Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[KWED]

Well then go and check the original source where he explains how he arrives at that conclusion. If you think he is wrong, then point the flaws in his work

I have. It mentioned no "material" that predates Corinthians. There is no reference to any earlier sources. If you believe there are, please post a link.

 

[leroy]

Irrelevant, you said (or implied) that I made an extraordinary claim. So why is claiming that witnesses where alive 50 years after an “extraordinary claim”?

You claimed it was a mathematically certainty that the gospels contained eyewitness accounts

Strawman.
I said that the gospels where written when eye witnesses where still alive.

, you have since made an unabashed revision that, it is statistically probable, but even that ludicrous assumption is rank dishonesty, as it is based on the lie that life expectancy at that time was 100 years. care to evidence that, without offering the circular reasoning fallacy of using the bible?

I didn't say that life expectancy was 100 years....i said that some people lived 100+ years. (John would be an example) so the claim that some 20yo witnesses where still alive 30-50 years after the crucifixion is far from extraordinary

 

[KWED]

Irrelevant, you said (or implied) that I made an extraordinary claim. So why is claiming that witnesses where alive 50 years after an “extraordinary claim”?

No, the "extraordinary claim" is that a fully dead person can come back to life without any medical intervention.
So far all you have provided in support is the claim that early Christians believed it had happened. As has been repeatedly demonstrated, people believing something is not evidence that it actually happened - especially if the event requires the suspension of the laws of nature.
You keep avoiding addressing this issue, but that's hardly surprising.

Another issue you keep ducking is your inconsistency in claiming that the Bible contains descriptions of events that didn't happen (people rising from the dead), but we should "give the benefit of the doubt" to this particular, similar event (people rising from the dead)
Again, I don't blame you.

 

[leroy]

Oh dear. This really isn't getting through, is it?

Corinthians account of the resurrection was written by someone who was not a witness to it. Therefore he must have been told about it by someone else (if he didn't make it up). Therefore it is hearsay, by definition.

So receiving information from someone else = hearsay

Is that what you are saying ?

Because nothing in what you said supports your claim that the resurrection actually happened. It only shows that there was a resurrection myth established in the period following the crucifixion - which is hardly news. I happily accept that people believed in the resurrection 20 years after the crucifixion, perhaps even earlier. However, people believing in something is not evidence that it actually happened. You really need to try and grasp that basic concept because it is pretty important.

Again how can i ever know if you dont explain what you mean by evidence?

The fact that early (first generation)Christians belived in the resurrection is conclusive evidence that they saw something that they interpreted as a resurrection.

This is what scholars have concluded

Virtually every Bible scholar across the Western world, regardless of religious background, agrees that Jesus’ earliest followers believed he appeared to them alive What Skeptical Scholars Admit about the Resurrection Appearances of Jesus

New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann writes: ‘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

https://www.premierchristianity.com/home/4-facts-that-only-fit-the-resurrection/2032.article

 

[KWED]

Or is it an other case where you can make any assertion without supporting it?

Here's the set up...

I provided a source that explains why most scholars date corinthians 1 15 at 2_3 years after the crucifixion.

Aaand here's the punchline!

No historian dates Corinthians at 2-3 years after the crucifixion - which is why you haven't been able to provide any such reference. It is just an "unsupported assertion".
All you did was quote a historian who claims that Corinthians was based on "a tradition that goes back to 2-3 years after the crucifixion".
Also worth bearing in mind that Ludemann considers the resurrection to be a case of delusion on the part of any primary witnesses, so appealing to his authority on the issue doesn't get you anywhere.

What else do you whant?

I want some evidence that shows the resurrection actually happened, not just claims that early Christians believed it happened.

 

[KWED]

I said that the gospels where written when eye witnesses where still alive.

There are many written accounts of the election being stolen that people believe are true, despite there being numerous living witnesses to the fact that it wasn't.

 

[KWED]

So receiving information from someone else = hearsay
Is that what you are saying ?

