Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[Sheldon]

What scholars (and I ) are saying I that Paul quotes material that can be dated within 2 or 3 years after the crucifixion………

It´s funny because that quote clearly and unambiguously shows that I am not talking about Paul but his sources.

So you accept that nearly all biblical scholars agree, that the earliest written account of the crucifixion (Paul's), is dated to between 2 to 3 decades after the fact. Paul's sources are conjecture, and there is not a scholarly consensus on the source of any non Pauline material.

"Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, although interpretations of a number of the events mentioned in the gospels (most notably his miracles and resurrection) vary and are a subject of debate. Standard historical criteria have aided in evaluating the historicity of the gospel narratives, and only two key events are subject to "almost universal assent", namely that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified by order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate."

Everything else is hearsay.

<CITATION>

"The earliest mention of the resurrection is in the Pauline epistles, which tradition dates from between 50 and 58 AD."

 

[Sheldon]

Your unwillingness to see your mistakes is perplexing.

Your relentless and unintentional use of irony, less so.

I don’t know if your wet fit are evidence or not, because you haven’t provided a useful definition for evidence that would allow me to judge if wet fit are evidence or not.

You didn't read my post carefully did you, it had more than one question. I will try and dumb it down then.

Do you understand that evidence need not be compelling or conclusive?

Is your understanding of evidence different from mine?

Given I have quoted the dictionary definition of evidence over a dozen times for you, it's hard to imagine how you could not know this? Your failure is to comprehend that what qualifies as evidence and what qualifies as sufficient evidence are not necessarily the same thing, which was the purpose of my hypothetical example, which I had hoped might help you grasp this.

You keep asking what i will accept as evidence, and evert time I quote the dictionary definition, which means that is how I would define evidence, So firstly what is offered would need to satisfy that as a starting point, but that alone would not necessarily be sufficient, again as my hypothetical example tried to explain.

In order for me to believe a claim, I usually look that sufficient objective evidence can be demonstrated for it, there are three criteria there. Note sufficient is a qualifier that is determined by the nature of the claim. What is sufficient to support the claim I am standing in a puddle, would necessarily not be sufficient to support the claim own a spaceship. Though we can note that a) you failed to understand the simplicity if the first claim and see that even that can be unsupported by sufficient objective evidence, and b) despite the more extraordinary nature of the second claim, it is still something we know is possible prima facie.

Objective is a scale, staring at zero for a claim that is entirely subjective. The credence attached rises with the objectivity that can be demonstrated. It is necessarily not an absolute, yet it is not epistemologically unreasonable to assert that there are objective facts. "The earth is not flat" for example.

I cannot make my explanation any clearer than this, I can only address what is offered with an open mind, on the subjective basis that this is the standard i set for belief. the best I can say is that it is unbiased, and all claims and beliefs are subjected to the same standard.

 

[leroy]

He's misrepresenting the scholastic consensus, and conflating it with religious belief. Most biblical scholars, being theists, may believe in the resurrection, but no credible theologian or biblical scholar would use the kind of bombastic hyperbole @leroy is making up here.

That is a strawman, I said that most scholars accept those 5 facts, not that they accept the resurrection.

 

[leroy]

1, It is a legend? Is this another word you are rejecting but don't actually know the definition of? A legend is a traditional story sometimes popularly regarded as historical, but not authenticated, ipso facto it is a legend.

The 5 facts have been authenticated; this is why scholars accept hem as facts

2. There isn't a single contemporary account, and the authors of the gospels are unknown, hence they are by definition hearsay?

Changing your definition for hearsay ?

3. Are you seriously going to claim early followers did not have an agenda?




We can't know what they did and did not make up, beyond someone with a reasonably common name for the period, suffering a reasonably common execution method of the period at the hands of the Romans. The rest, including any and all claims to divinity and supernatural miracles, would be part of the agenda that became the Christian religion. I shall leave it to common sense as to the ignorance and superstition of the era and locale, and to how much duplicity people are capable of beyond that when trying to champion a cause like a religion.

The problem is that you only comment for the sake of commenting when you are obviously not following the conversation / we are not talking about supernatural stuff, we are talking about the 5 facts

1 who invented those facts? Paul? The apostoles? The authors of the gosples? The church? a Pope?

2 what agenda did he /they had for inventing any of those 5 facts?

O wait I forgot you don’t answer questions

 

[leroy]

I answered your question, you are insisting on a yes no answer as a false dichotomy, in order to read into such an answer opinions and positions I do not hold.

Are you still beating your wife?

I know what a false dichotomy fallacy is, and am not going to fall for it. Your question was not a yes or no question, as such a facile response would be irrational.

It´s not a false dichotomy, there really are only 2 possible answers Yes or No. (or “I don’t know perhaps”)

it´s just a question regarding your views

 

[leroy]

There are no independent authors,

Well Mark and Paul are independent authors. Do you have any evidence that suggests otherwise?

you don't even know the names of the authors of the gospels

So what? who cares if the author´s name is Mark or Joe, or Billy? Why is that relevant?

, the bible is the only source you have

The bible is not a single source, the bible (New Testament) is a bunch of independent documents.

