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

[QuestionMark]

@Airyaman

You have claimed that Paul didn't "list anything historical", a strange claim given that Paul mentioned the living witnesses of the resurrection.

The only way this claim makes sense is if you think Paul was not speaking the truth, which is a difficult claim to make given that Paul was instrumental in the organization of many first century churches. The authorship of the letters which mention this is considered 'undisputed'. So we have a historical person writing to historical churches about historical witnesses of a historical event.

In what way does Paul not list anything historical, and how in your opinion does this harm the claim that "All credible evidence points to the resurrection of Jesus as a historical event"?

[Airyaman]

@Airyaman

You have claimed that Paul didn't "list anything historical", a strange claim given that Paul mentioned the living witnesses of the resurrection.

Is that truly historical, or was he simply the first to get the fictional account going? We have no way of knowing or verifying a word he wrote other than some collaboration with anonymous authors who very well could have been friends of Paul himself. Can you show me otherwise?

The only way this claim makes sense is if you think Paul was not speaking the truth, which is a difficult claim to make given that Paul was instrumental in the organization of many first century churches. The authorship of the letters which mention this is considered 'undisputed'. So we have a historical person writing to historical churches about historical witnesses of a historical event.

Or we have another L. Ron Hubbard or Joseph Smith or Mohammed. Why believe Paul and not those others?

Really, what evidence do you have that the whole of the NT was not a work of "Paul" and some friends of his? After all, Paul's works were supposedly written first, yet he was the last apostle. How can we be certain that this "Paul" was not responsible for all of what we know as "Christianity"?

In what way does Paul not list anything historical, and how in your opinion does this harm the claim that "All credible evidence points to the resurrection of Jesus as a historical event"?

He may have made historical statements or he may have written pure fiction. I see no reason to believe the former.

I invited you to start a debate thread, why haven't you?

[QuestionMark]

The historical record indicates that Paul died for his account, so you would need some tremendous motivation for him to risk his life repeatedly and to die. Does such a motivation exist in any historical account with respect to Paul? No such motivation exists. This sets him apart from someone like Hubbard, who actually made money from his claims of Dianetics and subsequently went into hiding because of legal backlash against his claims. He, in other words, had a lifetime history of being a charlatan and did all the normal things you'd expect of a charlatan. Here is a picture of the place where he died, poor soul.

I'm very happy to say I think other accounts of the history of Jesus resurrection were in fact written by Paul's friends, who likewise lived lives of integrity, many of them also dying for the testimony they upheld. One person who wrote what is considered a clearly historical work was Luke, the physician and companion of Paul, after whom a book from the first century is named. So we can say that the historical accounts of the resurrection were not merely the writings of Paul, but the writings of Paul and Luke and others.

Finally, I don't know what you mean by asking why I haven't started a debate thread. This is a debate thread, you claimed that Paul didn't list anything historical and are now trying to broaden the topic by saying that we have no reason to believe Paul and I have addressed both that Paul has written historically and that we have reason to trust him (namely corroboration and good character).

[Airyaman]

The historical record indicates that Paul died for his account, so you would need some tremendous motivation for him to risk his life repeatedly and to die.

No it does not. We have modern examples of people who die for something they believe in, whether that belief is based upon reality or not. Need I list the numerous examples of cult members who have died to maintain their faith? Muslims who die in suicide attacks because they believe it will earn them something in heaven?

I don't know why people keep trotting out this rubbish. Its an old worn out argument with very little merit.

Does such a motivation exist in any historical account with respect to Paul? No such motivation exists. This sets him apart from someone like Hubbard, who actually made money from his claims of Dianetics and subsequently went into hiding because of legal backlash against his claims. He, in other words, had a lifetime history of being a charlatan and did all the normal things you'd expect of a charlatan. Here is a picture of the place where he died, poor soul.

Being exposed as a charlatan becomes easier with the passage of time. Not sure what this has to do with the fact that he (Hubbard) did indeed start a religion and wrote texts to guide it.

I'm very happy to say I think other accounts of the history of Jesus resurrection were in fact written by Paul's friends, who likewise lived lives of integrity, many of them also dying for the testimony they upheld. One person who wrote what is considered a clearly historical work was Luke, the physician and companion of Paul, after whom a book from the first century is named. So we can say that the historical accounts of the resurrection were not merely the writings of Paul, but the writings of Paul and Luke and others.

So to back up Paul, you direct me to a work of a "friend" of his? Could this not be more collaboration/corroboration, if this is true?

Finally, I don't know what you mean by asking why I haven't started a debate thread. This is a debate thread, you claimed that Paul didn't list anything historical and are now trying to broaden the topic by saying that we have no reason to believe Paul and I have addressed both that Paul has written historically and that we have reason to trust him (namely corroboration and good character).

Sorry, not the thread title and topic, OT.

[QuestionMark]

... that is the thread title, and topic. I put it in the thread title, and topic. And, you addressed those issues. Instead of jumping around, perhaps you could make a main thesis of why you don't believe the historical accuracy of Paul.

It's not courteous to tell me I'm 'trotting out rubbish' when you aren't addressing my argument. Paul died for his account, Hubbard got rich off his. Do you see the difference? It's not that Paul died for his account that makes him obviously factual. But it establishes his character as NOT a charlatan.

Paul is not a charlatan, because all he got from his recording history was suffering and death. Hubbard was a charlatan because he got rich and died peacefully in his old age for his account. Do you see that Paul is not a charlatan?

Paul has the strength of character we would seek in a good witness. Paul has the devotion to truth that we would seek in a good historian. Paul has the collaboration of peers which we see in any paper written in a journal. Nobody does good academic work alone, they do it with Phd candidates, research assistants, librarians, secretaries, and supervisory panels, and often peer review.

It is no weakness of the historical nature of Paul's work that he had friends. It is a strength, unless you can prove that they all conspired to tell a lie, then suffer and die for the lie. That would be quite the bill if you could do that. I'm ready to entertain this motion if you see fit.

In review, Hubbard shows the signs of a charlatan, Paul does not. Paul shows collaboration about his historical record, Hubbard shows secrecy.

[Airyaman]

... that is the thread title, and topic. I put it in the thread title, and topic. And, you addressed those issues. Instead of jumping around, perhaps you could make a main thesis of why you don't believe the historical accuracy of Paul.

Because I don't believe in the historical accuracy of anything in the bible. Haven't we already discussed this? I view the bible as any other religious text: propaganda and often mythology. All religious texts are written with a biased viewpoint and not to be confused with more neutral historical documents.

It's not courteous to tell me I'm 'trotting out rubbish' when you aren't addressing my argument. Paul died for his account, Hubbard got rich off his. Do you see the difference? It's not that Paul died for his account that makes him obviously factual. But it establishes his character as NOT a charlatan.

It still means nothing. Motives mean nothing as far as this discussion is concerned. As stated, people will suffer for a multitude of reasons, doesn't make the reasons valid.

Paul is not a charlatan, because all he got from his recording history was suffering and death. Hubbard was a charlatan because he got rich and died peacefully in his old age for his account. Do you see that Paul is not a charlatan?

Again, motives don't prove a thing. Sorry if that was going to be a strong point for you because it means next to nothing in this discussion.

Paul has the strength of character we would seek in a good witness. Paul has the devotion to truth that we would seek in a good historian. Paul has the collaboration of peers which we see in any paper written in a journal. Nobody does good academic work alone, they do it with Phd candidates, research assistants, librarians, secretaries, and supervisory panels, and often peer review.

Peers, for this discussion, are not your fellow religious buddies who have the same goals as you (to spread your own religion). Do you trust a company that puts out a product that has only been tested by their own labs? Why do many seek independent studies?  Because the company lab has a strong reason to make the company product look good.

Or back to the Scientology thing: would you trust a Scientologist to be wholly truthful about his religion?

It is no weakness of the historical nature of Paul's work that he had friends. It is a strength, unless you can prove that they all conspired to tell a lie, then suffer and die for the lie. That would be quite the bill if you could do that. I'm ready to entertain this motion if you see fit.

Again, why does it matter? They wrote fantastic tales that read like propaganda and mythology. It does not matter that they often agreed on their views of their propaganda and mythology, that is what they are supposed to do, no?

In review, Hubbard shows the signs of a charlatan, Paul does not. Paul shows collaboration about his historical record, Hubbard shows secrecy.

Of course Paul is not a charlatan in your viewpoint. If he was, you wouldn't be a Christian. You have the same motives as he did: to spread your religion.

