Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[KWED]

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.

It is possible that a few people witnessed something that they believed was Jesus risen from the dead. However, we cannot know for certain.
Given this lack of knowledge, the lack of any independent corroborative evidence, the existing belief that such an event was required to fulfil prophesy, and the impossibility of the event, it is unreasonable to insist that it did happen, or even that it probably happened.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Scientologists believe that when L. Ron Hubbard died in 1986, what happened was that Hubbard considered his body an "impediment" and "dropped his body" so he could continue his research on other planets.

Do you consider this "conclusive evidence" that L. Ron Hubbard is alive on another planet despite having died?

 

[KWED]

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.

Genuinely baffled as to what you are trying to say there.

 

[KWED]

The bible is not “a book”

Of course it is. Even the word "bible" is from the Koine Greek for "book".

the bible is a bunch of independent documents each stands or falls by their own merits.

As historical documents, they fall because much of the contents are extraordinary claims of magic with no support or corroboration.

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

No they don't. Whether or not the gospels are historically accurate, and to what degree is a whole field of study in itself.

 

[KWED]

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

Wrong again.
There is no such "material". Ludemann merely suggests that Paul was referencing a myth that was already in circulation. It is possible that Paul's account was the first time it was ever written down. We have no way of knowing, either way.

 

[KWED]

The NT proves with high degree of certainty that:
1 Jesus died on the cross
2 was buried
3 the tomb as found empty
4 early Christians saw something that they interpreted as a resurrection.
5 Paul and James became christian after the crusifixtion

Circular logic.
The NT makes those claims, so you can't use those claims as evidence that those claims are true. This is pretty basic stuff.

Whether if you what to label this as evidence for the resurrection or not depends on your own personal and subjective understanding of the word “evidence”

Of course it isn't "evidence" for the resurrection, by any definition of the word.

 

[KWED]

I am mathematically extremely talented:
Evaluation of the Gauss integral

John Nash won a Nobel Prize for his mathematical work. He was also batcrap crazy and spent many years in psychiatric institutions.

 

[KWED]

I have published in top moderated elite arXiv.org and we are looking for most suitable journal now.

arxiv is an open access forum where anyone can post anything as long as it is deemed to be scientific/mathematical in nature. Publications are not peer-reviewed. Having a paper on there is pretty meaningless in genuine scientific publication terms.

 

[KWED]

Does scientists use arXiv.org as a main publisher place?

No. Papers presented for publication are not peer-reviewed. They are merely checked to confirm that they are scientific/mathematical in nature.

 

[KWED]

But the four Gospels are of unknown authorship. Noöne knows where they came from. Moreover, there are other gospels that early church leaders decided didn't paint the picture they wanted to promote, so they just omitted them.

My favourite is the Infancy Gospel of Matthew, in which the Baby Jesus tames a cave of dragons, and as a teenager, kills a boy who bumped into him just by looking at him (he had to bring him back to life when his parents got cross).

 

[KWED]

They are bad, not good. Because Science and Religion are two names of God.

Get some rest.

 

[questfortruth]

arxiv is an open access forum where anyone can post anything

No. Please read the rules.

 

[questfortruth]

Circular logic.
The NT makes those claims, so you can't use those claims as evidence that those claims are true. This is pretty basic stuff.

The source of word Jesus Christ is Bible. Hence, if atheists use this word, they must use the definition of this word: God.

 

[KWED]

No. Please read the rules.

WADR, you need to read the rules. Anyone can submit a paper. The papers are not peer-reviewed or in any way validated.

 

[questfortruth]

WADR, you need to read the rules. Anyone can submit a paper. The papers are not peer-reviewed or in any way validated.

Look up the section "endorsement" in the rules, please.

 

[Valjean]

The source of word Jesus Christ is Bible. Hence, if atheists use this word, they must use the definition of this word: God.

Huh?

 

[KWED]

Look up the section "endorsement" in the rules, please.

Some people get automatic endorsements. Others simply get an existing author to endorse them. There is no restriction on who can publish, and their work isn't checked for validity or accuracy.
Having a paper on arXiv is not like having one in a peer-reviewed journal. It doesn't mean that you are particularly clever or special. It's certainly not something you should keep bragging about. When it's in The American Statistician or Statistical Science, let me know and I'll give you a like.

 

[Spirit of Light]

The source of word Jesus Christ is Bible. Hence, if atheists use this word, they must use the definition of this word: God.

But Athists does not believe in Jesus nor God, so why would they use a defenition they dont believe in?

 

[questfortruth]

Some people get automatic endorsements. Others simply get an existing author to endorse them.

It is impossible to get endorsement.

 

[questfortruth]

But Athists does not believe in Jesus nor God, so why would they use a defenition they dont believe in?

Then they cannot use term Jesus Christ. It comes together with definition. Its definition: God.