Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[KWED]

I would disagree with this,

 

[KWED]

Ok feel free to share your source

In order to do that I would need to post dozens, perhaps hundreds of links. It is easier for you to post a link to an authoritative historian (who is not also a religious apologist) who claims there is evidence for the resurrection narrative, as this one source would refute my claim.
If such a source exists you would have it memorised, surely?

 

[Kfox]

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?"

There is no consistent definition of God. To say there are no God is like saying there is no widgits. What is a widget? Is it a machine? A tool? It means different things to different people; as does God. Some descriptions of God does exist. Some worship the Sun, Nature, or people like you and I; but because we don’t call those things God, we are atheist to those religions

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.

Perhaps you are wrong about God’s quantity, and God being personal

 

[leroy]

You have no sources for your claims, that are independent of your religion and the bible. Four of the gospels you can't even guess who the source is, let alone they or it were independent, written in Greek and many decades after the alleged events, ...............y.

You keep repeating that over and over again, and my response is and has always been “so what”? we don’t reject other historical sources that where written by anonymous people, decades after the event so why making an arbitrary exception with the new testament?

 

[leroy]

You think scholarly standards set by historians are "dumb and ridiculous"? That says it all really.

Quote any scholar that would say that he will only consider sources outside the bible // scholars wouldn’t take such a naïve position, only fanatic internet atheist would say something as dumb and ignorant as that.,

 

[leroy]

They're not, this has been explained to you innumerable times, you quoted a single author making a subjective claim, .

I am quoting from a scholar who made a survey……….what else do you what?

 

[leroy]

"Theologian Gary Habermas has for over fifteen years cataloged articles debating the empty tomb of Jesus and the resurrection. From the thousands he has collected, he concludes:
75% of scholars today say that resurrection or something like it occurred."

"However, a closer look (informed in large part by an excellent article by Richard Carrier) shows a very different conclusion.
This is not peer-reviewed scholarship Habermas admitted in 2012, “Most of this material is unpublished.” With his data secret, his conclusions are uncheckable. Carrier says that Habermas has denied repeated requests to review his data."

You have been told repeatedly that the stats you keep quoting as if they are fact, are not peer reviewed, they are the subjective and unverified opinion of a Christian author - see bias. Do you have the integrity to acknowledge this fact, or are you going to run with this continued falsehood?

The article goes on:

"Habermas cites the ever-growing list of articles in his database (3400 at last count), but what does the 75% refer to? Is it 75% of the database articles? If so, how does he deal with multiple articles from one author? Or is it 75% of authors? If so, are professors and street preachers weighed the same? If it’s 75% of scholars, are experts in the fields of theology and philosophy given equal weight with experts in history? What journals and other sources does he search?"

And on it goes:

"A Christian bias
What fraction of the pro-resurrection 75% are Christians? Not having the data, we don’t know, but I’ll guess 99%. I’ll grant that Christians are as smart as anyone else, but does their religion bias their conclusions?
Here’s why I ask: consider polling a group of Muslim scholars. They have no bias against the supernatural, and they understand the Jesus story. But ask them about the resurrection, and they will universally reject it.
The Christian might respond that Muslims are biased by their religious beliefs to dismiss the resurrection. That’s true, but then why are Christians, who are biased to accept the resurrection, allowed to weigh in on this issue?"

This is also very apropos:

"Habermas is happy to reject the conclusion of 99% of the experts who understand evolution (see his attitude toward evolution here, here, and here). Ditto for William Lane Craig. Neither is in a position to object to anyone rejecting the 75% conclusion about the resurrection."

Again one can only infer subjective bias from the author.

<CITATION>

Ok so I cant use bias sources but you can? How does that work?

 

[leroy]

Independent
adjective

1. free from outside control; not subject to another's authority.

Try again.

"Source criticism is a set of skills that allows you to think carefully about the nature of historical sources. Rather than simply accepting what sources say, these skills help you to develop a healthy scepticism about the reasons a source was made and whether you can trust it.

There are two types of source criticism skills you can use: analysis skills and evaluation skills. In order to help you understand how each of these skills relate to each other, they are organised in a table below.


Analysis Information
What is the explicit meaning of the source? (Comprehension)

What is the implicit meaning of the source? (Interpretation)

How does this source corroborate the information from another source?

How does this source contradict the information from another source?

Origin
Who created the source?

What kind and type of source is it?

Perspective
From what point of view is the source created?

Context
When was the source created?
What historical events happened at this time that are important to the creation of this source?

Audience
Who was the intended audience of the source?

Motive
For what purpose was this source made?

Evaluation
Usefulness
How relevant is this source to the topic you are studying?

Reliability
How trustworthy is the source?"

<CITATION>

With independent I simply mean that the authors didn’t copied from each other, nor from a common source.

I don’t know why you keep insisting in this semantic game.

 

[leroy]

My point was that you do not have "sources". You have a source.

There are 6 sources for the emty tomb: (none of them depends on the existance of Q)


Independent Sources of the Empty Tomb
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.