[QuestionMark]

I would trust a scientologist to be truthful about his religion, that is to tell me what he personally believes is true/experienced. That doesn't mean what he says is true however. I'm surprised you don't see a difference between a known charlatan like Hubbard who financially prospered from his imaginative 'religious' claims and someone like Paul who suffered for giving an account of what he saw with his own eyes.

I'm further surprised that you don't think that Paul's letters to first century churches have any historical accuracy. Do you think, for example, in his treatise to the Romans that there were actually no Christians in Rome? Do you think that there were no Apostles? Do you think that he was not a Jew? Do you think further (since you included 'the bible') that Pontius Pilate and John the Baptist did not exist, as recorded by Luke?

It seems extraordinarily strange to me that you would discount everything in the Bible because of the religious convictions of those who wrote it. Everyone has religious convictions, or lack of convictions, and wants to justify their own way of living. Why for example should we then trust an atheist's opinion about Christian religion, or about Intelligent Design? Should we set aside all atheists in any discussion about the reasonability of a Christian system of thought?

You say that the Bible reads like propaganda and mythology. How would you expect the Bible to have been written if Jesus actually rose from the dead? Would it be any different from the accounts that we have?

[Airyaman]

I would trust a scientologist to be truthful about his religion, that is to tell me what he personally believes is true/experienced. That doesn't mean what he says is true however. I'm surprised you don't see a difference between a known charlatan like Hubbard who financially prospered from his imaginative 'religious' claims and someone like Paul who suffered for giving an account of what he saw with his own eyes.

Still with this? Motives matter little in this discussion, not sure why you think this makes a difference. There have been many well-intentioned people in this world who have done great harm, and great good. Because they were well-intentioned does not mean their cause is valid.

Think of the radical Muslims today. Are they really that much different from the heroes of the bible who killed in the name of their god? Do you suppose just because you believe in their god makes it OK while the Muslim god is supposedly false?

So if you would like to lean on the bible as history and show that the individuals who were written about in it, and those who wrote it, always had the best intentions (ie suffering for a faith they believe in), then by all means do.

L. Ron Hubbard wanted to make money I suppose, and you say that is the wrong motive. Yet, Paul seemingly had a motive to spread his religion, and what better way to show your piety than to suffer for it. If Paul was real, that is the path he chose. It does not mean that what he wrote was not the delusions of a mad man and it does not mean they were necessarily reality.

In the end, you have no reason to understand why this Paul character did what he did. You only have bits and pieces about him, so to trot out a character assessment  of him to try to stoke the validity of your claim is going to fall flat.

I'm further surprised that you don't think that Paul's letters to first century churches have any historical accuracy. Do you think, for example, in his treatise to the Romans that there were actually no Christians in Rome? Do you think that there were no Apostles? Do you think that he was not a Jew? Do you think further (since you included 'the bible') that Pontius Pilate and John the Baptist did not exist, as recorded by Luke?

It was a broad statement that was meant to indicate that Paul's letters were not history in themself. If I write a post in here and it is mostly advice with some history thrown in, does that make my post worthy of being considered a historical document? You are going to be reaching if this is part of your argument thus far.

Friends is a sitcom based in New York City. I suppose since NYC is real, then the characters in that show were real life people living that life. So Paul having bits of history in his letters means something to you  .

It seems extraordinarily strange to me that you would discount everything in the Bible because of the religious convictions of those who wrote it. Everyone has religious convictions, or lack of convictions, and wants to justify their own way of living. Why for example should we then trust an atheist's opinion about Christian religion, or about Intelligent Design? Should we set aside all atheists in any discussion about the reasonability of a Christian system of thought?

What is this? Would you trust an atheist to say only true things about Christianity? You obviously don't understand bias.

Let's say I write my life story and tuck it away in a box. The box is then discovered by my great great grandkids and they read it. In it I am a wonderful person who accomplished many great things. However, in reality, I accomplished little...my life story was simply a fabrication based on what I would have liked to accomplish.

At that point, no one can validate the story for the great great grandkids. No one in the family alive really remembers me, so they must then assume that, based on what they read, I was truly a great man.

So who can validate for us that Paul (as we're told of it) really lived and that he was really motivated to do what he did because Jesus' resurrection was truly a reality? Not many. Most of the validation comes from anonymous authors of the bible or people far removed from his actual life.

Supposedly Paul had an experience on the road to Damascus. At what point are we to not believe that what we read from this Paul character is not just a product of the religious environment of the period where radical religious writers and street preachers were in ample supply or even the mind of a deluded individual? We don't, we have to assume many things, and you're argument is assuming he had the right motivation and that validates his writings.

Bold assumption, but that is all it is, and not strong enough to consider.

You say that the Bible reads like propaganda and mythology. How would you expect the Bible to have been written if Jesus actually rose from the dead? Would it be any different from the accounts that we have?

It is propaganda because it only seeks to validate one religion. It is no different than an ad claiming its product is the best in the market. Now if you could show that the religion it advocates is indeed the only valid one, you'd be on to something. Since you can't then all I see is an ancient informercial written in B&W.

Let's not get to the Jesus part yet, you've still got to show that the bible is valid history, and not just mythology with some bits of history in it. Just like other mythologies also contain real places (and potentially characters) that existed.

[QuestionMark]

Excellent Smithers.

You say motivation doesn't matter at all, but we're talking about whether someone recorded history correctly. Motivation is as important as it would be for witness testimony in a court. A witness who has a history of lying would not be a trustworthy witness. A witness who has a history of charlatanism would not be a trustworthy witness. A witness who would die for his testimony is a trustworthy witness. If you don't think motivation is important, you need to explain why everyone else in the world considers it important when trying to find the truth from a witness. You are literally the only person I've ever heard say that motivation doesn't matter when trying to find the truth from a witness testimony.

Now you understand that Paul's references to historic events doesn't make them true, but it does make them historic. In the same way that Friends having a setting in New York has implications for what New York is. If we carried your analogy out, in two thousand years someone could watch the video friends, translated it, and decide that the Yankees don't exist, New York doesn't exist, there weren't white people there, it never snowed etc etc etc. But we both, you and I, know that it is nonsense to speak this way.

The existence of Paul's letters proves, first, that there were Christians in the first century, second, that they believe Jesus had risen from the dead, and third that there were historic persons involved in recording the facts about Jesus and his followers, not least of which is Paul himself. So we have Paul, a real person, writing about the disciples, real people. We have Paul talking about Luke, and we have Luke's gospel. We have Luke dating his account according to the rulers of the time e.g. Herod and Quirinius. I know now that you would not suggest that Herod was a mythological character, or that Quirinius was a mythological character. I hope you would not suggest that Paul or Luke was a mythological character. I think you know very well that Paul was recording historical events, not myths or legends and that is why Paul died for his testimony.

There is literally zero evidence that the accounts of Paul are mythological or legendary in nature. The Gospel of Luke specifically says that it was written as an orderly account of the testimony of eyewitnesses. It couldn't get more historical than that.

Do you have any evidence that any first century Christian aggrandized their testimony? That any one of them lied? That a single Christian invented some detail? Or, indeed, does all credible evidence point to the resurrection of Jesus as a historical event?

[Airyaman]

Excellent Smithers.

You say motivation doesn't matter at all, but we're talking about whether someone recorded history correctly. Motivation is as important as it would be for witness testimony in a court. A witness who has a history of lying would not be a trustworthy witness. A witness who has a history of charlatanism would not be a trustworthy witness. A witness who would die for his testimony is a trustworthy witness.

Bull hockey. Prove this statement.

If you don't think motivation is important, you need to explain why everyone else in the world considers it important when trying to find the truth from a witness. You are literally the only person I've ever heard say that motivation doesn't matter when trying to find the truth from a witness testimony.

How do you know what Paul's true motivation was? You're making all sorts of assumptions about Paul that really cannot be backed up by anything more than...wait for it...his own words! Your argument is falling in on itself because to support Paul, you must read Paul.

Now you understand that Paul's references to historic events doesn't make them true, but it does make them historic. In the same way that Friends having a setting in New York has implications for what New York is. If we carried your analogy out, in two thousand years someone could watch the video friends, translated it, and decide that the Yankees don't exist, New York doesn't exist, there weren't white people there, it never snowed etc etc etc. But we both, you and I, know that it is nonsense to speak this way.

Fortunately we have so much more to show NY does exist. Your bible characters? Not so much.

The existence of Paul's letters proves, first, that there were Christians in the first century, second, that they believe Jesus had risen from the dead, and third that there were historic persons involved in recording the facts about Jesus and his followers, not least of which is Paul himself.

Where did he get his facts? From the apostles? One would assume so, but we only read about that from Paul's own words and...wait for it...the work (supposedly) of his bestest buddy Luke. 

