Evidence that substantiates ANYTHING that happened in the Bible.

[dafydd]

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.

And to think that theologians have the brass neck to call them the ''synoptic'' gospels.

 

[Akhenaten]

That is your statement not mine, read the last sentence of my quote.

Presumably you mean this nonsense:

This is not proof but it is some historical and logical evidence of a miracle resurrection.

It appears beyond doubt that you are totally unable to accept that there is no historical evidence of any miracle ever occurring.

None, DOC. Not one iota.

Your claim that there is logical evidence for such an event is too ludicrous to even bother with, other than using such a claim to press home the complete absence of anything even resembling logic in the endless and pathetic apologetics with which you've been spamming this Forum for years.

 

[Akhenaten]

...People wrote fiction then as much as they wrote fiction now...

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

DOC, no matter how much you want to pretend that you haven't already failed dismally with this particularly vapid argument numerous times, the evidence of your past failures isn't going to disappear.


viz.

DOC: You challenged posters on this thread to find a single work of fiction written in Judea from 1,000 BCE (or B.C., if you prefer) to the time of Jesus. A number of us have responded quite specifically. You have not really responded to these posts. Ignoring for the moment Job and Jonah, which I see as homiletic fiction...

Your opinion is noted . . .

You wield this phrase as though it's a magic wand that makes your opponents' arguments disappear just as you seem to believe, despite years of evidence to the contrary, that if you ignore a question for long enough it will similarly cease to exist.

As usual, you are quite wrong.

Here, for instance, is a non-disappearing post from September 2010 that's still awaiting your response:

This is another example of you trying to transplant your non-fiction reading, modern Christian ideology into Biblical Judea.

Some Ancient Jewish Novels:

Greek Esther
Susanna, Bel, and the Serpent
Tobit
Judith
The Marriage and Conversion of Aseneth

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/religion/9780195151428/toc.html

As usual, way to demonstrate your complete ignorance of your chosen topic DOC. D'oh

GB

So you can set your opinion about Jonah aside for a minute and deal with the above works instead.

And remember that you have to eliminate all of them with actual evidence rather than handwaving if you hope to make your claim stand.

Or perhaps you'd rather just cut to the chase and explain why it is that fiction existed everywhere in the ancient world except for the one little Roman province where the books of the Bible were written.

. . . but the historical figure Jesus . . .

Hasn't been shown to exist. Not by you, not by Ehrman and most certainly not by The World's Greatest Historian™.

You can't use a hypothetical figure as the proponent of a hypothesis.

Well you can, and I have no doubt that your opinion will be noted, but only as a joke.

. . . implies he didn't think it was fiction when He talks of Jonah.

Your imaginary friend relates a story written by his imaginary friend about living for three days and nights inside a whale and you're arguing that this is non-fiction?

Do you have any idea at all how utterly ridiculous this is? Any?


Anyway, talking about the alleged Jesus talking about the alleged Jonah talking about the alleged three days and three nights in the alleged whale has reminded me of that story's relationship to the other yarn about the alleged Jesus' sojourn of three days and three nights in the alleged tomb while the alleged zombies were preparing for their street carnival thingy on Sunday afternoon.

Any progress on explaining that yet, DOC? It is Wednesday, after all.

 

[Akhenaten]

Not this broken record again!

Give it a rest!

As long as people keep saying things like there is no "evidence" of miracles, like was done in this thread, I have the right to respond.

You have not just a right, but a responsibilty to ensure that such responses contain the actual evidence that you claim to exist.

That you feel compelled to use scare quotes around the word evidence itself is ample indication of the non-likelihood of such a thing ever happening.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

No, it's dumb because Sir Ramsay was demonstrably driven by faith rather than by reason to make statements like the one he did about Sir Luke.

As US Founding Father, author, printer, political theorist, politician, postmaster, scientist, musician, inventor, satirist, civic activist, statesman, and diplomat Benjamin Franklin said:

Maybe you think Ben Franklin is dumb too, do you DOC?

 

[Akhenaten]

...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 . . .

No, one doesn't have to wonder any such thing. It's nonsense based on two millenia of institutionalised propaganda conducted by megalomaniacal fiends with a psychopathic interest in exerting power over those whom they subjugated in the name of salvation from horrors that they themselves invented and bolstered in many, many cases by the most abominable systems of punishment ever devised by man.

. . . 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.

People in any age are completely free to believe whatever they will. Perhaps these punishments were meted out for something more than simple belief.

Maybe it was for annoying people to distraction with their endless, babbling proselytising.

Seems legit.

 

[Akhenaten]

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?

No.

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.

No.


