Resurrection Evidence

[Tom 1]

Eyewitness attestations are reported contemporarily. (I trust we also agree that all such later reports, in writing, are from decades/centuries of oral tradition)?

This could provide a starting point for something useful. Please give your reasons for a late dating of the book of Luke, and Acts, explaining why the events narrated in Luke come to an abrupt end at an identifiable point in time. From Luke the dating of the other synoptics can be argued.

 

[cvanwey]

Um, I posited many observations, statements, questions, and bullet points in post #505 alone. You cared not to address virtually any of them. But I'll continue to be the bigger person....

In what way is this an argument? You repeat yourself, I offer some explanations, you repeat yourself. That isn’t really an argument.

You have failed to demonstrate, in the slightest, as to why my points/questions are irrelevant or incorrect. You instead tell me I'm being 'pedestrian'. Okay, demonstrate....

Furthermore, I'll repeat when I notice you ignore, redirect, or insult; without actually offering reasons(s) for my given points/questions....

Please answer this question: why do you object to informing yourself so that you can form useful questions and have a useful debate? In what way do you find that objectionable?

This question is generalized/unspecific. I'm asking you pointed/directed questions. I'm presenting directed observations. Instead of demonstrating why they are 'juvenile', you simply state that they are.

I have already conceded a great many things here... (i.e.) Jesus was born, preached, and was executed.

Why do you feel He resurrected? I've given my responses. All you state, is that I am asking inappropriate questions. You leave it at that.

Third request... Post #505 please.

 

[cvanwey]

What is it that you believe you are challenging? Please explain.

Post 505 please, 4th request

 

[cvanwey]

That is how learning works - you see? The question 'can supernatural events' happen is something that has seriously preoccupied some people to the extent that they have dedicated significant amounts of time to investigating it. Other people, any people, can read what they write, think about it, and form an opinion. That is how learning about things works. As I'm sure you are aware, people don't arrive at beliefs, opinions etc in a vacuum, or by some simplistic process that can easily be explained. Generally it is a cumulative process. Try it - address the question to yourself and provide evidence for some of your beliefs, see if you can manage to break it down to some set of absolutes.

Post #505. 5th request

 

[cvanwey]

This could provide a starting point for something useful. Please give your reasons for a late dating of the book of Luke, and Acts, explaining why the events narrated in Luke come to an abrupt end at an identifiable point in time. From Luke the dating of the other synoptics can be argued.

Great, you almost responded here..... Almost....

You must first acknowledge/agree that the Gospels comprise of oral tradition. Do you agree????? Do you agree that miracles can only be validated by corroborated eyewitnesses?????

 

[Tom 1]

Great, you almost responded here..... Almost....

You must first acknowledge/agree that the Gospels comprise of oral tradition. Do you agree????? Do you agree that miracles can only be validated by corroborated eyewitnesses?????

Oral tradition seems to be the case, yes. Only be validated meaning what? If something miraculous/supernatural can happen then it happens regardless of any other condition.

 

[Tom 1]

Um, I posited many observations, statements, questions, and bullet points in post #505 alone. You cared not to address virtually any of them. But I'll continue to be the bigger person....



You have failed to demonstrate, in the slightest, as to why my points/questions are irrelevant or incorrect. You instead tell me I'm being 'pedestrian'. Okay, demonstrate....

Furthermore, I'll repeat when I notice you ignore, redirect, or insult; without actually offering reasons(s) for my given points/questions....



This question is generalized/unspecific. I'm asking you pointed/directed questions. I'm presenting directed observations. Instead of demonstrating why they are 'juvenile', you simply state that they are.

I have already conceded a great many things here... (i.e.) Jesus was born, preached, and was executed.

Why do you feel He resurrected? I've given my responses. All you state, is that I am asking inappropriate questions. You leave it at that.

Third request... Post #505 please.

No, it’s quite specific - why do you object to using available sources, writings from current scholars who cover the kinds of issues you ask about in a lot of detail?

 

[Tom 1]

Post #505. 5th request

How many answers do you want? In the post you refer back to you present a lot of things you think, I’m not sure why you keep referring back to it. Some point at which to start, the dating of Luke‘a writing, for instance would provide some kind of shape to a discussion.

 

[cvanwey]

Oral tradition seems to be the case, yes. Only be validated meaning what? If something miraculous/supernatural can happen then it happens regardless of any other condition.

Why is oral tradition alone, in this case, sufficient for the claims of supernatural events? And if it is, do you accept as such from other claims to the supernatural, outside the Bible?

Do you know of any other way to 'verify' or 'validate' claims of a one time claimed miraculous event, besides corroborated eyewitness attestation?

 

[cvanwey]

No, it’s quite specific - why do you object to using available sources, writings from current scholars who cover the kinds of issues you ask about in a lot of detail?

You continually miss my responses apparently?

I'm aware a plethora of books, resources, and debates exist for virtually any topic we could bring into light, in this forum arena.

I'M ASKING YOU which of these point(s) convince you most? You must be able to reference some? Or, are you going to stick to the response, 'it just seems really true, due to the overall collective claims.'

For which I still respond.... Just because the Bible seems to get some things right, does this mean unverified miracles also happened? And by unverified, I mean NOT 'validated' by corroborated eyewitnesses.

