All credible evidence points to the resurrection of Jesus as a historical event

[QuestionMark]

Your move Foxy Freedom

[Foxy Freedom]

How do you evaluate evidence is what I will start with.

"All credible evidence points to the fact that the earth is flat"

Here is the link to the flat earth society website 2013 version. http://www.tfes.org

Stating something is true does not make it true.

As you can see from this website, the easiest person to fool is yourself.

What do you think are the mistakes in their reasoning which have caused the flat earth society to reach a false conclusion?

[QuestionMark]

The flatness of the earth is off topic. Your condition for this debate was that we stay on topic, and you have violated your own rule. Please try to be more consistent in the future. Consistency is where I start with evidence, when I meet a person and they tell me a story I want to see if a story is consistent.

So, do all of the available and relevant historical records state that Jesus rose from the dead around 33/34 AD and do so consistently? Yes, they do. We can use the simplest examples of the books of the New Testament. The New Testament is the primary historical record and it unanimously claims that Jesus rose from the dead. There is no voice in the New Testament which claims that Jesus did not rise from the dead.

Since who can be fooled is also off topic I am not going to address that subject. You would be consistent and honest to also not address that subject and instead stay on the subject of credible evidence.

[Foxy Freedom]

Your last post is not allowed. You had a chance to set the first topic and you missed it.

The title of the thread says "credible evidence" so I want to know what you think "credible evidence" is.

I have chosen the flat earth society because it is (I hope) a neutral subject and easier to deal with.

You don't want to lose at your first reply by dodging, do you?

[Foxy Freedom]

Note,

It should be obvious that you have to know what "credible evidence" is before you can say anything about what "credible evidence points to".

If you don't know what "credible evidence" is, you cannot claim what it points to.

So we are dealing first with what is credible evidence and we are using the flat earth to do it.

[QuestionMark]

Credible evidence are those ideas which can be believed to be true.

It is incredible to believe that the New Testament is not accurate in its claim that Jesus rose from the dead.

There is no other reasonable explanation for its (the New Testament) existence, therefore the only reasonable conclusion is that the resurrection of Jesus is a historical fact.

[Foxy Freedom]

"the resurrection of Jesus as a historical event is an idea which can be believed to be true."

I accept that, since I know there are people who believe it. There are also people who don't believe it so you might want to drop the "all" at this point, since not all ideas which can be believed point in that direction.

It is useful to put statements in terms of the flat earthers since they have less emotional baggage.
"The earth is flat is an idea which can be believed to be true."

I also accept that statement since I know there are people who believe that too.

Obviously believing something is true does not make it true. Look at how you have assumed that believing something makes it true in your final sentence.

"The explanation for the existence of the NT is an idea which can be believed to be true, therefore the only reasonable conclusion is that the resurrection of Jesus is a historical fact."

In terms of the flat earthers. "The idea that the earth is flat is an idea which can be believed to be true, therefore the only reasonable conclusion is that the earth is flat."

So in order for a statement to be true it has to be more than an idea which can be believed to be true. What are the other criteria? If you met a flat earther what other mistakes would you point out in his reasoning to prevent him from reaching a false conclusion?

[QuestionMark]

I accept that, since I know there are people who believe it. There are also people who don't believe it so you might want to drop the "all" at this point, since not all ideas which can be believed point in that direction."

I won't drop the "all", because the only alternative to believing in the resurrection is to suspend judgment on the issue. There are agnostics, but there are no people who have a reason to believe the resurrection did NOT in fact happen. So, as a result you for example are an agnostic with regard to the resurrection of Jesus. But that's because you lack knowledge. You don't know the information about the resurrection that makes it credible, so you don't believe. But your non-belief is not a positive thing. Unless you say "I know that the resurrection did not occur" If that is the case, then you should present evidence :D

So, when the historical record, namely the books of the New Testament, indicates unanimously that Jesus rose from the dead, the only reasonable conclusion is to believe that he did rise from the dead. "All credible evidence points to the resurrection of Jesus as a historical event".

