Resurrection Evidence

[cvanwey]

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.

It might be entertaining for you, but not for me. Apparently, I have to give you remedial education.

- Hearsay is usually less reliable than first-hand reports. (This seems obvious. And furthermore, I trust we can agree such said claims of miracles were written, as told from oral tradition)?

- Claimed events are independently corroborated, via eyewitness attestation. (I trust we agree, as eluded to above, that we really don't have any)? (Which begs the question, WHY believe miraculous claims anyways)?

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

The two terms below are connected:

corroborate - confirm, verify, endorse, validate.
eyewitness - a person who has personally seen something happen and so can give a first-hand description of it

When reading the Gospels, and all works from Paul, it does not look like the above qualifies; when asserting a resurrection claim.

 

[Tom 1]

It might be entertaining for you, but not for me. Apparently, I have to give you remedial education.

- Hearsay is usually less reliable than first-hand reports. (This seems obvious. And furthermore, I trust we can agree such said claims of miracles were written, as told from oral tradition)?

- Claimed events are independently corroborated, via eyewitness attestation. (I trust we agree, as eluded to above, that we really don't have any)? (Which begs the question, WHY believe miraculous claims anyways)?

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

The two terms below are connected:

corroborate - confirm, verify, endorse, validate.
eyewitness - a person who has personally seen something happen and so can give a first-hand description of it

When reading the Gospels, and all works from Paul, it does not look like the above qualifies; when asserting a resurrection claim.

You're getting somewhere - a couple of things though; an oral tradition in a largely non-literate society is a different kettle of fish to one in a literate society. There are a great many skills our ancestors had that we are no longer capable of, we adapt to circumstances quite quickly, whether we choose to or not. Teachings were spread far and wide, as with Apollos in Acts not so long after the events of the gospels, something was lacking in what he had learned but the essentials of the gospel were spread very widely within a few years. As Luke says, many people did actually write this stuff down. Little of it survives but it is evident from Luke and in the process by which the gospels were eventually distilled down to the essential accounts of significant events and teachings of Christ that they drew on a wider pool of writings.

You can give your reasons for not accepting the accounts of the resurrection as not being eyewitness accounts, that could be interesting. They are certainly written in that fashion, and have the characteristics of eyewitness accounts. I haven't come across anything that convinces me otherwise, just a lot of subjective speculation, perhaps you have something better.

As mentioned several times, dating of the gospels is another issue. Again the reasons for late dating I've come across are speculative and pretty thin on evidence. Luke's account in Acts ends at an easily identifiable point in time, his gospel account he tells us was written shortly after that, so that seems like a good place to start.

 

[cvanwey]

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.

I already explained this long ago, with you I already concede that Jesus was born, preached, and was murdered. Why should I ALSO believe He rose from the grave?

 

[cvanwey]

You're getting somewhere - a couple of things though; an oral tradition in a largely non-literate society is a different kettle of fish to one in a literate society. There are a great many skills our ancestors had that we are no longer capable of, we adapt to circumstances quite quickly, whether we choose to or not. Teachings were spread far and wide, as with Apollos in Acts not so long after the events of the gospels, something was lacking in what he had learned but the essentials of the gospel were spread very widely within a few years. As Luke says, many people did actually write this stuff down. Little of it survives but it is evident from Luke and in the process by which the gospels were eventually distilled down to the essential accounts of significant events and teachings of Christ drew on a wider pool of writings.

Oral tradition is oral tradition. Are you going to tell me that years/decades/centuries of story telling, in THIS case, likely yields a correct account (i.e.) supernatural claims? I guess Alexander the Great really was super-human then Stuff gets added. And pair this with the fact that people are widely superstitious, especially back then, and you have a recipe for embellishment. The stuff legends are made of....

Like I said, I will just concede He was born, lived, preached, and was executed.... Miracles, on the other hand, need more; and rightfully so I would assume....

You can give your reasons for not accepting the accounts of the resurrection as not being eyewitness accounts, that could be interesting.

I already have The Gospels stem from given oral tradition. Paul gives hearsay accounts. Hence, likely no direct eyewitnesses, and likely no corroboration.

