Resurrection Evidence

[Tom 1]

I've asked you countless times to either agree, or demonstrate why corroborated eyewitness attestation is not the only viable means to verify a past one time miraculous event. (i.e.) resurrection. You have yet to answer. You skate around it, avoid it, ignore it.

In actual fact you have raised a whole random slew of questions, points and half questions. If this is your only question, what is all the other stuff about?

If this is your only question, if you are asking if your 'past one time miraculous event' can only be verified some clarity would be useful -

By verified, what do you mean? As in because it's written down that some people saw it happen in a few places then we can say it is verifiable? What in concrete terms would you consider to be verifiable?

For the time being however -
What leads you to not consider the related effects of that 'one time' event as relevant?

What - and please be detailed - are your reasons for not considering the gospels reliable? Please provide a coherent answer, thanks.

 

[Tom 1]

And yet, you want to make no effort in justifying a resurrection claim, but make much effort in others???

It's your line of argument, it's entirely reasonable to expect you to show some good faith in making it.

 

[Tom 1]

but make much effort in others

Virtually no effort is required to demonstrate that you Cvanwey, are genuinely interested in the questions you raise and are not merely acting out some personal frustrations via the web. All you need to do is read an article and say what you think. Then we can see what comes next.

 

[cvanwey]

In actual fact you have raised a whole random slew of questions, points and half questions. If this is your only question, what is all the other stuff about?

What a shocker.... 550+ posts.... Of course there will exist other questions, inquiries, observations, responses to responses, and etc... Duh.. If I keep chasing you, this could go indefinitely apparently; But also apparently, not in the intended direction of the OP

But it would SURE be nice to answer the direct question, posed to you many times now. Are you going to?????

Or, do you have no intention of moving this discussion along?

If this is your only question, if you are asking if your 'past one time miraculous event' can only be verified some clarity would be useful -

By verified, what do you mean? As in because it's written down that some people saw it happen in a few places then we can say it is verifiable? What in concrete terms would you consider to be verifiable?

Come-on now! Please...

I again ask...

Do you know what corroborated and eyewitness even mean? I suppose you do. Hence, the avoidance maybe?

For the time being however -
What leads you to not consider the related effects of that 'one time' event as relevant?

What - and please be detailed - are your reasons for not considering the gospels reliable? Please provide a coherent answer, thanks.

As demonstrated in post #505

 

[cvanwey]

It's your line of argument, it's entirely reasonable to expect you to show some good faith in making it.

Demonstration of my faith, to [you], started in post #505. And instead of answering them, you jumped forward.

 

[klutedavid]

Often times, debate will transpire between believers and non-believers. At the end of some of these discussions, the believer will stop the debate, and state 'all that matters is that Jesus died for us, etc..'

I now ask....

What exactly makes the evidence(s) for a claimed resurrection so dang compelling, as opposed to claims of other messiahs, god(s), other?

Because at the end of the day, Jesus either rose from the dead, or He didn't. Are we justified in believing He did?

I think the evidence is very compelling. The growth of Christianity in the first and second century, was based on that death and resurrection.

Christianity would not even exist, if Jesus did not rise from the tomb.

The entire New Testament is based on that resurrection event and the New Testament itself. Would not have been written if that resurrection event did not occur.

There is no possible reason for the existence of the church, unless the resurrection event took place.

The resurrection of the Christ is what Christianity is all about.

 

[Tom 1]

Demonstration of my faith, to [you], started in post #505. And instead of answering them, you jumped forward.

Well, as I have pointed out several times that is a rambling post with a number of assertions in it. What do you mean that it demonstrates your faith? In any case, I responded to one of the points you made (there are quite a few), and you went off on another tangent. You then asked another rather confusing question, then went on to say that your only question is about written evidence, but you also seem reluctant to look at that question, as it applies to the relevant texts.

 

[Tom 1]

But it would SURE be nice to answer the direct question, posed to you many times now. Are you going to?????

I have, several times. To several of your questions, of which there are quite a few, not just one.

The particular question you are referring to here is about the authenticity of the gospels, correct? As in previous posts, that raises a number of questions. The dating of them is one, so you could explain what your thoughts are about that. You said something about how do I ‘deal with’ Mark 16, if you can explain what you mean then that looks as if it might also be relevant. Being that these books are in the bible, explaining your point in relation to them would be a way of addressing your question.