I have ignored your persistent efforts to talk about the flatness of the earth because it is off topic and I have no emotional baggage to be concerned about. My emotions are perfectly in control.

[Foxy Freedom]

Your whole argument is that "all A implies B". That is a simple logical statement. All you have to do is show that A is a subset of B or alternatively that you are using "implies" in the correct way. Both mean exactly the same thing. If you cannot show that, your statement is not proved.

You might think that you "have no emotional baggage to be concerned about" but your entire last post shows only emotional commitments not logical arguments. For example you have made false assumptions about me and born false witness by telling me that I am "agnostic with regard to the resurrection of Jesus." I say your claim is unproved. Also, I do not lack knowledge about your claim. That is another false emotional assumption you have made about me. So your statement that there are no people who disbelieve is incorrect. I disbelieve your claim because it is unproved.

You are also making the emotional claim that you have superior knowledge to most of the world about the resurrection of Jesus, and that all the people who disbelieve, know less than you do. That is not very likely is it? Or if you think you are more intelligent than the rest of the world, you should be able to prove your logic is sound in a single post. Then we can move on.

The reason for using the flat earth as a guide to logic is that it is a neutral subject which does not include the emotional distortions which you have shown in your last post. It is not off topic, it makes the logic of "all A implies B" easier for everyone to think about.

So what would you tell a flat earther that his mistakes in reasoning are? Why does his A not imply his B?

[QuestionMark]

'All of the world' does know less than I do on a variety of subjects, for instance I am expert on infusing vancomycin and potassium chloride. I'm not going to shy away from what I know, rather if I can help someone with it I am going to employ that knowledge. So I give my patients vanco, and I proclaim the resurrection of the LORD Jesus to you, because that is what you need.

It would not make or mean that I am more emotionally stable if I pretended that I didn't know things. However, this is not a useful line of conversation because we are not talking about me, my emotions, my knowledge or the flat earth. We are talking about the resurrection of the LORD Jesus.

When I say that you are agnostic, I do so because it is practically impossible to know that the resurrection did not occur (and this is not a conversation about theoretical possibilities, but about what actually happened in history). So you are an agnostic, because the two categories about this subject --if a person is reasonable--are agnosticism concerning the resurrection or affirmation of the resurrection.

My affirmation is based on the historical record: A. The historical record unanimously agrees on the resurrection of Jesus. B. This record would not exist if Jesus were not in fact raised from the dead.

[Foxy Freedom]

Are you agnostic towards Buddhism or Krishna? Or do you do you disbelieve those religions?

So you want to change the subject. OK. There is no point in going round in circles.

Your affirmation is based on A) the assumption that there is a historical record, which you have not proved. B) the assumption that the text would not exist any other way which does not seem reasonable, since other religious texts about other religions exist and some of them also claim resurrections. In fact resurrections were a standard feature of various religions before christianity, it was not a new idea. I can think of several reasons why a text falsely claiming the resurrection of Jesus could be written. Can you really not think of a single reason why someone would not write such a false text?

[QuestionMark]

Resurrections were not a standard feature in various religions before Christianity.

You think that there is no historical record of the resurrection? The New Testament concerns past events, and they are obviously preserved from long ago. That makes the New Testament a historical record by definition. The point here is I don't need to prove that the NT is a historical record, because if it weren't (a historical record) we wouldn't be talking about it.

[Foxy Freedom]

Two other questions. If you want to change the subject to these questions, at least answer them.

Are you agnostic towards Buddhism or Krishna? Or do you do you disbelieve those religions?

So you want to change the subject. OK. There is no point in going round in circles.

Can you really not think of a single reason why someone would not write such a false text?

