• 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?

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Paul and the Gospels don’t contradict each other they simply make different infancies on different details, and some vents (like the 500 ) is in one but not the other.

I don't understand the words after "Paul and the Gospels don’t contradict each other," but I do understand those, understand them to be contradicted by evidence. Looking ahead to the next few quotes from you, I can see that that's going to be a stumbling block in this discussion, because you will never accept that you may not have independent corroborating testimonies. Paul contradicts the Gospels in places and the Gospels contradict one another in places.

I know from experience trying with other biblical apologists that I'm not going to be able to convince you otherwise even with evidence, nor will any apologetics you could offer reconcile those contradictions to change my mind that they are contradictions. We have different standards for belief, and interpret the same evidence differently and come to contradictory conclusions because of it. Neither of us can impact the other, because we have different ways of deciding what it true.

Therefore we do have independent testimonies.

Even if that's the case, if they contradict one another, they don't work for you. Independent testimony is only useful to your case when it doesn't contain contradictions. When it does, it undermines the case, like two people giving the police conflicting testimony about the same event. If it had been in accord, that supports the story. If there are two stories, that accomplishes the opposite.

Sure but given that we have more than one testimony, the alternative is that by chance alone they all invented the exact same lie, which is unlikely. I am not saying that this proves that an actual miracle happened, but it certainly proves with high degree of certainty that something that was interpreted as a miracle happened

Disagree, even if we stipulate that the testimonies don't contradict one another. You know human nature better than that. You wouldn't accept your argument if somebody made it to you about matters where you don't apply faith. You wouldn't accept this argument if the claims were of spotting mermaids, even if the accounts were compatible and came from different crews and in different centuries. How about if a dozen people reported a person being abducted by an extraterrestrial? There are better explanations for why people report seeing things that never happened or that they misunderstood than that they actually witnessed one, even if multiple reports agree, and it doesn't always involve lying.

That Alexander the Great was born in Macedonia, despite the fact that all you have are words (no physical evidence) so why don’t you apply the same level of skepticism with other historical events?

I do. I evaluate that claim according to the same standards that I evaluate any claim. What is the evidence? Is it all testimony, or is there corroborating physical evidence? What's the claim? Is it ordinary or extraordinary. What are the consequences of a false belief? Does it matter whether the claim is correct or not? By these standards, Alexander is more likely to have actually existed than Jesus, but not by a lot. They are probably both historical characters with legends attached over time, but with Alexander, we have physical evidence such as coins with his image, and independent corroboration of his exploits by other peoples than the Macedonians. We don't have that for Jesus. The only non-Christians mentioning Jesus didn't see him, and could only report second- or third-hand accounts. The claims about Alexander are not extraordinary, but those about Jesus often are. We know that men have conquered their neighbors, so why not this one, but we don't know that gods visit earth or that miracles occur. And what are the consequences of mistakenly believing Alexander lived? None. Jesus? A lifetime of religion.

So, as you see, I am applying the same skeptical and empirical standards for each.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Even if one ignores the vested interest the topic of the thread is the resurrection. And Paul was never a witness to that in any way at all. At best he only says that Christians believe in it. That is not evidence for it.

So when someone hears a claim second hand, and relates it without any substantiating evidence, isn't that called hearsay?
 

1213

Well-Known Member
...
If someone anonymously wrote an article that people met Elvis days after he had died, would you consider these claims to be "conclusive evidence" that this happened? ..

Maybe, if it would have information that I think people would not otherwise have.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
that's a fallacy...

It may be true that not all people who deal with apologetics are scholars but all believing scholars are apologists.

So your point is quite mute..
How is that a fallacy? It is actually an observation.

And no, not all believing scholars are apologists. In fact when it comes to dealing with the Bible as literal history there does not appear to be even one person that is a scholar that believes that. It is similar to the problem of people that claim to be "creation scientists". The terms tend to be an oxymoron. To be a scientist one has to follow the scientific method, and I do not know of any creationist that does that. To be a scholar one has to support one's work and publish it in a well respected professional journal. That is what scholars do. Are there any examples of that that you can find?

It only looks as if you are ducking the burden of proof again by using poor sources.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
I don't understand the words after "Paul and the Gospels don’t contradict each other," but I do understand those, understand them to be contradicted by evidence. Looking ahead to the next few quotes from you, I can see that that's going to be a stumbling block in this discussion, because you will never accept that you may not have independent corroborating testimonies. Paul contradicts the Gospels in places and the Gospels contradict one another in places.

