the right religion

[1robin]

How is any of that objective empirical evidence? They are just claims made by people from thousands of years ago. Idk what authors your talking about because the gospels are not eye witness accounts.

That is not a valid requirement for historical claims. Yes the Gospels are eyewitness accounts. I think you are confusing the two who are direct witnesses with the two that are from interviews of eyewitnesses. All are from eyewitnesses but two are not written by them but gathered from them. Two of (if not the) histories greatest experts on testimony and evidence said the Gospels meet every standard of even modern law and the historical method. I will give a link to a famous paper by one so you can review how claims such as this are evaluated in law.
Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf

Credentials don't come much higher the Greenleaf's and Lyndhurst's. I will give a few more scholars comments to add to what I have stated but that link is the most important as you seem to not understand how the reliability of historical claims are evaluated.

The noted scholar, Professor Edwin Gordon Selwyn, says: "The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day in full continuity of body and soul - that fact seems as secure as historical evidence can make it."


Many impartial students who have approached the resurrection of Chris with a judicial spirit have been compelled by the weight of the evidence to belief in the resurrection as a fact of history. An example may be taken from a letter written by Sir Edward Clarke, K. C. to the Rev. E. L. Macassey: "As a lawyer I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the events of the first Easter Day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. Inference follows on evidence, and a truthful witness is always artless and disdains effect. The Gospel evidence for the resurrection is of this class, and as a lawyer I accept it unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts they were able to substantiate."

Professor Thomas Arnold, cited by Wilbur Smith, was for 14 years the famous headmaster of Rugby, author of a famous three-volume History of Rome, appointed to the char of Modern History at Oxford, and certainly a man well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said:
"The evidence for our LORD's life and death and resurrection may be, and often has been, shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad. Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through it piece by piece, as carefully as every judge summing up on a most important cause. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which GOD hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."

Wilbur Smith writes of a great legal authority of the last century. He refers to John Singleton Copley, better known as Lord Lyndhurst (1772-1863), recognized as one of the greatest legal minds in British history, the Solicitor-General of the British government in 1819, attorney-general of Great Britain in 1824, three times High Chancellor of England, and elected in 1846, High Steward of the University of Cambridge, thus holding in one lifetime the highest offices which a judge in Great Britain could ever have conferred upon him. When Chancellor Lyndhurst died, a document was found in his desk, among his private papers, giving an extended account of his own Christian faith, and in this precious, previously-unknown record, he wrote: "I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that for the resurrection has never broken down yet."

 

[Philomath]

That is not a valid requirement for historical claims. Yes the Gospels are eyewitness accounts. I think you are confusing the two who are direct witnesses with the two that are from interviews of eyewitnesses. All are from eyewitnesses but two are not written by them but gathered from them. Two of (if not the) histories greatest experts on testimony and evidence said the Gospels meet every standard of even modern law and the historical method. I will give a link to a famous paper by one so you can review how claims such as this are evaluated in law.
Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf

Credentials don't come much higher the Greenleaf's and Lyndhurst's. I will give a few more scholars comments to add to what I have stated but that link is the most important as you seem to not understand how the reliability of historical claims are evaluated.

The noted scholar, Professor Edwin Gordon Selwyn, says: "The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day in full continuity of body and soul - that fact seems as secure as historical evidence can make it."


Many impartial students who have approached the resurrection of Chris with a judicial spirit have been compelled by the weight of the evidence to belief in the resurrection as a fact of history. An example may be taken from a letter written by Sir Edward Clarke, K. C. to the Rev. E. L. Macassey: "As a lawyer I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the events of the first Easter Day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. Inference follows on evidence, and a truthful witness is always artless and disdains effect. The Gospel evidence for the resurrection is of this class, and as a lawyer I accept it unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts they were able to substantiate."

Professor Thomas Arnold, cited by Wilbur Smith, was for 14 years the famous headmaster of Rugby, author of a famous three-volume History of Rome, appointed to the char of Modern History at Oxford, and certainly a man well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said:
"The evidence for our LORD's life and death and resurrection may be, and often has been, shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad. Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through it piece by piece, as carefully as every judge summing up on a most important cause. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which GOD hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."

Wilbur Smith writes of a great legal authority of the last century. He refers to John Singleton Copley, better known as Lord Lyndhurst (1772-1863), recognized as one of the greatest legal minds in British history, the Solicitor-General of the British government in 1819, attorney-general of Great Britain in 1824, three times High Chancellor of England, and elected in 1846, High Steward of the University of Cambridge, thus holding in one lifetime the highest offices which a judge in Great Britain could ever have conferred upon him. When Chancellor Lyndhurst died, a document was found in his desk, among his private papers, giving an extended account of his own Christian faith, and in this precious, previously-unknown record, he wrote: "I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that for the resurrection has never broken down yet."

People who interview people who claim to be witness's to an event are not eyewitness's. Jesus's resucerction is not historical and there is no evidence outside of the Bible to substantiate the claim. The fact is no one outside of the Bible choose to right about what would have been probably the greatest event in the history of mankind. Not a single person chose to right about it? That makes the claim dubious at best. The majority of scholars agree that the resurrection did not take place. Can you present a single outside source from the Bible that corroborates Jesus resurrection?

 

[Sand Dancer]

So you have redefined true as being old and prolific, correct?

Well, I'm sure God has been "speaking" to us since we were sentient beings, so I'm all for "old." As for prolific, religion is often limited to geographic conditions, but God is who He is no matter where we live, then we should be able to have one that covers all people worldwide.

 

[1robin]

People who interview people who claim to be witness's to an event are not eyewitness's.

I did not claim they were. I said they are the accounts of eyewitnesses.