[QuestionMark]

I didn't change the subject. You told me to drop the "all" from all evidence. You justified this by saying that some people don't believe. I pointed out that a lack of belief doesn't change the evidence. Even if the whole world believed that I am made of figgy pudding it wouldn't be true. So I will not drop the "all" from all evidence. If you are confused by my calling you an agnostic, you can just ignore that section. I will not drop the "all" from all evidence, because all the evidence indicates Jesus rose from the dead. There is no evidence that indicates Jesus did not rise from the dead.

The historical record is unanimous and clear: Jesus rose from the dead.

[Foxy Freedom]

I don't mind, if you want to move onto religious subjects and forget about proving why you think your all A implies B and forget about the flat earth.

So just religious subjects.


Are you agnostic towards Buddhism or Krishna? Or do you do you disbelieve those religions?

Can you really not think of a single reason why someone would not write such a false text?

[Foxy Freedom]

Even if the whole world believed that I am made of figgy pudding it wouldn't be true.

This is what was important about the flat earth scenario in terms of your definition of credible beliefs.

If all those ideas which can be believed to be true point to the fact that I am made of figgy pudding, it still would not be true.
It is clear that the default position should be disbelief, until you have something more than "can".

If all those ideas which can be believed to be true point to the fact that the earth is flat, it still would not be true.
It is clear that the default position should be disbelief, until you have something more than "can".

If all those ideas which can be believed to be true point to the resurrection of Jesus as a historical event, it still would not be true.
It is clear that the default position should be disbelief, until you have something more than "can".

The basic problem is that the evidence you have might not tell you enough about reality, or it might be because you can interpret the evidence the wrong way. So what more do you need in order to believe something? Simple, ideas which are supported by evidence which cannot be disbelieved or denied.

If all those ideas which cannot be disbelieved to be true point to the fact that I am made of figgy pudding, it would be true.
It is clear that the default position should be belief, unless there is an alternate explanation, then see above.

If all those ideas which cannot be disbelieved to be true point to the fact that the earth is flat, it would be true.
It is clear that the default position should be belief, unless there is an alternate explanation, then see above.

If all those ideas which cannot be disbelieved to be true point to the resurrection of Jesus as a historical event, it would be true.
It is clear that the default position should be belief, unless there is an alternate explanation, then see above.

.....because all the evidence indicates Jesus rose from the dead. There is no evidence that indicates Jesus did not rise from the dead.

The historical record is unanimous and clear: Jesus rose from the dead.

This remains to be proved. You cannot claim it as proof of something else.


As another example of the conditions listed above, are you agnostic towards Buddhism or Krishna? Or do you do you disbelieve those religions which "can be believed"?

Can you really not think of a single reason why someone would not write such a false text about the resurrection of Jesus?

[QuestionMark]

Foxy Freedom,
There are reasonable beliefs and unreasonable beliefs. Belief in the resurrection is a reasonable belief because all of the credible evidence points to the resurrection of Jesus as a historical event. I will keep repeating this truth because of how powerful and positive it is (in the logical sense). All you have to do, were you paying attention, is provide one single evidence in all the universe to show that I am wrong. You want me to drop the "all"? Then provide a reason. You want me to compare this to an unreasonable belief such as Buddhism? Then provide evidence. So far all I have is the historical record. Give me a reason to believe that the historical record is wrong regarding the resurrection of Jesus.

If you don't have any reason to believe it is wrong, then you are either an agnostic or a believer.

[Foxy Freedom]

Foxy Freedom,
There are reasonable beliefs and unreasonable beliefs. Belief in the resurrection is a reasonable belief because all of the credible evidence points to the resurrection of Jesus as a historical event. I will keep repeating this truth because of how powerful and positive it is (in the logical sense). All you have to do, were you paying attention, is provide one single evidence in all the universe to show that I am wrong. You want me to drop the "all"? Then provide a reason. You want me to compare this to an unreasonable belief such as Buddhism? Then provide evidence. So far all I have is the historical record.

By your own definition Buddhism is a reasonable belief equal to the resurrection of Jesus.