Jeez! It's like a foreign language.
As has been explained many times...
Hearsay: Information received from other people which cannot be substantiated (Oxford English Dictionary)

Again how can i ever know if you dont explain what you mean by evidence?

In this context it is easier to explain what is not evidence.
It is not hearsay.

The fact that early (first generation)Christians belived in the resurrection is conclusive evidence that they saw something that they interpreted as a resurrection.

No it isn't. The original resurrection account could have been a fabrication.
It is only evidence that they believed an already established account, which may or may not have been accurate.

https://www.premierchristianity.com/home/4-facts-that-only-fit-the-resurrection/2032.article

A poor argument that relies heavily on question begging. None of the four "facts" it relies on are in fact, "facts".
1. Jesus died on the cross - It is pretty certain that an actual person who became the Biblical character of "Jesus" was crucified by the Romans, probably for a crime against the Roman state, like sedition.

2. The empty tomb - A claim, not a fact. It assumes that the initial account is accurate. We have no way of confirming this.

3. People reported seeing Jesus risen. - See point 2. Also, people can be mistaken. Remember that in at least one account the disciples don't recognise the person and he has to tell them who he is.

4. Explosive growth of Christianity - As has already been explained to you, it was not initially "explosive". There were only around 1000 followers a decade after the crucifixion and fewer than 10,000 at the end of the century. The rapid expansion came several centuries after the supposed resurrection, so its accuracy would be irrelevant. It was already distant history/established myth.

 

[questfortruth]

There's a pretty good critique HERE.

Just Google it and you will find plenty of arguments debunking Aquinas's arguments.

tell me just one. Your favorite.

 

[KWED]

tell me just one. Your favorite.

Which of Aquinas' arguments is your favourite.

 

[lukethethird]

Who told you that?

Do you really not know the difference? The Bible can be found in the 'mythical' section of your local library, there is a reason for that. Have you read the stories in The Bible, can you say with a straight face that the stories can be corroborated, that they are of historical merit?

 

[Valjean]

So receiving information from someone else = hearsay

Is that what you are saying ?

That's the very definition of hearsay; something you heard said, as opposed to something you heard directly.
Gossip, water cooler chatter and Bible stories are hearsay.

Again how can i ever know if you dont explain what you mean by evidence?

The fact that early (first generation)Christians belived in the resurrection is conclusive evidence that they saw something that they interpreted as a resurrection.

No, it's evidence of their opinion, not where the opinion came from or why they believe it. The fact that the Irish believed in leprechauns, the Arabs in Jinn or the Norse in Odin is not evidence that anyone actually saw these beings.
Moreover, Mental hospitals are full of people who claim to have personally witnessed beings noöne else saw, or heard voices noöne else heard.
Finally, police and psychologists can attest to the fact that a dozen eyewitness to the same event are likely to report a dozen different events.

Th point is, even first person eyewitnesses are unreliable, and second person reporters even more so.

 

[Sheldon]

And will you provide evidence for that absurd claim? Or is it an other case where you can make any assertion without supporting it?

I already evidenced the assertion, and how is the broadly held views of biblical scholars absurd alongside the subjective opinions you offered? Also he was your source, not mine? So it's for you to support the claims he made that you quoted, instead you are insisting others validate your own source, here:

Well then go and check the original source where he explains how he arrives at that conclusion. If you think he is wrong, then point the flaws in his work

You have dishonestly ignored that, and more dishonestly attacked me with the falsehood that I don't evidence claims, when anyone can go back and read my posts to see I did precisely that.

However I will repost it here, even though I already posted the evidence that biblical scholars don't agree with your claim.

"The seven Pauline epistles considered by scholarly consensus to be genuine are dated to between AD 50 and 60 (i.e., approximately twenty to thirty years after the generally accepted time period for the death of Jesus) and are the earliest surviving Christian texts that may include information about Jesus."