If all we know of a person comes from himself and a friend of his, how much do we know, and how much of it can we trust?

So we have Paul, a real person, writing about the disciples, real people. We have Paul talking about Luke, and we have Luke's gospel. We have Luke dating his account according to the rulers of the time e.g. Herod and Quirinius. I know now that you would not suggest that Herod was a mythological character, or that Quirinius was a mythological character.

Two words: Historical fiction.

I hope you would not suggest that Paul or Luke was a mythological character. I think you know very well that Paul was recording historical events, not myths or legends and that is why Paul died for his testimony.

According to Christian tradition. Paul may have died sitting at his desk while writing another letter. Its certainly sounds better to have him die for his testimony however, doesn't it? It gives you a reason to believe him, but does nothing for one such as myself because I do not know how Paul died nor do I care. People die for their beliefs all over the world, they certainly don't have to be true beliefs, just strongly believed in.

There is literally zero evidence that the accounts of Paul are mythological or legendary in nature. The Gospel of Luke specifically says that it was written as an orderly account of the testimony of eyewitnesses. It couldn't get more historical than that.

Well then, it says that, we must trust it! We have one source after all, it shall be sufficient...

Do you have any evidence that any first century Christian aggrandized their testimony? That any one of them lied? That a single Christian invented some detail? Or, indeed, does all credible evidence point to the resurrection of Jesus as a historical event?

No, it is only credible if you believe it. I do not, so to me it is not credible. Here is the applicable definition of the word:

:  offering reasonable grounds for being believed <a credible account of an accident> <credible witnesses>

If you write of numerous supernatural events that don't seem to actually occur outside of your narrative, how then are you giving us reasonable grounds for being believed? I do not find any of those things at all believable, so to me, according to the above definition, the bible simply is not a credible source.

Hmm, the actual definition of that word might have just ended this debate. Should have thought of using it earlier.

[QuestionMark]

Thankfully you cleared all this up earlier when you pointed out that one should not believe propaganda because of its false motives. That is, you correctly assessed that motives matter when we are determining whether someone is telling the truth or not.

Now you have concluded without evidence that Paul was writing historical fiction, even though Paul lived his life consistent with his writing. You likewise are claiming that all the first Christians were living a fictional system out, even though it caused them suffering and loss. Luke, John, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Clement, Peter, James were all living a historical fiction, is your claim. Yet you have no evidence to support your claim, and lots of evidence to support the claim that they were simply writing what they had lived and seen.

Do you have any evidence to support these claims? Do you have anything to clarify why you consider the motives of a propagandist relevant but not the motives of a religious person trying to write an account of his experiences? Or why the motives of a religious person trying to collect accounts of the other's experience? How do you avoid the special pleading of saying that the motives of a propagandist matter but the motives of another person don't?

[Airyaman]

Thankfully you cleared all this up earlier when you pointed out that one should not believe propaganda because of its false motives. That is, you correctly assessed that motives matter when we are determining whether someone is telling the truth or not.

But you've failed to actually establish motives. You've assumed motives (based almost wholly on your faith it appears), but you have not shown that you can back your assumptions. Therefore you've no way to establish credibility at this point, and without it, your debate is shot.

Now you have concluded without evidence that Paul was writing historical fiction, even though Paul lived his life consistent with his writing.

And how do we know how Paul lived his life? Oh wait, that's right: his own writings. Seems we have some circular reasoning going on here...

You likewise are claiming that all the first Christians were living a fictional system out, even though it caused them suffering and loss. Luke, John, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Clement, Peter, James were all living a historical fiction, is your claim. Yet you have no evidence to support your claim, and lots of evidence to support the claim that they were simply writing what they had lived and seen.

Sorry, but point out where I claim that the bible is historical fiction. I simply state that minus independent corroboration, the bible could very well be historical fiction. It was never a claim of mine, but I have no reason to accept it as non-fiction at this point. With its fantastic tales of talking donkeys, men who calm storms, raise people from the dead, etc., it certainly reads like many works of fiction I have come across. I say that because I am a fan of fantasy literature, and enjoyed Greek and Roman mythology as a youngster. The bible reads like those many works with its fantastic tales and "magic".

Do you have any evidence to support these claims?

Not making claims, just offering possibilities, alternatives. It is up to you at this point to establish credibility, and you've been failing miserably. Your thread title says it all.

Do you have anything to clarify why you consider the motives of a propagandist relevant but not the motives of a religious person trying to write an account of his experiences? Or why the motives of a religious person trying to collect accounts of the other's experience? How do you avoid the special pleading of saying that the motives of a propagandist matter but the motives of another person don't?

You've not been able to establish a clear motive. You make assumptions, and that is not convincing for a debate.

I never truly said what Paul's motive was, I simply state that the bible reads like propaganda to me. It is now up to you to show me it is not.

[QuestionMark]

You mean it's up to me to show a careful observer that the Bible is not propaganda. My first step was to show that it doesn't matter if the Bible is not propaganda because according to your assessment 'motives don't matter'. If motives don't matter, it doesn't matter if the Bible is propaganda, because that would have no bearing on whether or not it is true.

In fact a historian could still use propaganda to find the truth. Say for instance, the North Korean propaganda videos of DPRK winning the Olympics. Someone could say that there is no such thing as the Olympics, that it is a figment of the propagandists' imagination. But someone could not say that videos are the figment of the propagandists' imaginations.

You believe the Bible was fabricated by thousands of people a hundred years after the historical dates attached to it, and you find that much easier to believe than that the Bible was fabricated by people who actually believed the events recorded when they were recorded.

Now I could be wrong, perhaps you don't believe the Bible was fabricated by thousands of people a hundred years afterward. But since you have given exactly zero plausible alternative solutions, we're at a place where the only reasonable answer is to believe that the Bible did not appear out of thin air, that it was written by people who actually believed it, and that is why the Christian religion exists today and we are talking about it.

In other words, you can say Mohammed was not a prophet, but you can't say Mohammed didn't think he was a prophet. Historically, it is indisputable that Paul wrote Corinthians, thought that Jesus was risen from the dead, thought that witnesses of this event were still alive, thought that his companions knew them etc etc etc.

It's indisputable. So, what's your conspiracy theory on how Paul didn't actually believe what he wrote?

[Airyaman]

You mean it's up to me to show a careful observer that the Bible is not propaganda. My first step was to show that it doesn't matter if the Bible is not propaganda because according to your assessment 'motives don't matter'. If motives don't matter, it doesn't matter if the Bible is propaganda, because that would have no bearing on whether or not it is true.

Indeed, and I never said as much. Yet propaganda is not inherently truthful, and it is most often a biased representation of something. So how are you going to show that the bible, as propaganda, is indeed truthful? You've not been able to move in that direction this far in this debate. You keep talking about motives and how the motives mean something, and I've said that they don't unless the the motive is to be deceitful.

In fact a historian could still use propaganda to find the truth. Say for instance, the North Korean propaganda videos of DPRK winning the Olympics. Someone could say that there is no such thing as the Olympics, that it is a figment of the propagandists' imagination. But someone could not say that videos are the figment of the propagandists' imaginations.

You believe the Bible was fabricated by thousands of people a hundred years after the historical dates attached to it, and you find that much easier to believe than that the Bible was fabricated by people who actually believed the events recorded when they were recorded.

I never said anyone was being deceitful. It is possible, but that has not been my position. I personally believe that Jesus was likely just an urban legend whose story was formed over time by a collection of myths about his personage. I cannot prove this, but you cannot prove otherwise. It is much more likely that this is the case though, because in reality, people don't walk on water or get raised from the dead. So unless you can give me history written of Jesus by a neutral named source, then I have no reason to believe much of any of it actually happened.

Now I could be wrong, perhaps you don't believe the Bible was fabricated by thousands of people a hundred years afterward. But since you have given exactly zero plausible alternative solutions, we're at a place where the only reasonable answer is to believe that the Bible did not appear out of thin air, that it was written by people who actually believed it, and that is why the Christian religion exists today and we are talking about it.

So what if they believed it? I can point you to books where people speak of fairies as if they are real, does this then mean they are real? Just because people believed there was a Jesus and he rose from the dead does not mean there actually was such a figure. Just like believing in fairies does not make them real.

In other words, you can say Mohammed was not a prophet, but you can't say Mohammed didn't think he was a prophet. Historically, it is indisputable that Paul wrote Corinthians, thought that Jesus was risen from the dead, thought that witnesses of this event were still alive, thought that his companions knew them etc etc etc.

So if he merely thought these things were real, how can you stretch this out to say they actually were real?

