Jesus Resurrection

[leroy]

Wrong, the screening process they went through made them dependent upon each other. .

So by your logic these sources where independent in 300 AD (before the council of Nicaea .... But today they are no longer independent.

Am I grasping your logic correctly?

 

[leroy]

No, they picked the favorite stories and avoided the ones with way out woo woo. They still kept some woo woo because it makes a good story. Your claim was in error.
e.

Wrong, but also irrelevant.

Remember we are treating the documents in the same way you would treat any historical document.

We are analysing the documents on historical grounds, not based on whether if they report nice and convinient stories.

So under this criteria, why wouldn't you consider Paul a reliable source when he reports the burial of Jesus? ....what characteristics most a text have in order for you to conciser it reliable and why Paul fails to meat that standard?

 

[Jollybear]

Nope, you are ignoring the errors in your book and using

I asked you to point out the flaws or contradictions or errors in pauls 3 repeats of his testimony about demascus and you havent done it! So how am i "IGNORING" the "errors"? Your the one ignoring the question. Because your DOGMATIC. Your no better then those dogmatic religious folks.

rationalization to cover them up.

Show me the error in my reasoning, this is a debate, not a dogmatic preaching contest to see who can talk over who.

And thats a false accusation too. Im not trying to COVER UP anything. The fact is, YOUR ignoring my points and questions at this point, so, whos actions look like a cover?

Once again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

And again, this is the evidence and we are debating whether its good evidence or not. But you acting dogmatic is not debating. And by your arguments breaking down it shows me even more the evidence i had trusted, i now even trust it all the more based on your unselling dogmatic actions.

Your books do not even count as ordinary evidence and I showed you how they fail terribly at being extraordinary.

No you havent. Show me how they fail as extrordinary evidence BY ACCOUNTING for variation vs contradictions? For accounting for how memory can recall events from childhood, even BABYHOOD! Show me the contradictions in pauls 3 repeats of his experience.

Why would I need to account for your weak claims?

So, my claims about memory, and variation vs contradictions are weak?! I proved it in my test of repeating to you the murder i witnessed and its weak!? Your PROVING TO ME that your extrordinarily dogmatic! I debated with a pastor one time and he was just as dogmatic as you are, the only dam difference was your beliefs. Your actions are indistinguishable to me. Its incredable.

The Bible is supposedly the word of God and yet there are from minor to large contradictions in it. This may be minor, but they still should not be in such a book.

I gave you pauls 3 accounts of his testimony. Show me the large or minor contradictions in it!

Quick like a bunny, time is ROBBED unnecessarily.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

It is unusual for a Mexican to be blond, but if you are told that Daniel is Mexican and blond, and multiple independent sources confirm it, it would be fair to conclude that Daniel is blond, even though it is not usual.

We can do DNA testing and confirm general national ancestry nowadays. How do you propose to prove YOUR claims?

The claim that I am making is that if you treat and judge the documents in new testament in the same way you would judge any other ancient document, the burial of Jesus should be taken as a historical fact.

He wasn't buried. He was entombed. Like the ending of Romeo and Juliet, the plot would've ended sooner had the "dead" person been buried and not left in a room with oxygen. Where was the tomb? Why is it considered a miracle that the stone "door" was rolled away when someone had to roll it in place to begin with? I mean, humans can build the pyramids built of cubed rock but a round thing that rolls is too difficult?

He went to Jerusalem and to see some of the witnesses, like James the brother of Jesus and some of the apostles, he certainly had access to reliable information and was in a position to know if Jesus was buried.

But he wasn't technically buried or we wouldn't be having this conversation because Jesus would've suffocated from all the dirt in his lungs.

And his testimony was latter confirmed by the authors of the Gospels and Acts.

How can they confirm things he didn't witness?

Nobody witnessed the resurrection:
The guards were supposedly asleep (personally, I think the centurion whose servant Jesus healed was in on this).

None of the apostles except "maybe" John witnessed the crucifixion. They had all run off.

No one checked for a pulse. They weren't expecting him to die yet.

It was like pulling teeth trying to get these people to "recognize" their fallen leader, which is weird had they been there and seen what he looked like after all the torture and stuff.

When historian have multiple independent sources for an event, they would always consider it a historical fact.

Rameses II said he won. The Hittites said they won. Who won?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So by your logic these sources where independent in 300 AD (before the council of Nicaea .... But today they are no longer independent.

Am I grasping your logic correctly?

First off you cannot reason logically, as you have repeatedly demonstrated so watch the false accusations. And some of them may have been independent, but the selection process did make all of them dependent upon each other. If the early Catholics had not destroyed almost all contradicting sources and they could have been compared then you might have a valid claim. Unfortunately due to the actions of Christians you can no longer claim they are independent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong, but also irrelevant.

Remember we are treating the documents in the same way you would treat any historical document.

We are analysing the documents on historical grounds, not based on whether if they report nice and convinient stories.

