Resurrection Evidence

[Tom 1]

even though we AGREE there appears lack-luster evidence

No, we don’t.

 

[Tom 1]

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.

Not really a toolkit, rather a reference to some general ideas. You could elaborate a bit, pick one maybe, something to support some of your claims. Which conclusions are you referring to?

 

[Tom 1]

Why do you believe the resurrection happened

Read the post again. You appear to think that people believe things based on prioritised lists of certain kinds of evidence (you could make your point more understandable by expanding on these a bit), and that the only other option is ‘emotion’. As I said, I don’t think this corresponds with reality. Perhaps you can explain why you think it does, in response. I’ve explained in some detail why I think this, which I think broadly corresponds to any set of beliefs.

 

[Tom 1]

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...



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????

A couple of things would clarify what you are getting at. Can you provide some kind of example or explanation of what you mean by some written text that would ‘prove’ an event occurred, something with sufficient detail to illustrate real-world application.

Clearly you don’t think the gospels are credible - you could also explain your reasons for that, as you appear to like the model you could list your evidence in order of priority. Please make this detailed also - general, vague assertions don’t provide anything to respond to.

 

[cvanwey]

No, that must have been someone else.

Nope. It was you all right.

"The bible claims the proof of it is in the pudding, in various ways, and for me that has generally turned out to be true."

"for me, the experience of Christianity in action is unmatched with anything else I've observed."

Thus, this would mean that any other claim, from antiquity especially, might not hold as much water as a resurrection claim. Care to place the resurrection claim to the test here? Again, I provided a set a criteria, where all you have to do is plug in the claim, against such provided bullet points to test.

If you actually address the given bullet points, you might find that the claim of a resurrection does not stand strong.?.?.?

 

[cvanwey]

No, we don’t.

How quickly you forget. Make up your mind.

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

 

[cvanwey]

Not really a toolkit, rather a reference to some general ideas. You could elaborate a bit, pick one maybe, something to support some of your claims. Which conclusions are you referring to?

The claim of a resurrection. Again, as stated many times now. Seems as though the only way possible to even begin 'verifying' the plausibility of a resurrection, is by way of corroborated eyewitness attestation. Do we have this?

 

[Tom 1]

How quickly you forget. Make up your mind.

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

What gave you the idea we agree?

 

[Tom 1]

Nope. It was you all right.

"The bible claims the proof of it is in the pudding, in various ways, and for me that has generally turned out to be true."

"for me, the experience of Christianity in action is unmatched with anything else I've observed."

Thus, this would mean that any other claim, from antiquity especially, might not hold as much water as a resurrection claim. Care to place the resurrection claim to the test here? Again, I provided a set a criteria, where all you have to do is plug in the claim, against such provided bullet points to test.

If you actually address the given bullet points, you might find that the claim of a resurrection does not stand strong.?.?.?

Come on how do you manage to link that to this - 'more evidence/other for the Bible, than any other claims from antiquity'. I should point out that I haven't observed claims from antiquity, I assume there that you are referring to other ancient writings?

 

[cvanwey]

Read the post again. You appear to think that people believe things based on prioritised lists of certain kinds of evidence (you could make your point more understandable by expanding on these a bit), and that the only other option is ‘emotion’. As I said, I don’t think this corresponds with reality. Perhaps you can explain why you think it does, in response. I’ve explained in some detail why I think this, which I think broadly corresponds to any set of beliefs.

Perhaps you can give me ANY inclination as to why you believe a claim, for which we do not appear to have any viable corroborated eyewitness attestation?

And on a side note, I've spoken to many about this claim. The usual claims to evidence include, but are not limited to:

- Many eyewitnesses
- Veracity of the Bible
- Extra Biblical sources
- Martyred disciples
- Empty tomb
- The Bible reports women as first witnesses
- Too fast for myth to develop
- Fast spread
- Archaeological evidence
- The Shroud
- Lord, Lunatic, Liar defense
etc..............

Take your pick...

 

[cvanwey]

What gave you the idea we agree?

Because you said... "Well, well done! I agree,"

 

[Tom 1]

The claim of a resurrection. Again, as stated many times now. Seems as though the only way possible to even begin 'verifying' the plausibility of a resurrection, is by way of corroborated eyewitness attestation. Do we have this?

Cvanwey you are really doing my head in. Please try and follow the thread of the discussion, please. Ok? As in read the posts as they move from one point to another.

Please explain what you mean by 'corroborated eyewitness attestation', preferably using some examples to illustrate what you mean.

You can then explain in what specific ways (with detail and examples please) the gospels do not meet this requirement to your liking.

To explain again - you appear to be saying that people come to have a belief in something due to the existence of 'corroborated eyewitness attestation'. Can you give some examples of this? Perhaps something you came to believe because of some instance of this, or someone you know whose belief is based on 'corroborated eyewitness attestation'. I have to say it seems like rather a strange idea. Do you imagine that the majority of the global population functions in this way? As before, people come to an understanding and set of beliefs about life etc based on all kinds of things, mostly a mix of some observable/testable things and personal experience and observation, inclinations in thinking and so on. I've never met anyone whose beliefs are based on some instance of 'corroborated eyewitness attestation', but perhaps you have and can give an example of this.

