Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[SkepticThinker]

In fact there are 6 different" stories " isen't this amazing you have 6 independent sources reporting the same event


,

What was their agenda?


Outside from where? ....... you have 6 independent sources written within 1 generation reporting the same event (emty tomb) what do you mean by "outside " ?

From outside the Bible.

 

[leroy]

From outside the Bible.

Why is that important? Any document falls or stands by its own merits, being inside or outside the Bible is irrelevant

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In fact there are 6 different" stories " isen't this amazing you have 6 independent sources reporting the same event

Psst: when one account uses another as a source, or when they both use a common source, they aren't "independent."

 

[Valjean]

@Valjean made a similar point.

If multiple independent accounts report the same event, then its not hearsay that is the point. Multiple independent sources are unlikely to invent the same rumor.

If each report is, itself, hearsay, the report is hearsay. Hearsay reports don't accumulate into an eyewitness report.
All the reports are from biblical sources. All reporters had a similar agenda. None are first person, eyewitness accounts, hence, hearsay.

Multiple, similar reports are not necessarily good evidence. You'll find multiple reports of all kinds of miraculous events, in writings from many religions. What makes Christian reports more reliable than reports from other religions?

 

[Valjean]

In fact there are 6 different" stories " isen't this amazing you have 6 independent sources reporting the same event

But the stories report different events. Mark, for example, doesn't report an empty tomb. He reports it occupied by a young man in a white robe.

What was their agenda?

Promotion of their religious doctrine.

Outside from where? ....... you have 6 independent sources written within 1 generation reporting the same event (emty tomb) what do you mean by "outside " ?

I mean reports from disinterested parties, or doctrinal opponents.

 

[Sheldon]

Unevidenced sources. You're supporting hearsay with more hearsay, from sources with an agenda.

Exactly, @leroy is asserting that hearsay stops being hearsay, if you gather enough of it.

 

[Sheldon]

Ok one would wonder what you mean by "explanation " but ok ill change elephants for something more realistic.

Only if one can't read and understand a simple word definition.

Based on your reasoning "chance" is a better explanation for the flatness of the universe than inflation.

I can explain my own reasoning thank you, I don't need any of your facile straw man analogies. Like your ludicrous elephant analogy. We are dealing specifically with your claim that an unevidenced supernatural claim is the most probable explanations for a hearsay occurrence, rather than an unknown natural explanation.

So by your logic

There is only logic, no one has their own, if you are going to assert logical flaws in my rationale then present your evidence or argument, and stop assigning bs straw men to me.

And would you claim that any of these hypothesis is more likely to be true than "the tomb was empty " ?

I already explained we don't know there was an empty tomb, or if there was why it might have been empty, that is entirely the point. You asked for hypothetical alternatives to your claim an unevidenced supernatural resurrection was the most probable "explanation" for this alleged empty tomb. So I have no idea where you're shifting the goal posts to now, or why.

Alternative hypothetical explanations for an alleged empty tomb, that are more probable than an unevidenced supernatural resurrection.

1. The tomb was not empty, someone made it all up.
2. The body was never in the tomb.
3. Someone took the body for reasons unknown.
4. The body was in the tomb and someone again made up the claim.

You dont have to accept any supernatural stuff , you can accept the emty tomb and the other 4 facts without concluding "miracles "

Given this whole debate is predicated on your claim that a supernatural resurrection is the most probable explanation for hearsay events, this is a rather pointless assertion. Why would I accept unevidenced hearsay at all, let a lone for unevidenced magic? There are not 4 facts, and this whole debate is predicated on your assertion that an unevidenced supernatural resurrection is "the best "explanation" for this alleged empty tomb. Which is nonsense of course, as has been explained.

 

[Sheldon]

@Valjean made a similar point.

If multiple independent accounts report the same event, then its not hearsay that is the point. Multiple independent sources are unlikely to invent the same rumor.

You don't have multiple independent accounts, you have second or third hand hearsay, the number of times this hearsay is repeated in the bible doesn't magically change it from being hearsay. The unevidenced narratives of the gospels are from unknown authors, and none of the stories are contemporary, the earliest written accounts dating decades after the event, and many centuries later, written in a foreign language.

