Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[leroy]

No one doubts the Markan priority. Matthew used Mark and tried writing a better version. Matthew added details. But they were made up?
Going further Luke added details and John added all kinds of supernatural wu.

You are talking about historical events where things actually happened. This is not that. It isn't that style. Matthew added zombies roaming the streets and an earthquake. This does not increase the likelyhood they are independent? These stories add details and SUBTRACT just as much.
A lightning Angel of the LORD? Was MISSED in other versions? Nothing here is likely independent even without all the other evidence?

Mark has no guard. 3 women. Mary, Mary M. Salome. The stone rolled by itself.
Matthew added a guard because people were saying the body was just stolen. Now just 2 Marys show up. Earthquake, Angel of God shows up, he's like lightning and the guard is scared. The angel showed them where Jesus was. The angel also rolled the rock back to open the tomb.

In Luke it's 2 Marys, Joanna at the tomb. The rock is already rolled, 2 men in shiny clothes are in there?

John has just Mary M see the stone already moved. She got Simon Peter, they saw 2 angels sitting in the tomb.

In all cases when they see Jesus is different.Gospel
Any rational person can see this is a made up story. Each Gospel was meant to be THE Gospel of Jesus. They were not writing a series. IF they were they would have taken care to get the story correct. The historical consensus is that in 367 they chose the 4 churches that were in Rome and doing the best with membership and finance and were most favored by Constantine.
This caused the need to attempt to harmonize the Gospels the best they could.

Nothing about these versions "enhance" each other. The authors were clearly making it up based on a basic outline.

from my source
"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"

So my source actually explains why Luke (L) is independent from Mark (it has details that marks lack) and it not likely to be an invention (because the story is also in John)

This is standard methodology that historians (and researchers in general) use to evaluate if a source is independent or not.

So when a scholar like WLC claims that (“L”) is independent from Mark he provides reasons for making such a conclusion // and he is actually responding to your criticism.

If this is not “good enough” to show that L is indepenent from Mark then what evidnece woudl you accept?

 

[leroy]

, whereas burial after crucifixion was rare.

I am still waitign for the evidnece for this claim

 

[Sheldon]

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?

Even in the unlikely event he did not, it surely would be pretty easy to find. A lot easier than the bare opinions and hearsay he keeps Googling as it is historical fact.

 

[Sheldon]

You keep repeating that over and over again,

obviously, because you keep duplicitously claiming that you have independent sources.

my response is and has always been “so what”?

So your claim is false, obviously. Since the bible and the sources in it are not independent, they are either unknown, so no claims can be made about their impartiality, bias, or knowledge, or they are citing second and third hand hearsay written long after the alleged events.

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?

We? How many times:

THERE IS NO CONSENSUS AMONG HISTORIANS FOR ANY OF YOUR CLAIMS, BEYOND AN HISTORICAL JESUS BEING CRUCIFIED.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

so what?

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

No, it means written by people who didn't have an opportunity for their views to influence each other.

Members of the small Christian community were definitely influences on each other. If the Gospel story is true, then none of the accounts can be independent.

Witnesses only stay independent when they stay, well, independent from other witnesses or other people who might influence their testimony. Anyone who lived in the community of Christians for a few decades after Jesus's death would have had plenty of such influence.

 

[Sheldon]

Quote any scholar that would say that he will only consider sources outside the bible

I said historians, and no historical scholar would accept a source as independent if it could not be substantiated outside of biblical claims, that is axiomatic. You don't see to know the difference between a theological scholar who also holds a subjective belief, and an historical scholar whose work has been peer reviewed. Which of course amply explains your embarrassing gaff over your claim that 75% of "scholars" belief the biblical myth of an empty tomb, since the Christian author you cited has not submitted that work for peer review by other historians, indeed he has refused requests to do so, as I evidenced in an earlier post, and you ignored.

// scholars wouldn’t take such a naïve position,

Not all scholars are always voicing historical evidence, one can be an expert on Harry Potter, this does not mean mean their opinion that wizards are real is scholarly, you seem unable to grasp this.

only fanatic internet atheist would say something as dumb and ignorant as that.,

Ah, you're back to juvenile ad hominem, grow up.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course not,

Then why would that be enough for Jesus?

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?

There are at least 4 independent sources for King Arthur, but the general consensus among historians is that Arthur was mythical.

The sparse historical background of Arthur is gleaned from various sources, including the Annales Cambriae, the Historia Brittonum, and the writings of Gildas. Arthur's name also occurs in early poetic sources such as Y Gododdin.

King Arthur - Wikipedia

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?

What are you calling "the original claim"? The short ending of Mark, where the tomb is empty, everyone's confused and afraid, but nothing necessarily supernatural is implied?

