There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[leroy]

You said: "Once you accept the resurrection, it is easy to accept other miracles from in the gospels."

I said: "Oh I agree. Once you resign yourself to accepting fantastical claims based on little-to-no evidence, it's much easier to believe all sorts of other fantastical claims! Is that supposed to be a good thing?"

Well I find the typical arguments for the existence of God pretty strong, so I am not “resigning” with little evidence.

I disagreed. Also, you have no idea what I accept from ancient history.

ok, what are your standards for accepting a claim from ancient history?

Already responded to.
The thing that would change my mind is .... evidence.

Irrelevant, the point that I am making is that you have a bias against “magic”………….. This simply means that your standards are higher when it comes to show that a “supernatural event happened” than whith a mundane event.

This is not supposed to be controversial, I was not expecting an endless conversation, my attempt was to simply establish that you don’t accept magic as easy as you would accept mundane events.

The main point that I am trying to establish is that the evidence for the resurrection is strong enough for anyone that has not a bias against magic.

Again, you are not expected to “play skeptic”………… you are expected to accept this point as something that is obviously truth .

How about responding to MY points?

what points?

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is my point; the problem is that you seem to be interested in reading and understanding my comments……….. non of your comments goes against what I said.

1 when a *non magical* event is attested in 2 or more independent sources, typically historians accept it as a probable fact

No they don't.

2 non magical events that are reported in Paul + the gospels are accepted as historical facts by hostoriasn

And? That doesn't make the magical parts true.

If you don’t reject any of these 2 points explicitly I will assume that you grant them

Nope.

3 but when it comes to “magic” and claims with theological implications that atheist don’t like, secular historians make an exception, and apply different criteria……… (2 or more sources are not anough)

So you accept every magical claim that any two people make about anything, if those two people also know the names of some people and places around them? I'm sorry but I'm stuck concluding that your standards of evidence are very poor. You just keep demonstrating it over and over again.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well I find the typical arguments for the existence of God pretty strong, so I am not “resigning” with little evidence.

Arguments. But not evidence.

ok, what are your standards for accepting a claim from ancient history?

I don't accept claims that defy the laws of nature as we know them, without demonstration that such has occurred. Some guys in a book saying so isn't enough for me.

Some claims from ancient history can probably never be verified (especially the magical ones) for many different reasons. We can't interview any of the people making the claims. We have no physical evidence backing up those claims that we can investigate like we would say, a crime scene. When it comes to the claims of Christ's supposed resurrection all we have are copies of copies of oral traditions that have been compiled with people with an agenda, containing many mundane details embellished with fantastical claims of miracles.

Irrelevant, the point that I am making is that you have a bias against “magic”………….. This simply means that your standards are higher when it comes to show that a “supernatural event happened” than whith a mundane event.

It's not irrelevant at all. It's the point.

EVIDENCE would convince me that "magic" is real. EVIDENCE will convince me that anything is real. I'm biased towards EVIDENCE.

This is not supposed to be controversial, I was not expecting an endless conversation, my attempt was to simply establish that you don’t accept magic as easy as you would accept mundane events.

Of course I don't accept magic "as easy as I would accept mundane events."

The main point that I am trying to establish is that the evidence for the resurrection is strong enough for anyone that has not a bias against magic.

That "evidence" being stories from the Bible. One of which, a guy claims to have seen a light and heard a disembodied voice. And you consider that evidence that a dead person was physically resurrected from the dead and flew up to heaven?

Again, you are not expected to “play skeptic”………… you are expected to accept this point as something that is obviously truth .

Your points are not "obviously true." Sorry.

what points?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

 

[Subduction Zone]

With independnet I mean “the authors didn’t copied from each other nor form a common source”

With indpeendnet you mean “free of filtration”

If we mean different things, then by definition it is “just semantics”


ok and what standards do you suggest, to determine the truth of a historical event?

why are your standarts better than mine?



I lost, because I lack the ability (and the dishonesty) to use the clever debate tactics that you use.

Our conversations always follow that pattern

1 you made an asertions

2 I ask you to support that assertion

3 you say that you already did

4 I ask you to quote the post where you supported your claim

5 you invent an excuse for not providing that quote.

In this thread

• You sais that there are other sources apart from josephus that support the 6AD date.
• And that some mundane claims that are affirmed in both paul and the gospels have been refuted.

And you have failed to support those assertions.

And @SkepticThinker and @It Aint Necessarily always hit like to your comments, (implying that they reed them) I challenge them to quote a post from you where you supported those claims.



But you cant quote a single example of a lie……….. can you?

