1 2 3 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Evidence of Jesus’ Resurrection (+BM)

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21577
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
16 August 2014 21:21
 

There’s a new kid in town who says his IQ is in the 140’s and that there is no actual evidence of the resurrection of Jesus.  I’m probably stupid for getting into this argument for the 150th time in the past 7 years, but it’s Saturday and I feel like goofin’ around.  This is a +BM thread, but I challenge everyone to just stay on point.  Please, only posts either giving evidence of the resurrection or attacking such evidence.

So, I’ll start. There is no evidence from history that any witness was actually in the tomb when Jesus was raised from the dead.  However, there are two firsthand, eyewitness accounts of the resurrected Jesus in literature. One comes from the gospel of John, which states that it was written by (or at least that its source is from) “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, who traditionally has been identified as John the son of Zebedee, one of The Twelve.  His account, found in chapters 20 and 21, says that he entered the tomb, found it empty, and then later saw Jesus along with other disciples.  The traditional date for the gospel of John is in the 80’s,

The second is found in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. In chapter 15, Paul lists witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection.  He includes himself as the last person to whom the resurrected Jesus appeared. I Corinthians was probably written in the mid 50’s.

Modern textual criticism (“lower criticism”) has given us a good idea about what the original writings of the New Testament say. We don’t have the original autographs, but comparisons of the available texts inform us enough that we have a good idea what was actually written.  I Corinthians is pretty well accepted by all NT scholars as having been written by Paul.  There is more disagreement about John’s gospel, but nothing that affirmatively rules him out as the source of the information contained therein. 

So, we have two firsthand, eyewitness accounts of Jesus after his resurrection in ancient literature. Last time I checked, eyewitness accounts of an event constitute evidence. And, as I have painstakingly pointed out before, under the Federal Rules of Evidence in the USA, an account such as those of Paul and John, found in an ancient text, would be admitted in a federal court case if it was relevant to the issue at hand.  So, there’s the evidence of Jesus’ resurrection. 

Now, I already know everyone’s response, since I’ve heard it time and again.  But when we have a new gunslinger come into town I feel some responsibility to bring him up to speed on all the bloodshed that has previously taken place on the forum.  So, I’ve shot my bullets, and now I’m retiring to the Long Branch Saloon to have a drink with Miss Kitty.

 
TheBrotherMario
 
Avatar
 
 
TheBrotherMario
Total Posts:  4488
Joined  02-04-2011
 
 
 
16 August 2014 21:40
 

Well, Bruce, your reasonable post will surely be met with an equal amount of derision, for no skeptic will ever go below the thoughts off the top of his head and actually look at the evidence for a physical resurrection of anyone. And, Jesus wasn’t just anyone, was he? And, IMO, this is the most compelling “evidence” for the Resurrection, for only a true event with great consequences for us all would have induced such a change in human history, especially on both the personal and sociological levels.

The way I see it, if a person claims to seek “evidence” above all else before they believe anything, as a skeptic does, and then intentionally refuses to see the aftereffects of Jesus’ resurrection as anything significant in the form of “evidence” for the Resurrection, then that person cannot be viewed as an honest forthright person. And, I’m afraid, there are a glut of them here.

I wish you luck, though.

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21577
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
16 August 2014 21:46
 
TheBrotherMario - 16 August 2014 07:40 PM

And, Jesus wasn’t just anyone, was he? And, IMO, this is the most compelling “evidence” for the Resurrection, for only a true event with great consequences for us all would have induced such a change in human history, especially on both the personal and sociological levels.

I certainly agree with this. Past experience has shown me that the town ruffians won’t accept an actual legal definition of “evidence”, and that a kangaroo court will ensue.  Marshal Dillon usually lets everyone roam free here in Dodge City, and Festus is over in England without a gun, so we can’t really expect law and order. But, dem’s the conditions that prevail here in the wild, wild West.

Just for purposes of target practice, here’s the actual quote from the new gunslinger:

“I’ve covered the many, many reasons why there is no evidence for the resurrection of Jesus,”

I’ve nicknamed this guy “Stevie the Kid”.  He’s gunnin’ for us, Mario.