Jesus's resucerction is not historical

You have no way of knowing this. You can say that is what you believe but it is a historical claim and the standards used for historical claims have resulted in a very high probability that it is historical. That is how all historical claims are determined, by probability. For example "the Gallic wars" have a far less reliable historical value than the Gospels yet are taught as reliable fact by virtually all colleges. There exists no reason outside preference in claiming a textual historical claim much more evidenced that Caesar's claims is less reliable. Whatever standards you used to dismiss the resurrection would also eliminate 90% of historical claims of all types.

and there is no evidence outside of the Bible to substantiate the claim.

Are you arguing against a specific claim or the evidence concerning Jesus character and events surrounding his life? You could eliminate 90% of his supernatural claims and even the 10% that remain are enough to value him above any Guru. He is the most influential person who ever lived, even eliminating every supernatural claim in the Bible won't help the Guru argument. Not that eliminating them is a rational or valid historical conclusion.

The fact is no one outside of the Bible choose to right about what would have been probably the greatest event in the history of mankind.

Forgetting that both Roman and Greek scholars did record Gospel events for a moment. Why would a traveling Roman scholar at the time have thought one crucifixion among thousands the greatest event in history? The revelation of Christ was to be given only to the Jews at that time. It wasn't available to outsiders by design. The accounts exist exactly where we find them as well as beyond them.

Not a single person chose to right about it?

What are you talking about? Christ's life was written about by dozens outside the Bible. Some even record miracles that occurred at the crucifixion. You have 5 accounts from inside the faith and dozens outside depending on what event your discussing. How many are necessary?

That makes the claim dubious at best.

Is that why the faith swept the world soon after the events did not occur even while being persecuted by both it's own nation and the most powerful empire on Earth (which it soon there after converted). Even NT scholars who are not Christians agree on certain facts almost unanimously.

1. Christ appeared with an unprecedented sense of divine authority.
2. He was crucified and died.
3. The Tomb was found empty.
4. The faith exploded on only it's merit (not its sword) in spite of massive opposition.
5. The men most capable of knowing suffered lifelong and some even died for the claims they made concerning the supernatural events associated with Christ.
6. Not one contemporary account exists that challenges what they claimed.
7. The Bible where it possible to verify is extremely reliable and bears no mark of myth or dishonesty of its authors.

What should be derived from those facts is not that it is dubious. Maybe that is why we have over 100 people to every 1 that believes the Bible compared with the Sikh. It also explains why 90% of all Sikh's are culturally homogenous. Christianity is present in significant numbers in every nation on Earth and is the only one that does so. It did not get there by being dubious.

The majority of scholars agree that the resurrection did not take place.

No they do not? If fact even if they did it would be meaningless because not a single one has the slightest capacity to know. All the evidence there is suggests he was resurrected, none exists demonstrating he was not. The only debate is over how reliable the evidence he was is. Apparently you did not read the link I gave and could care less how prestigious and qualified any of those legendary scholars I gave are.

Can you present a single outside source from the Bible that corroborates Jesus resurrection?

If you will concede the point I will give far more than one. I am loosing any hope that a conclusion is possible based on scholars or no matter how many textual claims I provide so I want to be certain my efforts will have an impact worth the effort of providing them. You did not read the link did you? and you simply ignored the legendary scholars who's conclusions I gave as well didn't you? That is certainly your right but I would prefer to know I am arguing against preference to begin with.

 

[Philomath]

I did not claim they were. I said they are the accounts of eyewitnesses.

Accounts of supposed eyewitness's who we don't even know.

You have no way of knowing this. You can say that is what you believe but it is a historical claim and the standards used for historical claims have resulted in a very high probability that it is historical. That is how all historical claims are determined, by probability. For example "the Gallic wars" have a far less reliable historical value than the Gospels yet are taught as reliable fact by virtually all colleges. There exists no reason outside preference in claiming a textual historical claim much more evidenced that Caesar's claims is less reliable. Whatever standards you used to dismiss the resurrection would also eliminate 90% of historical claims of all types.

The difference between the Gallic wars and gospels is that there are actual things that happened outside the Gallic wars to corroborate what happened.

Are you arguing against a specific claim or the evidence concerning Jesus character and events surrounding his life? You could eliminate 90% of his supernatural claims and even the 10% that remain are enough to value him above any Guru. He is the most influential person who ever lived, even eliminating every supernatural claim in the Bible won't help the Guru argument. Not that eliminating them is a rational or valid historical conclusion.

What are you talking about? this discussion isn't even about Guru's, I don't believe any supernatural claim made about Guru's either.

Forgetting that both Roman and Greek scholars did record Gospel events for a moment. Why would a traveling Roman scholar at the time have thought one crucifixion among thousands the greatest event in history? The revelation of Christ was to be given only to the Jews at that time. It wasn't available to outsiders by design. The accounts exist exactly where we find them as well as beyond them.

What Greek and Roman scholars recorded gospel events? I didn't say the cruxification was greatest event in history, I said the resurrection would have been had it happened. "he revelation of Christ was to be given only to the Jews at that time. It wasn't available to outsiders by design." Is an incredible cop out. Why didn't anyone in history record what is claimed to have happened in Matthew 27? Zombies walking around would have certainly been recorded, yet no one wrote about them except in the Bible.

Matthew 27: 51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. 52The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus’ resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

What are you talking about? Christ's life was written about by dozens outside the Bible. Some even record miracles that occurred at the crucifixion. You have 5 accounts from inside the faith and dozens outside depending on what event your discussing. How many are necessary?

Who talks about Jesus outside of the Bible? Please present these people you are reffering to. Whatever is claimed in the Bible doesn't matter unless it can be substantiated by something outside of it.

Is that why the faith swept the world soon after the events did not occur even while being persecuted by both it's own nation and the most powerful empire on Earth (which it soon there after converted). Even NT scholars who are not Christians agree on certain facts almost unanimously.