That is my point; the problem is that you seem to be interested in reading and understanding my comments……….. non of your comments goes against what I said.

1 when a *non magical* event is attested in 2 or more independent sources, typically historians accept it as a probable fact

2 non magical events that are reported in Paul + the gospels are accepted as historical facts by hostoriasn

If you don’t reject any of these 2 points explicitly I will assume that you grant them

3 but when it comes to “magic” and claims with theological implications that atheist don’t like, secular historians make an exception, and apply different criteria……… (2 or more sources are not anough)

TLDR. Dude, you lost move on. Make a new argument.

 

[leroy]

No, no historian does that. Right now the experts on Mark's use of Paul have all written papers in journals:

The principal works to consult on this (all of which from peer reviewed academic presses) are:

• Michael Bird & Joel Willitts, Paul and the Gospels: Christologies, Conflicts and Convergences (T&T Clark 2011)
• David Oliver Smith, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul: The Influence of the Epistles on the Synoptic Gospels (Resource 2011)
• Tom Dykstra, Mark: Canonizer of Paul (OCABS 2012)
• Oda Wischmeyer & David Sim, eds., Paul and Mark: Two Authors at the Beginnings of Christianity (de Gruyter 2014)
• Eve-Marie Becker et al., Mark and Paul: For and Against Pauline Influence on Mark (de Gruyter 2014)
• Thomas Nelligan, The Quest for Mark’s Sources: An Exploration of the Case for Mark’s Use of First Corinthians (Pickwick 2015)

Go to the point, woudl you give an example of a mundane claim or vent from ancient history (something that has on theological implications that atheist don’t like)

That:

1 is reported by Paul

2 is also reported by at least one gospel

3 that is not accepted by most historians?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Arguments. But not evidence.

I don't accept claims that defy the laws of nature as we know them, without demonstration that such has occurred. Some guys in a book saying so isn't enough for me.

Some claims from ancient history can probably never be verified (especially the magical ones) for many different reasons. We can't interview any of the people making the claims. We have no physical evidence backing up those claims that we can investigate like we would say, a crime scene. When it comes to the claims of Christ's supposed resurrection all we have are copies of copies of oral traditions that have been compiled with people with an agenda, containing many mundane details embellished with fantastical claims of miracles.

It's not irrelevant at all. It's the point.

EVIDENCE would convince me that "magic" is real. EVIDENCE will convince me that anything is real. I'm biased towards EVIDENCE.

Of course I don't accept magic "as easy as I would accept mundane events."

That "evidence" being stories from the Bible. One of which, a guy claims to have seen a light and heard a disembodied voice. And you consider that evidence that a dead person was physically resurrected from the dead and flew up to heaven?

Your points are not "obviously true." Sorry.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Magic is an extraordinary claim. It would require extraordinary evidence.

Trying to place claims of magic on the same level as claims from established knowledge is an old trick. Much like saying an informed opinion compared to an uniformed opinion is just an opinion and both are equal. They are not.

It is a fallacious attempt to level the playing field in favor of wild claims without evidence.

 

[leroy]

Arguments. But not evidence.

Arguments, with premises that are likely to be true, are evidnce.

If you think that the premises of the Kalama Cosmological argument or the FT argument or moral argument etc….are likely to be wrong………. then sure you can dismissed them as “poor evidence”

But that is far away from the topic of this thread. (you can open a new thread and explain to us, why you think the premises are wrong)

Of course I don't accept magic "as easy as I would accept mundane events."

Yes that is and has always been my point,

You have a bias against “magic”

That "evidence" being stories from the Bible. One of which, a guy claims to have seen a light and heard a disembodied voice. And you consider that evidence that a dead person was physically resurrected from the dead and flew up to heaven?

Yea, my point is that if resurrections where common and mundane events (every once in a while someone resurrects for some reason) historians (and you I suppose) would have no problem in granting that Jesus resurrected almost 2000y ago.

For example historians accept as a probable fact that Jesus had brothers (plural) despite the fact that all we have is “stories from the bible” confirming that claim.

“stories from the bible” are typically good enough for historians to establish something as a historical fact. (as long as the event is reported by more than one independent source within the bible)……………. But magic claims require more evidence…………. Would you agree?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Magic is an extraordinary claim. It would require extraordinary evidence.

Trying to place claims of magic on the same level as claims from established knowledge is an old trick. Much like saying an informed opinion compared to an uniformed opinion is just an opinion and both are equal. They are not.

It is a fallacious attempt to level the playing field in favor of wild claims without evidence.