It's indisputable. So, what's your conspiracy theory on how Paul didn't actually believe what he wrote?

Who cares if he believed it. As you said, Mohammed thought he was a prophet, and Paul may have thought he was an apostle of Jesus. I am not sure how any of this helps your case for showing the credibility of Paul or any of the rest of  bible.

[QuestionMark]

You personally believe that Jesus was an urban legend, but Paul became a Christian within a few years of Jesus' death. At least Paul thought he became a Christian within a few years of Jesus' death, and other people who knew Paul thought Paul became a Christian within a few years of Jesus' death. So who invented the myth?

You said you personally believe it, that's a positive claim. What is your evidence?

By the way, I don't think the Bible qualifies as propaganda. It was not designed to promote anything but belief in what was actually true. By that definition any convincing argument is propaganda. How did John expect people to believe in Jesus? By telling them about the real Jesus. How did Paul expect people to believe in Jesus? By telling them about the real Jesus. If this is propaganda, every educational institution in the world is merely a center for propaganda.

And how does a reasonable person go from knowing the historical record of Paul's indisputable authorship of a letter in which he details his faith in the risen Jesus according to witnesses to actually believing that Jesus rose from the dead? You ask all the reasonable questions. Is there any evidence that Paul was telling the truth, about there being many witnesses? Yes. Is there any evidence that Paul was lying about there being many witnesses? No. A reasonable person has every reason to believe the veracity of Paul's account, which I remind you is considered 'indisputably' Paul's.

[Airyaman]

You personally believe that Jesus was an urban legend, but Paul became a Christian within a few years of Jesus' death. At least Paul thought he became a Christian within a few years of Jesus' death, and other people who knew Paul thought Paul became a Christian within a few years of Jesus' death. So who invented the myth?

No idea. Most myths we read of today don't have known origins, they are simply written down versions of oral stories passed along. It appears that the Jesus myth was similar in its origins.

You said you personally believe it, that's a positive claim. What is your evidence?

I personally believe Moosetracks ice cream is the best flavor, the evidence is my taste buds. In other words, its simply my viewpoint based on what I am given, and not a claim with concrete evidence. I am given a book containing fantastic acts of what appears to be supernatural events that do not seem to happen outside of its pages, therefore I view it is mythology, legend. I view Greek and Roman mythology in the same manner.

By the way, I don't think the Bible qualifies as propaganda. It was not designed to promote anything but belief in what was actually true.

Since you don't know the true intentions of the writers, you cannot qualify the bible as propaganda or not. You simply have no idea, so the notion cannot be disqualified. To me, it reads as such, and that is all I need.

By that definition any convincing argument is propaganda. How did John expect people to believe in Jesus? By telling them about the real Jesus. How did Paul expect people to believe in Jesus? By telling them about the real Jesus. If this is propaganda, every educational institution in the world is merely a center for propaganda.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/propaganda

Tell me how the bible is disqualified using that definition? It says nothing about truthfulness.

And how does a reasonable person go from knowing the historical record of Paul's indisputable authorship of a letter in which he details his faith in the risen Jesus according to witnesses to actually believing that Jesus rose from the dead? You ask all the reasonable questions. Is there any evidence that Paul was telling the truth, about there being many witnesses? Yes.

All by anonymous writers who may very well have been colleagues of Paul. Can you prove otherwise?

Let's try a hypothetical scenario. Joe is on trial for murdering Mike. The only evidence the prosecution has a written testimony by a guy named Ralph, but the written testimony was not given directly by Ralph to the prosecution or anyone else, it was merely uncovered somewhere while looking for evidence. Plus, the testimony was not that Ralph saw  Joe murder Mike, but that he spoke to others who saw it. Then, there are at least 4 more written testimonies by anonymous others that said they saw Joe murder Mike. Is Joe guilty, based on this evidence alone?

Is there any evidence that Paul was lying about there being many witnesses? No. A reasonable person has every reason to believe the veracity of Paul's account, which I remind you is considered 'indisputably' Paul's.

What does any of this mean? I never said anyone was intentionally lying. You seem to be chasing rabbits, and this debate is going nowhere. How are you going to show the bible is credible evidence?

[QuestionMark]

... I don't have to show that the Bible is credible evidence. Everyone agrees the Bible is credible evidence, the only question is what is it evidence of! The Quran is credible evidence that someone thought a man named Mohammed was prophet. The letters of Paul are evidence that Paul became a Christian and believed that there were witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus. The letters of Peter are evidence that Peter believed in Jesus as the resurrected Messiah. The gospel of John is evidence that John saw the resurrected Jesus. The letters of Clement are evidence that Peter and Paul were Christians and passed on their testimony. The Letters of Irenaeus are evidence that Polycarp was a hearer of John. At no point in the lifetime of Jesus or in the decades that follow is there time or motive (more importantly, any evidence) to invent a lie about the life of Jesus. So we have evidence, that the first Christians really believed that Jesus was risen from the dead. They were not like Hubbard as you suggested, who was in it for the money.

The simple fact is the first Christians believed Jesus was raised from the dead. Do you agree or disagree? If you agree, then you have to explain how they were so horrendously wrong. It's absolutely preposterous that a man would rise from the dead, so the belief that he actually did and that it was accepted by entire communities of people who knew him and were dedicated to the historical truth of these events needs an explanation for which you have none. You have suggested and then withdrawn suggestions.

Every one of your claims has been bogus. You said there was no history in the Bible. Bogus. You said the motives of the Apostles was relevant, then you proved that the motives of the Apostles were irrelevant. Bogus. We have two thousand years of evidence that Jesus rose from the dead and that's why Christianity exists, and no evidence to contradict it.

Now you say I need to know the true intentions of the writers, after you have previously said the true intentions of the writers don't matter. "You keep talking about motives and how the motives mean something, and I've said that they don't unless the the motive is to be deceitful. " Does it matter what the true intentions of the writers is, or doesn't it? You need to make up your mind.

And ice-cream? Really Airyaman? You think that the world is full of facts that you can pick and choose like the flavor of an ice-cream? I'm living in the real world, if you want to pick and choose your facts you have no place in a debate with someone who wants to know what is true and real.

Let's try a hypothetical scenario. Joe is on trial for murdering Mike. The only evidence the prosecution has a written testimony by a guy named Ralph, but the written testimony was not given directly by Ralph to the prosecution or anyone else, it was merely uncovered somewhere while looking for evidence. Plus, the testimony was not that Ralph saw  Joe murder Ralph, but that he spoke to others who saw it. Then, there are at least 4 more written testimonies by anonymous others that said they saw Joe murder Ralph. Is Joe guilty, based on this evidence alone?

Let's try a real scenario. Jesus the miracle worker was on trial for blaspheming. The written testimonies are four separate but corroborating accounts from communities of witnesses each associated with a primary author. Further written testimonies are those of Peter, Paul, and James who personally vouch for the death of Jesus and his power to do miracles. Did Jesus really die, based on this evidence? Did Jesus really have the power to do miracles based on this evidence? Did Jesus continue to supply them the power to do miracles even after his death, based on this evidence?

You don't seem to understand that the testimony of the earliest Christians is seamless. The Old Testament God came to earth in the flesh and died, rising again on the third day he then empowered the first Christians to continue his ministry until all the original witnesses were dead, by which time the religion had been so established that it has never been stopped but continues to every nation tribe and tongue. The Apostles are built on top of Jesus. If you try to get rid of Jesus you have to get rid of the Apostles first.

[Airyaman]

... I don't have to show that the Bible is credible evidence.

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

Until you can support this, I cannot move on with you. You are just chasing your tail at this point, and wasting my time.

[QuestionMark]

I did support this, read the rest of the paragraph.

[Airyaman]

... I don't have to show that the Bible is credible evidence. Everyone agrees the Bible is credible evidence, the only question is what is it evidence of! The Quran is credible evidence that someone thought a man named Mohammed was prophet. The letters of Paul are evidence that Paul became a Christian and believed that there were witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus. The letters of Peter are evidence that Peter believed in Jesus as the resurrected Messiah. The gospel of John is evidence that John saw the resurrected Jesus. The letters of Clement are evidence that Peter and Paul were Christians and passed on their testimony. The Letters of Irenaeus are evidence that Polycarp was a hearer of John. At no point in the lifetime of Jesus or in the decades that follow is there time or motive (more importantly, any evidence) to invent a lie about the life of Jesus. So we have evidence, that the first Christians really believed that Jesus was risen from the dead. They were not like Hubbard as you suggested, who was in it for the money.

Believing in something <> historical fact.