1. Christ appeared with an unprecedented sense of divine authority.
2. He was crucified and died.
3. The Tomb was found empty.
4. The faith exploded on only it's merit (not its sword) in spite of massive opposition.
5. The men most capable of knowing suffered lifelong and some even died for the claims they made concerning the supernatural events associated with Christ.
6. Not one contemporary account exists that challenges what they claimed.
7. The Bible where it possible to verify is extremely reliable and bears no mark of myth or dishonesty of its authors.

Just present someone who talks about Jesus resurrection that isn't from the Bible.

What should be derived from those facts is not that it is dubious. Maybe that is why we have over 100 people to every 1 that believes the Bible compared with the Sikh. It also explains why 90% of all Sikh's are culturally homogenous. Christianity is present in significant numbers in every nation on Earth and is the only one that does so. It did not get there by being dubious.

Argumentum ad populum. The number of people who believe in the Bible is completely irrelevant.

No they do not? If fact even if they did it would be meaningless because not a single one has the slightest capacity to know. All the evidence there is suggests he was resurrected, none exists demonstrating he was not. The only debate is over how reliable the evidence he was is. Apparently you did not read the link I gave and could care less how prestigious and qualified any of those legendary scholars I gave are.

What evidence? There's no one outside of the Bible who can corroborate Jesus resurrection story. The reliability of the supposed evidence is not the issue here. I want you to present me with outside evidence from the Bible.

If you will concede the point I will give far more than one. I am loosing any hope that a conclusion is possible based on scholars or no matter how many textual claims I provide so I want to be certain my efforts will have an impact worth the effort of providing them. You did not read the link did you? and you simply ignored the legendary scholars who's conclusions I gave as well didn't you? That is certainly your right but I would prefer to know I am arguing against preference to begin with.

I read the link and there was nothing in there about anyone who lived during Jesus time who wrote about his resurrection outside of the Bible. That's all I want. You seem to be missing the point. Present me with someone who lived during Jesus time who wrote about the resurrection and can corroborate the resurrection story. I'll concede my argument if you do.

 

[1robin]

Well, I'm sure God has been "speaking" to us since we were sentient beings, so I'm all for "old." As for prolific, religion is often limited to geographic conditions, but God is who He is no matter where we live, then we should be able to have one that covers all people worldwide.

I will give you this. You got out of an embarrassing claim with more dignity than I would have suspected possible for a claim so ambiguous. My primary criteria for truth is that it be true. If you use age and its availability then just so happens they are the same book. Counting the oral tradition the bible is as old as any and it is the only one that has a significant presence in every nation on Earth.

 

[1robin]

Accounts of supposed eyewitness's who we don't even know.

That would describe part of one half of just the Gospels. What you going to do with the rest. In what way is the assignment of a name a method for making something true or not? We know who interviewed those witnesses and that by far is the more important issue, as well as them being truthful in every test that can be used to determine such.

The difference between the Gallic wars and gospels is that there are actual things that happened outside the Gallic wars to corroborate what happened.

The exact same thing is true of the Bible. 25,000 of them at a minimum. The Bible is also a primary archeological tool for secular scholars and has never failed yet outside of well known and very few scribal errors usually concerning a decimal place or a zero.

What are you talking about? this discussion isn't even about Guru's, I don't believe any supernatural claim made about Guru's either.

I was certain you made the very bizarre claim hat Jesus was not as important, significant, or influential or something very similar as Guru's are. I said that does not make sense given only a few supernatural events. Which of my claims are not relevant?

What Greek and Roman scholars recorded gospel events?

I only said a few but as for claims relevant to the Gospels there are many. Here are a few:
CORNELIUS TACITUS (55 - 120 A.D.)
GAIUS SUETONIUS TRANQUILLUS (69 - 130 A.D.)
PLINY THE YOUNGER (63 - 113 A.D)
CELSUS (~ 178 A.D.)
LUCIAN OF SAMOSATA (120 - ~180 A.D.)
FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS (37 - 100 A.D.)
THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD
CLEMENT OF ROME (? - 98? A.D.)
IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (? - ~100 A.D)
QUADRATUS OF ATHENS (126 A.D.)
Lucian (circa 120-after 180)

I didn't say the cruxification was greatest event in history, I said the resurrection would have been had it happened.

How many people had contact with Jesus after the resurrection outside of the Hebrews and later several billion Christians? Why did all those claims I gave get reduced to only the resurrection and why are five accounts not enough even if that was all there is?

"he revelation of Christ was to be given only to the Jews at that time. It wasn't available to outsiders by design." Is an incredible cop out. Why didn't anyone in history record what is claimed to have happened in Matthew 27? Zombies walking around would have certainly been recorded, yet no one wrote about them except in the Bible.

No that is Biblical fact that goes way back in the old testament. Based on Abraham's faith his descendants were to be the conduit through which God's initial revelation were given. They were to be spread to the rest of humanity by them. This came to an end with Christ's death but every event prior to that exact date was governed by this. It would only be a cop-out if the Bible had not stated this long before Christ appeared and you had the slightest reason to believe it otherwise. Unlike the Sikh faith Biblical doctrine was so relevant that it did not remain a cultural phenomena but grew beyond Israel within the lifetime of it's first apostles and has swept every corner of the globe, just exactly as it predicted.

Matthew 27: 51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. 52The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus’ resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

That has to do with the infinite barrier between the Holy (God) and the unholy or common (Us) now having direct access to God without need of a priestly class just as I stated above. I am unsure why you posted it.

Who talks about Jesus outside of the Bible? Please present these people you are reffering to. Whatever is claimed in the Bible doesn't matter unless it can be substantiated by something outside of it.