If you beg to differ, bring it...

As mentioned several times, dating of the gospels is another issue. Again the reasons for late dating I've come across are speculative and pretty thin on evidence. Luke's account in Acts ends at an easily identifiable point in time, his gospel account he tells us was written shortly after that, so that seems like a good place to start.

Oh, you mean the 'alternative facts' Gospel? Let's not jump ahead. We have plenty to address before-hand

 

[Tom 1]

Oral tradition is oral tradition. Are you going to tell me that years/decades/centuries of story telling, in THIS case, likely yields a correct account (i.e.) supernatural claims? I guess Alexander the Great really was super-human then Stuff gets added. And pair this with the fact that people are widely superstitious, especially back then, and you have a recipe for embellishment. The stuff legends are made of....

Like I said, I will just concede He was born, lived, preached, and was executed.... Miracles, on the other hand, need more; and rightfully so I would assume....



I already have The Gospels stem from given oral tradition. Paul gives hearsay accounts. Hence, likely no direct eyewitnesses, and likely no corroboration.

If you beg to differ, bring it...



Oh, you mean the 'alternative facts' Gospel? Let's not jump ahead. We have plenty to address before-hand

The teaching of the gospel to 100s of 1000s of people - can you explain how that equates to story telling? The Chinese whispers analogy doesn’t really work here. The apostles taught thousands, some of them taught 1,000s more, all within a few years. The various groups were in regular contact with each other, there are literally 10s of thousands of surviving letters, from which most of the New Testament could be reconstructed.

Alternatives to which facts? You make a lot of vague assertions, maybe you can provide some of the facts you mention.

 

[Tom 1]

I already have The Gospels stem from given oral tradition. Paul gives hearsay accounts. Hence, likely no direct eyewitnesses, and likely no corroboration.

If you beg to differ, bring it.

You need to give something to differ with. Differing with some string of random notions is a pointless exercise. Details please.

 

[Tom 1]

Paul gives hearsay accounts

Hearsay from who? From whom do you think Paul heard the things he wrote about, and why?

 

[cvanwey]

The teaching of the gospel to 100s of 1000s of people - can you explain how that equates to story telling? The Chinese whispers analogy doesn’t really work here. The apostles taught thousands, some of them taught 1,000s more, all within a few years

Why do I need to explain this any further? The onus is on the believers, like [you] particularly, whom decided to hang around in the apologetics forum, whom also assert or attest to the belief that the resurrection claim is true; to actually attempt to prove it. Not the ones which do not buy the claim. Not sure why I need to keep stressing the same points...? A story can start out completely true, or maybe, it was embellished a bit, all along? And later, become legend all-the-more, or even more so...? Maybe Jesus was born, did preach, did influence many, and was then murdered. Legends typically grow over time. Furthermore, the number of times, or the number of people told, is not what validates the veracity of any given claim. It is instead the evidence which supports the claim. Would you agree? In the case for a resurrection specifically, is it more likely that, in this one case alone, physics was actually suspended; or maybe, just maybe, this too is a story from antiquity, with legendary embellishment(s) - like Alexander, Achilles, etc?

The various groups were in regular contact with each other, there are literally 10s of thousands of surviving letters, from which most of the New Testament could be reconstructed.

As stated prior, the oldest surviving fragment we have, is dated around 125-175 AD. Furthermore, even IF we had a complete original letter, does this mean the said event actually happened? Please remember, it seems to be common consensus, among historians, that oral tradition was likely the only means of communication, for years/decades/more, prior to anything written to paper.

Thus, can we agree that stories can certainly get inflated over time??? Again, please reference other 'miraculous' figures from antiquity If memory serves me correctly, I don't think the story of all other figures were written in real time either. Does this mean their achievements also surpassed naturalism???

Alternatives to which facts? You make a lot of vague assertions, maybe you can provide some of the facts you mention.

LOL. My point is that we will not even need to go this far. I feel I have carte blanche to state such observations, because once we actually investigate post #505, and explore or give this post it's due, I feel that addressing anything (above and beyond) is really just beating a dead horse...

