The Resurrection is it provable?

[leroy]

I was minded to correct your assertions for clarity, since you seem to believe because you hold a strong but subjective conviction that something is true, you have a tendency to word unevidenced claims as if they are accepted facts. Whatever the context, this is misleading.

Please provide an example (,quote my actual words)

 

[Sheldon]

You don't have to accept these.

A bizarre thing to say, given the content of my post was expressing precisely why the claims had no credence?

I'm not here to try to convince you.

Just as well, though this seems like another bizarrely irrelevant response.

 

[Kenny]

A bizarre thing to say, given the content of my post was expressing precisely why the claims had no credence?



Just as well, though this seems like another bizarrely irrelevant response.

I don't see it as bizarre. I simply subscribe to the statement of Paul...

" Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."

If you are already persuaded, I'm fine with it.

 

[Sheldon]

Wrong if 2 different testimonials differ on some points, this counts as very strong evidence that the testimonials are independent rather than one copying from the other

No it doesn't, just why you think repeating the claim will change this isn't clear. There are many reasons two accounts could vary, you're simply assuming the one you favour is correct.

And deep inside you agree with this statement, it is just that you are on "debate mode"

I don't agree with this in any way, and this is a debate forum, ipso facto debating opposing views is what it is meant for.

 

[leroy]

Firstly the gospels are anonymous, but even if one held the unevidenced subjective belief that the names assigned were genuine, the claims are still unsubstantiated hearsay. Just because an author makes a claim to have spoken to an eyewitness, doesn't mean we can reliably assume there was an eyewitness, and beyond that what they claim this alleged eyewitness(es) saw, is even less reliable if there is no evidence to verify or substantiate what is being claimed, and worse still if the claims defy or are contradicted by natural and scientific facts.

Finally people were obviously ignorant of a great deal of natural and scientific facts we now understand, and highly superstitious as a result. So unevidenced appeals to mystery or the supernatural, or assumptions that defy or are contradicted by natural or scientific laws speak for themselves. I wouldn't accept such hearsay claims in any other context, so why would I accept these?

The mayority (if not all) of the verifiable historical information in the gospels is true .

This shows that the authors where well informed and had access to good sources.

Whether if they where anonymous or not is irrelevant/ as long as they where well informed and had the intention of honesty report what they think happened, the source is reliable

 

[leroy]

Same as I have every other time you asked this question, why you insist on endlessly repeating this question is baffling, since the answer has never changed and never will, it is defined in any dictionary, just Google it.

So you say that there is no evidence

But you are not willing to explain what you mean by evidence

Do you realize how dishonest your attitude is?

 

[Sheldon]

I don't see it as bizarre.

Someone you know to be an atheist, offers a lengthy explanation of why they don't think a set of religious claims have any credence, in a debate forum, and you respond by telling them they don't have to believe it? That's pretty bizarre, did you imagine I thought credulity is mandatory?

I simply subscribe to the statement of Paul...

" Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."

If you are already persuaded, I'm fine with it.

You obviously didn't read it if you thought I was at all persuaded by the claims? Here it is again then as it's hard to imagine you've actually read it, if you think I am persuaded.

Firstly the gospels are anonymous, but even if one held the unevidenced subjective belief that the names assigned were genuine, the claims are still unsubstantiated hearsay. Just because an author makes a claim to have spoken to an eyewitness, doesn't mean we can reliably assume there was an eyewitness, and beyond that what they claim this alleged eyewitness(es) saw, is even less reliable if there is no evidence to verify or substantiate what is being claimed, and worse still if the claims defy or are contradicted by natural and scientific facts.

Finally people were obviously ignorant of a great deal of natural and scientific facts we now understand, and highly superstitious as a result. So unevidenced appeals to mystery or the supernatural, or assumptions that defy or are contradicted by natural or scientific laws speak for themselves. I wouldn't accept such hearsay claims in any other context, so why would I accept these?

 

[leroy]

No it doesn't, just why you think repeating the claim will change this isn't clear. There are many reasons two accounts could vary, you're simply assuming the one you favour is correct.



I don't agree with this in any way, and this is a debate forum, ipso facto debating opposing views is what it is meant for.

Ok so what other method do you suggest? How can one know if 2 testimonials are independent rather than one being copied from the other?

 

[Subduction Zone]

To me the Bible with its many witness testimonies is conclusive evidence.

The Bible only has claims. And it is easily shown to be wrong in many places. So why believe it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok so what other method do you suggest? How can one know if 2 testimonials are independent rather than one being copied from the other?

One way one can know if one account, by the way if you want to use the word "testimonial" you take on a burden of proof which you cannot seem to support, is to see if one has copied the other word for word in areas. As we do with the synoptic gospels. That tells us that they are not independent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why ? Because you say so?

Because that is how debates are done.

Weren't you the one that lost it because your poor unsupported argument was refuted by Hitchens' Razor?

 

[Sheldon]

The mayority (if not all) of the verifiable historical information in the gospels is true

No, beyond the crucifixion there is no corroborating evidence for any of it. It's pure hearsy.

This shows that the authors where well informed and had access to good sources.

Your subjective and unevidenced claim, doesn't validate the hearsay claims in the gospels no. This is so obviously a circular reasoning fallacy it's hard to know what to say.

Whether if they where anonymous or not is irrelevant/ as long as they where well informed and had the intention of honesty report what they think happened, the source is reliable

Of course the provenance of any document is a vital piece of information that speaks to the historical credibility of that document, and would contribute to the credence of its claims. No one who understands how historians validate the historicity of claims, and artefacts would deny this.

You don't know the sources of the gospels, since they're anonymous and the claims unsubstantiated hearsay, so why you keep make assertions about "the sources" is again baffling. I recognise you are heavily emotionally invested in this belief, but you are misrepresenting subjective beliefs as if they represent facts, when they don't.