 

[Tom 1]

Because you said... "Well, well done! I agree,"

That is rather different than thinking I agree with something else you said. That the gospels cannot prove something is rather a statement of the obvious, how on earth could they 'prove' it? That does not mean that I agree with all the other vague assertions you make about them.

 

[cvanwey]

A couple of things would clarify what you are getting at. Can you provide some kind of example or explanation of what you mean by some written text that would ‘prove’ an event occurred, something with sufficient detail to illustrate real-world application.

Clearly you don’t think the gospels are credible - you could also explain your reasons for that, as you appear to like the model you could list your evidence in order of priority. Please make this detailed also - general, vague assertions don’t provide anything to respond to.

Clearly, you do not seem to be aware of how this works. We are operating within the apologetics arena here. I ask you why you believe, and then you tell me, and also provide the evidence to support your faith/belief.

I asked you, long ago. Why do you believe a resurrection happened, when we do not appear to have corroborated eyewitnesses?

Okay, go....

 

[Tom 1]

Perhaps you can give me ANY inclination as to why you believe a claim, for which we do not appear to have any viable corroborated eyewitness attestation?

And on a side note, I've spoken to many about this claim. The usual claims to evidence include, but are not limited to:

- Many eyewitnesses
- Veracity of the Bible
- Extra Biblical sources
- Martyred disciples
- Empty tomb
- The Bible reports women as first witnesses
- Too fast for myth to develop
- Fast spread
- Archaeological evidence
- The Shroud
- Lord, Lunatic, Liar defense
etc..............

Take your pick...

Aha I think I see what you are getting at. You believe that belief in the resurrection is in some way separate from Christian belief in general, that it has to be independently verified in some way that separates it from other beliefs about God and so on? Is that what you mean?

 

[cvanwey]

Cvanwey you are really doing my head in. Please try and follow the thread of the discussion, please. Ok? As in read the posts as they move from one point to another.

Please explain what you mean by 'corroborated eyewitness attestation', preferably using some examples to illustrate what you mean.

You can then explain in what specific ways (with detail and examples please) the gospels do not meet this requirement to your liking.

To explain again - you appear to be saying that people come to have a belief in something due to the existence of 'corroborated eyewitness attestation'. Can you give some examples of this? Perhaps something you came to believe because of some instance of this, or someone you know whose belief is based on 'corroborated eyewitness attestation'. I have to say it seems like rather a strange idea. Do you imagine that the majority of the global population functions in this way? As before, people come to an understanding and set of beliefs about life etc based on all kinds of things, mostly a mix of some observable/testable things and personal experience and observation, inclinations in thinking and so on. I've never met anyone whose beliefs are based on some instance of 'corroborated eyewitness attestation', but perhaps you have and can give an example of this.

I'm not going to repeat myself, yet again. If you would simply read post #505, you would not be asking as such...

 

[cvanwey]

Aha I think I see what you are getting at. You believe that belief in the resurrection is in some way separate from Christian belief in general, that it has to be independently verified in some way that separates it from other beliefs about God and so on? Is that what you mean?

I have to ask... Are you just jerking with me here?

I'll ask YET AGAIN. WHY do you believe that Jesus rose from the grave, even though there appears to be no corroborated eyewitness reports to substantiate the claim?

 

[Tom 1]

Clearly, you do not seem to be aware of how this works. We are operating within the apologetics arena here. I ask you why you believe, and then you tell me, and also provide the evidence to support your faith/belief.

I asked you, long ago. Why do you believe a resurrection happened, when we do not appear to have corroborated eyewitnesses?

Okay, go....

As I've already said, I take the gospels to be a reliable source. They do not however exist in a vacuum, and neither does belief. It depends what you are getting at here - if your aim is simply to set up a rather pointless 'do you have this sort of evidence for this specific idea; yes/ no - if no, I win' then I suppose your question does make sense within that context. In the actual world of human behaviour however that is not generally how belief works. Belief in God, the resurrection etc is not of the same order as, say, I believe this chair can support my weight, my evidence is that I can sit on it without it collapsing. Belief in the resurrection, as with the elements of many ways of thinking about the world, is part of a whole, people believe it because of a broad range of related experiences, observations and so on. That is generally how belief works. If you think that isn't the case, you could explain why or give some examples etc.

However as you appear to be stuck on this point, a narrower area of discussion could be where the discrepancy is between your 'corroborated eyewitness attestation' and your understanding of how the gospels were recorded. As mentioned previously this could include things like the dating of the gospels, what you have a beef with with regards to the accounts of the resurrection and so on.

 

[Tom 1]

I'm not going to repeat myself, yet again. If you would simply read post #505, you would not be asking as such...

Lol maybe you could re-read it? You have a long list of more or less related things in that post, I've responded to a couple of them but, well, you just started banging on about your corroborated eyewitness attestation again. Well it is entertaining at least, I suppose.

 

[Tom 1]

I'm not going to repeat myself, yet again. If you would simply read post #505, you would not be asking as such...

As you haven't addressed any of that, what would you be repeating?