Your question ‘is there....’ can be addressed by looking at those books, you see? You can say ‘for these reasons I don’t think so’ etc, giving your reasons, then someone else has something to respond to. Jumping to ‘is there, yes or no’ is - what? What point would there be in a yes or no answer that doesn't address the subject you're asking about? Please take some time to think this through. Here’s an analogy - say you run a removal firm. You get a call, someone asks you if they can hire you to move their stuff. You, being a logical fella, reply ‘ah, but can your stuff fit in my van?’ Your potential punter, slightly confused, says ‘um, I’m not sure (she looks around at her stuff), um how big is your van?’ seeing an opportunity to display your logic once again you state ‘oh, come now madam, it is a simple question - will your stuff fit in my van, or not? Yes or no?’ ‘Well, perhaps you should come and have a look’ ‘come and have a look? How strange - you do not know if your stuff would fit in my van?’ (Click). Oh no, your customer has gone! Here’s what went wrong - you didn’t want to go and have a look, just as, although you raise questions about a thing, you then refuse to engage in any discussion unless it follows a certain, pre-determined path which, for you anyway, proves your point. Is there some other point to doing that?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Hey hey

Do you mean this one i posed to you?

"Why is it important to you to hold the view that the resurrection of Jesus never happened?

No one conclusion is important to me. What is important to me is to believe what is true. I don’t believe in the resurrection because there is no evidence that convinces me it is true. If I find that I will believe it.

 

[the iconoclast]

I was hoping that when I returned, you would have picked up where we had left off months ago, at post #403?

It's apparent that you do not feel confident sufficient evidence exists to support the claims of a resurrection. Hence, the reason we are now where we are...

Hey hey

Sorry my dear

I didn't realise that you gave me the go ahead. Excellent give me a week and I'll get onto it. ATM I have some conversations lined up so quite busy with that.

I been asking you to converse for some time and I didn't get any luck. Now I'm glad that you have accepted.

Cya soon you remarkable and beautiful diamond

 

[the iconoclast]

Ok.




So far, so good.

Hey hey my dear

Wow. I'm going to give myself a C+.

The trilemma states that nothing at all can be proved unless you appeal to circular reasoning, infinite regress, or axioms.

Trilemma is a thought experiment used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving ANY truth, even in the fields of LOGIC and MATHS.

Yep. That's exactly what that wiki leaks article said about your so called Trilemma.

So what exactly is it you're asking me to do with 1+1+1+1=4?

I want you to show me how you apply the trilemma to ;
1 seed + 1 seed + 1 seed + 1 seed = 4 seeds and they are of the same variety.

(I thought I jumped into the big pool where you were)

Your Trilemma is a thought experiment used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving ANY truth, even in the fields of LOGIC and MATHS.

The truth is I have 4 seeds. I found them all individually and added them up.

1. Demonstrate the impossibility of proving this truth?

Or if I have gotten something wrong, show me with an example as to how this trilemma proves/disproves a something?

You want me to prove it?

I want you to demonstrate the impossibility of proving ANY truth, even in the fields of LOGIC and MATHS.

I want you to show me why I should consider this trilemma. You wanted me to use it in the every day and I'm not convinced yet.

I want you to demonstrate the claim of the trilemma my dear.

Is that a hard thing for you to do?

I already told you it can't be done without appealing to the trilemma. So... isn't it your job to prove it without appealing to the trilemma?

I want you to demonstrate the impossibility of proving ANY truth, even in the fields of LOGIC and MATHS.

I want you to show me why I should consider this trilemma.

How about you pick something and don't be shy?

Or are you asking me to prove 1+1+1+1=4 from the axioms? That would be trivial.

I want you to demonstrate the impossibility of proving ANY truth, even in the fields of LOGIC and MATHS.

I want you to show me why I should consider this trilemma.

How about you pick something and don't be shy?

I'm quoting you out of order in this section because this question of yours highlights the approach you're taking.

It's called "asking questions to a claim being made by you". In this case I asked you what nothingness means to you and you supplied a link to this fun word "trilemma".

You want me to use this thought experiment in my everyday so I'm testing this trilemma to see how effective it is.

Your post seems to avoid demonstrating and proving you claim, and it seems like you have become distracted and want to mock me.

I'm empathise with your need to insult me. How about this, you are smarter than me in every way and I need to be fixed.

So show me what I need to learn, demonstrate your so called "Trilemma".