All you have thus far are the unsubstantiated claims of Paul (not there) and several anonymous writers who may or may not have witnessed Jesus. Just like my scenario with Joe killing Mike.

If you have anything new, let me know. Remember the definition of credible: offering reasonable grounds for being believed. I personally do not find third party descriptions of supernatural events a bit reasonable.

[QuestionMark]

Nor do you find... first party descriptions of supernatural events a bit reasonable. You are a person who has decided a priori that there is no such thing as the supernatural. Otherwise you would be able to specify what the Bible should look like if it were real (you elected not do so so earlier). Or, under what grounds you would believe a miracle. Or, under what grounds you'd believe any text when it refers to miracles historically.

Anyway, that's not the point. The historical evidence is that the first Christians believed Jesus rose from the dead. There is no evidence of them fabricating these accounts, no evidence of forgery, no evidence of legends developing. There is no evidence in the historical record except evidence of eyewitness accounts pointing to the resurrection of Jesus.

Your approach amounts to nothing but conspiracy theory. You literally think that someone conspired to make it look like Jesus rose from the dead when he did not actually rise from the dead.

[Airyaman]

Nor do you find... first party descriptions of supernatural events a bit reasonable.

Do you? If another person, who does not belong to your religion, speaks of miraculous events, do you find them reasonable? If a Muslim says Allah healed his mother, do you believe him? Or if a Hindu says that Aditi allowed her to have two children when all of the doctors said she would have zero chance to get pregnant?

You are a person who has decided a priori that there is no such thing as the supernatural. Otherwise you would be able to specify what the Bible should look like if it were real (you elected not do so so earlier). Or, under what grounds you would believe a miracle. Or, under what grounds you'd believe any text when it refers to miracles historically.

If I actually saw miracles of the scale in real life today, I might be open to them in the bible. Doesn't happen. Did the gods leave?

Anyway, that's not the point. The historical evidence is that the first Christians believed Jesus rose from the dead.

And? Belief is nothing more than that.

There is no evidence of them fabricating these accounts, no evidence of forgery, no evidence of legends developing. There is no evidence in the historical record except evidence of eyewitness accounts pointing to the resurrection of Jesus.

Perhaps because there was no reason to have records against these things? Such a silly argument.

Can you find records from the time period that the stories of Zeus originated that he really didn't exist? Why have a written case against something if there is no need?

Remember my scenario where I wrote a book about my life, but it was mostly fabrication? If someone found it hundreds of years from now, and did not find anything to the contrary, then what I wrote would be all the reader had to understand who I was -- and that view would be false. But the reader would have to accept it.

Now let's expand it. What if someone before that found my book, and decided to write a book about me, but added more to it, more that was not true but did not seem to contradict my story. Then the future reader would have two stories about my life, very little of it which was true. Yet it is the "written record of my life".

The same could be said of much of history. We can rarely be certain of many historical accounts, but we come to accept them based on what we have been given. Until you start throwing in fantasy...

A third person gets my book, and he adds more to it, but now he says I taught myself to levitate, walk in other person's dreams, had a psychic prediction rate of almost 97%. Would you believe that, just because it was written?

My father used to love to tell fantastic tales about himself. He told me he once flew and landed an airplane between buildings and landed on a city street. My grandmother told a similar story, but it was not because she was there, but because my father said he did it.

Now did he do it? I only have the word of two people: my grandmother (not there), and my father. I never saw him fly an airplane in my entire life. I love my father, but I don't believe him, and neither did anyone else who has ever heard the story (besides my grandmother).

So if I can't accept the story of my father and the airplane, why should I believe a man was raised from the dead based off the bible?

Your approach amounts to nothing but conspiracy theory. You literally think that someone conspired to make it look like Jesus rose from the dead when he did not actually rise from the dead.

No, I believe it was all urban legend.

[QuestionMark]

Did your father really tell you those stories?

[QuestionMark]

I was shocked, so I asked. To my knowledge my dad never lied to me. I also make a habit of never lying to my kids. I'd rather make them cry over the truth than happy over a lie. My kids don't even believe in Santa Clause. I think lying to your kids makes them irrationally skeptical, because they never know if anyone is telling the truth... the people closest to them were liars. Though there's nothing wrong with skepticism there is an irrational type of skepticism.

A rational skeptic might look at the Bible and say all the evidence points in one direction but I still somehow have difficulty believing it because I need MORE evidence. But you are not saying that. You are actually taking less a skeptical and more a cynical approach. You tried to malign the character of the authors, even though they had done nothing wrong. You tried to lessen the weight of their testimony on the basis of their motives, instead of looking at the evidence of their testimony as qualified. In a court, you don't dismiss a witness testimony even if they are hostile. You use the hostile testimony to continue discovering the truth, because even a hostile witness offers evidence. This is why I keep emphasizing that it is not so important that Paul was right, but that his record was a historical account.

Because a historical account can be right or wrong, but it's still a historical account. So when you ask me if I would believe a Muslim or a Hindu, you know I probably would. Because I don't a priori discount miracles, I would give them the benefit of the doubt that what they experienced was a miracle--to them. Does that mean the laws of nature were actually contravened? Maybe. Do you see? I don't assume they are liars, or insane, or question their motives. I just say, I believe you saw a miracle, but I am not convinced that it is significant for me.

And, further, as I have shown in other places, the account of many people believing that Jesus rose from the dead does not mean that Jesus actually rose from the dead. It just means that whatever the sequence of events, they came to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. I approach this rationally, from a historical approach.

[Airyaman]

Did your father really tell you those stories?

Yes, and several more, but that was one of the more unbelievable ones.

[Airyaman]

I was shocked, so I asked. To my knowledge my dad never lied to me. I also make a habit of never lying to my kids. I'd rather make them cry over the truth than happy over a lie. My kids don't even believe in Santa Clause. I think lying to your kids makes them irrationally skeptical, because they never know if anyone is telling the truth... the people closest to them were liars. Though there's nothing wrong with skepticism there is an irrational type of skepticism.

A rational skeptic might look at the Bible and say all the evidence points in one direction but I still somehow have difficulty believing it because I need MORE evidence. But you are not saying that. You are actually taking less a skeptical and more a cynical approach. You tried to malign the character of the authors, even though they had done nothing wrong.

Still on this? It is getting you nowhere. I have not tried to malign anyone's character as much as I offer possibilities. You never met any of the authors so you don't have a real idea why they wrote what they wrote, you assume.

What you need to focus on is the thread title. Your job in this debate is to show that the bible is credible. Instead, you seem to want to focus on a few of my words, and often get my viewpoint wrong. If you can't really get what I am saying as I interact with you directly, what makes you think you have properly judged the motivations of the writers of the New Testament?

You tried to lessen the weight of their testimony on the basis of their motives, instead of looking at the evidence of their testimony as qualified.

Wrong again. I said the bible reads like propaganda and mythology to me. That does not mean I know the motives of the writers, it means that the end product gives me a certain impression. It is you who keeps focusing on motives, and I said from the very start that motives do not matter in this case because you do not know the motives, you assume them.

It is your job to show me the bible is not just propaganda and mythology.

In a court, you don't dismiss a witness testimony even if they are hostile.

In a court, you get to cross examine the witness.

You use the hostile testimony to continue discovering the truth, because even a hostile witness offers evidence. This is why I keep emphasizing that it is not so important that Paul was right, but that his record was a historical account.

Are you sure you wanted to write that as you did?

Because a historical account can be right or wrong, but it's still a historical account.

What? 

If it is right, certainly. If it is wrong, it is not history, it is simply false.

So when you ask me if I would believe a Muslim or a Hindu, you know I probably would.

Sorry, don't believe you. You did not read what I wrote obviously.

If a Muslim says Allah healed his mother, do you believe him? Or if a Hindu says that Aditi allowed her to have two children when all of the doctors said she would have zero chance to get pregnant?

You would not believe them because they speak of other gods. Now you might believe that the account of the healing and the pregnancies, but you would discount the source (their gods).

Because I don't a priori discount miracles, I would give them the benefit of the doubt that what they experienced was a miracle--to them. Does that mean the laws of nature were actually contravened? Maybe. Do you see? I don't assume they are liars, or insane, or question their motives. I just say, I believe you saw a miracle, but I am not convinced that it is significant for me.

And, further, as I have shown in other places, the account of many people believing that Jesus rose from the dead does not mean that Jesus actually rose from the dead. It just means that whatever the sequence of events, they came to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. I approach this rationally, from a historical approach.

So your thread title should be "All credible evidence points to the resurrection of Jesus as an event people believed in". No debate here for me, I agree.