Buddhism is an idea which can be believed to be true.
The resurrection of Jesus is an idea which can be believed to be true.

The fact that something can be believed does not make it true, as you can see with Buddhism, but for emotional reasons you are trying to avoid saying the same for Christianity.

Give me a reason to believe that the historical record is wrong regarding the resurrection of Jesus. If you don't have any reason to believe it is wrong, then you are either an agnostic or a believer.

You have now changed to claiming that the resurrection of Jesus is in the second category which cannot be denied and you are asking if there is alternate explanation for the resurrection stories which would nullify this. The answer is, yes there is an alternate explanation for the resurrection stories, that is that people believe what they want to believe.

Exactly the same thing happened with Elvis as happened with Jesus. People claimed they had seen him and talked to him after he had died. This newspaper article quotes eight people who could "prove" that Elvis was still alive.



People who knew Elvis also claimed he did miracles. In this short video lasting only about a minute someone who was with Elvis describes how he parted the clouds in the middle of a storm to create an avenue of light for the car to drive along, while the rain poured down on each side.



So the stories of Jesus can be explained by human psychology to believe what they want to believe.

Therefore the story of the resurrection of Jesus does not fall into the category of something which cannot be denied and the default position is disbelief.

[QuestionMark]

You need to start that post over. I didn't say an idea which can be believed to be true is true.

By your own definition Buddhism is a reasonable belief equal to the resurrection of Jesus.

Buddhism is an idea which can be believed to be true.
The resurrection of Jesus is an idea which can be believed to be true.

The fact that something can be believed does not make it true, as you can see with Buddhism, but for emotional reasons you are trying to avoid saying the same for Christianity.

Credible evidence are those ideas which can be believed to be true.

[Foxy Freedom]

You need to start that post over. I didn't say an idea which can be believed to be true is true.

By your own definition Buddhism is a reasonable belief equal to the resurrection of Jesus.

Buddhism is an idea which can be believed to be true.
The resurrection of Jesus is an idea which can be believed to be true.

The fact that something can be believed does not make it true, as you can see with Buddhism, but for emotional reasons you are trying to avoid saying the same for Christianity.

Credible evidence are those ideas which can be believed to be true.

So we are agreed then that an idea which can be believed to be true does not in fact have to be true?

And that Buddhism and the resurrection of Jesus are not true merely because they can be believed to be true?

[QuestionMark]

So we are agreed then that an idea which can be believed to be true does not in fact have to be true?

And that Buddhism and the resurrection of Jesus are not true merely because they can be believed to be true?

We never disagreed on that. Affirming the resurrection is reasonable because "All credible evidence points to the resurrection as a historical event". Not because someone believed it.

Are you ever going to talk about the evidence?

[Foxy Freedom]

So we are agreed then that an idea which can be believed to be true does not in fact have to be true?

And that Buddhism and the resurrection of Jesus are not true merely because they can be believed to be true?

We never disagreed on that. Affirming the resurrection is reasonable because "All credible evidence points to the resurrection as a historical event". Not because someone believed it.

Are you ever going to talk about the evidence?

This is a contradiction. You have already stated that credible evidence is what someone can believe.

Credible evidence are those ideas which can be believed to be true.

Do you agree that the correct criteria for belief is that the evidence cannot be denied?

[QuestionMark]

The correct criteria for belief is whether the evidence is convincing. And, one's conviction can range from very weak to very strong. The existence of a belief is binary, but the strength of that belief is not. So for instance, I have believed that Jesus was raised from the dead since I was 5 years old, and my belief then was complete, but over time my capacity for conviction became larger (and at times my conviction of the truth of the gospels has not been at full capacity!).

Now, you are noting that I'm talking about whether evidence is credible and whether a belief is reasonable. There is no contradiction. Someone can have an unreasonable belief with credible evidence (say for example there is counter evidence, or the evidence is not sufficient for the strength of the belief). But, since we are talking about evidence (You keep trying to talk about belief) you think that the two ideas are in contradiction, when they are in fact two different things.