. You are also using an argumentum ad populum fallacy. As has been pointed out to you, this is the most extra ordinary of claims, and you are setting the lowest possible bar of credulity, second or third hand hearsay, penned decades after the fact, by unknown authorship.

You are still proclaiming hearsay without any evidence to support that claim. As I said it would have been very unlikely (nearly impossible) for 2 or more authors to have independently invented the same lie (like the empty tomb for example)

 

[leroy]

Yours is an absolute claim, mine is an attempt at an objective observation of the facts.

So your claim “something possible is better than something that has not been proven to be possible” doesn’t always apply, but it does apply in this particular situation? Is this a correct understanding of your view?

 

[Sheldon]

That is a strawman, I said that most scholars accept those 5 facts, not that they accept the resurrection.

I never claimed you did. Here is my post again verbatim:

He's misrepresenting the scholastic consensus, and conflating it with religious belief. Most biblical scholars, being theists, may believe in the resurrection, but no credible theologian or biblical scholar would use the kind of bombastic hyperbole @leroy is making up here.

 

[Sheldon]

The 5 facts have been authenticated; this is why scholars accept hem as facts

No they haven't, and no they don't. Only two facts are accepted by a scholarly consensus, Jesus existing as an historical person, and the crucifixion. The rest are second hand hearsay from unknown authors, at best.

 

[Sheldon]

Changing your definition for hearsay ?

No.

The problem is that you only comment for the sake of commenting when you are obviously not following the conversation / we are not talking about supernatural stuff, we are talking about the 5 facts

They're not facts, and you claimed we knew them to a high degree of certainty, which isn't true. There is a scholarly consensus that Jesus existed as an historical person, and that he was crucified, but not to a high degree of certainty, the rest of your claims are unevidenced hearsay from unknown authors.

1 who invented those facts? Paul? The apostoles? The authors of the gosples? The church? a Pope?

They're not facts, and since you are the one claiming they are, it is for you to demonstrate any pertinent evidence to support them, including authorship.

2 what agenda did he /they had for inventing any of those 5 facts?

They're not facts, and I just answered this in the post you're responding to.

O wait I forgot you don’t answer questions

Petty ad hominem, speaks for itself.

 

[leroy]

So you accept that nearly all biblical scholars agree, that the earliest written account of the crucifixion (Paul's), is dated to between 2 to 3 decades after the fact

Yes………..(wow I answered with cleat and unambiguous YES) why can’t you?

. Paul's sources are conjecture,

Well yes, but you make it seems as if it where something “bad”

 

[Sheldon]

It´s not a false dichotomy, there really are only 2 possible answers Yes or No. (or “I don’t know perhaps”)

it´s just a question regarding your views

Are you still beating your wife?

Do you think if you persist with this I will suddenly not know what a false dichotomy is? I gave you expansive answers, but you clearly can't reason beyond the most facile responses, which is a problem, but I am afraid it is your problem not mine.

 

[Sheldon]

You are still proclaiming hearsay without any evidence to support that claim.

 

[Sheldon]

So your claim “something possible is better than something that has not been proven to be possible” doesn’t always apply, but it does apply in this particular situation? Is this a correct understanding of your view?

We know natural phenomena are possible, we have no objective evidence that anything supernatural is possible, thus your claim that a supernatural resurrection is "the most probable explanation" is demonstrably false.

 

[Sheldon]

Yes………..(wow I answered with cleat and unambiguous YES) why can’t you?

This was by no means clear.

Well yes, but you make it seems as if it where something “bad”

You think basing arguments and beliefs on unevidenced conjecture, received as second hand hearsay is a good idea? Can't say I agree.

 

[leroy]

They're not facts, and since you are the one claiming they are, it is for you to demonstrate any pertinent evidence to support them, including authorship.

The problem is that you are only commenting for the sake of commenting without understanding the context of the conversation.

If someone is going to claim that the empty tomb (or any other of the 5 facts) is an unsupported rumor invented by someone with an agenda, I am just asking him to develop a falsifiable hypothesis explaining the origin of the rumor, who invented it and what agenda did he have. Who invented the rumor, Paul, Peter, the authors of the Gospels, the Vatican, the church feathers? And why?

But of course we both know that developing a testable hypothesis is non of your interest, it´s much easier to simply claim hearsay, hearsay, hearsay without any justification .

 

[leroy]

Do you think if you persist with this I will suddenly not know what a false dichotomy is? I gave you expansive answers, but you clearly can't reason beyond the most facile responses, which is a problem, but I am afraid it is your problem not mine.

But your extencive answers dont expalin if you accept or deny those facts ...

besides your extensive answers have been responded, for example the claim that the empty tomb and the post mortem appearances is hearsay is refuted by the fact that multiple independent sources confirm this claim.

It´s unlikely (nearly impossible) for 2 or more independent authors to invent the exact same rumor independently.

The fact that you ignore this reply strongly suggest that you don’t have an answer.

 

[leroy]

We know natural phenomena are possible, we have no objective evidence that anything supernatural is possible, thus your claim that a supernatural resurrection is "the most probable explanation" is demonstrably false.