I provided the "opinion " of an atheist scholar,

A subjective opinion, based on a single book, and you have failed to substantiate what it is based on, or provide any context beyond the claim. A claim not held by mainstream biblical scholars (see above).

What else do you whant?

There is no such word as whant (sic) in the English language.

 

[leroy]

Oh dear. This really isn't getting through, is it?

Corinthians account of the resurrection was written by someone who was not a witness to it. Therefore he must have been told about it by someone else (if he didn't make it up). Therefore it is hearsay, by definition.

And the stegosaurus fossil in the museum was not labeled by a witness ether. Somebody told him that it is an authentic fossil and he label it as such ………..so by your definition claiming that the fossil is authentic is hearsay too.

The point is that Paul knew multiple witnesses, so he was in a position to know that happened. He had access to first hand sources...........
If you what to arbitrary label all second hand sources as hearsay feel free to do it, but that doesn’t change anything.



So unless you what to proclaim a big massive conspiracy / it can be established that early Christians saw something that they interpreted as a resurrection. (which is what scholars say)

No you don't! The earliest "material" that mentions the resurrection dates from 20 years after the event.
You merely provided a reference to someone who opined that the story of the resurrection must have been going around before Paul wrote about it. There is no "material" from this date.

Paul is quoting a source from that date. ,,, but what is your point? Why isn’t this good enough?

Mine is that first generation Christians where already proclaiming the resurrection. (do you affirm otherwise?)

 

[Sheldon]

So receiving information from someone else = hearsay

Is that what you are saying ?

Hearsay
noun

1. information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour.

 

[leroy]

Tha
No, it's evidence of their opinion, not where the opinion came from or why they believe it. The fact that the Irish believed in leprechauns, the Arabs in Jinn or the Norse in Odin is not evidence that anyone actually saw these beings.
o.

At this point I am not claiming that early Christians saw an actual resurrection, just that they saw something that they interpreted as an actual resurrection. …………. Whether if it was a real resurrection / a hallucination / Jesus never died and fuelled everybody / Jesus had a tween brother or any hypothesis that you might have is a different discussion.

 

[leroy]

eroy said: ↑
So receiving information from someone else = hearsay

Is that what you are saying ?

Hearsay
noun

1. information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour.

Is that a yes or a no?--------- o yea I forgot you don’t answer questions directly.

 

[questfortruth]

Which of Aquinas' arguments is your favourite.

The modern atheists have no such brain-power as the Emmanuel Kant had. He has debunked all 5 ways of Thomas. But some researches still disagree with this debunkment. Hence, the modern atheists cannot give something new in addition to Kant achievement.

 

[leroy]

Do you really not know the difference? The Bible can be found in the 'mythical' section of your local library, there is a reason for that. Have you read the stories in The Bible, can you say with a straight face that the stories can be corroborated, that they are of historical merit?

The bible is not “a book” the bible is a bunch of independent documents each stands or falls by their own merits.

Historians use the new testament (gospels Paul, acts ..) as sources for real history.

 

[Sheldon]

I said that the gospels where written when eye witnesses where still alive.

You said it was a mathematical certainty.

so not even mathematical certainty is good enough for you,

Some of the people who knew jesus where still alive 30-60 years after the crucifixion, we know this because some people live more than 100 years. So statically speacking we are certain that some witnesses where still alive when the gospels where written. ...This is a trivial and uncontroversial truth.

I don't think certain means what you think it does.

 

[Sheldon]

The modern atheists have no such brain-power as the Emmanuel Kant had.

That is either very poorly worded, or it is preposterous hyperbole.

He has debunked all 5 ways of Thomas.

Well why ask if you already knew of someone who had debunked Aquinas's 5 ways?

But some researches still disagree with this debunkment.

Oh dear, debunkment (sic) seriously?

Hence, the modern atheists cannot give something new in addition to Kant achievement.

Another preposterous piece of unevidenced hyperbole. Why don't you try telling us why you think Aquinas's 5 ways are compelling arguments for a deity?