I have given a few of the over 40 names but this is not true regardless. A claim is true or false independently of corroborating evidence. Not one Christian began life that way (differently than most oriental faiths that label you at birth). There are several billion Christians that got that way by experiencing God and were not Christians prior to that point. Every one of us was an atheist that adopted a foreign faith. The apostles are not less a resource than those outside Israel. Paul in fact was persecuting Christians right up until he experienced Christ. There is no reason whatever to claim their testimony is less reliable than any other. Many died for their claims. Sincerity proofs do not come any more substantial than that. Are Christians the only ones you will not let speak for Christianity? Are only non-physicists good physicists? Are only no evolutionists reliable for evolution. I am discussing the quality of a house without your showing you understand foundations. Did you not look at the link to that world famous paper I gave?

Just present someone who talks about Jesus resurrection that isn't from the Bible.

There are 2 billion of us currently who have met a risen Christ. Over 40 authors outside the Bible that record events in the Gospels or that are dependent on them. I am not posted more resources than I have until you tell my why what I have already posted is invalid or insufficient. Do not Sikh's have to tell you what is true in your religion before you adopt it?

Argumentum ad populum. The number of people who believe in the Bible is completely irrelevant.

That is not irrelevant and was meant as and in fact is evidence consistent with what it was used for. Fallacies are very often only crutches for things that are not convenient. I am running out of time or I would get into what that fallacy is supposed to be used for and my claim was not it.

What evidence? There's no one outside of the Bible who can corroborate Jesus resurrection story. The reliability of the supposed evidence is not the issue here. I want you to present me with outside evidence from the Bible.

I have. None of us were Bible believers at birth. All Christians met a Christ they did not believe in at one time. I gave additional scholars on top of that but you have never given me any reason to require it in the first place. Are the words of those that died to defend them and of those that had more opportunity to know the facts of the matter less reliable than those that did not.

I read the link and there was nothing in there about anyone who lived during Jesus time who wrote about his resurrection outside of the Bible.

That is because there is no need. Those that had the greatest access to the events are who recorded the events. A scholar who more than any aught to know as well as many of histories greatest says the documents we have pass every test for reliability. What deficiency is there, that only those who had no access or at least far less access are the more applicable. Those with access to events are the primary resource for every event in history except this one I guess.

That's all I want. You seem to be missing the point. Present me with someone who lived during Jesus time who wrote about the resurrection and can corroborate the resurrection story. I'll concede my argument if you do.

So this entire point is to be determined by those with less access to the events than those I provided and only about one of the half dozen events I gave. Why? I am out of time but will look into what you asked for though I can't imagine a reason beyond arbitrary preference that would require it.

 

[Philomath]

That would describe part of one half of just the Gospels. What you going to do with the rest. In what way is the assignment of a name a method for making something true or not? We know who interviewed those witnesses and that by far is the more important issue, as well as them being truthful in every test that can be used to determine such.

No one knows anything about these supposed eye witness's they could have been liars as far as we know. Since we know nothing about these purported eye witness's it's best to be skeptical of them.

The exact same thing is true of the Bible. 25,000 of them at a minimum. The Bible is also a primary archeological tool for secular scholars and has never failed yet outside of well known and very few scribal errors usually concerning a decimal place or a zero.

What evidence is there to corroborate that Jesus fed 5,000 people? That he walked on water? That he turned water into wine? There is none. It's all in the Bible. The bible is not proof of the Bible.

I was certain you made the very bizarre claim hat Jesus was not as important, significant, or influential or something very similar as Guru's are. I said that does not make sense given only a few supernatural events. Which of my claims are not relevant?

I never said any of that. I said "Jesus wasn't God in the flesh, he was another human being."

I only said a few but as for claims relevant to the Gospels there are many. Here are a few:
CORNELIUS TACITUS (55 - 120 A.D.)
GAIUS SUETONIUS TRANQUILLUS (69 - 130 A.D.)
PLINY THE YOUNGER (63 - 113 A.D)
CELSUS (~ 178 A.D.)
LUCIAN OF SAMOSATA (120 - ~180 A.D.)
FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS (37 - 100 A.D.)
THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD
CLEMENT OF ROME (? - 98? A.D.)
IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (? - ~100 A.D)
QUADRATUS OF ATHENS (126 A.D.)
Lucian (circa 120-after 180)

I know Tacitus and Josephus passages are forgeries. The Talmud doesn't refer to the Jesus of the Gospels. But as for the rest of the people you listed I will examine them.

How many people had contact with Jesus after the resurrection outside of the Hebrews and later several billion Christians? Why did all those claims I gave get reduced to only the resurrection and why are five accounts not enough even if that was all there is?

According to the Bible Jesus did. He was walking all over the land. Five accounts are not enough because they are from the Bible. Using the Bible to prove the Bible is circular logic. There is no outside evidence to corroborate them.

No that is Biblical fact that goes way back in the old testament. Based on Abraham's faith his descendants were to be the conduit through which God's initial revelation were given. They were to be spread to the rest of humanity by them. This came to an end with Christ's death but every event prior to that exact date was governed by this. It would only be a cop-out if the Bible had not stated this long before Christ appeared and you had the slightest reason to believe it otherwise. Unlike the Sikh faith Biblical doctrine was so relevant that it did not remain a cultural phenomena but grew beyond Israel within the lifetime of it's first apostles and has swept every corner of the globe, just exactly as it predicted.

That has to do with the infinite barrier between the Holy (God) and the unholy or common (Us) now having direct access to God without need of a priestly class just as I stated above. I am unsure why you posted it.

I don't understand why you continue to talk about the Sikhs when they are irrelevant to this discussion. I posted it because it is a claim about zombies walking around Jerusalem in broad day and no one, not even a single person outside of the Bible bothered to right about it. Also it was claimed to have happened after Jesus resurrected. There is nothing outside the Bible that proves zombies walked around Jerusalem.

