.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
This is tedious and boring you always tend to make random and unrelated comments.

You said that apologetics are not scholars // you are expected to support that assertion
:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

No, you simply are not following along. You are not listening to what your opponents say. If you do not understand how a comment applies then ask questions.

And I see that you did not understand that apologists are not scholars. I am rather surprised that you need that explained to you. One correction that @Sheldon has given is that my claim may be a bit too strong. There could be some apologists that are also scholars, but I have never seen one. A biblical scholar is a person that not only studies the Bible, its history and the history of the people and times of its writing. He also does what all scholars do. He or she publishes in a well respected professional peer reviewed journal. One does not just write articles for the internet. That does not make one a scholar. That does not make one a reliable soruce. So when I say that apologists are not scholars that is a challenge. It tells you that your source is not a scholar in my opinion and if you want the source to have any impact on the discussion you would need to demonstrate that your source is a scholar. That he does have an understanding of the times. Otherwise his interpretation is no more valid than mine. And I will gladly admit that I am not a scholar.

For example I seem to remember a post of @KenS where he was commenting about Richard Carrier. He could not refute one single claim of his so he went all out ad hom on his butt. Now I will call certain creationists liars and even idiots, but that is only because I can demonstrate that that is the case. I sincerely doubt if Ken could have done the same.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Ken...I'm the one who put the article into the discussion that explained both sides of the discussion.

The relevance is that just because an early Christian letter says it's written by an Apostle doesn't mean it was.

Ken. I didn't claim Paul didn't preach. You claimed that because he preached, that therefore he must have been right. That's not rational sir. It doesn't follow.

You don't have any writings of Peter.

The Gospels aren't eyewitness accounts, Ken. The Synoptics don't even claim to be. The author of Luke names no witnesses to whom he allegedly spoke.

The tenor or this post deserves an answer. Thank you!

1) I'm glad you see both sides of the equation
2) I didn't say "Because Paul preached he is right"... What I said was "Paul preached he knew something happened" otherwise, why would he preach it? 1 Corinthians 15:14, “And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain - wether true or not, it is what he believed.
3) You haven't proved I don't have the writings of Peter.
4) So, here is my position. To say that I don't have eye-witness accounts is to deny the writings from those who were contemporaries and 2nd generation writers. Back to "please eliminate all that was written and then prove you are right".

IMV, I have more support for my position that what you have presented against.
 
Last edited:

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
For example I seem to remember a post of @KenS where he was commenting about Richard Carrier. He could not refute one single claim of his so he went all out ad hom on his butt. Now I will call certain creationists liars and even idiots, but that is only because I can demonstrate that that is the case. I sincerely doubt if Ken could have done the same.

:facepalm:

Trolling :)
 

Left Coast

The Fabulous
Staff member
Premium Member
2) I didn't say "Because Paul preached he is right"... What I said was "Paul preached he knew something happened" otherwise, why would he preach it? 1 Corinthians 15:14, “And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain - wether true or not, it is what he believed.

This isn't relevant to the discussion, though. Yeah, Paul believed what he was saying. That obviously doesn't make him right. Think it through, Ken.

3) You haven't proved I don't have the writings of Peter.
This is a shift of the burden of proof, Ken. You claimed witnesses to the resurrection. If you want to claim 1 Peter is the testimony of an eyewitness, it's on you to show that. Actual NT scholarship is against you. It was written too late and is clearly written by a well-educated person of the time, which fisherman Peter most certainly would not have been. He likely wouldn't have even been literate.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
This isn't relevant to the discussion, though. Yeah, Paul believed what he was saying. That obviously doesn't make him right. Think it through, Ken.

LOL... But it doesn't make him wrong. But using all of the writing, the explosion of growth, the fact that all they had to do is say "here is the body of Jesus" to disprove it et al... I think I'm right (thought you don't have to follow my lead.

This is a shift of the burden of proof, Ken. You claimed witnesses to the resurrection. If you want to claim 1 Peter is the testimony of an eyewitness, it's on you to show that. Actual NT scholarship is against you. It was written too late and is clearly written by a well-educated person of the time, which fisherman Peter most certainly would not have been. He likely wouldn't have even been literate.

No. SOME modern scholars are against me. Historical writings, and MANY modern scholars are with me. AD 60 is an acceptable day of the written document so not too late.

To say that Peter isn't well-educated is to assume that after 30 years of learning means one stays at the same level as before. Trust me when I say how I write at 38 vs 68 is quite a marked difference.

