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

[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.