[ Edited: 16 August 2014 21:55 by EN]
 
SteveMcKerracher
 
Avatar
 
 
SteveMcKerracher
Total Posts:  91
Joined  16-08-2014
 
 
 
16 August 2014 22:34
 

“Stevie the kid”.

Lol!

I’m glad to engage in discussion, but first please answer this, or discussion is a waste of time.


Do you honestly care, about actual truth?  Do you even believe in actual truth?

AKA, if any single one of your beliefs was in error, would you want to know?

For the record, I answer yes to all.

A discussion is impossible if either person is unwilling to even consider the possibility of being wrong.  Anyone who truly cares about truth MUST be aware of the effects of Confirmation bias, and do all they can to mitigate it’s proven effects that pervert our judgement.  It is an intrinsic human trait that is common to all of humanity, and must be attacked in ourselves if we are to have any hope of objectivity or truth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Anyone who cares about truth must base beliefs on reason and evidence, not on claims alone, this is the folly of faith.  Do you agree to that?

We must agree that an “Appeal to Revelation” cannot be rational, as believing other peoples claim of revelation that cannot be falsified only sets people up to be exploited.  If there was a revelation from God to man, in order for rational people to believe it was actually from god as claimed, and not from man, there would need to be evidence.  Things the man could not know.  Perfection.  ETC.

Once you accept truth by revelation, you cannot distinguish between other peoples claimed revelations which always contradict each other anyway.


Next, if you honestly care about truth, you will stop using any argument that is discredited.  Ever again, anywhere.  Do you agree to this? 

If you don’t agree on any of these points, than we need to discuss these points before any other debate, or we are wasting our time.

 
 
Brick Bungalow
 
Avatar
 
 
Brick Bungalow
Total Posts:  5135
Joined  28-05-2009
 
 
 
16 August 2014 23:12
 

Indeed. Both sides pre-emptively convict the other of unreasonable prejudice before any word edgewise of actual historical merit gets in the door. It’s a good thing I like my well poisoned.

Bruce, you and I have had what I consider to be useful conversations in the past. Not necessarily to the point of complete agreement but at least a topical exploration. Based on content rather than personality. Is this what your shooting for here?

If so, I’m game. But, as you say, it is probably hopeless. It will probably be a long tiresome exercise in personal attack, amateur psychoanalysis, blame shifting and general unpleasantness.

On the hope that it has a shade of elevation I’ll say what I said before… we need some consensus on a standard of evidence. First, exactly what sort of event are we trying to describe and verify? And second what sort of evidence, if discovered would be sufficient to support or defeat our confidence? I can’t see it going anywhere useful without that. And usually it doesn’t even get that far.

 
SteveMcKerracher
 
Avatar
 
 
SteveMcKerracher
Total Posts:  91
Joined  16-08-2014
 
 
 
16 August 2014 23:17
 
Brick Bungalow - 16 August 2014 09:12 PM

Indeed. Both sides pre-emptively convict the other of unreasonable prejudice before any word edgewise of actual historical merit gets in the door. It’s a good thing I like my well poisoned.

Au Contraire.

I sincerely care about truth, and don’t wish to waste time engaging in pointless exercises of rhetoric and ego.  So I ask the questions.  By no means am I convicting anyone of “unreasonable prejudice” by asking the questions.

We all know we have witnessed far too many pointless exercises in rhetoric and ego from both sides, this isn’t a Theist or Atheist problem, its a human problem.

But if we’d like to attempt to set that aside and search for truth as best we can, I’m glad to.

 
 
Brick Bungalow
 
Avatar
 
 
Brick Bungalow
Total Posts:  5135
Joined  28-05-2009
 
 
 
16 August 2014 23:29
 

Thanks Steve,

My pessimism isn’t pointed at you. Just a general malaise about this particular topic and it’s poor record in general.

I’m delighted to meet people who sincerely want to focus on an issue or a topic or a method or a proposed set of facts. Refreshed and delighted.