I have given a few of the over 40 names but this is not true regardless. A claim is true or false independently of corroborating evidence. Not one Christian began life that way (differently than most oriental faiths that label you at birth). There are several billion Christians that got that way by experiencing God and were not Christians prior to that point. Every one of us was an atheist that adopted a foreign faith. The apostles are not less a resource than those outside Israel. Paul in fact was persecuting Christians right up until he experienced Christ. There is no reason whatever to claim their testimony is less reliable than any other. Many died for their claims. Sincerity proofs do not come any more substantial than that. Are Christians the only ones you will not let speak for Christianity? Are only non-physicists good physicists? Are only no evolutionists reliable for evolution. I am discussing the quality of a house without your showing you understand foundations. Did you not look at the link to that world famous paper I gave?

So you cannot present anyone outside of the Bible who corroborates the Biblical claims about Jesus? The wall of text means nothing to me if you can't present any evidence.

There are 2 billion of us currently who have met a risen Christ. Over 40 authors outside the Bible that record events in the Gospels or that are dependent on them. I am not posted more resources than I have until you tell my why what I have already posted is invalid or insufficient. Do not Sikh's have to tell you what is true in your religion before you adopt it?

The number of people who believe in Jesus does not matter is not proof of anything.I've already told you why what you've presented is insufficient because from the very beginning I've stated the evidence that I want you to present. Why do you keep bringing up the Sikhs? I'm not a Sikh.

I have. None of us were Bible believers at birth. All Christians met a Christ they did not believe in at one time. I gave additional scholars on top of that but you have never given me any reason to require it in the first place. Are the words of those that died to defend them and of those that had more opportunity to know the facts of the matter less reliable than those that did not.

Just because you believe in the Resurrection story it doesn't make it true. I've continuously told you why over and over.

That is because there is no need. Those that had the greatest access to the events are who recorded the events. A scholar who more than any aught to know as well as many of histories greatest says the documents we have pass every test for reliability. What deficiency is there, that only those who had no access or at least far less access are the more applicable. Those with access to events are the primary resource for every event in history except this one I guess.

Numerous scholars disagree with the scholars you have presented so this really means nothing. I've only wanted one thing and you do not seem able to produce it.

So this entire point is to be determined by those with less access to the events than those I provided and only about one of the half dozen events I gave. Why? I am out of time but will look into what you asked for though I can't imagine a reason beyond arbitrary preference that would require it.

No. It's to be determined by someone who actually was there, who actually existed during the time period of those stories. This is my the only thing I want you to do, forget the rest of the thread.

I want you to present me with outside evidence from a person, or a group of people who lived during Jesus time, not found in the Bible who can corroborate the gospel's claim. If you can't do it, don't bother responding to this post.

 

[1robin]

No one knows anything about these supposed eye witness's they could have been liars as far as we know. Since we know nothing about these purported eye witness's it's best to be skeptical of them.

There are methods which have been used for thousands of year to evaluate testimony and are so reliable they are still in use. If you had actually read the paper I gave you, you would have seen many of them like:

1. The principle of embarrassment. No dishonest person creating fictional accounts admits of the most massive failures possible, yet the Gospel writers record their own terrible failings at every turn. Peter was called by Christ the name of he most evil being in history. Why would a liar allow that? Why would people who lied and knew very well they had lied suffer lifelong for that lie (and some died) when nothing Earthly was gained. They did not get rich, nor powerful. The lives were perfectly consistent with sincerity without Earthly gain.
2. Then there is unnecessary burdens. No one expected a dying and rising Messiah. The apostles if lying could have simply claimed Jesus rose spiritually. They had never predicted a bodily return, no one expected it. No, they went the much much harder route in claiming he rose in body from the grave. How did they know (if lying) the Romans (who had done everything they could to do so) would not have opened the tomb and said your wrong here is his body. They posted guards and sealed the tomb when he was laid there. Maybe the most relentless and efficient empire in human history was completely rendered impotent by a few ignorant Hebrews? No likely. They adopted an empirical burden they had no necessity of assuming?
3. The incorporation of unnecessary witnesses. Liars want the players in the dram to be few. Every new name is someone that could be asked or could write that they were there and X never occurred. Yet the apostles have tens of thousands witnessing miracles, even being cured and help supernaturally, and lists many by name. They are doing everything you would never do if they were making this up. Not one single account from that time exists saying I was there and X did not happen or I am Luke and did not write that Gospel. Nothing.
4. The above are just a few of the methods used since the Romans are all contingent probabilities. The last one I will mention is my own. They claimed so something so verifiable that if not true would have killed Christianity in the cradle. They claimed if you do as he said that the very beginning of that process would initiate by meeting him (or experiencing him). It is basically saying that if you go into the building you will find God there and meet him. Now if lying and all those that went in the building saw no God then what explains the rapid explosion of a faith based on meeting him and the willingness to die for who they met even while being persecuted by the greatest empires on Earth. Killing for God is very common but passively surrendering lives by the thousands is not and especially not based on not getting what was promised at the beginning. Nothing explains this but sincerity, and further still factual claims. People would follow any lie to gain power, money, and glory. Almost no one would passively loose everything in defense of that which they knew was wrong.

Unfortunately your non-reading of that paper has made me re-invent the wheel or a very small portion of it. I had hoped it would not be necessary. Those exact same standards are so reliable they have been used from the time of the Greeks to modern day court rooms.

What evidence is there to corroborate that Jesus fed 5,000 people? That he walked on water? That he turned water into wine? There is none. It's all in the Bible. The bible is not proof of the Bible.