When I first read this, I thought it was one of the dumbest questions I've ever seen.

Well I didn't think it was dumb or I wouldn't have asked.

Don't forget you said this to me in post 457.

"Spoken language yields to the trilemma by being circular (every word is defined in terms of other words, and there are finitely many words)".

You said every word is defined in terms of other words. You said spoken language yields to a circular argument.

If its dumb then it should be no match for you so.

How can you demonstrate that the word seed is defined in terms of other words?

Show me how this circular argument yields?

Ps I read one of your replies to bigv. Don't worry I don't vote.

But then it occurred to me that you are trying to construct all language and logic from nothing. The only word that exists is seed, apparently.

My dear, cherub, diamond, what you got, and hey hey are more or less the only words I use hababaha

I used seed last time in my debate against Kylie. That was fun!!!!

Besides that.... I'm not a huge fan.

Well... the only word available to us is "seed." So here's my answer:

Fair enough. I guess it's easier to try and mock me than to demonstrate your position. I hope you give me something better in your next post, maybe you will show me how this trilemma is effective.

At this point in time I'm still hopeful.

Seed. Seed seed, seed. Seed? Seed! Seed seed; seed, seed, seed. 1 seed 1 seed 1 seed 1 seed 4 seed. 1 seed 2 seed 3 seed 4 seed. 1 2 3 4. 1+1+1+1=4.

Thats weird. R u ok?

My dear are we really in the big pool. After reading your reply so far, the kiddie pool seems way more advanced.

Seed.

I'm concerned you may be suffering from a stroke now. Hehehe

Spoiler

Seed?

Fair enough. This is quite strange.

I agree. Let's make sure we're on the same page before we move on to the next topic. Are we talking English or seed?

My dear you understood all my last posts and you seem to understand this one. This remark makes you seem foolish rather than what ever it is you are trying to do. Hehehe

With a remark like that, I dont think you are in the deep end.

I'm speaking Russian cherub hehehe

What's a mathematical outcome? What is "what"? What? Seed.

Wow. Ok I can assist you here hehe

I typed "mathematical meaning" into google and got this; relating to mathematics.

I typed "outcome meaning" into google and got this; a result.

I typed "What meaning" and got; come to have (something); receive.

I typed "seed meaning" and got; the unit of reproduction of a flowering plant, capable of developing into another such plant.

I hope that helps you my dear and it was a pleasure to do it for you but I am becoming concerned about you. After reading your post it seems like the pool I was in must have not been the kiddie pool.

I think I just jumped into the kiddie pool you happened to be in. I guess you felt like a big boy you must have thought it was deep. Hehehe

What have you got to help convince me of this trilemma?

Ah yeah by the way here's an index for you in case you have trouble My dear.

What - come to have (something); receive.

Have - come to have (something); receive.

You - used to refer to the person or people that the speaker is addressing.

Got - come to have (something); receive.

To - expressing motion in the direction of (a particular location).

Help - make it easier or possible for (someone) to do something by offering them one's

Convince - cause (someone) to believe firmly in the truth of something.

Me - used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself as the object of a verb or preposition.

Of - expressing the relationship between a part and a whole.

This - used to identify a specific person or thing close at hand or being indicated or experienced.

Trilemma - a thought experiment used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving ANY truth, even in the fields of LOGIC and MATHS.

Seed...?

I'm ok but my bird sure loves it. Especially sunflower seed.

Seed.

Seed!

Anyway nothingness is exemplified by this so called Trilemma.

Show me how this trilemma can demonstrate the impossibility of proving ANY truth, even in the fields of LOGIC and MATHS.

If have gotten something wrong than explain it!?!?

Cheers but if this is how you debate then im very disappointed. ;(

 

[the iconoclast]

No one conclusion is important to me. What is important to me is to believe what is true. I don’t believe in the resurrection because there is no evidence that convinces me it is true. If I find that I will believe it.

Hey hey

My dear of course it is important to you or else you would not be here.

All my friends are atheists. None of them waste their time going on forums. You do. That means there is significance hence it is important to you.

So you are here.

What evidence do you need to believe in the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ?

Cheers

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Hey hey

My dear of course it is important to you or else you would not be here.

All my friends are atheists. None of them waste their time going on forums. You do. That means there is significance hence it is important to you.

What do you think is important to me?

So you are here.

What evidence do you need to believe in the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ?