And now a question for you:

How many miracles have been reliably attributed to Julius Cæsar and Alexander the Great?

 

[DOC]

And to think that theologians have the brass neck to call them the ''synoptic'' gospels.

Some skeptics complain the synoptic gospels they are too similar and some skeptics like Tim Callahan complain they are too different. As I have said before I have never seen any alleged contradictions in the Gospels that can't be logically explained. Name an alleged contradiction in the NT and I'll find a website that will give a logical explanation of it. Now if one gospel said Jesus was crucified and one said he was thrown off a cliff that would be a contradiction that could not be explained.

And don't you think the many bishops at the Council of Carthage when they determined which gospels were inspired and were to be the official dogma of the Church knew of these alleged contradictions. They could have easily chose just one gospel to be the official dogma and there wouldn't have been any alleged contradictions.

If you wanted to do a bio on Barack Obama and you asked his wife, his oldest daughter, the vice president, and his best friend, to write 5 pages describing everything they knew about him would you throw 2 of those 5 page reports away if two of them had an alleged contradiction on what his first job was. Or would you keep all four of them and get a more full description of him.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

And yet you never do. It's almost exactly as though you don't have any.

If you disagree with my evidence then point out why?

Been there, done that.

If you don't like my posts then block me, it's very simple.

Please highlight the portion of ddt's post that mentions a dislike of your posts.

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.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Some skeptics complain the synoptic gospels they are too similar and some skeptics like Tim Callahan complain they are too different. As I have said before I have never seen any alleged contradictions in the Gospels that can't be logically explained. Name an alleged contradiction in the NT and I'll find a website that will give a logical explanation of it. Now if one gospel said Jesus was crucified and one said he was thrown off a cliff that would be a contradiction that could not be explained.

And don't you think the many bishops at the Council of Carthage when they determined which gospels were inspired and were to be the official dogma of the Church knew of these alleged contradictions. They could have easily chose just one gospel to be the official dogma and there wouldn't have been any alleged contradictions.

If you wanted to do a bio on Barack Obama and you asked his wife, his oldest daughter, the vice president, and his best friend, to write 5 pages describing everything they knew about him would you throw 2 of those 5 page reports away if two of them had an alleged contradiction on what his first job was. Or would you keep all four of them and get a more full description of him.

Start with TimCallahan's post #240...

 

[Akhenaten]

Some skeptics complain the synoptic gospels they are too similar and some skeptics like Tim Callahan complain they are too different.

Too similar in style and wording for them not have been copied, either from each other or from a common source.

Too different to have been eye witness accounts.

You've had this explained to you scores of times and it still escapes you?

As I have said before I have never seen any alleged contradictions in the Gospels that can't be logically explained.

The complete lack of anything even remotely resembling logic in everything you've ever posted is probably a big pointer to how this situation has come about.

Name an alleged contradiction in the NT and I'll find a website that will give a logical explanation of it.

Now if one gospel said Jesus was crucified and one said he was thrown off a cliff that would be a contradiction that could not be explained.

Inventing your own, non-existent contradictions won't serve to distract us from your abject failure to address the ones that do exist.

And don't you think the many bishops at the Council of Carthage when they determined which gospels were inspired and were to be the official dogma of the Church knew of these alleged contradictions.

Of course they did. Lying for Jesus is hardly a new phenomenon.

They could have easily chose just one gospel to be the official dogma and there wouldn't have been any alleged contradictions.

They didn't count on us learning to think for ourselves. Pretty arrogant, weren't they?

If you wanted to do a bio on Barack Obama . . .

<bizarro analogy snip>

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

Apart from the fact that nobody could possibly be tired of that which does not exist, dafydd's post is simply pointing out the endlessly repetetive nature of your failure to present a cogent argument.

You're going to have to start actually reading what people post rather than inventing your own versions of it if you ever hope to correct the situation.

 

[Mudcat]

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.

People forsake their family, friends, spouses, the country they were born in for the sake of what they believe in. People do all kinds of reckless things onto themselves and/or others for what they believe in.

But that does not make their beliefs to be true.

 

[StankApe]

No kidding, people have bet their entire life savings on sporting events .... people aren't rational critters (well not all the time, and some rarely)

 

[pakeha]

Hey, DOC's back!
What a nice Yule surprise.

Actually Jesus' empty tomb shortly after his death as reported by gospel writer Luke (who has been called a first-class historian by Sir William M. Ramsay) is some evidence of a miracle resurrection. It is not proof but it is some historical evidence that a miracle took place. ...

And he's brought sir Ramsey!
Remember sir Ramsey, of the slavegirl Paula fame?