All evidence can be denied, even if the evidence is clear and convincing, a stubborn person might refuse to believe it. I have met atheists who have no problem saying that even if Jesus spoke to them personally they'd sooner think themselves insane than believe in the resurrection. If a personal meeting with God won't convince someone, why would the historical record do so? I don't know. So I don't assume that even if you see the evidence, you'll believe it. You might have some other reason to refuse to believe it. Most of the time, the truth can't just be true, it has to be overwhelmingly true. That's why conversion stories are usually emotion filled. Not because they are based on emotion but because the degree of conviction that one is experiencing was shockingly unexpected.

In fact, when some people come to trust in Jesus, it's not because they learned that Jesus was trustworthy or that they should or could put their trust in him, or even that they came to believe that he was raised from the dead. They can know all of these things and not be a Christian.

[Foxy Freedom]

I have believed that Jesus was raised from the dead since I was 5 years old, and my belief then was complete....

Would you ask a five year old for advice about what to believe about anything?

Now, you are noting that I'm talking about whether evidence is credible and whether a belief is reasonable.

Using that definition of belief, who is going to decide what is "reasonable"?

Would most people say that the belief of a five year old child is reasonable?

This is why I am saying the criteria should be stronger. The criteria should be that the evidence cannot be denied. That is, there should be no other explanation which can be demonstrated to be possible, or no evidence which proves it false.

I am talking here about evidence, not what people believe.

[QuestionMark]

I might ask for advice from a 5 year old, they can have stunning clarity with what's there, unclouded by nonsense. For example my four year old son knows there are quite a number of things that are real that can't be seen at all, and many that can only be seen under special circumstances. So he knows to live by faith and not by sight. My son also bested me in a debate when he was two or three, which I'm sure you can appreciate :) I'm not biased by age, if a five year old had a credible witness about something I would believe him. But I have not asked you to believe based on my testimony as a five year old. It's strange that you ask too, because I also intimated that my conviction has waned at times, and I certainly wouldn't suggest that you not trust in Jesus or not believe in the resurrection. One of the first things that I told my wife about faith in Jesus: I may fail in my faith, shipwrecked in some way that I can't predict, but that doesn't change the fact that Jesus rose from the dead.

And who is going to decide what is reasonable? Each person decides for themselves. If you're asking what the final standard is, there can only be one standard, a reasonable Creator. Otherwise, every opinion ever made is just an opinion. With no Creator there is no guarantee that rational beliefs are closer to some idea called truth, or more worthy or better in any way compared to the idea called falsehood. The delight in truth has historically been tied to belief in God, and though it's off topic I have seen no reason to believe that we can consistently believe in truth without also believing in a Creator.

Anyway, your suggested criteria results in solipsism (that only the mind exists) otherwise all evidence and ideas could for example be a dream, a product of someone else's imagination, or we might be living in the matrix. Because you say we should only depend on evidence that cannot be denied, yet I am creative enough to recognize that all evidence can be denied, except to say that 'something exists' and we may as well call that something my mind(since it's arguable whether you exist, but I am experiencing you so it's not arguable whether my mind exists).

So instead I've gotten a better criteria. I went through this struggle once or twice when I was growing up.

[Foxy Freedom]

Solipsism is a bad idea which contradicts itself, since no solipsist can explain himself.

My criteria is just based on being able to prove things false.

Let's get onto something more interesting.

Do you agree that in order for the resurrection to be true, the god of the new testament must exist to make it happen?

[QuestionMark]

No, I don't.

[Foxy Freedom]

That sounds like heresy to me.

Who is god the father, who Jesus prays to?

[Foxy Freedom]

Do you agree that in order for the resurrection to be true, the god of the new testament must exist to make it happen?

No, I don't.

That sounds like heresy to me.

Rom 10:9 If on your lips is the confession, Jesus is Lord, and in your heart the faith that God raised him from the dead, then you will find salvation.