 

[Sheldon]

So you say that there is no evidenceBut you are not willing to explain what you mean by evidence

I just did explain it? I've explained it literally dozens of times to you, it never ever varies??

It's defined in the dictionary and I am happy to use that definition.

Do you realize how dishonest your attitude is?

If you falsely accuse me of dishonesty on this again I will report it.

Evidence
noun

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

That is the very last time I am posting that for you, and if you persist in falsely claiming that I have not given you this, or that I don't always use the same definition, then again I will start reporting it, as that is what is dishonest here.

 

[Sheldon]

To me the Bible with its many witness testimonies is conclusive evidence.

There is no evidence to corroborate the gospels beyond the crucifixion, including of course the claims there were eyewitnesses.

If someone anonymously wrote an article that people met Elvis days after he had died, would you consider these claims to be "conclusive evidence" that this happened? I wouldn't, and for the same reason I don't believe the gospel claims for supernatural events.

 

[Sheldon]

Please provide an example (,quote my actual words)

The mayority (if not all) of the verifiable historical information in the gospels is true .

 

[Sheldon]

Ok so what other method do you suggest? How can one know if 2 testimonials are independent rather than one being copied from the other?

I took the time to find and post a list of criteria that historians commonly use to verify historical claims, and posted it for you in another thread, you simply dismissed it, so why would I waste my time doing your research for you again, when you can't be bothered to learn how historians work and peer review work, and will likely dismiss it again? There are plenty of online resources you could use yourself for this, if you have any interest in examining the historicity of claims critically, which I seriously doubt you do, as you are clearly heavily emotionally invested in the belief.

 

[Sheldon]

The Bible only has claims. And it is easily shown to be wrong in many places. So why believe it?

Well more problematic what is his criteria for disbelieving the claims in all other religious tomes? It can't be the same or else he'd believe all of them as well, that suggests bias obviously.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I took the time to find and post a list of criteria that historians commonly use to verify historical claims, and posted it for you in another thread, you simply dismissed it, so why would I waste my time doing your research for you again, when you can't be bothered to learn how historians work and peer review work, and will likely dismiss it again? There are plenty of online resources you could use yourself for this, if you have any interest in examining the historicity of claims critically, which I seriously doubt you do, as you are clearly heavily emotionally invested in the belief.

That is an ongoing problem with many posters. When the demanded evidence or standards shows one to be wrong pretend it never happened.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans don't normally complain when life is fair and mutual.

The Jewish humanity versus Egyptian causes of temple pyramid science was a direct abuse.

Began in civilisations building slavery. Then temple pyramid technology. Life's sacrifice. Fallout by man. As of man's causes.

Their teaching was rewritten work as old testimonials about history use of invention lived in old times. It now became the new testimonial. Same topic.

Jewish Christian movement.

A combined old and new human order uprising.

Uprising about life conditions was about health as human genesis is cell status. And can only be argued about in the life presence of humans.

The theme is you were told nuclear ground dust was Gods body. Science said it had originally been sacrificed by the sun. It had arisen saved as dust on the body stone. The origin teaching God's holy body sacrificed.

Was what was taught. Yes it had been saved. Gods body. It had survived. And out of a sealed mass of seams it arose to be dust.

Yet the rest of gods origin body was gone. Dusts arose within the heavens body...the heavens presence was involved in its saving.

As it's a human satanic thesis as science and technology.

So when the returned life bio ....healed the answer......No longer harmed baby life.

Human life by evolution healing was now living to again become sick and deformed. Humans uprise. As nuclear Roman science was told they were wrong. Cell change proved them wrong.

It's Satanism not Godism.

Pretty basic you don't ever tell any human truth when human greed is involved.

Greed motivates you to manipulate advice.

 

[Kenny]

Firstly the gospels are anonymous, but even if one held the unevidenced subjective belief that the names assigned were genuine, the claims are still unsubstantiated hearsay. Just because an author makes a claim to have spoken to an eyewitness, doesn't mean we can reliably assume there was an eyewitness, and beyond that what they claim this alleged eyewitness(es) saw, is even less reliable if there is no evidence to verify or substantiate what is being claimed, and worse still if the claims defy or are contradicted by natural and scientific facts.

Finally people were obviously ignorant of a great deal of natural and scientific facts we now understand, and highly superstitious as a result. So unevidenced appeals to mystery or the supernatural, or assumptions that defy or are contradicted by natural or scientific laws speak for themselves. I wouldn't accept such hearsay claims in any other context, so why would I accept these?

Especially if the claim itself is an unevidenced extraordinary appeal to mystery and magic, that defies known scientific and natural laws.

Firstly the gospels are anonymous, but even if one held the unevidenced subjective belief that the names assigned were genuine, the claims are still unsubstantiated hearsay. Just because an author makes a claim to have spoken to an eyewitness, doesn't mean we can reliably assume there was an eyewitness, and beyond that what they claim this alleged eyewitness(es) saw, is even less reliable if there is no evidence to verify or substantiate what is being claimed, and worse still if the claims defy or are contradicted by natural and scientific facts.

There is no evidence to corroborate the gospels beyond the crucifixion, including of course the claims there were eyewitnesses.

If someone anonymously wrote an article that people met Elvis days after he had died, would you consider these claims to be "conclusive evidence" that this happened? I wouldn't, and for the same reason I don't believe the gospel claims for supernatural events.

And yet every answer you give ( no matter what answer is given or who gives it and what those of their times wrote and said and recorded) - you remain the same thus validating

" Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."

If you are already persuaded, I'm fine with it.

And yet so many people are persuaded with the same information.