I don't necessarily have an issue with that claim (though I don't think it is anything particularly remarkable).

But let's say I think it's false. Why would I need an alternative explanation?

 

[Sheldon]

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

You're quoting the subjective opinion of a Christian, who citied 3400 article, but whose work was never peer reviewed, a basic requirement for any credible historian, who has refused multiple request to submit has data for critical scrutiny by other expert historians, again that speaks volumes to anyone who isn't either rabidly biased, or entirely ignorant of how historical sources are subjected to critical scrutiny.

1. How many of the articles were from the the same author?
2. How many of the authors were themselves peer reviewed historians?
3. Did the biased Christian author you cited, lend the same credence to published street preachers (for example), with no qualifications in historical analysis, and to biased apologists like WLC, as he did to expert historians?

You are embarrassing yourself with such biased ignorance, but throwing slurs at the intelligence and integrity of those who try to help you understand these most basic facts, is simply hilarious.

 

[Sheldon]

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

So you finally admit you used a biased source, whose work was not peer reviewed, and the 75% figure you quoted was meaningless.

 

[Sheldon]

With independent I simply mean

I don't remotely care what you mean, I already know what it means, in both common usage and the context of historical analysis.

the authors didn’t copied from each other

You don't know who four of the gospel author(s) were, and three of them did plagiaries the other, why would you dishonestly deny this now?

nor from a common source.

Three of the gospels did use the other as a common source, are you being serious? The bible was compiled subjectively, by biased early Christians, almost three centuries after the alleged events. The earliest writings are not contemporary, but date decades after the alleged events, and from second and third hand hearsay.

 

[Sheldon]

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?

The original texts of the gospels had existed without names. The Church Fathers assigned the names, about three centuries after the alleged events, The gospels are not eyewitness accounts; none of the gospel writers ever directly claimed to be an eyewitness. Nor was Paul, who neither knew nor even met Jesus, and his claim are hearsay.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

Historical scholars do not, you cited the subjective opinion of a Christian author, whose work is not peer reviewed, thus no historical scholar or expert would lend his claim any credence. It has already been explained why, multiple times.

 

[Sheldon]

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

HE can't, he has only cited the subjective opinion of a single Christian author, whose work has never been peer reviewed, what's more that author has refuse the requests of several prominent historians to submit his data for critical analysis.

He was backed by the hubris of one William Lane Craig though, pretty funny. talk about damning with praise.

 

[Sheldon]

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

They're not independent of your religion's bias, or the bible, so no. However please do cite a peer reviewed historian making that claim.

 

[Sheldon]

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)

The existence of Alexander the great can be substantiated by multiple independent sources, and his existence as an historical fact does not involve appeals to superstition or magic.

 

[ppp]

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?

He doesn't need evidence against claims around the empty tomb. No one does. It's not a credible claim.

 

[Sheldon]

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

Of course it does, to critically validate historical sources they would need be substantiated by a source free from outside control; not subject to another's authority. All the sources you have are from the bible or influenced by religious belief. We see you don't get why this doesn't suffice, but you surely can read? just check out the links I provided for subjecting historical sources to critical scrutiny.

 

[Sheldon]

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

Oh ffs, GREAT GREAT GREAT, for Pete's sake.

There is a consensus among historians that Alexander the GREAT was an historical person, there is none for the unsubstantiated hearsay of an empty tomb, or the superstition of magical resurrections.

Then I suppress and burn 94 of them

Did you burn them in the (Alexander the) grate, dear god...

 

[Sheldon]

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?

Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, how many times...

 

[Sheldon]

So my source actually explains why Luke (L) is independent from Mark (it has details that marks lack) and it not likely to be an invention (because the story is also in John)

They are fictional, those names are made up, and you keep asserting that similarities substantiate the myths, and that differences substantiate the myths, without a hint of irony.

This is standard methodology that historians (and researchers in general) use to evaluate if a source is independent or not.

Yes, and so is authorship, and credibility, and independent corroborating sources, none of which are present here for your claims. Which is why THERE IS NO CONSENSUS AMONG HISTORICAL SCHOLARS FOR THE CLAIMS YOU MADE, beyond an historical figure called Jesus being crucified, and even that is not as you claimed, "known to a high degree of certainty".

So when a scholar like WLC claims that (“L”) is independent from Mark he provides reasons for making such a conclusion // and he is actually responding to your criticism.

He is not an historian, has no qualifications as an expert in history, he is simply as biased a believer as one can possibly imagine.

If this is not “good enough” to show that L is indepenent from Mark then what evidnece woudl you accept?

A consensus among expert historians regardless of their personal beliefs, at least for the natural claims, the supernatural claims are so extraordinary you will have to do a lot better.