As far as the resurrection goes… I have trouble right from the gate because I don’t understand the precise nature of the claim or whether it can really be enfolded into an academic study like history or biology. I’ve approached it from the angles of theology, science and history and I still fail to understand the totality of the proposition. So I have no idea what would even count as proof.

Is it a natural event or a supernatural event or something else?

Is it unique? Can it be compared to other biblical or extra-biblical resurrection stories?

Can we consider the proposed evidences with charity and equity towards competing claims? In other words… if we accept the case for christ ought we accept similar cases made for competing theologies?

Can it be considered as a purely historical claim? Or is it some melange of other approaches?

Thanks!

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21577
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
16 August 2014 23:30
 

Stevie the Kid, the question on the table is whether there is any evidence of the resurrection of Jesus. That’s the question. You came into town shooting your gun. You said that there was no evidence of the resurrection of Jesus. That was your first volley.  I fired back twice. Ball’s in your court, bud. Let’s see what you’ve got, gunslinger.

By the way, I said nothing about revelation from God, so that’s a blank you fired there, son.

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21577
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
16 August 2014 23:38
 
Brick Bungalow - 16 August 2014 09:12 PM

First, exactly what sort of event are we trying to describe and verify?

Hey, Brick.  Nice to see you in Dodge City! The question on the table is whether there is any evidence of the resurrection of Jesus. Stevie the Kid says no. I countered with two pieces of evidence.

Brick Bungalow - 16 August 2014 09:12 PM

And second what sort of evidence, if discovered would be sufficient to support or defeat our confidence?

Federal Rule of Evidence 401 says:

Evidence is relevant if:

(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and

(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.

Whether my evidence will convince you or not matters not to me. I just want to get it admitted by the court. Of course, this is a kangaroo court, and the judge hopped off.

 
SteveMcKerracher
 
Avatar
 
 
SteveMcKerracher
Total Posts:  91
Joined  16-08-2014
 
 
 
16 August 2014 23:43
 
EN - 16 August 2014 09:30 PM

Stevie the Kid, the question on the table is whether there is any evidence of the resurrection of Jesus. That’s the question. You came into town shooting your gun. You said that there was no evidence of the resurrection of Jesus. That was your first volley.  I fired back twice. Ball’s in your court, bud. Let’s see what you’ve got, gunslinger.

By the way, I said nothing about revelation from God, so that’s a blank you fired there, son.

Clearly I wasn’t “throwing down a gauntlet” as you seem to imply, I rather thought most people here would see the point I was asking for.

I’m glad to engage in debate, as soon as we agree on terms.  I have no interest in wasting time in an exercise of ego and rhetoric otherwise.


Nothing was a blank, I’d like to clarify those issues before we dive into any discussion, or its pointless.  I do find it interesting you couldn’t just simply say yes.

The Bible says God IS truth, and that the truth shall set you free.  Why would you be afraid to acknowledge truth even in principle, or agree to terms regarding it?

I know when I was a Christian it was almost painful to even try to imagine being wrong in any faith-based area. 

But it’s logically necessary to be willing to be wrong, if a person truly cares about truth.  The possibility of being right in everything is quite low.


Brick, and anyone else, this thread was in reply to my thread under “Ideas for Projects”, you may want to read it for context.

http://www.project-reason.org/forum/viewthread/28984/

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21577
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
16 August 2014 23:50
 

Stevie, if we are talking about evidence, then we are talking about what is. If that doesn’t pass for “truth”, I don’t know what does. Now, I started this thread because you made an affirmative claim that there is no evidence of the resurrection of Jesus. I gave you two bits of evidence that would be introduced into evidence in court under the federal rules of civil procedure. Here’s a clue - if you don’t state a relevant objection to those two pieces of evidence pretty soon, the judge is going to admit them into evidence in the proceeding. At that point, I win the debate, since all I have to show is that there is some evidence of the resurrection.  I sort of see your statement of “no evidence” as a motion for summary judgment. All I have to do is introduce some evidence and I’ve defeated your motion.  Now, that’s all the help I’m going to give you.