 

[Tom 1]

Why is oral tradition alone, in this case, sufficient for the claims of supernatural events? And if it is, do you accept as such from other claims to the supernatural, outside the Bible?

Do you know of any other way to 'verify' or 'validate' claims of a one time claimed miraculous event, besides corroborated eyewitness attestation?

As I’ve said several times before, the approach I find useful is to look into supernatural events more generally - are such things possible. I’m satisfied that there is no good reason to believe they aren’t, that things that do not fit in with a generally western model of thinking, in its most basic sense, do not and cannot happen. Having looked into it, that makes sense to me. We can look at some of that, if you like, but you appear to believe that your narrower approach has some inherent reality defining quality about it. Well, if that floats your boat then good for you, but you should be aware that it doesn’t go a lot further than that.

 

[cvanwey]

How many answers do you want? In the post you refer back to you present a lot of things you think, I’m not sure why you keep referring back to it. Some point at which to start, the dating of Luke‘a writing, for instance would provide some kind of shape to a discussion.

You fail to answer my questions, but then just pose yours. I can do that too....

'How many answers do you want? How do you decipher/handle the original ending of Mark, at 16:8, vs the acknowledged later addition (9-20), which seems to suggest agenda?"

You see, I can do this too Let's not skip ahead. In post #505, I feel there exists points of interest to delve upon...

 

[Tom 1]

You continually miss my responses apparently?

I'm aware a plethora of books, resources, and debates exist for virtually any topic we could bring into light, in this forum arena.

I'M ASK YOU which of these point(s) convince you most? You must be able to reference some? Or, are you going to stick to the response, 'it just seems really true, do to the overall collective claims.'

For which I still respond.... Just because the Bible seems to get some things right, does this mean unverified miracles also happened? And by unverified, I mean NOT 'validated' by corroborated eyewitnesses.

Sure, questions of dating this or that book are quite relevant, you raised that question yourself. In debating with other people it is important to realise that any notions you might have about how people think may only be occasionally applicable, if at all. You would get better results by ditching your assumptions and engaging with what people actually say to you.

 

[Tom 1]

You fail to answer my questions, but then just pose yours. I can do that too....

'How many answers do you want? How do you decipher/handle the original ending of Mark, at 16:8, vs the acknowledged later addition (9-20), which seems to suggest agenda?"

You see, I can do this too Let's not skip ahead. In post #505, I feel there exists points of interest to delve upon...

In relation to what? The resurrection? Or is this a different tangent?

 

[Tom 1]

I'M ASKING YOU which of these point(s) convince you most? You must be able to reference some? Or, are you going to stick to the response, 'it just seems really true, due to the overall collective claims.'

Where do you get this notion that there has to be a thing that ‘convinced me most’?

 

[Tom 1]

'it just seems really true, due to the overall collective claims.'

By putting together a number of different things from various perspectives you can be led to think about them, in ensemble. That is generally how opinions are formed. Sometimes that is a conscious process, sometimes it isn’t.

 

[cvanwey]

As I’ve said several times before, the approach I find useful is to look into supernatural events more generally - are such things possible.

Well, anything's possible But a better question might be... Do we have grounds or sufficient evidence to believe that any claims to the supernatural have taken place? I'd say 'no'. You'd say 'yes'. Let's start with the claims to a resurrection. How might one go about 'validating' such claims?

Again, do we have corroborated eyewitness attestation at least? It's a (yes or no) question

If yes, please explain. If no, then why do you still believe in this claim anyways?

I’m satisfied that there is no good reason to believe they aren’t, that things that do not fit in with a generally western model of thinking, in its most basic sense, do not and cannot happen.

North, south, east, or west. Doesn't seem to matter.... The claim rises or falls, based upon the merit or veracity of the claim. Do we have corroborated eyewitness attestation to such said event in history? If we don't, why is it still logical or rational to believe this specific claimed event happened anyways?

Having looked into it, that makes sense to me. We can look at some of that, if you like, but you appear to believe that your narrower approach has some inherent reality defining quality about it. Well, if that floats your boat then good for you, but you should be aware that it doesn’t go a lot further than that.

Please see above...

 

[cvanwey]

You would get better results by ditching your assumptions and engaging with what people actually say to you.

In earnest, I feel you are dodging some of my repeated inquiries. If I'm earnestly mistaken, my apologies. However, I feel you are side-stepping some of my observations. I'm trying to stay on track. I do not wish to deviate, any more than necessary.

 

[cvanwey]

In relation to what? The resurrection? Or is this a different tangent?

My point here is to not jump ahead. I feel all point(s), in post #505, may eluminate all that is needed.?.?.?. If you can prove me wrong, great! But all you are stating, thus far, is that I need to 'do better.' Without first demonstrating why my points, questions, and observations are not relevant to the discussion of the 'resurrection.'

And yes, my later point was adjacent to the 'resurrection claim', which is to LATER illustrate a singular point -- regarding possible agenda. But we are not there yet.... Nor, do I feel we may even need to go THIS far So please do not try and jump ahead w/o FIRST addressing prior observations.

 

[cvanwey]

Where do you get this notion that there has to be a thing that ‘convinced me most’?

It's not unreasonable to ask which piece of evidence you would lead with.... In such a case, you would either lead with a less 'powerful one', or what you might feel is a 'more powerful' one...