Cheers

I have no idea. I do know that what evidence I have seen so far has been insufficient to convince me after studying it. Maybe start with why you believe in the resurrection of Jesus?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Hey hey my dear

Wow. I'm going to give myself a C+.



Trilemma is a thought experiment used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving ANY truth, even in the fields of LOGIC and MATHS.

Yep. That's exactly what that wiki leaks article said about your so called Trilemma.



I want you to show me how you apply the trilemma to ;
1 seed + 1 seed + 1 seed + 1 seed = 4 seeds and they are of the same variety.

(I thought I jumped into the big pool where you were)

Your Trilemma is a thought experiment used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving ANY truth, even in the fields of LOGIC and MATHS.

The truth is I have 4 seeds. I found them all individually and added them up.

1. Demonstrate the impossibility of proving this truth?

Or if I have gotten something wrong, show me with an example as to how this trilemma proves/disproves a something?



I want you to demonstrate the impossibility of proving ANY truth, even in the fields of LOGIC and MATHS.

I want you to show me why I should consider this trilemma. You wanted me to use it in the every day and I'm not convinced yet.

I want you to demonstrate the claim of the trilemma my dear.

Is that a hard thing for you to do?



I want you to demonstrate the impossibility of proving ANY truth, even in the fields of LOGIC and MATHS.

I want you to show me why I should consider this trilemma.

How about you pick something and don't be shy?



I want you to demonstrate the impossibility of proving ANY truth, even in the fields of LOGIC and MATHS.

I want you to show me why I should consider this trilemma.

How about you pick something and don't be shy?


It's called "asking questions to a claim being made by you". In this case I asked you what nothingness means to you and you supplied a link to this fun word "trilemma".

You want me to use this thought experiment in my everyday so I'm testing this trilemma to see how effective it is.

Your post seems to avoid demonstrating and proving you claim, and it seems like you have become distracted and want to mock me.

I'm empathise with your need to insult me. How about this, you are smarter than me in every way and I need to be fixed.

So show me what I need to learn, demonstrate your so called "Trilemma".



Well I didn't think it was dumb or I wouldn't have asked.

Don't forget you said this to me in post 457.

"Spoken language yields to the trilemma by being circular (every word is defined in terms of other words, and there are finitely many words)".

You said every word is defined in terms of other words. You said spoken language yields to a circular argument.

If its dumb then it should be no match for you so.

How can you demonstrate that the word seed is defined in terms of other words?

Show me how this circular argument yields?

Ps I read one of your replies to bigv. Don't worry I don't vote.



My dear, cherub, diamond, what you got, and hey hey are more or less the only words I use hababaha

I used seed last time in my debate against Kylie. That was fun!!!!

Besides that.... I'm not a huge fan.



Fair enough. I guess it's easier to try and mock me than to demonstrate your position. I hope you give me something better in your next post, maybe you will show me how this trilemma is effective.

At this point in time I'm still hopeful.



Thats weird. R u ok?

My dear are we really in the big pool. After reading your reply so far, the kiddie pool seems way more advanced.



I'm concerned you may be suffering from a stroke now. Hehehe



Fair enough. This is quite strange.



My dear you understood all my last posts and you seem to understand this one. This remark makes you seem foolish rather than what ever it is you are trying to do. Hehehe

With a remark like that, I dont think you are in the deep end.

I'm speaking Russian cherub hehehe



Wow. Ok I can assist you here hehe

I typed "mathematical meaning" into google and got this; relating to mathematics.

I typed "outcome meaning" into google and got this; a result.

I typed "What meaning" and got; come to have (something); receive.

I typed "seed meaning" and got; the unit of reproduction of a flowering plant, capable of developing into another such plant.

I hope that helps you my dear and it was a pleasure to do it for you but I am becoming concerned about you. After reading your post it seems like the pool I was in must have not been the kiddie pool.

I think I just jumped into the kiddie pool you happened to be in. I guess you felt like a big boy you must have thought it was deep. Hehehe

What have you got to help convince me of this trilemma?

Ah yeah by the way here's an index for you in case you have trouble My dear.

What - come to have (something); receive.

Have - come to have (something); receive.

You - used to refer to the person or people that the speaker is addressing.

Got - come to have (something); receive.

To - expressing motion in the direction of (a particular location).

Help - make it easier or possible for (someone) to do something by offering them one's

Convince - cause (someone) to believe firmly in the truth of something.