They cannot be substantiated independently, thus by definition they are hearsay. Only the existence of an historical Jesus and the crucifixion are held as likely true by a scholarly consensus. The rest is hearsay, and even those two claims are not held as true to "a high degree of certainty" as you claimed.

You're simply repeating the same spurious claims over and over.

 

[Sheldon]

In fact there are 6 different" stories " isen't this amazing you have 6 independent sources reporting the same event

There aren't 6 independent sources, no matter how many toes you repeat this lie.

Outside from where?

Outside of unsubstantiated biblical hearsay.

you have 6 independent sources

No you don't...

written within 1 generation

Most scholars since the late 19th century have accepted. the Gospel of Mark was the first of the three synoptic gospels to be written, and was used as a source by the other two (Matthew and Luke). The Egypt Exploration Society has recently published a Greek papyrus that is likely the earliest fragment of the Gospel of Mark, dating it from between A.D. 150–250.

reporting the same event (emty tomb)

Making the same hearsay claim, broadly speaking, though these hearsay stories differ in various parts of the narrative of course.

 

[Sheldon]

Psst: when one account uses another as a source, or when they both use a common source, they aren't "independent."

Ding ding ding, we have a winner....it is also pretty silly to try and claim anything is an independent account, when you don't know who wrote it.

 

[joelr]

there are 8 independent sources that you keep ignoring (sources at the end of this post)


1. Mark’s Gospel closes with the story of the women’s discovery of Jesus’ empty tomb. But Mark did not compose his account out of whole cloth. He appears to have drawn upon a prior source for Jesus’ Passion, that is, the final week of his suffering and death. When you read the Gospel of Mark, you will find that it consists of a series of unconnected anecdotes about Jesus, rather like beads on a string, which may not always be chronologically arranged. But when it comes to the final week of Jesus’ life, we do find a continuous, chronological account of his activities, arrest, trial, condemnation and death. Scholars thus think that Mark drew upon a pre-Markan Passion story in the composition of his Gospel. Interestingly, this pre-Markan Passion source probably included the account of Jesus’ burial by Joseph in the tomb and the women’s discovery of the empty tomb. Since Mark is already the earliest of our Gospels, this pre-Markan Passion story is an extremely early source which is valuable for our reconstruction of the fate of Jesus of Nazareth, including his burial and empty tomb.

Scholars? What scholars? There is some interest in Q, M and other possible sources but since Goodacres work has been peer-reviewed the case against Q and other sources by extention has been ended. The Markan priority is the conclusion.
The Case Against Q: A Synoptic Problem Web Site by Mark Goodacre
Bible.org has a good post explaining the arguments. Mark is the source. He made some stuff up and used many older sources to create a narrative. Sometimes verbatim sometimes transfiguration sometimes he re-worked a concept like Jesus telling Paul he is the body and blood for future Christians and Mark makes it into a last supper.
The idea
It looks like all Biblical historians consider the pre-Markan Passion to be junk. Evangelists seem to be the only who find it compelling. I did find Ray Brown partially endorsing it. He is a conservative NT scholar. He also believes the evidence shows John used Mark as a source.

"
Today scholars may be almost evenly divided on whether or not to posit the existence of a pre-Markan passion narrative (PN), although I suspect that the majority still posit it (them), …I am not sure that anyone can reconstruct the preMarcan PN(s) or the exact sources that Mark used.

…I think that John did not draw his PN from Mark (or vice versa), agreement between them should point most of the time to preGospel material. Yet there are many scholars who argue for Johannine dependence on Mark, and that weakens the criterion."

Brown
So passing this off like it's fact is such cherry-picking? You realize you are asking for good logical arguments and then using very poor standards as long as they favor your position?

2. Matthew clearly had independent sources (designated “M”) apart from Mark for the story of the empty tomb, for he includes the story of the guard posted at Jesus’ tomb, a story not found in Mark. The story is not Matthew’s creation because it is suffused with non-Matthean vocabulary, which indicates that he is drawing upon prior tradition. Moreover, the polemic between Jewish Christians and Jewish non-Christians presupposes a history of dispute that probably goes back before the destruction of Jerusalem to the earliest debates in that city over the disciples’ proclamation, “He is risen from the dead.”