I know from experience trying with other biblical apologists that I'm not going to be able to convince you otherwise even with evidence, nor will any apologetics you could offer reconcile those contradictions to change my mind that they are contradictions. We have different standards for belief, and interpret the same evidence differently and come to contradictory conclusions because of it. Neither of us can impact the other, because we have different ways of deciding what it true.



Even if that's the case, if they contradict one another, they don't work for you. Independent testimony is only useful to your case when it doesn't contain contradictions. When it does, it undermines the case, like two people giving the police conflicting testimony about the same event. If it had been in accord, that supports the story. If there are two stories, that accomplishes the opposite.



Disagree, even if we stipulate that the testimonies don't contradict one another. You know human nature better than that. You wouldn't accept your argument if somebody made it to you about matters where you don't apply faith. You wouldn't accept this argument if the claims were of spotting mermaids, even if the accounts were compatible and came from different crews and in different centuries. How about if a dozen people reported a person being abducted by an extraterrestrial? There are better explanations for why people report seeing things that never happened or that they misunderstood than that they actually witnessed one, even if multiple reports agree, and it doesn't always involve lying.



I do. I evaluate that claim according to the same standards that I evaluate any claim. What is the evidence? Is it all testimony, or is there corroborating physical evidence? What's the claim? Is it ordinary or extraordinary. What are the consequences of a false belief? Does it matter whether the claim is correct or not? By these standards, Alexander is more likely to have actually existed than Jesus, but not by a lot. They are probably both historical characters with legends attached over time, but with Alexander, we have physical evidence such as coins with his image, and independent corroboration of his exploits by other peoples than the Macedonians. We don't have that for Jesus. The only non-Christians mentioning Jesus didn't see him, and could only report second- or third-hand accounts. The claims about Alexander are not extraordinary, but those about Jesus often are. We know that men have conquered their neighbors, so why not this one, but we don't know that gods visit earth or that miracles occur. And what are the consequences of mistakenly believing Alexander lived? None. Jesus? A lifetime of religion.

So, as you see, I am applying the same skeptical and empirical standards for each.
Do you grant that probably Jesus did stuff that others interpreted as miracles? .....Here we are talking about a non extraordinary claim with explanatory power and corroborated my multiple testimonies.

I am not aware of any contradictions, but granted if there is a contradiction then atleast one of the authors is wrong, but you cant reject the whole document, one simply rejects the specific verses that are contradictory,


even if the accounts were compatible and came from different crews and in different centuries. How about if a dozen people reported a person being abducted by an extraterrestrial?
Well Imagine that the claim is that the president was kidnapped by an Alien Space Ship

1 multiple witnesses report the same event / they clearly and unambiguously saw and even touched the spaceship

2 there really is a missing president,

3 Some of the witnesses are willing to die for the truth of their testimony, they where told that if they don’t “admit”that the testimony is a lie they would be torture to death, but even then they still claimed that the vent is real.

4 These all happened in a conservative town where nobody believed in Aliens, but suddenly many people started to proclaim the existence of Aliens, and even started a new political movement that assumes the existance of Aliens


Wouldn’t you say that this is very strong evidence for an Alien visit?
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Do you grant that probably Jesus did stuff that others interpreted as miracles?

I consider that unlikely. I think the likeliest explanation is that the supernatural elements were not based on observation, and very likely added to the account as it was evolving after Jesus, as we see between the Gospels of Mark and those of Matthew and Luke. The Jesus story is already evolving in that time period. Some of the supernatural claims come out of Mesopotamian culture, so we know that those were added.

I am not aware of any contradictions, but granted if there is a contradiction then at least one of the authors is wrong, but you cant reject the whole document, one simply rejects the specific verses that are contradictory,

I don't accept any of the Bible except the parts that have been confirmed empirically. I don't say that they're wrong, just that I won't accept that they are correct without empirical corroboration.

If one of the authors is wrong, then all of their testimony becomes a little less reliable.

