The Resurrection is it provable?

[Sheldon]

By the time that Luke was written there would have been almost no eyewitnesses left and no reason to believe that the author of Luke talked to any. It was hearsay or oral tradition, whichever you prefer by then.

supportive documentation?

LINK "Most scholars date the composition of the combined work to around 80–90 AD, although some others suggest 90–110, and there is textual evidence (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) that Luke–Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century."

2nd SOURCE "The Gospel According to Luke, written in roughly 85 C.E. (± five to ten years), most likely during the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian, is known in its earliest form from extensive papyri fragments dating to the early or middle of the third century."

 

[Sheldon]

because statements without proper documentation can range from opinion to flat-earth thinking.

Ironic eh.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How does that affect the claim that most of the verifiable historical / geographic / demographic / political / economical details reported in the gospels happen to be true?

That is an argument that can be refuted with a big. "So what?"

That they got a fair amount of the history and geography right is not surprising. What is damning is the history that they got wrong.

Embarrassing is simply anything that goes against the purpose or the agenda of the author.

For example if I claimed to have seen a Ghost and I claim that my only witness is my 3yo daughter, then it is likely that I am not just inventing stuff and lying otherwise I would have invented a more credible witness.

The gospels are full of such details, for example death by crucifixion is an example of an embarrassing detail, the messiah was not supposed to die, let alone die in such a shameful way, …. If the authors of the gospels would have had the intend to lie in order to promote their agenda they would have invented a more honorable death.

Sigh. Another so what argument. We are accepting that Jesus was real. He appears to have been crucified. If Jesus was real and had been crucified it would be pretty hard to cover up. No one is going full blown mythicist here. The argument of embarrassment only works for mythicists.

[quote


It´s unrealistic to say that the authors of the gospels invented those embarrassing details so that Christian scholars in the year 2000s could formulate arguments[/QUOTE]

They are not all that embarrassing. It is a poor argument.

 

[leroy]

Yet WLC has been refuted thoroughly when it comes to the Kalam as well.

But you will probably not be able to ever understand how he is refuted. Perhaps if you could answer this question you will be able to see how:

Exactly what did WLC "prove" with his abuse of the Kalam Cosmological argument?

Again it is a matter of your personal standards being applied to WLCs arguments

Yes if “not 100% sure = refuted” then yes by those standards WLC has been refuted.

What about this assertion “ we don’t know this for sure, but it seems likely that a universe without atoms molecules stars planets etc. “ would not be a life permitting universe. “

Do you agree or do you reject this assertion?

Exactly what did WLC "prove" with his abuse of the Kalam Cosmological argument?

The intend of the KCA is increase the probably to the truth of the conclusion…………if the premises are more likely to be true than wrong, then the conclusion would gain “some points” and become more likely to be true (than without the KCA argument)

As an analogy

P1 an asteroid that hits the earth 64 M years ago would have killed most of the dinosaurs

P2 an asteriote hit the earth 64M years ago

Therefore An asteroid killed most of the dinosaurs.

Obviously none of the premises are 100% certainly true, but they are likely to be true, which makes the conclusion also likely to be true.

But obviously if you address the argument with your standards then the argument fails because there are countless assumptions that can’t be proven with 100% certainty


But obviously nobody is obligated to drop the asteroid hypothesis just because it doesn’t meet your own personal standards

 

[leroy]

SDo you have a quote of him merely saying that it is "more likely"?

yes

within the firs 5 minutes or so he makes it clear than he is not claiming ot have "proof"

That was WLC's error not mine. He put it in the form of a logical argument. That requires a 100% surety. .

Says who? ….. you personally and arbitrarily decided that logical arguments have to be 100% certainly true and then you critique WLC for not following your own personal and arbitrary rules.

 

[leroy]

That is an argument that can be refuted with a big. "So what?"

That they got a fair amount of the history and geography right is not surprising. What is damning is the history that they got wrong.


Sigh. Another so what argument. We are accepting that Jesus was real. He appears to have been crucified. If Jesus was real and had been crucified it would be pretty hard to cover up. No one is going full blown mythicist here. The argument of embarrassment only works for mythicists.