If we should happen to make it this far, I will be happy to address 'Luke' more Just like I will then also point out my initial response to your inquiry about Luke, that we indeed have later additions to Mark, which also indicate agenda

 

[Tom 1]

Why do I need to explain this any further? The onus is on the believers, like [you] particularly, whom decided to hang around in the apologetics forum, whom also assert or attest to the belief that the resurrection claim is true; to actually attempt to prove it. Not the ones which do not buy the claim. Not sure why I need to keep stressing the same points...? A story can start out completely true, or maybe, it was embellished a bit, all along? And later, become legend all-the-more, or even more so...? Maybe Jesus was born, did preach, did influence many, and was then murdered. Legends typically grow over time. Furthermore, the number of times, or the number of people told, is not what validates the veracity of any given claim. It is instead the evidence which supports the claim. Would you agree? In the case for a resurrection specifically, is it more likely that, in this one case alone, physics was actually suspended; or maybe, just maybe, this too is a story from antiquity, with legendary embellishment(s) - like Alexander, Achilles, etc?



As stated prior, the oldest surviving fragment we have, is dated around 125-175 AD. Furthermore, even IF we had a complete original letter, does this mean the said event actually happened? Please remember, it seems to be common consensus, among historians, that oral tradition was likely the only means of communication, for years/decades/more, prior to anything written to paper.

Thus, can we agree that stories can certainly get inflated over time??? Again, please reference other 'miraculous' figures from antiquity If memory serves me correctly, I don't think the story of all other figures were written in real time either. Does this mean their achievements also surpassed naturalism???



LOL. My point is that we will not even need to go this far. I feel I have carte blanche to state such observations, because once we actually investigate post #505, and explore or give this post it's due, I feel that addressing anything (above and beyond) is really just beating a dead horse...

If we should happen to make it this far, I will be happy to address 'Luke' more Just like I will then also point out my initial response to your inquiry about Luke, that we indeed have later additions to Mark, which also indicate agenda

Oh come on, this is ludicrous. If any of this is the case, what on Earth is the point? Why spend so much time making vague references to things you appear to only have some sketchy notions about if you have no intention of actually discussing any of it? You don’t have anything better to do with your time?

 

[cvanwey]

Hearsay from who? From whom do you think Paul heard the things he wrote about, and why?

Paul believed he received a vision. He was already a believer. Paul's testimony, is inducing hearsay from others, which is not corroboration, but hearsay. Again, you still have neither confirmed nor denied the conclusion that the only way to even begin to validate a one-time miraculous event, is corroborated eyewitnesses. Later writings that many others saw stuff, with no accountability or specifics to justify the claim(s), doesn't qualify, does it???

 

[cvanwey]

Oh come on, this is ludicrous. If any of this is the case, what on Earth is the point? Why spend so much time making vague references to things you appear to only have some sketchy notions about if you have no intention of actually discussing any of it? You don’t have anything better to do with your time?

Oh, but I have given you more than enough to address. I gave you a detailed tool kit to place such claims within. You keep wanting to shift the burden, or tell me why I need to EVEN FURTHER justify why I doubt, or expect for me to further attempt to prove a negative. I've given you plenty to work with... You refuse to actually address them. You keep, again, instead, simply shifting the burden. Is this all I should expect from you, moving forward?

 

[Tom 1]

Paul believed he received a vision. He was already a believer. Paul's testimony, is inducing hearsay from others, which is not corroboration, but hearsay. Again, you still have neither confirmed nor denied the conclusion that the only way to even begin to validate a one-time miraculous event, is corroborated eyewitnesses. Later writings that many others saw stuff, with no accountability or specifics to justify the claim(s), doesn't qualify, does it???

Cvanwey, a bunch of randomly conflated ideas and actual things that can actually be discussed are not the same thing. You appear not to understand that, so, well, I suppose there isn’t much point trying to get something out of you to discuss.

 

[cvanwey]

Cvanwey, a bunch of randomLy conflated ideas and actual things that can actually be discussed are not the same thing. You appear not to understand that, so, well, I suppose there isn’t much point trying to get something out of you to discuss.