Could you support that he wasn't "literate"? Jesus was literate... are you saying that Jesus didn't influence him?

Please give me evidence (not scholarly opinions) that Peter didn't write his letter in which he said he was a witness and that he was the apostle.
 

Left Coast

The Fabulous
Staff member
Premium Member
LOL... But it doesn't make him wrong.


:facepalm: Ken...

The time to believe things is when you have good evidence for them. Not simply because someone hasn't proven the thing wrong. I'm betting you employ that obvious principle in dozens of circumstances all throughout your life.

But using all of the writing,

None of which has been shown to be from an eyewitness orher than your say-so.

the explosion of growth,

Lots of people believing something makes it true? Also, it did not significantly "explode" until it was endorsed by the Roman Empire.

the fact that all they had to do is say "here is the body of Jesus" to disprove it

They were a tiny mystery cult, a dime a dozen. Do you go around seeking to disprove every random crank on the internet who claims wild things? Of course you don't. Does that give us any reason to believe what any of those cranks say? Of course it doesn't.

No. SOME modern scholars are against me. Historical writings, and MANY modern scholars are with me.

You are simply incorrect, Ken. The majority of modern scholars disagree with you. Particularly those who don't work for fundamentalist institutions.

AD 60 is an acceptable day of the written document so not too late.

LOL nobody outside fundamentalist circles thinks 1 Peter was written in 60. It was likely written after the destruction of the Temple.

To say that Peter isn't well-educated is to assume that after 30 years of learning means one stays at the same level as before. Trust me when I say how I write at 38 vs 68 is quite a marked difference.

The first century is not the 21st century, Ken. The vast majority of the population of the time was illiterate. There was no Google. There was no formal schooling for most people. Formal education in the kind of composition and rhetoric we see in 1 Peter was reserved for wealthy, upper-class folks, or scribes and scholars, etc. Peter was a fisherman. He would not have been formally educated. He would likely not have been literate.

Could you support that he wasn't "literate"? Jesus was literate... are you saying that Jesus didn't influence him?

Jesus also most likely would not have been literate. He was a carpenter. The son of working class folks. They would almost certainly have been illiterate.

Please give me evidence (not scholarly opinions) that Peter didn't write his letter in which he said he was a witness and that he was the apostle.

Already been done. Again, you keep trying to get me to prove the negative. The initial claim in this debate came from you. It's up to you to demonstrate it. Thus far your evidence has been...well, it says in the letter that he wrote it, so he wrote it. That's not good evidence, Ken.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
LOL... But it doesn't make him wrong. But using all of the writing, the explosion of growth, the fact that all they had to do is say "here is the body of Jesus" to disprove it et al... I think I'm right (thought you don't have to follow my lead.

No, that is an argument that tells us that you are a bit ignorant of the times. There probably was no body. This was a Roman crucifixion. The Romans left the bodies up for a long time. That was part of the punishment. One saw ones loved ones become an unrecognizable mess. And then what was left of the bodies was usually thrown into a common grave.

No. SOME modern scholars are against me. Historical writings, and MANY modern scholars are with me. AD 60 is an acceptable day of the written document so not too late.

To say that Peter isn't well-educated is to assume that after 30 years of learning means one stays at the same level as before. Trust me when I say how I write at 38 vs 68 is quite a marked difference.

Could you support that he wasn't "literate"? Jesus was literate... are you saying that Jesus didn't influence him?

Please give me evidence (not scholarly opinions) that Peter didn't write his letter in which he said he was a witness and that he was the apostle.

Jesus was literate in Aramaic. I doubt if he was literate in Greek. The letter was written in Greek. Also the date of Peter is very uncertain. the earliest claim that he was crucified by Nero came at the end of the second century. Some interpret Acts 12 1-17 as describing Peter's death in prison at roughly 44 CE.


Saint Peter - Wikipedia.

How and when Peter died is simply not well recorded at all. It became church tradition that he was crucified by Nero, but that date is not well supported by evidence. No specific date is well supported by any evidence. Claiming that he had all that time to learn is simply another unevidenced claim.


And remember, most apologists are not scholars. They are practically never valid sources since they do not tend to list where they got their beliefs from.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
And yet every answer you give ( no matter what answer is given or who gives it and what those of their times wrote and said and recorded) - you remain the same thus validating

Sorry, but I'm not sure what you're saying here?

And yet so many people are persuaded with the same information.

Well this is just a bare appeal to numbers, an argumentum ad populum fallacy. Also there are wildly different religions and deities, so this does not suggest the belief is objectively reliable.
 
Top