Well Imagine that the claim is that the president was kidnapped by an Alien Space Ship

1 multiple witnesses report the same event / they clearly and unambiguously saw and even touched the spaceship
2 there really is a missing president,
3 Some of the witnesses are willing to die for the truth of their testimony, they where told that if they don’t “admit”that the testimony is a lie they would be torture to death, but even then they still claimed that the vent is real.
4 These all happened in a conservative town where nobody believed in Aliens, but suddenly many people started to proclaim the existence of Aliens, and even started a new political movement that assumes the existance of Aliens

Wouldn’t you say that this is very strong evidence for an Alien visit?

No, not very strong or even strong evidence. That's a little better than claiming that it was farmer McGregor, who hasn't disappeared, that was abducted for a colonoscopy and then returned, but testimony and even a missing president aren't strong enough evidence for such an extraordinary claim. Remember the guy who killed his girlfriend Gabby Petito last year, and then disappeared? Would you have called off the search if eyewitnesses swore that they saw him taken away by aliens with "multiple witnesses report the same event / they clearly and unambiguously saw and even touched the spaceship"? I wouldn't, and it's about the same evidence. The people who would accept that story are the people that want it to be true.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Sorry, I don't think you can show it wrong even in one place.

"Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes"

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
I consider that unlikely. I think the likeliest explanation is that the supernatural elements were not based on observation, and very likely added to the account as it was evolving after Jesus, as we see between the Gospels of Mark and those of Matthew and Luke. The Jesus story is already evolving in that time period. Some of the supernatural claims come out of Mesopotamian culture, so we know that those were added.

Do you accept that first generation Christians believed that Jesus did miracles? Or would you say that the miracle claims are later legendary additions?
just whant to understand your view


I don't accept any of the Bible except the parts that have been confirmed empirically. I don't say that they're wrong, just that I won't accept that they are correct without empirical corroboration.


Well if most (if not all) the information in the gospels and Paul that can be tested empirically happens to be true, why not given them the benefit of the doubt in stuff that cant be tested?




[]ong or even strong evidence. That's a little better than claiming that it was farmer McGregor, who hasn't disappeared, that was abducted for a colonoscopy and then returned, but testimony and even a missing president aren't strong enough evidence for such an extraordinary claim. Remember the guy who killed his girlfriend Gabby Petito last year, and then disappeared? Would you have called off the search if eyewitnesses swore that they saw him taken away by aliens with "multiple witnesses report the same event / they clearly and unambiguously saw and even touched the spaceship"? I wouldn't, and it's about the same evidence. The people who would accept that story are the people that want it to be true.
We are talking hypotheticals, but in this example we are talking about a community that had zero predispositions to belive in aliens, and people that being tortured for their testimony……….. why would they die?

Multiple independent witnesses claimed to have had unambiguous experiences where they touched the space ship……….(this makes hallucinations unlikely) given that it is unlikely for multiple people to have had imagined the same thing

The fact that the president is truly missing serves as independent corroboration

So yes in my opinion this would be good evidence // we don’t have anything nearly like this with UFOs, Long Ness Monster, Ghosts etc.

If you disagree then we simply have different standards of what we consider strong evidence.
 
Last edited:

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Do you accept that first generation Christians believed that Jesus did miracles? Or would you ay that the miracle claims are later legendary adaptions?

I suspect both, but I can't give you a timeline for when the miracles entered the stories or when they had been heard by enough people that most Christians should have heard about them.

Well if most (if not all) the information in the gospels and Paul that can be tested empirically happens to be true, why not given them the benefit of the doubt in stuff that cant be tested?

The default position for insufficiently evidenced claims is unbelief. Did you mean to write that some things that can be tested aren't true? Probably not, but the words seem to say that.

Multiple independent witnesses claimed to have had unambiguous experiences where they touched the space ship……….(this makes hallucinations unlikely) given that it is unlikely for multiple people to have had imagined the same thing

I still wouldn't believe that they touched an extraterrestrial vehicle based on testimony however many agreed, just like I wouldn't believe them if they said they had touched a mermaid.

The fact that the president is truly missing serves as independent corroboration

Only that he is missing, not that extraterrestrials got him. More likely - he's dead, he's a hostage, he's lost in a forest or desert, or he's in hiding. Why? Because the latter are known to happen, and spaceships landing on earth detected only by locals is not believable.

If you disagree then we simply have different standards of what we consider strong evidence.