This is kind of what I figured would happen. Remember what I told you long ago, 3 conclusions:

-insult
-redirect
-stop responding

Welp, if this is all I should expect, then... 'Good day'

 

[Tom 1]

I gave you a detailed tool kit to place such claims within.

Well, my flabber is genuinely ghasted. I shall leave you to it, I think, this has failed to butter a single parsnip.

 

[cvanwey]

Well, my flabber is genuinely ghasted. I shall leave you to it, I think, this has failed to butter a single parsnip.

If anyone reads this exchange in earnest, it will be clear to them that all you had done here, is attempt to have me spend MUCH time attempting to prove a negative. And also, that you have completely dodged many of my points.

Good day.

 

[the iconoclast]

What do you think is important to me?

Hey hey I will speculate that the resurrection of Jesus is important to you.

You do not believe it happened but you are on a Christian forum and I've seen you debate Christians.

My atheist friends do not waste their time going to Christian forums. Its possible that you are an ex Christian.

I'll stop the speculation. Why do you come to a Christian site like CF?

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?

Ok, you can attack my position. Why not.

1. I read the words of our Lord and heard my Sheppard - scripture is my evidence.

I gave myself to Christ and put my trust in Him. I then received the Holy Spirit.

When I gave myself to Christ; I accepted that He was born for us, He lived for us, He died for us and was resurrected for us. So the resurrection of Jesus was integral for me to come to God.

2. I got the proof, I have a personal relationship with God through Jesus by the Holy Spirit - the Holy Spirit confirms this.

Now give me something good, what do you think and what have you got?

Cheers My dear

 

[the iconoclast]

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.

Hey hey my dear nihilist

Hehehe... You do realise I haven't made it known to you if I disagree or agree. You made a statement and I asked you to prove it. You are so desperate to try and pass me off as unintelligent that you are underestimating me.

I don't mind, I'm not going to stop you, I'm going to let you assume anything you like about me. More fun!

1. So how does this So called trilemma prove the impossibility of this truth that you just said 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.

Wow. Cool....

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


seed

/sēd/

noun

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

2. So is this an absolute truth?


So far you did not use an axiomatic argument, you used an authoritive argument as proof. (.e.g. dictionary)

Please correct me, I thought nihilism is a philosophical view that all knowledge and values are baseless.

3. Why did you just argue for proof and meaning?

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

Ø=0

{Ø}=1

Ahh empty sets. Containers with nothing in them. Like looking inside your crab pot and findng it empty. There is nothing inside however the pot still has a value of 1.

{Ø,{Ø}}=2

{Ø,{Ø},{Ø,{Ø}}}=3

{Ø,{Ø},{Ø,{Ø}},{Ø,{Ø},{Ø,{Ø}}}}=4

I see more empty cells.

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:

Wow. Absolutely amazing

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.

I believe it is Norwegian but it could also be danish, but what would I know hey.

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.

Cheers for this lesson.

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.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

4. Is it possible to use this trilemma to demonstrate the impossibility of this truth you just said to me?

Let's take these 2 truths you just gave meaning to (.e.g. words define words and empty sets) .

How would I use the trilemma to demonstrate the impossibility of proving that these are true?

5. Ps I'm pentecostal protestant what denomination of nihilism do you subscribe to?

Cheers

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Hey hey my dear nihilist

Hehehe... You do realise I haven't made it known to you if I disagree or agree. You made a statement and I asked you to prove it. You are so desperate to try and pass me off as unintelligent that you are underestimating me.

I don't mind, I'm not going to stop you, I'm going to let you assume anything you like about me. More fun!

1. So how does this So called trilemma prove the impossibility of this truth that you just said to me?



Wow. Cool....



2. So is this an absolute truth?


So far you did not use an axiomatic argument, you used an authoritive argument as proof. (.e.g. dictionary)

Please correct me, I thought nihilism is a philosophical view that all knowledge and values are baseless.

3. Why did you just argue for proof and meaning?



Ahh empty sets. Containers with nothing in them. Like looking inside your crab pot and findng it empty. There is nothing inside however the pot still has a value of 1.



I see more empty cells.



Wow. Absolutely amazing



I believe it is Norwegian but it could also be danish, but what would I know hey.