Me - used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself as the object of a verb or preposition.

Of - expressing the relationship between a part and a whole.

This - used to identify a specific person or thing close at hand or being indicated or experienced.

Trilemma - a thought experiment used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving ANY truth, even in the fields of LOGIC and MATHS.



I'm ok but my bird sure loves it. Especially sunflower seed.



Seed!

Anyway nothingness is exemplified by this so called Trilemma.

Show me how this trilemma can demonstrate the impossibility of proving ANY truth, even in the fields of LOGIC and MATHS.

If have gotten something wrong than explain it!?!?

Cheers but if this is how you debate then im very disappointed. ;(

How it is that you genuinely don't understand that the word "seed" (or any word) is defined in terms of other words is utterly astonishing to me. It doesn't even matter if you didn't grow up speaking English. It doesn't matter if you grew up in a household that spoke Chinese in the morning, KGB code-word Russian in the afternoon, an ancient dead language in the evening and then an African click language at night.

On earth, in any spoken language, absolutely every word is defined in terms of other words.

seed
/sēd/
noun

1. a flowering plant's unit of reproduction, capable of developing into another such plant.

As I explained, the formal language dodges this by instead appealing to undefined terms. Mathematics is just pushing symbols.

Ø=0
{Ø}=1
{Ø,{Ø}}=2
{Ø,{Ø},{Ø,{Ø}}}=3
{Ø,{Ø},{Ø,{Ø}},{Ø,{Ø},{Ø,{Ø}}}}=4

1+1+1+1=4 is shorthand for writing 1+(1+(1+1))=4 because the addition operator can only accept two inputs. Formally, addition in this case is defined as follows:

Let +:NxN-->N be a function such that

+(+(+(+({Ø}))))={Ø,{Ø},{Ø,{Ø}},{Ø,{Ø},{Ø,{Ø}}}}

Colloquially, we think of "Ø" as being the empty set, but in the formal language it is a primitive symbol. It has no meaning. In proving that 1+1+1+1=4, I've merely pushed symbols and made assertions. "Ø", "{", "}", "(", and ")" are primitive symbols with no definition. ",", ":", and "-->" are technically functionless symbols that exist to aid the reader. "=" is defined in terms of set containment, which is a primitive notion that is expressed in primitive symbols. "+" is a symbol designated for a function that is arbitrarily defined. The notion of the function is a primitive notion. "1", "2", "3", and "4" are just symbols used to condense what is being written down. N={1,2,3,...} where "..." is a primitive symbol and "x" is a set operator that, in this case, creates orders pairs. An ordered pair (a,b) is defined as {a,{b}} where "a" and "b" are placeholder variables.

 

[cvanwey]

Well, as I have pointed out several times that is a rambling post with a number of assertions in it.

No you have not. You have virtually addressed nothing within it. You just simply assert opinion. You have not demonstrated why my points are invalid. When you do think you are actually responding, you actually aren't. You jump around the point, by not acknowledging it, or jumping way ahead - (placing the cart before the horse). You simply hand-wave them away. Or, you accuse me of 'going off on a tangent'. Please remember how this entire line of bullet points came to pass You prefaced, by asking me to explain what kind of evidence I think might exist... I did you one better. I gave you my own personal tool kit to examine claims from the past. All we have to do, is plug these claims in... And please remember how this came to pass....:

"Sure, if that means something other than repeatedly asking the same question. For clarity, no there is not a photograph, video, or any evidence of that sort for a resurrection. As you were aware of that before asking the question, it seems rather disingenuous to pose it in the first place. If you can explain what kind of evidence you think might exist, that would be a starting point. But I suspect, for reasons I can only guess at, that you won’t."

I informed you that all we can examine, is to use a series of tools, to investigate any and every claim from antiquity. I also acknowledged that we did not have technology to confirm these evidence. Hence, the historical method provided...

I even attempted to try and eliminate many future responses, by 'pre-answering' many of these bullet points - (to demonstrate validity as to why I doubt such assertions). ALL [you] had to do, was either concede, to keep the conversation moving, and to avoid even more exchanges, or, then disagree, so we could move or forge forward productively. Instead, you refused.

You then immediately told me to read Bart E. or Tom W. I informed you that any and every inquiry here has already be done to death, in books and debate. This was of little concern to you. I then asked why you waste your time here, since you just continually tell me to 'do my homework?'