Yes! This! ^^^ A thousand times, this! ^^^
That's what it basically boils down to here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Arguments, with premises that are likely to be true, are evidnce.

If you think that the premises of the Kalama Cosmological argument or the FT argument or moral argument etc….are likely to be wrong………. then sure you can dismissed them as “poor evidence”

But that is far away from the topic of this thread. (you can open a new thread and explain to us, why you think the premises are wrong)

Yes that is and has always been my point,

You have a bias against “magic”

You do not even know what the Kalam (note spelling) is not an argument for God. If you understand it it is only an argument for the beginning of the universe. "And God did it" is an addition by William Lane Craig. The FT argument fails because it is just an argument from ignorance, Worse yet some of the unexplained constants have been explained. Does that refute God? You are once again not reasoning consistently or rationally.

Yea, my point is that if resurrections where common and mundane events (every once in a while someone resurrects for some reason) historians (and you I suppose) would have no problem in granting that Jesus resurrected almost 2000y ago.

For example historians accept as a probable fact that Jesus had brothers (plural) despite the fact that all we have is “stories from the bible” confirming that claim.

“stories from the bible” are typically good enough for historians to establish something as a historical fact. (as long as the event is reported by more than one independent source within the bible)……………. But magic claims require more evidence…………. Would you agree?

And that standard is applied to all such stories. Not just the Bible. If you are going to use that nonsense to argue for the God of the Bible then the Odyssey and the Iliad are proof of Greek Gods.

 

[leroy]

Magic is an extraordinary claim. It would require extraordinary evidence.

Trying to place claims of magic on the same level as claims from established knowledge is an old trick. Much like saying an informed opinion compared to an uniformed opinion is just an opinion and both are equal. They are not.

It is a fallacious attempt to level the playing field in favor of wild claims without evidence.

All I am saying is that if resurrections where “not extraordinary”, the historical evidence that we have for such event, would be good enough to accept the event as a probable historical fact.

Why, ? because events that are reported by 2 or more independent sources are typically accepted as “probable facts” unless you have good reasons to reject it.

So assuming that you have good reasons to reject magic (miracles) as a possibility you are intellectually justified in rejecting the resurrection

Any disagreement?

 

[leroy]

TLDR. Dude, you lost move on. Make a new argument.

What happened? Once again you noticed that I was correct all along and you what to change to an other topic, to avoid your embarrassment?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

All I am saying is that if resurrections where “not extraordinary”, the historical evidence that we have for such event, would be good enough to accept the event as a probable historical fact.

A man returning from the dead is not extraordinary and is a common, mundane event? Really?

Why, ? because events that are reported by 2 or more independent sources are typically accepted as “probable facts” unless you have good reasons to reject it.

A claim unestablished to be a fact.

So assuming that you have good reasons to reject magic (miracles) as a possibility you are intellectually justified in rejecting the resurrection

Outside of belief based on faith (believing without evidence), I have no reason (no evidence or logic) to accept claims of magic without evidence. There is no precedent for accepting claims based on magic. Whether it is 2 or 2 billion, belief is not a sound basis to support claims.

Any disagreement?

You've seen it.

That you accept magical claims without evidence is itself not evidence for those magical claims.

 

[leroy]

You do not even know what the Kalam (note spelling) is not an argument for God. If you understand it it is only an argument for the beginning of the universe. "And God did it" is an addition by William Lane Craig. The FT argument fails because it is just an argument from ignorance, Worse yet some of the unexplained constants have been explained. Does that refute God? You are once again not reasoning consistently or rationally.

Sure, all I am expecting from you is to acknowledge that from the point of view of a theist (or even an agnostic who is 50% / 50%) miracles are not intrinsically very unlikely.

And that standard is applied to all such stories. Not just the Bible. If you are going to use that nonsense to argue for the God of the Bible then the Odyssey and the Iliad are proof of Greek Gods.

The resurrection is supported by multiple contemporary sources written by authors that didn’t copied from each other nor form a common source

You don’t have that for the illiad……… so your comparison is not valid.

Note, the courtesy that I had with you

1 I claimed that you are wrong in comparing the iliad with the new testament

2 I explained why I think you are wrong.
* the illiad is just one source written by a man who was not contemporary and was not even trying to report real historical events.
* the new testament is many sources written by many contemporary authors, that where trying to report what really happened (what they thought was true)

I didn’t use dishonest tactics such as “I already refuted your claim, but I will not tell you in which post is that refutation”

 

[leroy]

A man returning from the dead is not extraordinary and is a common, mundane event? Really?

A claim unestablished to be a fact.

