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

[Assyriankey]

@QuestionMark

I am against that proposition, QuestionMark is for.

I believe there is credible evidence from historical writings which make an arguable case that the resurrection never happened.

The objective test for whether something is credible or not is whether it can be believed, not whether it should be believed.

QuestionMark's credible evidence comes from various historical Christian writings.  My credible evidence comes from the 19th Sura of the Qu'ran.  While the veracity of conflicting evidence can possibly be resolved by better examination, this is beyond the scope of our debate.  QuestionMark and I are not trying to assert that the bible has evidentiary precedence over the Qu'ran or vice versa.

The proposition says 'All...'

I put it to QuestionMark that the Qu'ran is believed by hundreds of millions of people around the world.

There is credible evidence that does not point to the resurrection of Jesus as an historical event, therefore I believe the proposition is defeated.

NEW:

Verse from the Qu'ran about Jesus not being resurrected...
"And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain."

http://islamawakened.com/quran/4/157/

[QuestionMark]

Although I don't think Sura 19 makes statements against the resurrection of Jesus as a historical event, and on the contrary has Jesus anticipating his resurrection (though most muslims would say this means the resurrection in the end of the world), there is a bigger problem to what you are saying.

Men are capable of holding beliefs to be true that they are not actually convinced of. Many times in my life I have asked someone about some detail that they mentioned and they would say 'Now that you ask, I'm not sure'. They may have heard something when they were young, or in a suggestible state (drunk, brainwashed, taught by someone too dear to them), and never become convinced of its veracity.

I think that you made an error and believed unquestionably that I was only concerned with the opinions of men like you and me when I spoke of historical evidence. Indeed I was speaking about credible evidence as a reflection of reality, not as a technical notation or a philosophical position but the truth of Jesus Christ.

...grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

[Assyriankey]

Right.

Anything else to add?

[QuestionMark]

Anything other than pointing out that the Sura isn't against the resurrection, and that no one actually believes the Quran to be true (and therefore it is not evidence). These two are sufficient to overturn your argument, leaving the NT intact.

If you are able to believe that the Quran is true, please demonstrate how you have come to that belief and how the Quran disagrees with the first century historical record.

Otherwise, all Muslims may be lying about their belief, and since we aren't talking about Muslims but instead are talking about evidence, you must provide evidence that you are correct.

Taken another way, if I have 3 witnesses and two of them agree but the third one presents a different account and we find upon closer inspection that he had a motive to lie then all evidence in this case is actually unanimous even though at first blush it seemed that all evidence was not in agreement.

I am saying that the Quran is not really credible, that you are not really convinced, and that the opinions of modern Muslims about the Quran don't matter unless their opinions are convincing. Otherwise, they may be lying or brainwashed and so their stated beliefs(the words coming out of their mouths or typed from their keyboards) don't connect to reality(either about what they actually think or are convinced of OR about the historical record/reality).

[Assyriankey]

Anything other than pointing out that the Sura isn't against the resurrection, and that no one actually believes the Quran to be true (and therefore it is not evidence). These two are sufficient to overturn your argument, leaving the NT intact.

I fixed the incorrect Qu'ran verse reference.

If you are able to believe that the Quran is true, please demonstrate how you have come to that belief and how the Quran disagrees with the first century historical record.

Naughty boy.  It's not about me...

Otherwise, all Muslims may be lying about their belief, and since we aren't talking about Muslims but instead are talking about evidence, you must provide evidence that you are correct.

It's not about me...

Taken another way, if I have 3 witnesses and two of them agree but the third one presents a different account and we find upon closer inspection that he had a motive to lie then all evidence in this case is actually unanimous even though at first blush it seemed that all evidence was not in agreement.

That's a curious assessment but it's got nothing to do with the proposition of this debate.

I am saying that the Quran is not really credible, that you are not really convinced, and that the opinions of modern Muslims about the Quran don't matter unless their opinions are convincing. Otherwise, they may be lying or brainwashed and so their stated beliefs(the words coming out of their mouths or typed from their keyboards) don't connect to reality(either about what they actually think or are convinced of OR about the historical record/reality).