[QuestionMark]

It's impossible for me to debate your arguments if you don't make any arguments. I have repeatedly asked you why you see the Bible as mythological or propaganda. I have shown why the record of Paul and Luke cannot be mythology or propaganda.

1. There is not enough time between the witnesses recorded and the events for mythology to develop.
2. There is no evidence of improper motives, and lots of evidence of proper motives, ruling out propaganda in any meaningful way.

What are your counter arguments? Yes, I would believe a trustworthy person who said Allah healed them, but I would need evidence connecting the healing to Allah. Trust but verify. Yes I intend to say Paul's writing was historical, not absolute truth. Because in history it's impossible to know what absolute truth is. It's impossible to know the absolute truth of anything if you are irrationally skeptical. So I am appealing to you as a reasonable person and asking under what grounds you would believe an account or miracles. You have no answer.

Given what evidence would you believe an account of resurrection? If you notice you'll remember this is the same question in different words when I asked "What would the Bible look like if Jesus was raised from the dead" and not merely propaganda as you suggest. I'm asking the same questions over and over again and you are not answering them.

Do you really expect me to debate when my opponent won't answer reasonable questions? I have answered yours. You have not answered mine. Is this because you don't have answers?

[Airyaman]

It's impossible for me to debate your arguments if you don't make any arguments. I have repeatedly asked you why you see the Bible as mythological or propaganda. I have shown why the record of Paul and Luke cannot be mythology or propaganda.

And I have repeatedly told you that the bible reads like propaganda and mythology to me. I have no reason to view it as anything else because it looks like any other religious text that speaks of other worldy things that don't seem to actually exist.

You are still offtrack though. Your job in this thread is to show "All credible evidence points to the resurrection of Jesus as a historical event". You seem to be chasing after something else.

1. There is not enough time between the witnesses recorded and the events for mythology to develop.

Certainly there is. There is no time span for mythology to develop, particularly when it could have developed from urban legends. It could have been urban legend then, and eventually became mythology for us today.

2. There is no evidence of improper motives, and lots of evidence of proper motives, ruling out propaganda in any meaningful way.

Do you even know what propaganda is? I defined it somewhere, but here it is again:

information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
2.
the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
3.
the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.

Tell me how the New Testament, as we have it today, does not fit the above definition?

And as to motives, you are back to assuming again.

What are your counter arguments?

I don't have any. You are the one who is trying to show the bible is credible, but you've not done anything to lead us in that direction. If you cannot show it is credible, then there is no need to accept that the resurrection of Jesus was an actual historical event.

Yes, I would believe a trustworthy person who said Allah healed them, but I would need evidence connecting the healing to Allah.

Their word is not enough? After all, you take the writers of the bible at their word, why can you not with a Muslim or even a group of them?

Trust but verify.

Indeed, I cannot verify anything in the bible with an independent source, therefore not credible.

Yes I intend to say Paul's writing was historical, not absolute truth. Because in history it's impossible to know what absolute truth is. It's impossible to know the absolute truth of anything if you are irrationally skeptical. So I am appealing to you as a reasonable person and asking under what grounds you would believe an account or miracles. You have no answer.

I would believe a miracle if I personally experienced it, or could be provided strong evidence of it. I've not seen anything yet I would call a miracle of the biblical scale, therefore I can no more believe Jesus rose from the dead than I can that Zeus hurls lightning bolts just because someone said it happened.

Given what evidence would you believe an account of resurrection?

Verification by independent sources would be a decent start. Got any?

If you notice you'll remember this is the same question in different words when I asked "What would the Bible look like if Jesus was raised from the dead" and not merely propaganda as you suggest. I'm asking the same questions over and over again and you are not answering them.

Because it is not a valid question. It is a "what if", useless for a debate. I deal with concrete evidence, not supposition.

Do you really expect me to debate when my opponent won't answer reasonable questions? I have answered yours. You have not answered mine. Is this because you don't have answers?

Start asking real questions that don't require me to fantasize.

[QuestionMark]

I think I've accomplished my purpose. Your only recourse is to say you feel like the evidence is not good enough.

Pardon me if I don't trust your feelings.

You say it reads like any other religious text, and you compared it to scientology via Hubbard. I showed how it's different.
You say it could be mythology, or urban legend. But you admit there is no evidence of any myth or legend developing.
You say it's not history because they are anonymous accounts. I show that Luke and Paul are not at all anonymous.
You say that there is nothing to corroborate these accounts, I show an unbroken chain of historical references.
You say you want something concrete.

Well sir, concrete wasn't invented until the 19th century, so I guess you're in trouble.

[Airyaman]

Its simple: give me independent sources that verify the resurrection of Jesus. You only have text that came from (supposedly) his earliest followers. I do not trust non-biased information that cannot be independently validated, certainly when it comes to the fantastical.

Remember, credible: offering reasonable grounds for being believed. You find the bible to be reasonable, I do not. Therefore, you have not convinced me that you have credible evidence.

[QuestionMark]

You're telling me that I need to find someone who doesn't believe in the resurrection to testify that the resurrection occurred.

Pardon me if I don't use your reasoning.

[Airyaman]

Believed in it? No, witnessed it.

[QuestionMark]

You want someone who witnessed the resurrected Jesus but did not become a Christian... to provide unbiased testimony?

:)

Do you know what unbiased is?

[Airyaman]

Do you have a biblical account of a non believer who was such when he encountered the risen Jesus besides Paul's experience (which was just a light and a voice only he could understand)? Or were all of those who supposedly saw him already part of his followers?

[QuestionMark]

Thomas

[Airyaman]

Joh 20:24  Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came.

Sad, really.

[QuestionMark]

That I answered your question with a good example and you have no response?

[Airyaman]

That I answered your question with a good example and you have no response?

Do you have a biblical account of a non believer who was such when he encountered the risen Jesus besides Paul's experience (which was just a light and a voice only he could understand)? Or were all of those who supposedly saw him already part of his followers?

Joh 20:24  Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came.

[QuestionMark]

I thought you meant to point out that all of those who believed in Jesus were uncritically minded simpletons who believed just because they wanted to and had nothing better to do than die to Roman cruelty. You did notice that Thomas was not with the disciples right?

My bad... you really wanted me to reference the 3000 converted on the day of Pentecost.

Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.?

Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ?Brothers, what shall we do?? And Peter said to them, ?Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.? And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, ?Save yourselves from this crooked generation.? So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

This was to the unbelieving Jews as can be seen with my emphasis.

[Airyaman]

And... the preaching starts.

[QuestionMark]

While it is Sunday and you tired of being bested in this conversation leading to your feeling like my speech is less sensible in the last post than in the first I assure you that my appeal is still, as always, to the historical record and using your own reasoning against you.

You wanted examples of people who were not followers until they experienced the risen Jesus, I've given 3,002 examples.

[Airyaman]

No, you gave me 3002 people who could have been fictitious. What independent evidence supports the existence of the 3002 people?

[QuestionMark]

What do you consider independent evidence? As has been shown so many times before, Christianity is not a figment of someone's imagination. I'm not talking about Xenu. Sometimes I wonder whether my opponents really understand how fiction works. There is no evidence for Thetans. There never was. However, there has been indisputable evidence of a large sect of Jews coming to believe that their long awaited savior had finally come.

Now you would tell me that these people are fictitious. Paul was not a fiction, the historical record says so. Thomas was not a fiction, the historical record says so. The three thousand Jews who came to believe in Jesus were not fiction, the historical record says so. And history worked out in exactly the fashion we would expect if these things did in fact happen. Like I've said elsewhere there's even more evidence for the ministry of Paul and the Apostles than there is for Jesus, except that none of the Apostles would have been important without Jesus.

Paul was a pharisee. Others fishermen, tax collectors. What made them historical somebodies? Jesus rose from the dead and gave them a job. Then they taught boldly and intelligently while performing wonders(the 3,000 heard them speaking in tongues). This is the historical record. And one must ask, if this is not independently verified by history then how did Christianity come to be in the first place?

How did Christianity come to be in the first place? Do you understand that men like Ignatius are not Thetans?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ignatius.html

How can we verify that Ignatius was a Christian? It's such an absurd question. The historical person Ignatius was by definition Christian, it's the belief system he spent his life living and writing about.

How can we verify that 3,002 Christians (Including Paul and Thomas) became Christians? Because Christianity wouldn't exist without them. Where would Christianity be without Paul (Whose letter to the Corinthians is undisputed). Where would it be without Thomas? Ignatius? Polycarp?