Again, we have tools to investigate the 'past', and it's reliability. You weaved and bobbed. You circumnavigated. And when you think you addressed any of these points, you again, either jumped ahead, ignored the actual point, or redirected. You even attempt to cut into my character from time to time.

As I've stated repeatedly, it seems as if the only way to validate a one-time super-natural event, is via corroborated eyewitness attestation. You would sometimes 'hit respond', but neither confirmed nor denied that this may be the only way to address such claims in question...

Well, as I've stated prior, you obviously have no intention of actually engaging. Instead, you sometimes attempt to assassinate my character.... I should have just taken the "Q" of @Tinker Grey long ago, and stopped responding to you.... You are clearly not interested in having your personal faith/beliefs examined.

 

[cvanwey]

I have, several times. To several of your questions, of which there are quite a few, not just one.

The particular question you are referring to here is about the authenticity of the gospels, correct? As in previous posts, that raises a number of questions. The dating of them is one, so you could explain what your thoughts are about that. You said something about how do I ‘deal with’ Mark 16, if you can explain what you mean then that looks as if it might also be relevant. Being that these books are in the bible, explaining your point in relation to them would be a way of addressing your question.

Your question ‘is there....’ can be addressed by looking at those books, you see? You can say ‘for these reasons I don’t think so’ etc, giving your reasons, then someone else has something to respond to. Jumping to ‘is there, yes or no’ is - what? What point would there be in a yes or no answer that doesn't address the subject you're asking about? Please take some time to think this through. Here’s an analogy - say you run a removal firm. You get a call, someone asks you if they can hire you to move their stuff. You, being a logical fella, reply ‘ah, but can your stuff fit in my van?’ Your potential punter, slightly confused, says ‘um, I’m not sure (she looks around at her stuff), um how big is your van?’ seeing an opportunity to display your logic once again you state ‘oh, come now madam, it is a simple question - will your stuff fit in my van, or not? Yes or no?’ ‘Well, perhaps you should come and have a look’ ‘come and have a look? How strange - you do not know if your stuff would fit in my van?’ (Click). Oh no, your customer has gone! Here’s what went wrong - you didn’t want to go and have a look, just as, although you raise questions about a thing, you then refuse to engage in any discussion unless it follows a certain, pre-determined path which, for you anyway, proves your point. Is there some other point to doing that?

'Corroborated'.... 'eyewitness'.... Check them out. You continue to navigate around these terms, and what they mean....

 

[cvanwey]

I think the evidence is very compelling. The growth of Christianity in the first and second century, was based on that death and resurrection.

You think growth of a belief is what makes a claim true?

Are you also aware Christianity did not truly take off, until after Emperor Constantine?

Christianity would not even exist, if Jesus did not rise from the tomb.

The entire New Testament is based on that resurrection event and the New Testament itself. Would not have been written if that resurrection event did not occur.

There is no possible reason for the existence of the church, unless the resurrection event took place.

The resurrection of the Christ is what Christianity is all about.

May I please adjust your assertion here? Few or little would consider Christianity at all, if it's claims were not to fulfill OT prophecy, i.e. a resurrection claim. Aside from the anonymous later Gospels, we can almost exclusively thank Saul/Paul for this claim.

 

[Tom 1]

You just simply assert opinion

Hmm - ok, well once again, you mentioned the dating of the gospels, I suggested we could look at that. I'm not sure how that qualifies as an opinion. It seems to me that discussing your views on the dating of the book of Luke, almost certainly the latest of the synoptic gospels as I'm sure you know, would be a useful way to address your comment, in post 505 that you mentioned several times, and again here, historicity.

'Done to death' is a rather pointless way of looking at it. There are different approaches and related opinions on the historicity of the gospels and other books of the bible. Discussing these seems to me to be an entirely legitimate, not to say usual, normal, ordinary way of addressing the issues you raised. Do you disagree with this?

I feel no need to navigate around your terms, rather that as you keep changing tack I am attempting to understand what you are getting at. I assume you are questioning the historicity/accuracy of the gospels, or something like that. In my view the gospels are a distillation of Jesus' teachings, as understood by his disciples. As John says at the end of his gospel, they are limited in scope. For whatever reason people do seem to struggle with the idea that these are pieces of writing, containing quite complex ideas, and so were written, revised, edited and so on, aka writing something about something. The style of writing varies from teaching to accounts of events, the former are refined and redacted, the latter sometimes have the typically disparate nature of eye-witness accounts, that is how they seem to me in any case (and not just me). Perhaps something like that is what you are referring to. Maybe you can share your opinions, and maybe what it is that gets you so worked up about it also.