So under this criteria, why wouldn't you consider Paul a reliable source when he reports the burial of Jesus? ....what characteristics most a text have in order for you to conciser it reliable and why Paul fails to meat that standard?

Wrong again.

Please try to reason instead of thoughtlessly defending. And no, Paul can never be a reliable resource due to the actions of Christians.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I asked you to point out the flaws or contradictions or errors in pauls 3 repeats of his testimony about demascus and you havent done it! So how am i "IGNORING" the "errors"? Your the one ignoring the question. Because your DOGMATIC. Your no better then those dogmatic religious folks.



Show me the error in my reasoning, this is a debate, not a dogmatic preaching contest to see who can talk over who.

And thats a false accusation too. Im not trying to COVER UP anything. The fact is, YOUR ignoring my points and questions at this point, so, whos actions look like a cover?



And again, this is the evidence and we are debating whether its good evidence or not. But you acting dogmatic is not debating. And by your arguments breaking down it shows me even more the evidence i had trusted, i now even trust it all the more based on your unselling dogmatic actions.



No you havent. Show me how they fail as extrordinary evidence BY ACCOUNTING for variation vs contradictions? For accounting for how memory can recall events from childhood, even BABYHOOD! Show me the contradictions in pauls 3 repeats of his experience.



So, my claims about memory, and variation vs contradictions are weak?! I proved it in my test of repeating to you the murder i witnessed and its weak!? Your PROVING TO ME that your extrordinarily dogmatic! I debated with a pastor one time and he was just as dogmatic as you are, the only dam difference was your beliefs. Your actions are indistinguishable to me. Its incredable.



I gave you pauls 3 accounts of his testimony. Show me the large or minor contradictions in it!

Quick like a bunny, time is ROBBED unnecessarily.

Would you care to try again and respond politely and properly to that post. You in effect lied by breaking it up excessively. There is no excuse to respond to every sentence separately and breaking up sentences is simply an admission that you are wrong and cannot deal with a line of thought.

 

[leroy]

We can do DNA testing and confirm general national ancestry nowadays. How do you propose to prove YOUR claims?

The same way anyone would prove any claim from ancient history ¿how do you know that Alexander the Grate was born in Macedonia?

He wasn't buried. He was entombed.

ok so
There is no point of disagreement

 

[leroy]

First off you cannot reason logically, as you have repeatedly demonstrated so watch the false accusations. And some of them may have been independent, but the selection process did make all of them dependent upon each other. If the early Catholics had not destroyed almost all contradicting sources and they could have been compared then you might have a valid claim. Unfortunately due to the actions of Christians you can no longer claim they are independent.

So you start with 100 independent testimonies, you destroy 80, you end up with 20 independent testimonies.

Besides the documents were not destroyed, they are widely available and easy to find. You can google them and read them any time

 

[Subduction Zone]

The same way anyone would prove any claim from ancient history ¿how do you know that Alexander the Grate was born in Macedonia?

For that we do have multiple sources, and people did not try to destroy the records that disagreed with them.

ok so
There is no point of disagreement

there probably still is disagreement. You were only corrected in your understanding of the Jesus myth.

 

[leroy]

Wrong again.

Please try to reason instead of thoughtlessly defending. And no, Paul can never be a reliable resource due to the actions of Christians.

What actions? Why would you blame Paul for the actions that other Christians made?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you start with 100 independent testimonies, you destroy 80, you end up with 20 independent testimonies.

Besides the documents were not destroyed, they are widely available and easy to find. You can google them and read them any time

Wrong,try again. You left out a key condition.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What actions? Why would you blame Paul for the actions that other Christians made?

I am not blaming Paul.

You need to think your posts through.

 

[leroy]

For that we do have multiple sources, and people did not try to destroy the records that disagreed with them.
.

Wrong, there are many legends and myths about Alexander the Grate that scholars dismiss as “unhistorical and unreliable” this is analogous to “dismissing apocryphal gospels for being unhistorical and unreliable”

 

[leroy]

I am not blaming Paul.

You need to think your posts through.

Ok why don’t you do something?

Provide objective criteria to determine if a historical source is reliable. Then explain why Paul fails to meet this criteria

 

[leroy]

Wrong,try again. You left out a key condition.

What contradiction?

 

[leroy]

I am not blaming Paul.

You need to think your posts through.

Then why isn’t paul reliable?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong, there are many legends and myths about Alexander the Grate that scholars dismiss as “unhistorical and unreliable” this is analogous to “dismissing apocryphal gospels for being unhistorical and unreliable”

LOL, reread the post that you did not understand.

By the way, he had nothing to do with cheese, as far as I know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then why isn’t paul reliable?

He admitted to seeing and hearing things. I tend not to trust those that see and hear things that are not there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What contradiction?

Condition, not contradiction. You left out the condition that made them dependent. I explained this to you multiple times.