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.”

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.

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.

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

---
IF you disagree, then how many sources do you suggest? 4 ? 3 ? 2? ……… if the tomb was not empty what other explanation do you suggest and why is that explanation better than “the tomb was emty” what are your sources for this other alternative explanation?

 

[leroy]

In order to do that I would need to post dozens, perhaps hundreds of links. It is easier for you to post a link to an authoritative historian (who is not also a religious apologist) who claims there is evidence for the resurrection narrative, as this one source would refute my claim.
If such a source exists you would have it memorised, surely?

That is a dishonest straw man, I never said that most scholars accept the resurrection, I said that most scholars accept he empty tomb and other 4 claims that I mentioned earlier.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are 6 sources for the emty tomb: (none of them depends on the existance of Q)


Independent Sources of the Empty Tomb
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.

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.”

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.

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.

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

---
IF you disagree, then how many sources do you suggest? 4 ? 3 ? 2? ……… if the tomb was not empty what other explanation do you suggest and why is that explanation better than “the tomb was emty” what are your sources for this other alternative explanation?

Instant fail. You have three at the most there. And what is worse all of them went through a filtering device which in effect turns them into one source. Your only source is the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is a dishonest straw man, I never said that most scholars accept the resurrection, I said that most scholars accept he empty tomb and other 4 claims that I mentioned earlier.

Your metric was flawed. I doubt if you could properly support that claim.

 

[leroy]

Instant fail. You have three at the most

3 is more than enough to establish a historical fact anyway.


there. And what is worse all of them went through a filtering device which in effect turns them into one source. .[/QUOTE]
Really and what would that filter device be?

Your only source is the Bible

3 sources (or 6) don’t become 1 just because some guys decided to take those documents and make a single book (the bible)

If I take 6 sources for Alexander the Grate and make a single book out of those sources, you can’t say that we have a “single source” (you still have those 6 sources)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well for example the gospel of Luke is dependent on Mark, “Q” and “L” so if an event is reported in Mark and “L” then you do have 2 independent sources.

But I largely agree with your point , most of Luke and Matt are dependent on Mark

It´s incorrect to say something like “we have 3 independent sources for Jesus turning water in to wine” because it’s likely that luke and matt copied that story form mark

Why would you ever consider Mark, Q and L to be independent sources?

They're products of the same Christian community. They aren't independent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

3 is more than enough to establish a historical fact anyway.

You have only one source.


.

Really and what would that filter device be?

The council of Nicaea.

3 sources (or 6) don’t become 1 just because some guys decided to take those documents and make a single book (the bible)

The early Christians ruined any ability to claim the Bible as more than one source. Have you forgotten that already? When you take a source that was known to have quite a few different versions, most of which were rejected and the other versions destroyed or suppressed then as result you only have one source.


If a book did not toe the party line it was rejected. The party line becomes the source as a result.

If I take 6 sources for Alexander the Grate and make a single book out of those sources, you can’t say that we have a “single source” (you still have those 6 sources)

Bad analogy. Were other sources suppressed or destroyed as a result of this work? If not then it does not apply.

You have only one source, and not a very good one.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

3 is more than enough to establish a historical fact anyway.

That sounds like a challenge.

So... if I can find a claim that's supported by 3 sources, you'll agree that it's a historical fact, no matter how ridiculous it is?

 

[leroy]

Why would you ever consider Mark, Q and L to be independent sources?

yes

[E]They're products of the same Christian community..

so what?

Independent doesn’t mean: written by people with different world views/religion

 

[leroy]

Bad analogy. Were other sources suppressed or destroyed as a result of this work? If not then it does not apply.

You have only one source, and not a very good one.

Ok pretend that there are 100 sources for Alexander the Grate.

Then I suppress and burn 94 of them

Then I ensemble the remaining 6 sources in a single book

Would you say that the remaining 6 sources spontaneously became 1 source just because I decided to join these documents in a single book?


Independent sources don’t become “dependent” just because one guy decided to create a book out of those sources,

 

[leroy]

That sounds like a challenge.

So... if I can find a claim that's supported by 3 sources, you'll agree that it's a historical fact, no matter how ridiculous it is?

Of course not, in theory if you have good positive evidence for an alternative, you can trump those 3 sources.// but I am not aware of any event in ancient history that is reported by 3 independent sources that is not considered an un uncontroversial historical fact …. So why making an arbitrary exception with the empty tomb?

Do you have an alternative for the empty tomb? Do you have evidence supporting that alternative? Is that evidence good enough to trump the original claim?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Of course not, in theory if you have good positive evidence for an alternative, you can trump those 3 sources.// but I am not aware of any event in ancient history that is reported by 3 independent sources that is not considered an un uncontroversial historical fact …. So why making an arbitrary exception with the empty tomb?

Do you have an alternative for the empty tomb? Do you have evidence supporting that alternative? Is that evidence good enough to trump the original claim?

I have an alternative for the empty tomb ...
It's a story in an old book.