Cheers for this lesson.



Please correct me if I'm wrong.

4. Is it possible to use this trilemma to demonstrate the impossibility of this truth you just said to me?

Let's take these 2 truths you just gave meaning to (.e.g. words define words and empty sets) .

How would I use the trilemma to demonstrate the impossibility of proving that these are true?

5. Ps I'm pentecostal protestant what denomination of nihilism do you subscribe to?

Cheers

You have been decapitated with such precision that your head has not even fallen off your shoulders, like when a waiter yanks the tablecloth off the table without moving the silverware. You've been thoroughly outclassed because I've put in the necessary work to understand the foundation of mathematics. Feel free to let me know when you've caught up so that this conversation can have some symmetry to it.

 

[the iconoclast]

You have been decapitated with such precision that your head has not even fallen off your shoulders, like when a waiter yanks the tablecloth off the table without moving the silverware.

Hey hey there

My dear boy you have not won anything and I disagree with what you say here hehehe

Your desperation is quite evident.

You've been thoroughly outclassed because I've put in the necessary work to understand the foundation of mathematics.

Hahaha no I have not been outclassed, what a desperate attempt.

You are now trying to steamroll me and its quite obvious. I'm coming to a conclusion that you may not be able to defend your own position.

Feel free to let me know when you've caught up so that this conversation can have some symmetry to it.

What symmetry. You get distracted and try to mock me. You bring up an argument about greek boats and new parts when it has nothing to do with what we are discussing. You repeat the word seed like a child.

The cant even demonstrate what is claimed about your so called trilemma when asked.

I dont know what I'm supposed to catch up on. I dont even think you know.

This was a complete disappointment my dear and anyone who reads this will see how futile your effort was. You even seem scared to tell me me what kind of a nihilist you are.

Let's try something else - as you do not seem to be up to the task of defending what you believe.

I'll let you go on the attack and we will see how you handle that side of things. I'm still hopeful in your ability.

Come at me, you attack my position. What have you got?

Cheers he who thinks he is a big boy

Ps
I made sure to upvote your reply. I know how much that mean to you and your friends.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Hey hey there

My dear boy you have not won anything and I disagree with what you say here hehehe

Your desperation is quite evident.



Hahaha no I have not been outclassed, what a desperate attempt.

You are now trying to steamroll me and its quite obvious. I'm coming to a conclusion that you may not be able to defend your own position.



What symmetry. You get distracted and try to mock me. You bring up an argument about greek boats and new parts when it has nothing to do with what we are discussing. You repeat the word seed like a child.

The cant even demonstrate what is claimed about your so called trilemma when asked.

I dont know what I'm supposed to catch up on. I dont even think you know.

This was a complete disappointment my dear and anyone who reads this will see how futile your effort was. You even seem scared to tell me me what kind of a nihilist you are.

Let's try something else - as you do not seem to be up to the task of defending what you believe.

I'll let you go on the attack and we will see how you handle that side of things. I'm still hopeful in your ability.

Come at me, you attack my position. What have you got?

Cheers he who thinks he is a big boy

Ps
I made sure to upvote your reply. I know how much that mean to you and your friends.

I've proven 1+1+1+1=4 from the axioms. Not only do you not understand this, you seemingly don't understand what your own point is. You are expressing doubt in the trilemma, and you've referenced 1+1+1+1=4 as an example for your case. It is then on you to prove 1+1+1+1=4 without deferring to axioms, without circular reasoning, and without infinite regress. You've not only failed to do so, but you don't even seem to understand that this is what you're supposed to be doing.

You then invite me to attack your position. I'd like to do so while being on topic in the thread. Here's my attack:

There is not one person in history who satisfies the "Why die for a lie?" argument. That is, there is not one person in history who:

1) says he/she witnessed the resurrection (or someone else says he/she saw it)

2) was captured by authorities and was given the opportunity to recant the faith in order to avoid torture/execution

3) refused the pardon and suffered physically


There is absolutely no known person in history who meets these criteria.

To firmly set the goalposts, I'd say that if you could find me one such person then I'd be intrigued, but I'd really need two or three to be convinced of the resurrection.