Q and M are out. Modern scholarship has proven the evidence isn't there. From a historian:
This is what happens over and over again with every “example” that is supposed to prove any theory of Q (MacDonald’s or any other). Sometimes the only way to get to their argument is to adopt a huge edifice of assumptions, none of which are empirically proven, and some of which are dubious or outright disprovable. Sometimes the only way to get to their argument is to adopt a circular presumption, by which you interpret what an author does as evincing a reliance on Q, and then use that as evidence the author is evincing a reliance on Q. But worse, all of the time, the best alternative hypothesis is never being properly compared with the Q hypothesis. Rather than sincerely and ardently trying to disprove Q and failing (the only way to ever validly prove anything), they evade exactly that method and engage in verification fallacies instead, where they “see” everything as conforming to their theory—and then use everything as evidence for their theory—without correctly taking into account the fact that each of those things may well have as good or even better an explanation. Of course, already, prior probability cannot favor Q, as the “Luke redacted Mark and Matthew” hypothesis contains fewer assumptions, all of them in evidence (we have Mark and Matthew, and we can prove Luke used them); Q does not. So you really need good evidence for Q. And there just isn’t any. And as long as historians keep using illogical and backwards and unvalidated methodologies, they’ll fail to admit this.

full post at - The Backwards and Unempirical Logic of Q Apologetics • Richard Carrier

 

[joelr]

3. Luke also has independent sources (designated “L”) for the empty tomb, since he includes the story of the visit of Peter and another, unnamed disciple to Jesus’ tomb to verify the women’s report. This incident cannot be a Lukan creation because it is also mentioned in John, which is independent of Luke’s Gospel.

4. John’s Gospel is generally recognized to be independent of the other three, called the Synoptic Gospels. John also has an empty tomb narrative which some would say is the most primitive tradition of all.

No it's not. Conservative Ray Brown admitted John sourced Mark. But it was also redacted many times after the original.

"That John is responding to Luke is actually a growing consensus in Johannine studies; likewise that John has been multiply redacted, such that our version is not the one originally written. … External evidence placing the Gospel of John’s appearance in history is also the scarcest [relative to the previous three Gospels]. It could have been written as late as the 140s (some argue even later) or as early as the 100s (provided Luke was written in the 90s [which a growing consensus now considers its earliest likely date]). I will arbitrarily side with the earlier of those dates. John was redacted multiple times and thus had multiple authors. (This is already the consensus of Johannine experts.) Nothing is known of them. John’s authors (plural) claim to have used a written source composed by an anonymous eyewitness (21.20-25), but that witness does not exist in any prior Gospel, yet is conspicuously inserted into John’s rewrites of their narratives (e.g. compare Jn 20.2 with Lk. 24.12 [likewise his insertion into the fishing story and last supper story and crucifixion story and his replacement of the resurrections at Nain and Gerasa]) and so is almost certainly a fabrication (as I show in Chapter 10, §7)."

Why You Should Not Believe the Apostle John Wrote the Last Gospel • Richard Carrier


Carrier on all gospel sources:
32. “Q Document/Source”

Doesn’t exist (OHJ, pp. 269-70, 470-73).

And even if it did, for all we know it was just another redaction of Mark.

Contrary to what Bishop claims, there is absolutely no evidence whatever that Q was written before Mark, or even that it didn’t use Mark as a source—that Q was separate from Mark is based solely on a circular argument.Doesn’t exist. See item 4.Doesn’t exist. See item 4.Proving History, ch. 2, Axiom 5), arguing from what is merely possible, to what is somehow magically probable.

37. “Pre-John Source”

Doesn’t exist (OHJ. ch. 10.7). John is a free redaction of Mark and Luke. With even more ridiculous embellishments than were attempted by Matthew.
34. “M Document/Source”

Doesn’t exist. See item 4.Proving History, ch. 2, Axiom 5), arguing from what is merely possible, to what is somehow magically probable.

37. “Pre-John Source”

Doesn’t exist (OHJ. ch. 10.7). John is a free redaction of Mark and Luke. With even more ridiculous embellishments than were attempted by Matthew.

5. The apostolic sermons in the book of Acts were probably not created by Luke out of whole cloth but also draw upon prior tradition for the early apostolic preaching. In Acts 2, Peter contrasts King David, whose “tomb is with us to this day,” with Jesus, whom “God raised up.” The contrast clearly implies that Jesus’ tomb was empty.