Most modern scholars consider the passage to be authentic.[42][43] William L. Portier has stated that the consistency in the references by Tacitus, Josephus and the letters to Emperor Trajan by Pliny the Younger reaffirm the validity of all three accounts.[43] Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to be of historical value as an independent Roman source about early Christianity that is in unison with other historical records.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ#Christians_and_Chrestians

If you have forgotten the Tacitus passage let me reiterate:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Jud?a, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".

Years: Tacitus wrote re: 64 AD. The council of Jerusalem was in 50 AD. Paul's Letter to the Corinthians notes that he had been a Christian for at least 14 years before the council.

So you would say that around 33-34 AD that 3,000 Jews did not become Christians even though the historical record says that they did. You would say that e.g. Peter and James were not early Christian leaders, because we do not have independent verification even though we have multiple letters from first century Christians (Paul talks about Peter in Corinthians, which is undisputed).

So on the one hand we have no evidence of Thetans. On the other hand we have evidence on top of evidence for the mass conversion of Jews to the religion of Christianity, because of the work of the Apostles. If you want you can call them chief disciples of Jesus, for historical purposes. I'm OK with that. We don't have to adorn them with holy titles. They were real flesh and blood men going around and telling people what they had seen: Jesus risen from the dead.

And why did the Jews believe them? The facts of Jesus' life and actions were fresh in the Jewish mind at Pentecost, remember Pentecost means 50 days. That's the Jewish seven sevens, the Feast of Weeks, the Jewish celebration of the giving of the Torah which became the founding of the nation of the Jews. The Feast of Weeks is counted from the day of Passover, which is called Easter by Christians. So it's 50 days from the resurrection to the day when Peter preached and the 3,000 Jews were converted.

What is the alternative theory? Abandon the historical record and say it didn't happen? The Jews didn't know Jesus, Jesus was not a remarkable figure in Jewish history? He wasn't actually crucified by the Romans at the instigation of the Jewish authorities? That Paul, Peter, Luke, and Thomas were not historical persons?

I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

[Airyaman]

What do you consider independent evidence? As has been shown so many times before, Christianity is not a figment of someone's imagination.

Nor are the thousands of other religions around the world.

I'm not talking about Xenu. Sometimes I wonder whether my opponents really understand how fiction works. There is no evidence for Thetans. There never was. However, there has been indisputable evidence of a large sect of Jews coming to believe that their long awaited savior had finally come.

So what if they believed it?

Now you would tell me that these people are fictitious. Paul was not a fiction, the historical record says so. Thomas was not a fiction, the historical record says so.

Do you accept the Gospel of Thomas as valid?

The three thousand Jews who came to believe in Jesus were not fiction, the historical record says so. And history worked out in exactly the fashion we would expect if these things did in fact happen. Like I've said elsewhere there's even more evidence for the ministry of Paul and the Apostles than there is for Jesus, except that none of the Apostles would have been important without Jesus.

Paul was a pharisee. Others fishermen, tax collectors. What made them historical somebodies? Jesus rose from the dead and gave them a job. Then they taught boldly and intelligently while performing wonders(the 3,000 heard them speaking in tongues). This is the historical record. And one must ask, if this is not independently verified by history then how did Christianity come to be in the first place?

The same way any religion starts. Are you ready to say all religions are as valid and real as your own just because they exist?

How did Christianity come to be in the first place? Do you understand that men like Ignatius are not Thetans?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ignatius.html

And? Ignatius did not witness Jesus.

How can we verify that Ignatius was a Christian? It's such an absurd question. The historical person Ignatius was by definition Christian, it's the belief system he spent his life living and writing about.

How can we verify that 3,002 Christians (Including Paul and Thomas) became Christians? Because Christianity wouldn't exist without them. Where would Christianity be without Paul (Whose letter to the Corinthians is undisputed). Where would it be without Thomas? Ignatius? Polycarp?

Most modern scholars consider the passage to be authentic.[42][43] William L. Portier has stated that the consistency in the references by Tacitus, Josephus and the letters to Emperor Trajan by Pliny the Younger reaffirm the validity of all three accounts.[43] Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to be of historical value as an independent Roman source about early Christianity that is in unison with other historical records.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ#Christians_and_Chrestians

If you have forgotten the Tacitus passage let me reiterate:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Jud?a, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".

Years: Tacitus wrote re: 64 AD. The council of Jerusalem was in 50 AD. Paul's Letter to the Corinthians notes that he had been a Christian for at least 14 years before the council.

So you would say that around 33-34 AD that 3,000 Jews did not become Christians even though the historical record says that they did. You would say that e.g. Peter and James were not early Christian leaders, because we do not have independent verification even though we have multiple letters from first century Christians (Paul talks about Peter in Corinthians, which is undisputed).

So on the one hand we have no evidence of Thetans. On the other hand we have evidence on top of evidence for the mass conversion of Jews to the religion of Christianity, because of the work of the Apostles. If you want you can call them chief disciples of Jesus, for historical purposes. I'm OK with that. We don't have to adorn them with holy titles. They were real flesh and blood men going around and telling people what they had seen: Jesus risen from the dead.

And why did the Jews believe them? The facts of Jesus' life and actions were fresh in the Jewish mind at Pentecost, remember Pentecost means 50 days. That's the Jewish seven sevens, the Feast of Weeks, the Jewish celebration of the giving of the Torah which became the founding of the nation of the Jews. The Feast of Weeks is counted from the day of Passover, which is called Easter by Christians. So it's 50 days from the resurrection to the day when Peter preached and the 3,000 Jews were converted.

What is the alternative theory? Abandon the historical record and say it didn't happen? The Jews didn't know Jesus, Jesus was not a remarkable figure in Jewish history? He wasn't actually crucified by the Romans at the instigation of the Jewish authorities? That Paul, Peter, Luke, and Thomas were not historical persons?

I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

So the best you have provided for me is people believed something, and that is why Christianity exists. I already knew that. I hope you enjoyed the work you put into typing all of that, because you still don't have anything that validates scripture beyond that people believed the things in it happened.

[QuestionMark]

You asked me for independent verification that people became Christians on the day of Pentecost. Your argument, I believe (I have to assume since you don't make your own arguments in debate, you just ask questions and state your feelings), was that only Jesus' followers believed that he was raised from the dead.

Problem with that is that Paul was not a follower of Jesus, Thomas had stopped following Jesus, him being dead and all, and thousands of Jews became Christians very shortly after the death of Jesus. Unless you are saying that all these thousands were followers of Jesus beforehand (Yet murdered him) that means the very existence of the Christian religion proves that people came to believe in the resurrection of Jesus without having been followers of him beforehand.

The existence of Christianity in the middle first century proves that people came to believe in the resurrection of Jesus. Since the existence of Christianity in the middle first century is undisputed, that means that people came to believe in the resurrection of Jesus in the middle first century.

Airyaman if you don't want to talk about the evidence you might as well say you don't want to talk about the evidence, but you can't claim the evidence isn't there. I'm putting it right in front of you and all you have to say is that you don't find it credible. Now, credibility to me is not a question of whether any idiot can or does believe something but whether it is reasonable to believe. I don't hinge the credibility of the Christian faith on retards. You shouldn't hinge your unbelief on the incredulity of retards.

So come up with some arguments (not just feelings or suspicions) about why a reasonable person  should not believe Jesus was raised from the dead.

[Airyaman]

You asked me for independent verification that people became Christians on the day of Pentecost. Your argument, I believe (I have to assume since you don't make your own arguments in debate, you just ask questions and state your feelings), was that only Jesus' followers believed that he was raised from the dead.

So what is your independent source that validates the 3002 people who believed on the day of Pentecost?

Problem with that is that Paul was not a follower of Jesus, Thomas had stopped following Jesus, him being dead and all, and thousands of Jews became Christians very shortly after the death of Jesus.

If he had stopped following Jesus, why was he with the other apostles? Why was he still considered one of the twelve if he had given it up?

Unless you are saying that all these thousands were followers of Jesus beforehand (Yet murdered him) that means the very existence of the Christian religion proves that people came to believe in the resurrection of Jesus without having been followers of him beforehand.

But did they witness it? That is what I have been asking for, not that people believed it happened. Billions have believed it happened, now you have to show it actually did happen.

The existence of Christianity in the middle first century proves that people came to believe in the resurrection of Jesus. Since the existence of Christianity in the middle first century is undisputed, that means that people came to believe in the resurrection of Jesus in the middle first century.

And what does this prove other than people believed? We've already touched on the subject of urban legends.

Airyaman if you don't want to talk about the evidence you might as well say you don't want to talk about the evidence, but you can't claim the evidence isn't there.