No the conclusion “it´s demonstrably false” doesn’t follow from your premises. // you have to elaborate an argument and explain why is it demonstrably false……………… o wait you don’t elaborate arguments because you are just a fanatic atheists that is not interested in a rational conversation

 

[leroy]

This was by no means clear.



You think basing arguments and beliefs on unevidenced conjecture, received as second hand hearsay is a good idea? Can't say I agree.

You are adding extra and extra word (in red)

It is not “unevidenced conjecture” the evidence has been provided and ignored

 

[joelr]

That is a strawman, I said that most scholars accept those 5 facts, not that they accept the resurrection.
1 jesus was crucified

2 jesus was buried

3 the tomb was found emty

Those are not facts, they are stories in a myth. Obviously Richard Carrier finds the gospel narratives to be fiction. So does historian Raphael Lataster who also has a peer0reviewed book on mythicism and agrees with Carriers position.
Books | Raphael Lataster

Questioning the Historicity of Jesus: Why a Philosophical Analysis Elucidates the Historical Discourse (2019)

Raphael Lataster holds a PhD (Studies in Religion) from the University of Sydney, and lectures there and at other institutions. His main academic research interests include Philosophy of Religion, Christian origins, and alternative god-concepts such as pantheism and pandeism.

Bart Ehrman believes these events may have happened but like all stories in the gospels it is not certain. He did personal research into Roman practices after crucifixion and found that the body was not allowed to be taken down for several days. From his blog:
"Sometimes Christian apologists argue that Jesus had to be taken off the cross before sunset on Friday, because the next day was Sabbath and it was against Jewish Law, or at least Jewish sensitivities, to allow a person to remain on the cross during the Sabbath. Unfortunately, the historical record suggests just the opposite. It was not Jews who killed Jesus, and so they had no say about when he would be taken down from the cross. Moreover, the Romans who did crucify him had no concern to obey Jewish Law, and virtually no concern about Jewish sensitivities. Quite the contrary. When it came to crucified criminals – in this case, someone charged with crimes against the state – there was regularly no mercy and no concern for anyone’s sensitivities. The point of crucifixion was to torture and humiliate a person as fully as possible, and to show any bystanders what happens to someone who is a troublemaker in the eyes of Rome. Part of the humiliation and degradation was being left on the cross after death, to be subject to the scavenging animals."
Argument Against Jesus' Burial in HJBG, Part 1 | The Bart Ehrman Blog

So it isn't possible historically that a body was put in a tomb. But I already posted on the many reasons why Mark created an empty tomb in his story.

Then you have the issue of dying/rising demigod saviors, which Judaism was exposed to during the Persian and Greek occupation and prophecized they would also have one. The savior needs to undergo a passion, actually die and then defeat death to allow the reward to be passed on to baptized followers to grant them salvation.

4 the disciples (and others) had experiences that they interpreted as having seen the risen jesus

5 Paul and James converted to Christianity After the death of Jesus.

Yeah sure. And Jesus pulled devils out of pigs and then they ran off a cliff. And dead bodies of saints stood up out of the grave during the earthquakes and the sun going out when Jesus was going through his ordeal.
The disciples are characters in a myth.
In the Quran many miracles happened, they were witnessed by PEOPLE IN THE STORY!! Wow, they must be true!

Paul converted to Christianity. It's known that the savior demigod was the most popular religious movement at the time. One person converting to a new cult does not provide any type of evidence. He then lied and made claims that ghost Jesus in his transcendent form came to visit him several times. Ghost Jesus and Paul were oddly misogynistic, didn't want women speaking in church, thought it better to not get married, mainly because Jesus was coming back soon. Paul knew of no ministry, earthy happenings of Jesus, nothing. He hears Jesus was killed by the archeons of the age. Pretty good indication that the myth hadn't formed yet, just the basics. Mark of course made up the Earthly tales using the OT narratives, a transfiguration of the Romulus story, Jesus Ben Damieus and a few other fiction sources. 20,000 words and Paul doesn't mention the Romans killing Jesus one time?
This fits with the idea that Mark was the first to make up this part of the story. His gospel is a master class in fiction writing. The 2nd highest ranking Rank Ragalin hero type character ever, ring structure, events nestled in events, a remarkable chiasmus that could never happen in real life, improbable events, no sources or explanations (ancient bios would always source and explain odd events) and more. This writer clearly came from the Greek school of writing and knew what he was doing. This is myth-making 101.

So there is nothing here that resembles a solid fact except that a story was written.
Even if by some huge coincidence there was a real teacher named Jesus and he was killed by the Romans, the evidence doesn't support it and it means a person was killed by the Romans. You cannot get to magic and deities from this or any other fiction.
Although if this actually happened many people would have written about it. It would have served as a clear religious narrative. Yet the 2nd century shows a diverse Christianity, 50% being Gnostic which is often radically removed from mainstream beliefs. As the letters of Bishop Iraneous shows, each. group thought the others were heretics.
Iraneous wanted structure (power) and for only a few to be able to interpret and read scripture. Hmmm, wonder why? Well he won over the easy going sects. Was his version any more true? No.
Elaine Pagels book the Lost Gospels covers this.