Faith claims have no burden of proof. Where are you getting these things. You can't prove almost everything your Gurus ever did. In fact I would bet the evidence for the Bible written thousands of years before the printing press is vastly more substantial that your Gurus writing recorded long after the printing press was invented. Faith claims only have intellectual permissibility standards but in this case I will raise the burden to best fit for the data. My explanations fit all data. Your require all the data be inaccurate. Until you demonstrate it all is then my explanation is by far the best. False burdens and double standards are the markers of a failed argument and the above is also what was wrong with your fallacy claim.

I never said any of that. I said "Jesus wasn't God in the flesh, he was another human being."

Well no wonder this has been confusing and it is mostly my fault. I thought this statement was from you:

As far as I have read Jesus ranks pretty high amongst 'prophets' like Muhammad or Krishna, but nowhere near Guru Nanak Sahib.

It wasn't. It was from Satnaam who is a Sikh. Somehow you wound up in the discussion but I thought you were him. Since we have crossed wires here I will delay the response to the rest until you say what you desire in response to this.

I tend to think the Trinity is true but do not debate it as it makes no difference. Whether God or prophet (he was certainly no ordinary man as he existed before time) we must believe in his actions on the cross to get to heaven. I am completely out of whack now and will await what you wish to do before proceeding. At least this explains the disconnect I have been feeling with your claims. In 6 thousand posts I have never gotten this far off track. I would claim all you Indians look alike but since I can't see you even that won't work.

 

[Philomath]

There are methods which have been used for thousands of year to evaluate testimony and are so reliable they are still in use. If you had actually read the paper I gave you, you would have seen many of them like:

1. The principle of embarrassment. No dishonest person creating fictional accounts admits of the most massive failures possible, yet the Gospel writers record their own terrible failings at every turn. Peter was called by Christ the name of he most evil being in history. Why would a liar allow that? Why would people who lied and knew very well they had lied suffer lifelong for that lie (and some died) when nothing Earthly was gained. They did not get rich, nor powerful. The lives were perfectly consistent with sincerity without Earthly gain.
2. Then there is unnecessary burdens. No one expected a dying and rising Messiah. The apostles if lying could have simply claimed Jesus rose spiritually. They had never predicted a bodily return, no one expected it. No, they went the much much harder route in claiming he rose in body from the grave. How did they know (if lying) the Romans (who had done everything they could to do so) would not have opened the tomb and said your wrong here is his body. They posted guards and sealed the tomb when he was laid there. Maybe the most relentless and efficient empire in human history was completely rendered impotent by a few ignorant Hebrews? No likely. They adopted an empirical burden they had no necessity of assuming?
3. The incorporation of unnecessary witnesses. Liars want the players in the dram to be few. Every new name is someone that could be asked or could write that they were there and X never occurred. Yet the apostles have tens of thousands witnessing miracles, even being cured and help supernaturally, and lists many by name. They are doing everything you would never do if they were making this up. Not one single account from that time exists saying I was there and X did not happen or I am Luke and did not write that Gospel. Nothing.
4. The above are just a few of the methods used since the Romans are all contingent probabilities. The last one I will mention is my own. They claimed so something so verifiable that if not true would have killed Christianity in the cradle. They claimed if you do as he said that the very beginning of that process would initiate by meeting him (or experiencing him). It is basically saying that if you go into the building you will find God there and meet him. Now if lying and all those that went in the building saw no God then what explains the rapid explosion of a faith based on meeting him and the willingness to die for who they met even while being persecuted by the greatest empires on Earth. Killing for God is very common but passively surrendering lives by the thousands is not and especially not based on not getting what was promised at the beginning. Nothing explains this but sincerity, and further still factual claims. People would follow any lie to gain power, money, and glory. Almost no one would passively loose everything in defense of that which they knew was wrong.

Unfortunately your non-reading of that paper has made me re-invent the wheel or a very small portion of it. I had hoped it would not be necessary. Those exact same standards are so reliable they have been used from the time of the Greeks to modern day court rooms.

I never said the supposed eye witness's were liars anyways I said "they could have been liars as far as we know". Basically everything you've written either boils down to why would they lie or what did they have to gain from lying? The fact remains no one knows who these supposed eye witness's are. No one outside of the Bible bothered to record anything that these supposed eye witness's saw, and there's nothing except the Bible who claims to have had eye witness's. I will remain skeptical.

Faith claims have no burden of proof. Where are you getting these things. You can't prove almost everything your Gurus ever did. In fact I would bet the evidence for the Bible written thousands of years before the printing press is vastly more substantial that your Gurus writing recorded long after the printing press was invented. Faith claims only have intellectual permissibility standards but in this case I will raise the burden to best fit for the data. My explanations fit all data. Your require all the data be inaccurate. Until you demonstrate it all is then my explanation is by far the best. False burdens and double standards are the markers of a failed argument and the above is also what was wrong with your fallacy claim.

The burden of proof rests on whoever is making the claim. You cannot provide evidence that such things happened, just admit it. What Guru's are you talking about?

Well no wonder this has been confusing and it is mostly my fault. I thought this statement was from you:
It wasn't. It was from Satnaam who is a Sikh. Somehow you wound up in the discussion but I thought you were him. Since we have crossed wires here I will delay the response to the rest until you say what you desire in response to this.

I tend to think the Trinity is true but do not debate it as it makes no difference. Whether God or prophet (he was certainly no ordinary man as he existed before time) we must believe in his actions on the cross to get to heaven. I am completely out of whack now and will await what you wish to do before proceeding. At least this explains the disconnect I have been feeling with your claims. In 6 thousand posts I have never gotten this far off track. I would claim all you Indians look alike but since I can't see you even that won't work.

Ok. Well that explains where a lot of the confusion was coming from. By the way I'm not Indian lol.

 

[1robin]

Not "dental", deontic or deontological. See here.