[quote


It´s unrealistic to say that the authors of the gospels invented those embarrassing details so that Christian scholars in the year 2000s could formulate arguments

They are not all that embarrassing. It is a poor argument.[/QUOTE]

"So what?"

So what?

Well if

1 the authors where well informed

And if

2 the authors intended to tell the truth

Then the source is reliable. And at the very list deserves the benefit of the doubt.

If Jesus was real and had been crucified it would be pretty hard to cover up

Well 2,000 years ago most people didn’t have access to Wikipedia, the authors of the gospels could have easily invented a honorable death for Jesus if their intend was to lie to promote their agenda. The average person would have no way of knowing if the story is true or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again it is a matter of your personal standards being applied to WLCs arguments

Yes if “not 100% sure = refuted” then yes by those standards WLC has been refuted.

What about this assertion “ we don’t know this for sure, but it seems likely that a universe without atoms molecules stars planets etc. “ would not be a life permitting universe. “

Do you agree or do you reject this assertion?


The intend of the KCA is increase the probably to the truth of the conclusion…………if the premises are more likely to be true than wrong, then the conclusion would gain “some points” and become more likely to be true (than without the KCA argument)

As an analogy

P1 an asteroid that hits the earth 64 M years ago would have killed most of the dinosaurs

P2 an asteriote hit the earth 64M years ago

Therefore An asteroid killed most of the dinosaurs.

Obviously none of the premises are 100% certainly true, but they are likely to be true, which makes the conclusion also likely to be true.

But obviously if you address the argument with your standards then the argument fails because there are countless assumptions that can’t be proven with 100% certainty


But obviously nobody is obligated to drop the asteroid hypothesis just because it doesn’t meet your own personal standards

Nope. sorry,. You were shown to be wrong. Are you going to listen or not?

when you start with a false claim there is no point in reading the rest of your argument,.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They are not all that embarrassing. It is a poor argument.




.

Nope. The authors were merely dealing with the facts that they could not deny at the time. It is a stupid argument.


Can't you do any better?

 

[Subduction Zone]

yes

within the firs 5 minutes or so he makes it clear than he is not claiming ot have "proof"

Says who? ….. you personally and arbitrarily decided that logical arguments have to be 100% certainly true and then you critique WLC for not following your own personal and arbitrary rules.

You should have found an earlier source. This really does not help you. This was after he had his backside handed to him by Carroll. That does not answer my question. You need to find an earlier source. Not one where he invents new lies after the fact.

 

[leroy]

Nope. The authors were merely dealing with the facts that they could not deny at the time. It is a stupid argument.


Can't you do any better?

Yes that is my point


Any lie would have been easily known and exposed

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes that is my point


Any lie would have been easily known and exposed

No, you need to quit using non sequiturs. No, not "any lie". would have been easily known and exposed. That is a rather foolish assumption to make or conclusion to draw. If they tried to deny that Jesus was crucified to the audience in Bethlehem that would have been easily known and exposed. How do you refute a supposed miracle witnessed by just a few?


Quite often you are ready to make incorrect conclusions based on very very poor reasoning for Christianity. By the way, if an atheist made that poor of an argument against God I would be all over hm for that as well.

Have you found anything from WLC from before he got his donkey kicked by Carroll about why he used the arguments that he used?

 

[leroy]

You should have found an earlier source. This really does not help you. This was after he had his backside handed to him by Carroll. That does not answer my question. You need to find an earlier source. Not one where he invents new lies after the fact.

For someone who doesn’t ever provides sources for any of his claims you are being too strict and too demanding do you think so?

No I will not waste 30+ minutes of time searching for another quote just because you arbitrary decided that wanted an earlier quote ………. You are the one who is making the accusation you are the one who is supposed to find a quote where WLC claim to be 100% sure

Besides what if you are correct and WLC changed his attitude after the debate? Wouldn’t that show that WLC is honest and willing to change his mind when proven wrong?

 

[leroy]

No, you need to quit using non sequiturs. No, not "any lie". would have been easily known and exposed. That is a rather foolish assumption to make or conclusion to draw. If they tried to deny that Jesus was crucified to the audience in Bethlehem that would have been easily known and exposed. How do you refute a supposed miracle witnessed by just a few?