 
TheBrotherMario
 
Avatar
 
 
TheBrotherMario
Total Posts:  4488
Joined  02-04-2011
 
 
 
17 August 2014 01:09
 

Steve, all you’re providing to the argument of whether or not Jesus resurrected in glory is more of the same skeptical talking points, such as, “when I was a Christian” and “the Bible says this”. In a word, I can’t find anything new or profound in your writing. I do see your confidence that you are providing something new and profound, but confidence can come from a bloated ego more easily than it can come from the “actual truth” of a new and great skeptical argument against the Resurrection. To date, there has been not one provided. In fact, the skeptic must of necessity shift the burden of proof to the believer and chant with Carl Sagan, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.

For Sagan, and you, there has been no “evidence” of the Resurrection of Jesus. But is this “actually true”?

EN outlined the historical evidence. And, I wrote above about the aftereffects of the Resurrection as a form of evidence, “extraordinary evidence”.

And, you ignored both to get to your talking points.

Being once a Christian means nothing. So, you shouldn’t use it in your argument.

Were you once a philosopher, theologian, mystic, etc., and still found the dogmas of Christianity lacking in “actual truth”?  Of course you weren’t any of these. You were, are, and will be an intellectual who reads books in order to regurgitate the things that your opinions agree with. Nothing more.

You know, when I was a skeptic, I, too, put my “faith” in my opinions and the opinions of others who thought like me. Then, after years of mysticism, a philosophy degree, and profound revelations directly from God, I came to realize just how much “actual truth” had alluded me.

So, put down your books, man. Do the real work needed to find the “actual truth” about something as profound as the Resurrection.

In the meantime, write about your favorite TV show and why it’s your favorite.

 
 
SteveMcKerracher
 
Avatar
 
 
SteveMcKerracher
Total Posts:  91
Joined  16-08-2014
 
 
 
17 August 2014 01:29
 
EN - 16 August 2014 09:50 PM

Stevie, if we are talking about evidence, then we are talking about what is. If that doesn’t pass for “truth”, I don’t know what does. Now, I started this thread because you made an affirmative claim that there is no evidence of the resurrection of Jesus. I gave you two bits of evidence that would be introduced into evidence in court under the federal rules of civil procedure. Here’s a clue - if you don’t state a relevant objection to those two pieces of evidence pretty soon, the judge is going to admit them into evidence in the proceeding. At that point, I win the debate, since all I have to show is that there is some evidence of the resurrection.  I sort of see your statement of “no evidence” as a motion for summary judgment. All I have to do is introduce some evidence and I’ve defeated your motion.  Now, that’s all the help I’m going to give you.

That makes perfect sense… if we are in court.  Which we are not.  Online discussion can take all manner of forms.  If you want to go with the court analogy we can, but it certainly won’t help you.

How’s this: I promise to never again, anywhere, use any argument that is shown false during this discussion.  Do you agree to same?  I propose that if we both care about truth, we should stay on each point until it is either definitively decided, or conceded. 

If we are going to use our precious time to debate a topic, I’d like to see some good come from it.  And if I am shown to be wrong on any point, I’ll certainly consider that as good.  Agreed?


First, obviously, we need to define evidence.  I’m glad to let you choose your choice of mainstream published definitions if you’d like, but you went with “legal”.

evidence n. every type of proof legally presented at trial (allowed by the judge) which is intended to convince the judge and/or jury of alleged facts material to the case. It can include oral testimony of witnesses, including experts on technical matters, documents, public records, objects, photographs, and depositions (testimony under oath taken before trial). It also includes so-called “circumstantial evidence” which is intended to create belief by showing surrounding circumstances which logically lead to a conclusion of fact. Comments and arguments by the attorneys, statements by the judge, and answers to questions which the judge has ruled objectionable are not evidence. Charts, maps and models which are used to demonstrate or explain matters are not evidence themselves, but testimony based upon such items and marks on such material may be evidence. Evidence must survive objections of opposing attorneys that it is irrelevant, immaterial, violates rules against “hearsay” (statements by a party not in court), and/or other technicalities. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Evidence

We run into many problems with your claims immediately.  No court in the world would accept anything from ancient history as evidence of supernatural claims in ancient history.  Ancient history was entirely superstitious, what was written and preserved was at the mercy of the politics and religions of the entire intervening period, and always copied, and often edited.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_testimony  It’s notoriously unreliable.  Nothing of weight is decided in court based on only 1-2 clearly biased eye-witnesses.  And that is for eye-witnesses you can cross-examine in court…

2. If you show up in court with a written statement from an eyewitness (affidavit, I believe), it has very limited legal use, because you can’t cross-examine the witness.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affidavit#United_States  The only weight they have, is if they are signed and witnessed by a notary public, and the witness is made aware that they will be held accountable for perjury if the statement isn’t true.