I know, I was joking on your over dependence on flowery terminology. If academic language use could actually accomplish anything alone you would have it all sewn up.

Person/subject-invariant means non-subjective, i.e. objective. It doesn't mean popular, it means that it is an objective matter of fact not contingent upon any persons opinion. I think this is precisely what you mean.

Objective in this context means beyond influence of opinion of it's subjects. The above fails. No matter what technical language you use everything you say will equal opinion for the foundation of morality without God. I would think you would save yourself all the effort.

Right, but he's far from the only person who has ever claimed that objective morals have nothing to do with God, whether he exists or not. As I've stressed to you, moral realism is the position you're endorsing; that morals are real and objective. There are several varieties of moral realism, one of which is "divine command theory", which is that the moral facts are determined by a deity. Clearly, this is the specific form of moral realism you subscribe to- but there are other forms of moral realism in which there are objective moral truths that are NOT a result of the will of any deity.

Then for the at least 12th time of asked, pray tell what are their objective foundations? At this point you could say yogurt, aliens, or even fruit bats but please simply state something.

Doesn't seem to be a redefinition in the first place. Utilitiarianism argues that ALL morality is, at bottom, about maximizing happiness and minimizing pain/suffering.

That is redefining morality as happiness or minimizing pain which is NOT the basis for actual morality. The desire al societies have to defend even bad cultures from obviously superior ones is an example of something universal that opposes your principle. Another would be that human happiness at least for recorded history has made necessary the unhappiness of many other beings and species. Why is cow happiness not the standard? The only reason to believe human happiness is the standard is because someone said it is. You have no other option than opinion. Terminology will never ever help. The more educated I became the more I disdained intellectualism and academia for this reason. We have thought ourselves stupid. We can even throw enough rhetoric around that many believe killing human lives in the womb is morally justifiable. I see an Orwellian future and it is depressing.

I seem to be chasing you the long way around the barn only to arrive at the exact same spot. I will once again try and get you to post a simple foundation for moral truth before I respond to the rest.

Please fill in the blank. Killing every form of life on the planet would actually be objectively wrong even without God because of __________________________.

 

[Mark Paul]

Hey Dude,I'm also agree with you.

 

[1robin]

I never said the supposed eye witness's were liars anyways I said "they could have been liars as far as we know". Basically everything you've written either boils down to why would they lie or what did they have to gain from lying? The fact remains no one knows who these supposed eye witness's are. No one outside of the Bible bothered to record anything that these supposed eye witness's saw, and there's nothing except the Bible who claims to have had eye witness's. I will remain skeptical.

Everything I said is only maybe 2% of the total tests used in every modern courtroom everyday to determine the reliability of testimony. I see that one thing alone is causing us to talk past each other. You are demanding the burden that scientific claims have for historical claims. If we have two different standards (your being invalid) there exists no way to arrive at a resolution. Faith claims do not have the burden of proof you asked for. They have only the burden of logical plausibility or best fit burden. The Bible passes every single test that exists for testimony in historical texts and documents. What we have is the best it gets but less than the proof you demand. God demands faith, faith precludes proof. I will not attempt to meet a burden I do not have. My conclusion is the best fit given what evidence exists but not proof.

The burden of proof rests on whoever is making the claim. You cannot provide evidence that such things happened, just admit it. What Guru's are you talking about?

Not exactly. Different claims have different burdens. Claims to absolute empirical fact do have a full burden for proof. Claims about what is true of a concept on have textual burdens. Claims to what is historically the best explanation for what evidence we have only has a logical coherence burden (which I plus my links have more than met). I mostly certainly did give evidence they happened, I however did not give proof (as no historical claim has proof). Never mind the Guru's. I got you and the Sikh confused.

Ok. Well that explains where a lot of the confusion was coming from. By the way I'm not Indian lol.

Then that's another reason that excuse would not work.

 

[1robin]

Hey Dude,I'm also agree with you.

If you mean you agree with me then I am glad. If you are new here do you need any help or tips for posting?

 

[Philomath]

Everything I said is only maybe 2% of the total tests used in every modern courtroom everyday to determine the reliability of testimony. I see that one thing alone is causing us to talk past each other. You are demanding the burden that scientific claims have for historical claims. If we have two different standards (your being invalid) there exists no way to arrive at a resolution. Faith claims do not have the burden of proof you asked for. They have only the burden of logical plausibility or best fit burden. The Bible passes every single test that exists for testimony in historical texts and documents. What we have is the best it gets but less than the proof you demand. God demands faith, faith precludes proof. I will not attempt to meet a burden I do not have. My conclusion is the best fit given what evidence exists but not proof.

Faith claims do no get a special exception, they are just like any other claim and must be backed up. You(or your religion) are making a claim and therefor you(and your religion) have to back it up.

Not exactly. Different claims have different burdens. Claims to absolute empirical fact do have a full burden for proof. Claims about what is true of a concept on have textual burdens. Claims to what is historically the best explanation for what evidence we have only has a logical coherence burden (which I plus my links have more than met). I mostly certainly did give evidence they happened, I however did not give proof (as no historical claim has proof). Never mind the Guru's. I got you and the Sikh confused.

No you didn't. You gave me things from the Bible which proved the Bible. You haven't given me outside sources separate from the Bible which corroborates that any of the things claimed in the Gospels actually happened.

Then that's another reason that excuse would not work.

Ok?

 

[1robin]

Faith claims do no get a special exception, they are just like any other claim and must be backed up. You(or your religion) are making a claim and therefor you(and your religion) have to back it up.

