Evidence that substantiates ANYTHING that happened in the Bible.

[DOC]

I had to make a double take on the date. Youa re still trotting that dumb story about luke being a first class historien ?

It's only dumb if you think the person who made the statement---archaeologist Sir William M. Ramsay who spent 15 years digging in biblical lands---is dumb.

 

[DOC]

...And I agree with you - it makes no sense at all for Christianity to exist without a resurrection...big print added

Then one has to wonder why it does indeed exist (and is the largest religion in the world) if there was no resurrection, especially when believing it in the 1st century could have got you crucified, beheaded, or covered with wax then impaled on a post and set on fire---not exactly a list of perks.

 

[dafydd]

If someone dug up a 1st century manuscript that said my name is John and I witnessed Jesus Christ rise from the dead, would your beliefs change any?

No. Fiction is fiction.

 

[dafydd]

It's only dumb if you think the person who made the statement---archaeologist Sir William M. Ramsay who spent 15 years digging in biblical lands---is dumb.

Digging holes to support a fiction is rather dumb.

 

[dafydd]

Then one has to wonder why it does indeed exist (and is the largest religion in the world) if there was no resurrection, especially when believing it in the 1st century could have got you crucified, beheaded, or covered with wax then impaled on a post and set on fire---not exactly a list of perks.

Nutters have always been with us.

 

[Akhenaten]

I note that you use the word 'writers' (although goodness knows what they could have been writing on) rather than the word 'witnesses'.

Why is that, DOC?

If someone dug up a 1st century manuscript that said my name is John and I witnessed Jesus Christ rise from the dead, would your beliefs change any?

I don't have any beliefs since I prefer to follow the evidence.

What have you got?

ETA Also there is evidence that New Testament writers Matthew, John, and Peter, were apostles, and thus witnesses.

No there's not, as has been amply demonstrated in TTTWND. Is that why you've abandoned that thread and are attempting to spam this one with your 17th Rate apologetics instead?

 

[dafydd]

Besides "your" belief that the New Testament was written as fiction name some 1st century Judea fiction.

Given the absence of a publishing industry, any folk tales and legends current at the time will do.

 

[DOC]

None of the alleged witnesses wrote anything down, the gospels were not written until later.

How do you know they didn't write anything down. We have no signature of Julius Caesar, the most powerful man in the world at one time. Does that mean he never wrote his name?

ETA

Also we have no contemporary writings in existence concerning Alexander the Great, the man who conquered much of the world, including Jerusalem, except for one offhand remark in a letter, and one inscription. Does that mean no one else at the time of Alexander wrote anything down concerning him.

 

[ddt]

Bingo!

Really, DOC, don't you get tired of rehashing the same old tired, debunked arguments?

How is it with that translation of Luke 2:1-2, BTW? We haven't finished that discussion, I'm still awaiting a reaction to my translation of those verses, and my arguments why the translation you put forth is incorrect.

 

[dafydd]

How do you know they didn't write anything down. We have no signature of Julius Caesar, the most powerful man in the world at one time. Does that mean he never wrote his name?

ETA

Also we have no contemporary writings in existence concerning Alexander the Great, the man who conquered much of the world, including Jerusalem, except for one offhand remark in a letter, and one inscription. Does that mean no one else at the time of Alexander wrote anything down concerning him.

Not that again. That must be the twentieth time that you have rehearsed that broken argument. Alexander and Julius Caesar actually existed and had no miracles attributed to them and were not supposed to have come back to life.

 

[DOC]

{Archaeologist William M.} Ramsay was an xian apologist, even his fellow xians considered his nonsense embarrassing and detrimental to xianity..

Source?

 

[DOC]

Bingo!

Really, DOC, don't you get tired of rehashing the same old tired, debunked arguments...

As long as people keep putting up Bible evidence threads, I have the right to keep putting up evidence. If you disagree with my evidence then point out why? If you don't like my posts then block me, it's very simple. Believe it or not there are new people to Randi that have never heard some of this material, and they might be able to offer more information or a different viewpoint.

 

[dafydd]

Source?

Common sense.

 

[DOC]

Not that again. That must be the twentieth time that you have rehearsed that broken argument...

And this must be the 20th bible evidence thread. If you're tired of biblical evidence then you should stay out of evidence threads or block me.

 

[dafydd]

And this must be the 20th bible evidence thread. If you're tired of biblical evidence then you should stay out of evidence threads or block me.

You're far too entertaining. Your desperate attempts to find some logic in your belief in a primitive superstition are something to behold.

 

[Slowvehicle]

As long as people keep putting up Bible evidence threads, I have the right to keep putting up evidence. If you disagree with my evidence then point out why? If you don't like my posts then block me, it's very simple. Believe it or not there are new people to Randi that have never heard some of this material, and they might be able to offer more information or a different viewpoint.

...perhaps you should try putting up actual evidence, instead of apologetics...

 

[dafydd]

Doc, why are you a Hindu atheist?

 

[dafydd]

...perhaps you should try putting up actual evidence, instead of apologetics...

And stop using the bible to try and prove that the bible is true.

 

[dafydd]

Doc, the Hindus believe in their gods and they have a holy book to prove it. Why is their holy book a fiction and your holy book fact?

 

[TimCallahan]

Not when you have multiple writers (including one who has been called a 1st class historian) saying Jesus appeared to many other people afterward.

According to the Gospel of Mark, the only evidence of a resurrection is the empty tomb.

According to the Gospel of Luke, the risen Jesus first appeared to two unnamed apostles as they were walking to Emmaus, then to the 11 surviving disciples in Jerusalem.

According to the Gospel of Matthew, the risen Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" after an angel had appeared to them at the tomb. Then he appeared to the 11 surviving disciples in Galilee - not Jerusalem.

According to the Gospel of John, the risen Christ appeared first to Mary Magdalene in the garden Outside the tomb. Then he appeared to the disciples in Jerusalem. Later, he appeared to them at the "sea" of Galilee.

According to 1 Corinthians 15:5 - , the risen Christ first appeared to Cephas (Peter), then to the 12 (Judas, too?), then to over 500 brethren, then to James, then to "all the apostles," then to Paul.

So, here we have five accounts, none of which agree. Were these witnesses at a trial, their conflicting testimony would be virtually useless.

As to Luke, your "first-class historian," he doesn't even claim to be an eyewitness (Lk. 1:1 - 4).

So, DOC, did Jesus appear to nobody - as Mak has it, first to two women, first to Mary Magdalene alone, first to two guys on the road to Emmaus, or first to Cephas? These can't all be true at the same time.

Did he specifically tell his disciples not to leave Jerusalem, as Luke has it, or did he tell them to specifically leave jerusalem to meet him in Galilee, as Matthew has it? It has to be one or another. They both can't be true.