In American jurisprudence, under the rules for hearsay, admission of an unsupported affidavit as evidence is unusual (especially if the affiant is not available for cross-examination) with regard to material facts which may be dispositive of the matter at bar. Affidavits from persons who are dead or otherwise incapacitated, or who cannot be located or made to appear may be accepted by the court, but usually only in the presence of corroborating evidence.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affidavit#United_States

3.

Evidence is not relevant unless its authenticity can be demonstrated. A letter in which the defendant admits her guilt in a tax-fraud trial is inadmissible unless the prosecution can first show that the defendant actually wrote it. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Evidence

4.

Hearsay

The credibility of any witness’s testimony depends upon three factors: (1) whether the witness accurately perceived what he or she described; (2) whether the witness retained an accurate memory of that perception; and (3) whether the witness’s narration accurately conveys that perception. In order to be allowed to testify, the witness generally must take an oath, must be personally present at the trial, and must be subjected to cross-examination. These conditions promote the factors that lend themselves to the witness’s credibility. The rule against Hearsay further bolsters the oath, personal presence, and cross-examination requirements.

Hearsay is a statement, made out of court, offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The statement may be oral or written, or it may be nonverbal conduct intended as an assertion, such as pointing to a crime suspect in a police line-up.


5. You are claiming, as evidence, the words written by people dead for nearly two thousand years, we can not show they were who they claimed to be.

6. We can not show it hasn’t been heavily edited after the fact.  We can not cross examine the original witnesses. 

7. We can show that they had little to no understanding of scientific methods, or modern courtroom standards. 

8. We can show that they were not objective witnesses, but instead quite heavily biased. 

9. We can show they lived in highly superstitious times where the most amazing claims were routinely believed as fact with no verification.

10. We can show that they viewed dreams as a unique perspective of reality, rather than the brains largely random wanderings, and thus would feel perfectly consistent testifying that something they saw in a dream, is a reflection of reality.

11. And most importantly, we can show similar levels of evidence, for absurd supernatural claims I’m sure nobody here believes, from every culture on earth that has a written history.

12. We can further show that the intrinsic human psychological traits that lead to belief in miracles, and the supernatural, have continued even to know, we have constant claimed miracles of different sort even in our time.  The difference, is that in this age of science and reason, they have all been handily debunked.

This leaves us with absolutely no “proof of concept” that any violation of natural law, such as miracles, is even possible.

13. We are left with far less credible actual “evidence” than for modern alien visitation and abduction.


In summary, all you can prove from history, is a common belief in the resurrection existed at the time, not the fact thereof.  Further, every culture has similar outlandish claims with similar levels of evidence.  My original thread was looking for an actual historian to do a work on this, as I am not one, but here are some quick examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiris_myth  24th century BC resurrection myth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-death-rebirth_deity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adonis
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/valerie-tarico/ancient-mythic-origins-of_b_185455.html
http://www.factsbehindfaith.com/Osiris-and-Resurrection.html
Note: as I said, I’m not a historian.  So no, I haven’t personally vetted all these links and their references.

I think its clear this is a common myth, the jews who were prophesied a messiah specifically for the time of Jesus were desperate for it to be true.  Which is why Josephus tells us that the land was rife with wanna be rebel kings, prophets, and messiah’s. 

There are no writings of Jesus until LONG after his death.  The time of prophecy had come, and it had gone.  Jews had to decide whether their God had failed them, or pick one of the claimed messiah’s. 

Jesus still had active followers, and they explained why the Messiah had to be killed by twisting old testament passages that were never considered prophetic before. 