Please remember that this thread is not about the reality or otherwise of the crucifixion, and it's certainly not about my belief concerning it.

If you want to change the proposition into something easier for you to debate then suggest away.

Your position in this debate so far relies solely on your assertion that the bible is credible and the Qu'ran is not.

My position relies on the Qu'ran denying the crucifixion.  See revised OP.

[QuestionMark]

Thanks for clearing that up. Now you have to deal with the other big problem. :)

Just because someone says they believe something doesn't mean they do. And, just because someone thinks they believe something doesn't mean they do. The other day I woke up a patient to inspect a wound and he asked if he could leave. I asked him if he knew where he was, who I was, and who he was and he remembered that he had surgery and needed to stay for post-surgical care. This is to say, he thought he wanted to leave the hospital but that's because his picture of reality was incomplete for a moment.

Just because someone says they believe there was no resurrection or states that there was no resurrection doesn't mean that they are telling the truth or that this is actually evidence. Understand what evidence is.

When I speak to my wife it is evident that she is real, unless no one else knows her who should then it may be that my wife is a delusion of mine and it is no longer evident that she is real. Now you are suggesting that the conflicting testimony of the Quran against the New Testament means that not all evidence is in agreement, and I am simply carrying your argument one step further.

If we must include the Quran in our definition of 'all evidence' then we must in fact include all evidence, not just the evidence of the Quran and the Bible. We must include our understanding of truth, reality, analyzing motives and the weaknesses of the human mind. So if you suggest that we must include the Quran I suggest we must include all human knowledge.

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

[Assyriankey]

Just because someone says they believe there was no resurrection or states that there was no resurrection doesn't mean that they are telling the truth or that this is actually evidence. Understand what evidence is.

Just because someone says they believe there was a resurrection or states that there was a resurrection doesn't mean that they are telling the truth or that this is actually evidence. Understand what evidence is.

Now you are suggesting that the conflicting testimony of the Quran against the New Testament means that not all evidence is in agreement, and I am simply carrying your argument one step further.

Not so.  Your proposition stands or falls on what 'credible' means.  To the best of my understanding, and I haven't bothered to look it up, 'credible' means 'believable', not 'true'.

If many people believe something then that something must be credible.  The only refutation of this truism you've so far provided is that all muslims are liars 

If we must include the Quran in our definition of 'all evidence' then we must in fact include all evidence, not just the evidence of the Quran and the Bible. We must include our understanding of truth, reality, analyzing motives and the weaknesses of the human mind. So if you suggest that we must include the Quran I suggest we must include all human knowledge.

On what grounds would you reject the Qu'ran?

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

A mantra already?  I must be doing something right for you to pull out the big guns so early in the piece.

[Assyriankey]

QM, how did Paul come to believe in the resurrection?

Previous to the incident on the road to Damascus, Paul (more correctly, Saul) knew of the resurrection stories but he did not believe them.

I think the bible says God intervened in Paul's life and, very soon afterwards, Paul believed in a risen Christ.

Are you in accord with that outline?

[QuestionMark]

AK,
I agree that a claim of resurrection isn't actually evidence. A statement by a trustworthy witness is evidence, so it is appropriate to question whether the testimony is by someone we can trust regarding something we can trust them to say. For this reason it is particularly compelling that Paul is claiming a resurrection.

Saul would not be expected to lie about the resurrection, outright. So did he believe it was true because of evidence or some other reason? We have two answers, Paul knew that a person could be insane/delusional so his belief in the resurrection wasn't built on one source of evidence. He said even if an angel from heaven should preach a different gospel let him be eternally accursed. Why? Because one angel isn't trustworthy!

But 500 witnesses are trustworthy. If 500 people who knew Jesus, in addition to his closest friends, saw him after he had died, and then proceeded to live their lives as if he was back from the dead, then that is evidence. We would call that kind of evidence eye-witness testimony, and we could argue about whether it was corrupted in any way.