Outside of belief based on faith (believing without evidence), I have no reason (no evidence or logic) to accept claims of magic without evidence. There is no precedent for accepting claims based on magic. Whether it is 2 or 2 billion, belief is not a sound basis to support claims.

You've seen it.

That you accept magical claims without evidence is itself not evidence for those magical claims.

A man returning from the dead is not extraordinary and is a common, mundane event? Really?

I said *if* resurrection where proven to be possible and common, then the resurrection of Jesus would have not been an extraordinary claim, …..and the current evidence that we have (Paul + gospels) would be good enough to establish the resurrection as an event that probably happened.

As an example, historians can establish as probable, that Jesus had brothers because we have Paul + the gosples confirming that claim.

Any disagreement?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure, all I am expecting from you is to acknowledge that from the point of view of a theist (or even an agnostic who is 50% / 50%) miracles are not intrinsically very unlikely.

What? That has nothing to do with those bogus claims. Why did you post them? You do not get to shift gears in this fashion.

The resurrection is supported by multiple contemporary sources written by authors that didn’t copied from each other nor form a common source

You don’t have that for the illiad……… so your comparison is not valid.

Note, the courtesy that I had with you

1 I claimed that you are wrong in comparing the iliad with the new testament

2 I explained why I think you are wrong.
* the illiad is just one source written by a man who was not contemporary and was not even trying to report real historical events.
* the new testament is many sources written by many contemporary authors, that where trying to report what really happened (what they thought was true)

I didn’t use dishonest tactics such as “I already refuted your claim, but I will not tell you in which post is that refutation”

Really? Prove it. Find another source besides the Bible. I know that you do not understand it, but that is only one source. And not a very good one. And yes, you do use dishonest tactics. Ignoring corrections. Demanding to see those corrections countless times. those are dishonest. All that you have ever had in response was denial.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I said *if* resurrection where proven to be possible and common, then the resurrection of Jesus would have not been an extraordinary claim, …..and the current evidence that we have (Paul + gospels) would be good enough to establish the resurrection as an event that probably happened.

As an example, historians can establish as probable, that Jesus had brothers because we have Paul + the gosples confirming that claim.

Any disagreement?

Everyone has told you that the standards for evidence are completely different for magical and nonmagical claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What happened? Once again you noticed that I was correct all along and you what to change to an other topic, to avoid your embarrassment?

Ooh, another example of a dishonest tactic. I said that you were likely correct about non-magical Jesus. I never said that you were correct anywhere else. I never even implied that.

 

[leroy]

What? That has nothing to do with those bogus claims. Why did you post them? You do not get to shift gears in this fashion.

Really? Prove it. Find another source besides the Bible. I know that you do not understand it, but that is only one source. And not a very good one. And yes, you do use dishonest tactics. Ignoring corrections. Demanding to see those corrections countless times. those are dishonest. All that you have ever had in response was denial.

Again, this is just semantics , all you did is invent a new language where the term “only 1 source” means multiple authors that where later selected by some guy in Rome, to become part of on book



the point is that we have multiple contemporary authors that didn’t copied from each other that claim the resurrection as a historical event. You don’t have that for the illiad

What? That has nothing to do with those bogus claims. Why did you post them? You do not get to shift gears in this fashion.

again avoiding direct answers?

please refute or grant my claim
"Sure, all I am expecting from you is to acknowledge that from the point of view of a theist (or even an agnostic who is 50% / 50%) miracles are not intrinsically very unlikely."

 

[leroy]

Everyone has told you that the standards for evidence are completely different for magical and nonmagical claims.

That is exactly what I said, and you together with your together with other users, rejected the assertion.

The problem is that you (plural) don’t even read other people´s comments, all you do is play skeptic just for the sake of being skeptic

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, this is just semantics , all you did is invent a new language where the term “only 1 source” means multiple authors that where later selected by some guy in Rome, to become part of on book



the point is that we have multiple contemporary authors that didn’t copied from each other that claim the resurrection as a historical event. You don’t have that for the illiad

You don't have that for the Bible either. At least you have not been able to show one. You do not get to count the Bible more than once since it went through a process where any other sources that refuted it were eliminated. That makes it one sources that survived that process. This has been explained to you. What other sources make claims of magical Jesus?

again avoiding direct answers?

Avoiding dishonest questions. You cannot ignore the explanation of what you did wrong.

please refute or grant my claim
"Sure, all I am expecting from you is to acknowledge that from the point of view of a theist (or even an agnostic who is 50% / 50%) miracles are not intrinsically very unlikely."

No need to respond to nonsense. You need to support it. That is such a worthless statement that one can ignore it.