Your evidence, however, comes from mostly anonymous sources, and is biased. I welcome independent validation, but you've not been able to produce any to this point.

I'm putting it right in front of you and all you have to say is that you don't find it credible. Now, credibility to me is not a question of whether any idiot can or does believe something but whether it is reasonable to believe.

And it is not reasonable to believe unless you have a reason to believe (yearning for salvation, eternal life, etc.). I have no reason to believe fantastical tales just because others might.

I don't hinge the credibility of the Christian faith on retards. You shouldn't hinge your unbelief on the incredulity of retards.

So come up with some arguments about why a reasonable person (not just feelings or suspicions) should not believe Jesus was raised from the dead.

Because there simply isn't any independent verification of the event. I've been saying that this whole thread, and you seem to look the other way.

[QuestionMark]

You don't welcome independent validation. You won't even admit that Paul's letters are historical in nature. Give me a break, I'm not stupid. You won't admit that there were people who believed Jesus rose from the dead in the 30s and 40s AD. You won't admit anything, you find it all unbelievable but you don't want to say that. If I'm wrong just admit:

Paul's authoring of Corinthians is on a historical level undisputed.
The existence of Christians by 50 AD is a historical fact.
There are multiple sources of the existence of Christians in the middle first century.

If you can't admit these things which are plainly historical, nothing I say is going to matter because you are a history denier.

[Airyaman]

You don't welcome independent validation.

There is none.

You won't even admit that Paul's letters are historical in nature. Give me a break, I'm not stupid. You won't admit that there were people who believed Jesus rose from the dead in the 30s and 40s AD. You won't admit anything, you find it all unbelievable but you don't want to say that. If I'm wrong just admit:

Paul's letters are not history, per se, they are letters with smattering of history here and there. IOW, they are not meant to record historical events like that of actual historians throughout time.

And where do I say there were no Christians in the 30s and 40s? If the scholars are correct and Paul's earliest letters date back to that period, than there most certainly were. Again, the existence of Christianity does not mean anything other than people believed a story and became part of a religion. Almost all religions start in a similar manner.

Paul's authoring of Corinthians is on a historical level undisputed.
The existence of Christians by 50 AD is a historical fact.
There are multiple sources of the existence of Christians in the middle first century.

You seem to be chasing after something that I have not denied. You are wasting your time with the idea that Christians existed, I already admit that they did.

If you can't admit these things which are plainly historical, nothing I say is going to matter because you are a history denier.

You wasted another post. I never said there weren't any early Christians. Their existence, however, does nothing to actually prove that the resurrection of Jesus was an actual historical event, it simply means people believed it was. Just as many will believe in urban legends. You've provided zero credible evidence to show the story of Jesus was not just another urban legend.

[QuestionMark]

It's not an "If the scholars are correct". It's yes or no. Do you understand that the historical record includes Christians believing in the resurrection of Jesus in the middle of the first century?

[Airyaman]

What does believing have to do with actual reality?

[QuestionMark]

If you can't handle a simple fact such as the existence of Christians at a given time in history, then debate is a useless endeavor.

So, can you handle the truth?

[Airyaman]

If you can't handle a simple fact such as the existence of Christians at a given time in history, then debate is a useless endeavor.

So, can you handle the truth?

Did you ignore reply #47 or are you now debating someone else?

[QuestionMark]

You said if the scholars are correct. That is not a positive statement, it's exactly neutral. If they are correct, then there were Christians, if they are not correct, then Christians are like Thetans.

This is a test to see if you are a reasonable human being. Do you think there were people who believed Jesus rose from the dead in the middle of the first century, or are such people like Thetans?

[Airyaman]

Now you are beginning to grasp at straws. Stating "If scholars are correct" is just that. They could be wrong, could they not? But if they are correct as to the dating of Paul's earliest letters, then it appears there were Christians in the 30s and 40s.

Regardless of when they first appeared, what does their belief have to do with the realism of what they believed in?

[QuestionMark]

So, in conclusion, you're not sure if Christians existed in the middle of the first century.

[Airyaman]

All available evidence seems to support it.

But this thread is not "All credible evidence points to the existence of Christians in the middle first century."

You are really beginning to waste my time and yours with these diversions. If you wish to continue, stick with the debate according to the actual thread title.

[QuestionMark]

What evidence is there that there were Christians in the middle of the first century?

[Airyaman]

I'm done. You can even claim victory if it makes you feel superior. You have played games this entire thread, and have not provided a shred of credible evidence to support your side of the debate.

[QuestionMark]

I know that question was hard for you.

+1 for trying to answer it.

The reason my opponent bowed out is because he realized that there was evidence of Christians in the middle of the first century. Realizing this forced him to admit internally that there is evidence of the Christian faith. Up until this point, he was unable and unwilling to admit this.

[Airyaman]

No, I bowed out because you constantly got my viewpoint and approach wrong in almost every post. It is simply too tiring to have to correct you constantly. Then you kept asking for something that I already admitted several posts back: that there were Christians in the mid 1st century.

I bowed out, but anyone who reads this thread will know you never once came close to making the case for "All credible evidence points to the resurrection of Jesus as a historical event". You simply wore me down with misdirection.

[QuestionMark]

I think you wore yourself down with misdirection. I was constantly having to organize your thoughts for you. You want to respond to everything that I say without getting the point.

The point is the exact same sources that prove there were Christians in the middle of the first century also prove that Jesus rose from the dead.

But you're ok with using those sources to prove there were Christians, but not that there was a Christ. And of course you wouldn't say it that way, but you don't make the logical connection. If Jesus wasn't raised from the dead there is no good reason you'd find Christians in the middle of the first century.

Other religions spread by secrecy, lies, violence, or money. Christianity had nothing going for it but the truth. But you never consider the sources, so when I forced you to consider the source, that is the exact moment you quit.

[Airyaman]

The point is the exact same sources that prove there were Christians in the middle of the first century also prove that Jesus rose from the dead.

The existence of a follower of a religion is plausible. We know this because we have billions of examples even today.

Fantasy events, like resurrection, are not plausible. We know this because we have zero examples even today.

[QuestionMark]

I have a two volume work published by a tenured professor at a major american university, documented miracles.

You may have zero examples of such 'fantasy' events, but I have examples.

[Airyaman]

I have a two volume work published by a tenured professor at a major american university, documented miracles.

You may have zero examples of such 'fantasy' events, but I have examples.

Documented by whom, and verified by whom? And were they the same level as a resurrection?

[QuestionMark]

Is that level 9 or level 10?

[Airyaman]

This is why you cannot be taken seriously.

[QuestionMark]

The debate is over, I'm back to my jovial self.

[Airyaman]

You must have been jovial the whole thread, because I never could take anything you said seriously.

[QuestionMark]

That's exactly what I'm talking about. One minute, the Bible contains no history, the next minute it certainly does, the next minute it depends on the opinion of historians, the next minute you quit.

Your not taking things seriously has nothing to do with me.

[Airyaman]

^^ Bulls**t statement, and not backed up by reality. I had to correct you with almost every response, and that is why I finally gave up. It was just not worth it.

[QuestionMark]

Of course you had to correct me, your opinion is a constantly moving target. Anyone following you needs continuous course corrections.

[Airyaman]

Demonstrate the truthfulness of "That's exactly what I'm talking about. One minute, the Bible contains no history, the next minute it certainly does, the next minute it depends on the opinion of historians, the next minute you quit."

You will not be able to, because that is not how it went down in this thread. More dishonesty from yourself, which seems to be your standard tactic on these boards.

[QuestionMark]

The non history was before the thread, just a few comments before on your post list. The rest was in the thread.

I don't really care about your twisted perspective of what you believe.

It's a long winding road that goes nowhere.

[Airyaman]

You don't care, because you cannot defend your statement. If you could, you would. But you'd rather hide behind your dishonest tactics.

If anyone beyond QM cares to defend his statements in the commentary thread, feel free to do so. That way we can show QM is not being dishonest, since he doesn't care to defend himself.

Please show that:

1) I ever said the bible contains no history.
2) I ever said that it depends on historians as to if there is any history in the bible.

Should be easy, only two items.

[QuestionMark]

Why don't you just ask me nicely instead of acting like I'm under some kind of moral demand to continue talking to you after I've walloped you in debate.

[Airyaman]

Why ask you nicely? You are the one making statements you can't back up. That you can't is enough for all to see.

[QuestionMark]

I can back them up, I've made a text file just for you, in case you ever learn some manners and ask nicely.

[Airyaman]

Well then you've wasted your time. You make false statements about what I've said that you can't back and you now want me to ask you nicely to defend them? Your arrogance is reaching newer levels.