A broader concept that I think is important to mention is that few people, as far as my experience tells me, have some list of evidences for their overall view of the world that is arranged in some order of importance. This may be the way we decide what we think about certain specific things, but it isn't generally how people think. You appear to be saying that the gospels don't meet a standard that you have or have agreed with, so you don't believe them to be reliable (as above, perhaps you could elaborate on that), and so for that reason they cannot be trusted as a source of proof for the resurrection. Well, well done! I agree, the gospels don't 'prove' the resurrection, if that is what you are asking. This is one of those issues where people tend to place themselves in different camps, often based on some sketchy ideas picked up from a youtube vid etc., and stay in that camp, not taking the time to look into what any other camp's views are based on. If this is the question you want to discuss, you can of course say whatever passes through your head about it, that's your prerogative. Looking at the carefully formulated views of people who study it all for a living however might be a more useful approach. Even more generally, belief of any sort is far more nuanced than whether or not this or that specific thing can be proven. There is no such thing as a general belief about the world at large that is evidence based, as such. We have views about things within the world/universe that are evidence-based, but the extent to which those bear any significant relation to everything we don't know about is anybody's guess. Do you see? Belief of any kind contains things like the following -

Accumulated experience and observation (this is probably what you refer to as 'emotion', which is rather trite and only indicates that you haven't really thought about it, or examined your own beliefs)

Knowledge of specific things - it's important to note that this is not as definitive as you appear to assume it is, knowing everything there is to know about a given topic is a rare if not non-existent concept. The extent of what we don't know is impossible to guess at. So, what we actually have are a few discrete areas of limited knowledge around which we build imaginary worlds. It's important to recognise that, at least I think it is.

Nuanced understanding - particularly relevant to your questions. As in other threads of this sort you have started, there is an actual, measurable difference between your 'it means whatever I think it means' approach to reading bits of the bible, and what can actually be gleaned through an understanding of the text as written. This requires a bit more of a time commitment, but anyone can do it. This is perhaps the most relevant issue here, but it is also applicable in any other area of learning. There are general views which circulate about a given topic that people often just take to be 'true', but then if you read what a real expert in that area has to say about it, the reality of what is known is much more nuanced and, often, less certain that the popular idea about it. There are plenty of experts on the bible as literature, the bible as historical document and so on that you can read. This is the actual 'how' of understanding what it means, you appear to be saying in so many words that you don't consider this to be a necessary prerequisite for the kind of questions you raise. I'm not sure exactly how you get to that conclusion, but I have to beg to differ. To make it plainer, no, things in the bible don't just mean whatever you happen to think, they mean what the writer meant. There's nothing particularly esoteric about this, but it does require some time and patience.

Probably you'll just repeat some other thing you have already said , but anyway this topic is at least potentially interesting. Here's a brief summary of the points:

Do the gospels fit your corroborated (etc) idea? - you can explain what you mean, and we'll see.

Are people's beliefs based on a prioritised list of evidence? I would say no. Perhaps, in a show of good faith, you could demonstrate how yours are.

Is knowledge of a topic a good starting point for a discussion? Yes.

Have a good day.

 

[cvanwey]

Just so you are aware, I read the entire response. And no, I am not cherry picking here I just feel, the quoted response below, cuts straight to the chase...

Well, well done! I agree, the gospels don't 'prove' the resurrection, if that is what you are asking.

In a prior response, you stated there exists more evidence/other for the Bible, than any other claims from antiquity. Hence, you believe these are more credible and more reliable that other claims from antiquity, for which you also believe. -- (paraphrased of course).

My point, is that when we place the claims from the Gospels, into my provided tool kit, from post #505, I would have to disagree with your conclusions.

And since this is the sanctioned arena, where you are to defend your faith/position, and no one is forcing you to be here, I am laying down the gauntlet, so-to-speak

So I ask....

Why do you believe the resurrection happened anyways, even though we AGREE there appears lack-luster evidence, at best, to the claim????

 

[Tom 1]

In a prior response, you stated there exists more evidence/other for the Bible, than any other claims from antiquity.

No, that must have been someone else.