Quite often you are ready to make incorrect conclusions based on very very poor reasoning for Christianity. By the way, if an atheist made that poor of an argument against God I would be all over hm for that as well.

Have you found anything from WLC from before he got his donkey kicked by Carroll about why he used the arguments that he used?

Irrelevant, the claim is that the authors didn’t intentionally lie weather if it was because they were very honest or because the lies would have been easy to expose is another topic.

Obviously from this it doesn’t follow that everything in the gospels is true, just that the authors honestly thought that what they reported is true.

 

[leroy]

No, you need to quit using non sequiturs. No, not "any lie". would have been easily known and exposed. That is a rather foolish assumption to make or conclusion to draw. If they tried to deny that Jesus was crucified to the audience in Bethlehem that would have been easily known and exposed. How do you refute a supposed miracle witnessed by just a few?


Quite often you are ready to make incorrect conclusions based on very very poor reasoning for Christianity. By the way, if an atheist made that poor of an argument against God I would be all over hm for that as well.

Have you found anything from WLC from before he got his donkey kicked by Carroll about why he used the arguments that he used?

So basically your view is

1 A Crusifixtoin: impossible to lie about or to cover up

2 A man resurrecting : no, no that is very easy to lie about and it is very easy to full everybody about that event.

Support that position please.


An other alternative is

The authors reported both events because that is what they thought happened, one is embarrassing and the other is awesome , they decided to report both the good and the bad stuff

 

[Subduction Zone]

Irrelevant, the claim is that the authors didn’t intentionally lie weather if it was because they were very honest or because the lies would have been easy to expose is another topic.

Obviously from this it doesn’t follow that everything in the gospels is true, just that the authors honestly thought that what they reported is true.

Now you are using a strawman argument and trying to bring if it rained or not into the discussion.

Just admit that you screwed up big time once again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So basically your view is

1 A Crusifixtoin: impossible to lie about or to cover up

2 A man resurrecting : no, no that is very easy to lie about and it is very easy to full everybody about that event.

Support that position please.


An other alternative is

The authors reported both events because that is what they thought happened, one is embarrassing and the other is awesome , they decided to report both the good and the bad stuff

No please. Quit using strawman arguments. If you don't understand something ask questions. Don't spout falsehoods.

 

[leroy]

Now you are using a strawman argument and trying to bring if it rained or not into the discussion.

Just admit that you screwed up big time once again.

How can it be a straw man if the argument is mine? Your objection is irrelevant, it doesn’t falsify the claim that the authors wrote what they thought really happened

 

[leroy]

No please. Quit using strawman arguments. If you don't understand something ask questions. Don't spout falsehoods.

ok this is my question

So basically your view is

1 A Crusifixtoin: impossible to lie about or to cover up

2 A man resurrecting : no, no that is very easy to lie about and it is very easy to full everybody about that event.

right? is this your view?


If not care to explain at what point did I misrepresent your view?

 

[SkepticThinker]

The Bible is not a book written by a single author, so one author can verify another.
The miracles of Jesus are verified by the writers of the gospels and the other aspects of Jesus life also. But really it is the unquestioned existence of Paul and his proximity to the life of Jesus which verifies the life and death of Jesus.

Paul is a witness to the resurrection only in his claim to have met the risen Jesus.
Of course you believe the gospels were hearsay claims written long after the events and by anonymous authors. That is the sceptic position but it denies the evidence of history as to the authors of the gospels and denies the internal evidence in the New Testament itself concerning their dates being writing.
The sceptic position relies on sceptic bias concerning the prophecy about the destruction of the temple and so the dates and so authorship taken as after 70AD.
This is a presumed dating system (tossing out other evidence) and is circular reasoning.

So the claim made by a guy who says he saw Elvis Presley in Kalamazoo, Michigan 10 years after his death is verified because I read it in the Weekly World News? This guy's "proximity" to the life of Elvis verifies that Elvis was alive and kicking in Kalamazoo in the late 1980s?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

So we agree, by your state position, that the writers who were either eye-witnesses or at the least knew what happened are much more reliable that apologists and today's scholars.

Appreciate the confirmation of what I was saying.

How did you get that? I’m saying that your sources weren’t there and don’t have access to modern archeological findings either.