In addition to this objective evidence, Saul met Jesus on the road to Damascus. And these experiences altogether agreed with what the Scriptures had said previously. Paul became the apostle to the gentiles, which was the plan of God according to the Jewish prophets. The self-consciousness and coherency of Paul's writing and behavior demonstrates that he is not crazy "I am not insane, most excellent Festus. What I am saying is true and reasonable".

I don't reject the Quran, I receive it as qualified evidence that Mohammed (who had no interaction with the historical Jesus) did not believe in the resurrection.

[Assyriankey]

What was the actual order of events?

Did Paul receive some sort of testimony from (at least) some of those 500 witness before his road to Damascus incident or was it the other way round?

"Muslims believe the Quran to be the book of divine guidance revealed from God to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel over a period of 23 years and view the Quran as God's final revelation to humanity." wiki

According to that belief, what Mohammed recorded in the Qu'ran was ultimately sourced from God so your claim that Mohammed never interacted with Jesus is probably irrelevant.

Anyhow,  I think you've come around to my way of thinking that the Qu'ran is at least credible and on that point alone, I think your proposition has been defeated.

[QuestionMark]

AK,
Mohammed received his revelation from an angel. It was not corroborated in any way, and no one else experienced it. The testimony of Mohammed in the Quran is only evidence of Mohammed's thoughts. If I say that I saw a tree and therefore believed in Gaia, I'd have as much logical consistency of saying I read the Quran and therefore disbelieve in the resurrection(both statements are nonsense). You may claim that the Quran is credible evidence, but I am saying that there is no logical connection between the Quran and Jesus. In order to disagree with me you would have to prove that there is a connection. You would have to find a Muslim whose beliefs are built logically and convincingly on the Quran alone. So the non-belief of Muslims or of Mohammed is not in fact evidence, it's irrelevant information. Unless you include all evidence. Just stick with that, it's the truth and it's easier to deal with because it's not nonsense (believing in Gaia because you saw a tree is nonsense). Muslims actually believe that Mohammed was right for a variety of psychological reasons which are debatable. That's where the appropriate discussion of evidence is found. Does the Quran evidence the non-resurrection of Jesus? Or does the Quran only claim to evidence the non-resurrection of Jesus? A claim is not evidence.

However, the testimony of Paul and the early Christians pertain to events done in the open. The resurrected Jesus was delivered from a tomb sealed and guarded. Those who saw him afterward were many and of varied background, especially varied considering Saul. They weren't making things up, these weren't private revelations. No mental illness, no trickery. They described what they saw.

Paul heard the testimony of Christians, otherwise he wouldn't have put them to death as Christians.

[Assyriankey]

Let's hold off discussing the Qu'ran for now, come back to it after discussing the Saul/Paul issues.

However, the testimony of Paul and the early Christians pertain to events done in the open. The resurrected Jesus was delivered from a tomb sealed and guarded. Those who saw him afterward were many and of varied background, especially varied considering Saul. They weren't making things up, these weren't private revelations. No mental illness, no trickery. They described what they saw.

Paul never saw Jesus in the flesh, to the best of my understanding.

?

[QuestionMark]

If he did it's not directly recorded.

[Assyriankey]

Agreed, and I think we can very safely conclude it never happened, given Paul's own writings.

How long after Jesus' ascension did Jesus appear to Saul on the road to Damascus?

[QuestionMark]

How long after Jesus' ascension did Jesus appear to Saul on the road to Damascus?

The Jerusalem Council is dated 50 AD and Paul was at it at least 17 years after his conversion so it was a year or two from the ascension to the conversion of Saul.

[Assyriankey]

Thanks.

Did Saul reason his way to believing in the resurrection or was his conversion an act of God?

[QuestionMark]

Thanks.

Did Saul reason his way to believing in the resurrection or was his conversion an act of God?

Yes

[Assyriankey]

Hmmm.

Galatians?

[QuestionMark]

I don't know what you mean by saying Galatians...