When a person like Luke, who has been called a first class historian by a famous archaeologist, writes something as fact, that is historical evidence.

Of course it is, DOC, of course it is.

...

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. ...

And Alexander the Great, too!
We ARE in goodly company.

DOC, is Thomas Jefferson on the way?

 

[dafydd]

If you wanted to do a bio on Barack Obama and you asked his wife, his oldest daughter, the vice president, and his best friend, to write 5 pages describing everything they knew about him would you throw 2 of those 5 page reports away if two of them had an alleged contradiction on what his first job was. Or would you keep all four of them and get a more full description of him.

You keep confusing the mythical Jesus with people who actually existed.

 

[Aepervius]

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.

i don't think he was dumb, i think 1) (15 March 1851, Glasgow –20 April 1939) that by 1906 he was missing a lot of things we learned in the mean time and (ETA) as pointed out by other driven by faith not fact 2) people which use a 100 year old info unquestionning without realizing they are outdated *are* dumb.

So yeah. That old dumb story about luke being an historien.

 

[catsmate]

Source?

Dealt with in the previous thread you spammed with your recycled crap about Ramsay. Like the other lie you often repeat, that he was an atheist converted by the "evidence" he found.

Now about some evidence for your empty tomb claim? From something other than the holey babble.

 

[TimCallahan]

Some skeptics complain the synoptic gospels they are too similar and some skeptics like Tim Callahan complain they are too different.

Here is a great graphic showing the material shared among the Synoptic Gospels. If you scroll down a bit you will fin another, simpler graphic of the first hypothesis of the relationship between the three Synoptic Gospels. According to this view, Matthew was the first of the three, and Mark was based on Matthew. Finally, Luke was based on both Matthew and Mark. So, who was the author of this hypothesis? Was it an atheist? A skeptic? Perhaps a Gnostic Christian trying to discredit the canonical gospels? In fact, it was none of these. Rather, it was an orthodox Christian, St. Augustine. He came up with this hypothesis in the fifth century.

Of course, I'm not complaining. I'm merely pointing things out to you.

As I have said before I have never seen any alleged contradictions in the Gospels that can't be logically explained. Name an alleged contradiction in the NT and I'll find a website that will give a logical explanation of it. Now if one gospel said Jesus was crucified and one said he was thrown off a cliff that would be a contradiction that could not be explained.[QUOTE/]

The contradictions I've pointed out to you are gross contradictions that cannot be harmonized, For example, either the women who met the angel at the tomb were so terrified that they ran away and told nobody of their encounter (Mark) or they told the disciples (Matthew). Either Jesus expressly gave the message he would meet the disciples in Galilee, and did so (Matthew) or he expressly told them not to leave Jerusalem (Luke). Either the risen Christ appeared to nobody (Mark), first appeared to women (Matthew and John) or did not appear to any of the women (Luke, 1 Corinthians).

And don't you think the many bishops at the Council of Carthage when they determined which gospels were inspired and were to be the official dogma of the Church knew of these alleged contradictions. They could have easily chose just one gospel to be the official dogma and there wouldn't have been any alleged contradictions.[QUOTE/]

I suspect they were under pressure to make what were essentially political compromises between various groups that each supported one gospel or the other.

If you wanted to do a bio on Barack Obama and you asked his wife, his oldest daughter, the vice president, and his best friend, to write 5 pages describing everything they knew about him would you throw 2 of those 5 page reports away if two of them had an alleged contradiction on what his first job was. Or would you keep all four of them and get a more full description of him.

Of course, the contradictions I've pointed out to you are far greater than your example. Also, they weren't written by eyewitnesses.

 

[TimCallahan]

DOC: Another problem with the veracity of the gospels is that they vary greatly from history. For example, according to Mt. 2:16 Herod the Great had all the male children two years of age and younger put to death, not only in Bethlehem, but in the regions surrounding the town, in an effort to kill the child destined, by the word of the Magi, to be king. Yet, Josephus, who speaks of Herod the Great and his evils in great detail, says nothing of this incident. This isn't something Josephus would have left out, and, had it happened, it's virtually impossible that it could have happened without his knowing of it.

Consider also Palm Sunday. What do we have to accept as true to accept this as a historical event? We have to believe that Jesus entered Jerusalem, hailed by crowds as a king, with the people crying "Hosannah!," meaning "Save us!" or, by extension, "Free us!" Yet, the Romans supposedly did nothing. However, we know from history that the Romans dealt harshly with putative messiahs, and that Pontius Pilatus was noted, not for his mercy or indecision, but rather for meting out gratuitous, excessive violence when his power was challenged.