Gal 1:1 From Paul....from Jesus Christ and from God the father who raised him from the dead.

So you are a proved heretic.

This shows that you are choosing what is "credible evidence" to fit your own opinion.

Therefore your opinion that all credible evidence points to the resurrection of Jesus as a historical event cannot be accepted as reliable.

Game over.

Happy Christmas to all readers. It is the birthday of Mithras who was crucified after celebrating with his twelve disciples and who later rose from the dead. All long before Jesus which shows that religions are never as original as you think.

[QuestionMark]

I don't want to assume that by saying "game over" you understand so little of what I've said that you think yourself victorious. So I'll continue..

You asked if in order for the resurrection to be true, the god of the new testament MUST (your emphasis) exist to make it happen. But there are other logically possible options. Very, very, sadly you do not know these options and do not know that the Bible anticipates them and addresses them. Because the men who wrote the Bible were more intelligent than most people are even able to recognize. If you read one of Paul's letters and realize it was written two thousand years ago and don't catch his ability to think, it would be very sad. But to the point:

-The resurrection of Jesus could have been an illusion, indistinguishable from the apparent evidence. A hologram you might say, just another part of the matrix.
-The resurrection of Jesus could have been the work of another god, say a trickster like Loki.
-The resurrection of Jesus could have been the work of space aliens with advanced technology, as is said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
-The resurrection of Jesus could have been some form of mind control, whereas someone used magic, or technology to make all the first disciples (hundreds of them) see credible signs and wonders in the resurrection which were just in their heads.

Without much skill at all I've given you four examples of how the resurrection could produce credible evidence but not be the work of the God of the Bible. But, the most reasonable conclusion is that the evidence points exactly where it says it points. The historical record of the resurrection of Jesus was determined to be the work of the God of the Bible. And, I'll show you how this is not heresy (though again you are trying to focus on me and not the evidence? Why do you do this?).

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you?unless you believed in vain.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

The record I quote and emphasize here, is from Paul's First Letter to the Corinthian Christians. Consider the Wiki:

There is consensus among historians and Christian theologians that Paul is the author of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, classifying its authorship as "undisputed" (see Authorship of the Pauline epistles). The letter is quoted or mentioned by the earliest of sources, and is included in every ancient canon, including that of Marcion. However, two passages may have been inserted at a later stage. The first passage is 1 Cor 11:2?16 dealing with praying and prophesying with head covering.[1] The second passage is 1 Cor 14:34?35 which has been hotly debated. Part of the reason for doubt is that in some manuscripts, the verses come at the end of the chapter instead of at its present location. Furthermore, Paul is here appealing to the law which is uncharacteristic of him. Lastly, the verses come into conflict with 11:5 where women are described as praying and prophesying.

The historical consensus is that the author is Paul, who by the way died according to historical consensus by 67 AD. A consensus date on this letter is 53 AD to 57 AD. That's 20 years after Jesus was risen, according to the historical record.

So what's my point? Notice that Paul says "according to the Scriptures" two times in one paragraph? People generally believe that this was one of the first Christian creeds, a statement of belief. But look how Paul couches it. According to the Scriptures and according to witnesses "Most of whom are still alive". Of course most of them are still alive, because the first major wave of Christian persecutions hadn't happened in the 50s AD. So most of the people who knew Jesus were still alive. Paul knew them, and now he is writing about them. But, interestingly we would say the historical consensus is that most of the Christian New Testament had not been written before this letter (If we say otherwise, we are dating the New Testament before the destruction of the temple, which would be enough to become a Christian in itself). So what Scriptures is Paul referring to? He's talking about the Old Testament, the Jewish Scriptures. And why does this matter?

Because it's one thing for Jesus to be risen from the dead. It's another thing for the God of the Jews to be telling people that it was going to happen since the beginning of the world, bit by bit, through history, faithfully, and perfectly.