But where are we doing with this? Paul narrates his faith life in his writings in the New Testament, and he's probably more thoughtful about it than the others in the first several centuries combined. He has an internal dialogue in his letters, asking a question answering it, rebutting it, clarifying again and again. The book of Romans is a treatise for example on how one can be graciously justified by faith and not by works. Galatians is an example of his convincing people how works of the law cannot save.

What caused Paul to think the way that he did about the resurrection? Well, his claim is that the same Spirit that rose Christ from the dead lives in the elect and testifies to them. The Spirit testifies... the 500 witnesses testified, the Apostles testified. These people are all testifying and if the testimony is credible then one believes. He does make the case that one can resist, at least for a time, the testimony of the Holy Spirit (Do not quench the Spirit).

I suppose a man could have a conversion experience without the personal involvement of the God of Abraham, but as Jesus says that would be a seed that springs up quickly but has no root. You can believe on the evidence itself, but the trials of life will destroy that faith since it is not a work of God.

And on the reasoning side, you see Paul constantly encouraging people to be transformed by the renewing of their mind. He never tells them to ignore the truth. He is always appealing to people on the basis of their thinking.

So it is appropriate to say that Paul was converted because he reasoned and this reasoning was an act of God. It is my happy suspicion that Paul lived in Arabia for three years because he had to process what just happened in his life when he changed from Saul to Paul.

Where are you going with this?

[Assyriankey]

I just don't see how you can describe Paul as reasoning his way to belief in Jesus when Paul himself denies that pathway.

Galatians 1:11-16 - I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when God, who set me apart from my mother?s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being.

Paul says right there that he went from persecuting to believing because of God's intervention on the road to Damascus.

[QuestionMark]

Paul received the gospel from Jesus as revealed by God. What did he receive? The good news. What is the good news? Information. How does one acquire information? Reasoning.

I don't understand how you think Paul had a change of thought (a conversion) without thinking. Paul doesn't claim it was unthinking and he goes into great detail about his thought processes on what saving faith is and how it is acquired.

Consider Paul's comment on the faith of Timothy:

and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

How can acquaintance with Sacred writing make you wise for salvation through faith, do you suggest that the effect of Scripture is magical? Or isn't it better to read this acquaintance as conveying a thought system which leads directly to Jesus? It's the thought system which is being communicated, what happened to Paul at Damascus is that the evidence before him led to an immediate change in thought system, but the same process presumably did not happen to the rocks nearby or even the other people because the same information was not communicated. Jesus spoke to him, Saul responded, Jesus spoke again. It wasn't even an instant change... the conversation conveyed information, the information was evaluated.

A light from heaven flashed (perception, cognition) he heard a voice (perception, cognition) he replied (action, cognition) he heard another reply (perception, cognition).

I never suggested that apart from his Damascus experience he some how deduced by himself in hindsight that he was wrong and changed his own mind. His mind was changed by Jesus no doubt, but it was his mind which was changed... his rational mind was changed by new information.

So Paul 'reasoned' his way to belief in the resurrection. His conversion was an act of God.

[QuestionMark]

He was convinced by Jesus, as was Thomas and the others before him.

[Assyriankey]

He was convinced by Jesus, as was Thomas and the others before him.

Yes, but Thomas et al experienced a risen Jesus in the flesh whereas Paul's conviction was not of this Earth.

I think we're done here.  You will now continue to assert that Paul reasoned his way to belief yet Paul's own description of the event is all about God getting inside Paul's head and flat out telling Paul how it is.  Paul had no room to move after God's intervention.

Onto the Qu'ran.

[QuestionMark]

AK,
God did the same thing with Abraham, and Moses, and Seka.

He revealed things to them, and on the basis of what they experienced, they believed.

If the question "What was the evidence that convinced..." can be answered, then the claim of the OP is satisfied.

Speaking to the risen Jesus convinced Paul, it was witness testimony that convinced him, witness testimony is evidence.

[QuestionMark]

So your final decisive blow to the historical record is that even though Paul actually experienced the Apostles and the 500, their eye-witness testimony and the miracles, the Scriptures, and Jesus himself risen...

That this was somehow not credible because Jesus should have let Paul come to his own conclusion without showing him evidence?