Acts is well proven historical fiction. Luke extends Jesus post-resurrection to 40 days. Then he flies into space to live with angels (Acts 1.3-12). We can look at all the scholarship on Acts. Definitely fiction.

6. In I Corinthians 15.3-5, Paul quotes an old Christian formula summarizing the apostolic preaching. The pre-Pauline formula has been dated to go back to within five years of Jesus’ crucifixion. The second line of the formula refers to Jesus’ burial and the third line to his rising from the dead. No first century Jew could have understood this in any other way than that Jesus’ body no longer lay in the grave. But was the burial mentioned by the pre-Pauline formula Jesus’ burial by Joseph in the tomb? A comparison of the four-line formula with the Gospels on the one hand and the apostolic sermons, for example in Acts 13, on the other allows us to answer that question with confidence. The pre-Pauline formula is an outline, point for point, of the principal events of Jesus’ death and resurrection as related in the Gospels and Acts

First Paul says he was buried. In Mark he was laid on a sepulchre and the entrance closed.
Anyways, not an uncommon myth -
" and “after three days and three nights” her assistants ask for her corpse and resurrect her (by feeding her the “water” and “food” of life), and “Inanna arose” according to what had been her plan all along, because she knew her father “would surely bring me back to life,” "

Osirus was clearly buried, "“Raise thyself up; shake off thy dust; remove the dirt which is on thy face; loose thy bandages!”" The Osirus tale was told as am Earthly resurrection but the followers were told the "true story" that this happened in the celestial realm!
In fact Paul may have been talking about the Jesus passion happening in that realm as well. Jesus dying by "Archons of the age" as Paul states sounds very suspicious. The Romans are not that. Evil supernatural forces are that.
You also just demonstrated what clearly happened! Paul gave a short outline, the savior resurrection myth was just starting to actually evolve in Judaism and they had a basic outline. Saviors were around, they prophecized they would get one and when these tales began being told some were ready to buy into it.
Later Mark develops it with his obvious high-level Greek myth writing and the others riff of that. Something that happens millions of times throughout history with great literature, myths, fiction. Yet you think this one time it's literal. Despite the evidence completely showing this is religious syncretism and myth making at its most obvious.
Yes the Gospels and Acts expanded on the story? They are trained writers, trained in fiction at that. What do you think they are going to do? Each Gospel was intended to be a better version of the ones before it. They were supposed to cancel out the previous.
Somehow you feel this clear example of a story evolving demonstrates it's all true? Were it true in any way (even if a human preacher was killed), it would be obvious from the start. The story would not evolve if the first author knew the actual story.

 

[joelr]

Irrelevant we still have 6 independent sources (multiple independent sources disprove the hearsay hypothesis)

Mark is written around 70 A.D. The average human lifetime was 38 years. So it was more than a human lifetime not within a lifetime.

Although Q, M, and preJohn are not taken as sources I don't understand your math? If Q was a source for Mark and M was a source for Matthew then that is 2 sources? Mark and Matthew no longer count as independent.

Mark is the actual source. There are multiple lines of evidence why and how he made it up. So that is all covered. Everyone else had time to read Marks version and redact it as they saw fit.

It has been shown that there wasn't much of an oral tradition. Mark invented his narrative through sources mentioned but many still assume some sort of oral tradition.
If this were true then all the writers would have heard the story in some form and written it into their version. So even if multiple independent sources existed they would be riffing off oral tradition anyways?

 

[joelr]

scholars believe the empty tomb

Even a Wiki pro-Christian article on the subject shows this is simply not true. The fundamentalists surely do while many others do not. They break scholarship down to 4 groups with only one supporting your argument?


The historicity and origin of the resurrection of Jesus has been the subject of historical research and debate, as well as a topic of discussion among theologians. The accounts of the Gospels, including the empty tomb and the appearances of the risen Jesus to his followers, have been interpreted and analyzed in diverse ways, and have been seen variously:

as historical accounts of a literal event,

as accurate accounts of visionary experiences,

as non-literal eschatological parables,

and as fabrications of early Christian writers,

among various other interpretations. It has been suggested, for example, that Jesus did not die on the cross, that the empty tomb was the result of Jesus' body having been stolen, or, as was common with Roman crucifixions, that Jesus was never entombed.