Yes, we do. I think we discussed that. It's why neither of us has made any progress convincing the other, and never will despite having access to all of the same evidence. Look at what you offer and how ineffective it has been. Look at how little I've moved you from your starting position. What do suppose it would be like if we continued this discussion for another year or five? Would you be more skeptical? Would I be less? I doubt it.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
No it's neither, it seems you don't know what a mainstream view among historians means, but it is not based on just their subjective opinions.



Not interested in the evidence presented then, quelle surprise.



Nope, that's just a subjective opinion, and it is at odds with the consensus among historians.



I treat all claims the same, and how would an atheist hold onto the position of a conservative Christian exactly? You're just falsely trying to misrepresent this as subjective opinion again, when it's not. You don't want to learn the facts about this I guess, as you view it as a threat to your beliefs. For me it's largely irrelevant to my atheism, since the gospels being authored wouldn't necessarily represent objective evidence for any of the claims, and especially for claims about magic.
Again... I have no problem with you joining the Bandwagon... I just trust more the people before today's modern revisionist efforts. I trust more the letters, the Gospels and the 1st and 2nd generation writers.

But, hey, I really don't mind you having a different viewpoint.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
How is that a fallacy? It is actually an observation.

And no, not all believing scholars are apologists. In fact when it comes to dealing with the Bible as literal history there does not appear to be even one person that is a scholar that believes that. It is similar to the problem of people that claim to be "creation scientists". The terms tend to be an oxymoron. To be a scientist one has to follow the scientific method, and I do not know of any creationist that does that. To be a scholar one has to support one's work and publish it in a well respected professional journal. That is what scholars do. Are there any examples of that that you can find?

It only looks as if you are ducking the burden of proof again by using poor sources.
I disagree... certainly you have a lot of statements but, interestingly enough, no supportive documentation.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
I


The default position for insufficiently evidenced claims is unbelief. Did you mean to write that some things that can be tested aren't true? Probably not, but the words seem to say that.
What I said is

Given that most (if not all) the testable claims that have been tested are true, why not giving the authors the benefit of the doubt and assume that all the other non – testable claims are true?

If a testimony makes 20 claims and 10 of them are known to be true // why not assuming that the other 10 are also true, at least until someone proves the opposite?


The default position for insufficiently evidenced claims is unbelief.
Well it seems to be a very strong claim.

You accept stuff in your daily life without empirical evidence, for example If I tell you that I am male, you will probably trust me and assume that I am a man, you wouldn’t say something like “no no no until you provide empirical evidence (say a DNA test) I will disbelieve the claim that you are male.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I disagree... certainly you have a lot of statements but, interestingly enough, no supportive documentation.
I have provided more reliable sources than you have. At least the work that I link was based upon scholarship and not wishful thinking.

And of course the actual burden of proof is upon you for this thread. There does not appear to be the least little bit of reliable evidence for the resurrection.

I also note that when people post facts that refute your claims you never ask for evidence. You can't complain about others not posting evidence when you never ask for any. You know what sort of person is afraid to ask for evidence? A person that has no evidence.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
What I said is

Given that most (if not all) the testable claims that have been tested are true, why not giving the authors the benefit of the doubt and assume that all the other non – testable claims are true?

If a testimony makes 20 claims and 10 of them are known to be true // why not assuming that the other 10 are also true, at least until someone proves the opposite?

Whoa!! Citation needed. And if the claims are nothing claims that does not give you much support.

Well it seems to be a very strong claim.

You accept stuff in your daily life without empirical evidence, for example If I tell you that I am male, you will probably trust me and assume that I am a man, you wouldn’t say something like “no no no until you provide empirical evidence (say a DNA test) I will disbelieve the claim that you are male.


And once again a demonstration that you do not understand the burden of proof. A low level claim does not need much evidence. Especially one that makes no difference at all. If I claim to be male or female what difference is it going to make to you? You are never going to meet me so I would say that is none at all. If I claim that I nailed a guy to a board and hung it up on it and then he died but came back a day and a half later that is going to take quite a bit of reliable evidence.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
I have provided more reliable sources than you have. At least the work that I link was based upon scholarship and not wishful thinking.

And of course the actual burden of proof is upon you for this thread. There does not appear to be the least little bit of reliable evidence for the resurrection.

I also note that when people post facts that refute your claims you never ask for evidence. You can't complain about others not posting evidence when you never ask for any. You know what sort of person is afraid to ask for evidence? A person that has no evidence.
No... they give some sites that are then refuted by other sites...

But you can continue trying if you want.
 
Top