Yes they do. But even if they did not, historical claims do even in all secular scholarship. This is the equivalent of kindergarten exegesis and hermeneutics. It is certainly not a sin but I get the distinct impression you are unfamiliar with how these issues are resolved. I have been involved in debate and textual criticism for about 15 years and what I claimed and you dismissed is like a prime directive in professional circles. I do back up my claims even well beyond any burden I have concerning them. Your irrationally demanding that which you have no right to is not binding on me, scholarship, historical claims of every type, or the Bible. If I claimed that Caesar existed in what way could that be proven? In what way can you provide PROOF that any of your religious figures in the past existed? Historical claims are determined by best fit probability, not proof. the same is true of every historical claim, of any kind. I am not going over this again. If you can't see the logical necessity of what I claimed you are doing so on purpose.

No you didn't. You gave me things from the Bible which proved the Bible. You haven't given me outside sources separate from the Bible which corroborates that any of the things claimed in the Gospels actually happened.

Until you demonstrate why Christians can't comment on Christianity especially since the authors I provided had beyond every other human in history, more access to the events they recorded. When I want to know what happened at picket's charge I read battle reports from those that fought in it. When I want to know about what the moon is like I read books by astronauts who went there. When I want to know what happened in the Peloponnesian wars I read Themistocles who fought in them. If I want to know about physics I ask a physicist. When you want to know about your faith you do not first deny all your faith's texts and only learn from those outside it. Until you can tell me why the four writers who had complete access to the events are unreliable of what need do I have for texts by those that did not? They exist (I even gave a few and your response did not negate them) but you will have to demonstrate why they are necessary before I provide more. I do not believe Hinduism is true and I do not even like Islam but in 6 thousands posts you will never find one where I denounced what they claimed just because Hindus or Muslims authored them. I never use bias arguments unless I can demonstrate a bias that produced non-factual claims. I argue against claims not motives that I have no way to prove. I think (know) your demands are irrational and unjustified. If whatever exists is X you simply demand X + 1 or refuse to accept them.

 

[Philomath]

Yes they do. But even if they did not, historical claims do even in all secular scholarship. This is the equivalent of kindergarten exegesis and hermeneutics. It is certainly not a sin but I get the distinct impression you are unfamiliar with how these issues are resolved. I have been involved in debate and textual criticism for about 15 years and what I claimed and you dismissed is like a prime directive in professional circles. I do back up my claims even well beyond any burden I have concerning them. Your irrationally demanding that which you have no right to is not binding on me, scholarship, historical claims of every type, or the Bible. If I claimed that Caesar existed in what way could that be proven? In what way can you provide PROOF that any of your religious figures in the past existed? Historical claims are determined by best fit probability, not proof. the same is true of every historical claim, of any kind. I am not going over this again. If you can't see the logical necessity of what I claimed you are doing so on purpose.

I don't know why you insist on writing these long walls of texts. Faith claims do not get an exemption to the burden of proof, nothing does. You can easily prove Caesar existed because there are things to corroborate that he did. The burden of proof is on you for making the claim.

]Until you demonstrate why Christians can't comment on Christianity especially since the authors I provided had beyond every other human in history, more access to the events they recorded. When I want to know what happened at picket's charge I read battle reports from those that fought in it. When I want to know about what the moon is like I read books by astronauts who went there. When I want to know what happened in the Peloponnesian wars I read Themistocles who fought in them. If I want to know about physics I ask a physicist. When you want to know about your faith you do not first deny all your faith's texts and only learn from those outside it. Until you can tell me why the four writers who had complete access to the events are unreliable of what need do I have for texts by those that did not? They exist (I even gave a few and your response did not negate them) but you will have to demonstrate why they are necessary before I provide more. I do not believe Hinduism is true and I do not even like Islam but in 6 thousands posts you will never find one where I denounced what they claimed just because Hindus or Muslims authored them. I never use bias arguments unless I can demonstrate a bias that produced non-factual claims. I argue against claims not motives that I have no way to prove. I think (know) your demands are irrational and unjustified. If whatever exists is X you simply demand X + 1 or refuse to accept them.

Once again your putting words into my mouth. Not once did I ever say that Christians cannot comment on Christianity. I've continuously asked you for one thing over and over and it has gotten redundant. The only thing I've asked you to do is to present me with sources outside of the Bible that corroborate the Gospel events and you have failed to do so. This will be my last post since you are unwilling or unable to find these sources that I've asked you for.

 

[1robin]

I don't know why you insist on writing these long walls of texts. Faith claims do not get an exemption to the burden of proof, nothing does. You can easily prove Caesar existed because there are things to corroborate that he did. The burden of proof is on you for making the claim.

I do not know what else to say. In professional debate circles both sides conceded the same burden of proof I have explained time and again. You and every scholastic environment there is will have to simply disagree with things known about burdens for thousands of years. No Caser can't be proven to have existed. There is much to suggest he did but less than for Christ. Christ is the most textually attested figure of any kind in ancient history.

Once again your putting words into my mouth. Not once did I ever say that Christians cannot comment on Christianity. I've continuously asked you for one thing over and over and it has gotten redundant. The only thing I've asked you to do is to present me with sources outside of the Bible that corroborate the Gospel events and you have failed to do so. This will be my last post since you are unwilling or unable to find these sources that I've asked you for.

Yes it is redundant. I gave you 5 accounts from those with the most access to the events. You insisted that was not enough based on nothing whatever. However I even gave several of those which I had no burden to provide. You dismissed two (and by I believe invalid means) and ignored the rest or forgot about them. I would have given about 30 more but since you did little with what I gave even beyond what I have a burden to I decided to hold off until you demonstrated some reason I must. You didn't. So yes it has been quite redundant.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

There is much to suggest he did but less than for Christ. Christ is the most textually attested figure of any kind in ancient history.

You always make this claim but never back it up...

 

[1robin]

You always make this claim but never back it up...

That is because I am hoping I will not have to. Actually I have learned to save time by only providing evidence when requested. Which claim do you want evidence for?