Post-Enlightenment historians work with methodological naturalism,[1][2] and therefore reject miracles as objective historical facts.[1]

Historicity and origin of the resurrection of Jesus - Wikipedia

 

[rational experiences]

If humans eyewitnesses accounts sin holes grotto cave type opened emptying stone.

As entombed spirit of God is gas. Stone owns it and not science.

Hence science doesn't own any thesis.

The Isis was the sis.

Hence the teaching said heavens Ch gases were cold. Dead term not alive as life existing is by light.

Proving living humans were telling the story as human scientists as men are coercive liars. Telling a story hence owned exact human told symbolism.

So particular used terms were used to depict why human scientists are liars.

Science on earth isn't a safe practice for life. Earth stone gases entombed dead cold in space black said theism. Spirit of earths gas. Space vacuum black cooled.

Spirit gas alive in earth means it was set alight.

Set in egypt as God involved numbers.

As symbolisms.

Science Egyptian.mayan history long count.

If man gets life sacrificed by causing sin in science it was new sin K holes as modern science caused also.

As science didn't invent clouds and only earth owns the gases of science and you set alight mass as dark cold gas to get a gas ....you don't own a heavens thesis.

 

[Truth&Hope]

Me: "Gnostic Atheists say that there is no God. Nevertheless, scientists have not come to this Atheism's claim. Are you smarter than scientists? Why doesn't science say there is no God?"

She: "Do I think that scientists are madder than me? Atheists do not do this. The one who claims must prove the claim and not vice versa."

Me: Atheists make a lot of claims. For example, they say there is no God. Does this phrase carry absolutely no meaning and no information? If it does, then they claim that there is no God. So, atheists do claim, and not only their Atheism claims. Atheists repeat the claims of Atheism.

If you don't like the atheists "No belief in God"....
It carries no information. It is just definition of Atheism, which is simply "No God". No new info is presented by "No belief in God".

1. Most of humankind is perfectly sure, there is God. They even feel God and talk to God.
2. Most of humankind is not crazy.
This 1+2 is very strong evidence.

All theists are right in one dogma: There is God. Some theists, like Einstein, are wrong that the God is not a personal god; but they are right that there is God. Polytheists are right that there is God, but wrong about His quantity.

In the end, only Truth remains. So, it matters not what we, all humans, believe to be true.
Our beliefs don’t make or change the truth. And since truth is absolute, there can be only one.

 

[KWED]

Why is that important? Any document falls or stands by its own merits,

Absolute nonsense. Any claims made must be supported and verified by independent sources, whatever the subject.
Imagine if journalism or the law operated under your principle!

 

[Truth&Hope]

Absolute nonsense. Any claims made must be supported and verified by independent sources, whatever the subject.
Imagine if journalism or the law operated under your principle!

With regards to ultimate truth. Two different worldviews cannot both be true because fundamentally they are very different.

 

[leroy]

Psst: when one account uses another as a source, or when they both use a common source, they aren't "independent."

Ok and can you show that they all depebend from the sane source?

The sources for the emty tomb are

1 Pre Markian source known as the "Passion"

2 "M" source

3 "L" source

4 the gospel of John

5 the apostolic sermons in Acts

6 Corinthians
More info
Independent Sources of the Empty Tomb

So who copied from who? Can you show that the sources are dependent? Or is it an other case where you simply made a claim and you wont support it?

 

[leroy]

If each report is, itself, hearsay, the report is hearsay. Hearsay reports don't accumulate into an eyewitness report.



All the reports are from biblical sources. All reporters had a similar agenda. None are first person, eyewitness accounts, hence, hearsay.

Stop playing semantic games, you changed the definition of hearsay once again ("it now means "any account written by a non eyewitness")

My point is that if multiple independent sources report that the tomb was empty then it could have not been a rumor (which was the original definition of hearsay)

Multiple, similar reports are not necessarily good evidence. You'll find multiple reports of all kinds of miraculous events, in writings from many religions.

Multiple independent sources indicate that it is a "historical fact"...... any event from Ancient history that is reported by 2 or more sources is considered a historical fact .... so why are you making an arbitrary exception with the empty tomb?

What makes Christian reports more reliable than reports from other religions?

Any event that is reported by multiple independent sources is probably a real historical event , it doesn't matter if the sources are Christian or not. ..... this is how history works, you simply want to make arbitrary exceptions with stuff that has theological implications that you don't like. .....