But Jews desperate to believe, did.

Did the disciples fabricate the entire thing?  Entirely possible.  After all, the gospels hint that Jesus had brothers, and perhaps even a twin.  (Thomas “Didymus"Were they entirely honest, but wrong?  Certainly possible.  They did after all believe in “visions”, they were very disturbed by his death, and were ignorant peasants of the iron age anyway.  Perhaps Joseph of Aramethea is to blame, he was rich, and it was his tomb.  No problem to arrange that scene, maybe the disciples were not involved.

Or perhaps it originated organically after the fact, a natural result of so many people desperately wanting to believe something.  One person tells another that he experienced Jesus alive again in a vision from god.  That person tells another, who tells another, and all of a sudden, they are saying that person actually saw Jesus while awake, in the flesh.  This is corroborated by others wishful thinking.  By the time of the Gospels, its a hopeless tangle of beliefs, Mark writes his version, all the other Gospels expound on that and aim to keep the stories somewhat straight.

Whatever their motivations, it is clear that it is nothing like modern evidence, and you wouldn’t have the slightest chance in any court.


I just got finished with an 11 work hour Monday (thurs/fri is my weekend), so I apologize if I repeated some points or left grammar mistakes etc, I’m at home now and need get to other things.

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21577
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
17 August 2014 01:48
 
SteveMcKerracher - 16 August 2014 11:29 PM

First, obviously, we need to define evidence.  I’m glad to let you choose your choice of mainstream published definitions if you’d like, but you went with “legal”.

evidence n. every type of proof legally presented at trial (allowed by the judge) which is intended to convince the judge and/or jury of alleged facts material to the case. It can include oral testimony of witnesses, including experts on technical matters, documents, public records, objects, photographs, and depositions (testimony under oath taken before trial). It also includes so-called “circumstantial evidence” which is intended to create belief by showing surrounding circumstances which logically lead to a conclusion of fact. Comments and arguments by the attorneys, statements by the judge, and answers to questions which the judge has ruled objectionable are not evidence. Charts, maps and models which are used to demonstrate or explain matters are not evidence themselves, but testimony based upon such items and marks on such material may be evidence. Evidence must survive objections of opposing attorneys that it is irrelevant, immaterial, violates rules against “hearsay” (statements by a party not in court), and/or other technicalities. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Evidence

We run into many problems with your claims immediately.  No court in the world would accept anything from ancient history as evidence of supernatural claims in ancient history.

Hmmm. How many courts have you presented evidence in, Steve?  Have you ever tried a law suit? Do you have a law degree?  Did you go to law school?  Evidence is admitted into a court proceeding according to a judge’s ruling, based upon the rules of evidence.  I’ve chosen the U.S.A. Federal Rules of Evidence as my standard of evidence. Remember, you said there was no evidence of the resurrection of Jesus. All I have to do is show one piece of evidence and I’ve debunked your affirmative claim.

So, assume that we are in a legal proceeding where the issue is whether Jesus was raised from the dead.  I offer into evidence Paul’s statement that the resurrected Jesus appeared to him. It is found in an ancient document, therefore it is not hearsay.

RULE 803. EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE AGAINST HEARSAY

The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness:.....

(16) Statements in Ancient Documents. A statement in a document that is at least 20 years old and whose authenticity is established.

I would authenticate the document (I Corinthians) by an expert witness. I would choose an agnostic New Testament scholar such as Bart Ehrman, who would testify that I Corinthians was written by Paul and that the statement that he made in I Cor. 15 is, in reasonable probability, what he originally wrote. That is all I have to do to get Paul’s statement into evidence in a court proceeding.

The questions of whether there are any weaknesses in Paul’s statement, whether Paul lacks credibility, whether his statement is going to be believed by the jury - all of those go to the WEIGHT of the evidence, not its ADMISSIBILITY.  The evidence is admitted, and the jury is entitled to consider it in rendering its verdict regarding whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. All of your arguments about the supernatural and the inherent unreliability of eyewitness testimony - you can make those arguments to the jury in closing.  Eyewitness testimony is admitted into evidence every day in courts around the world.

So, from one who has been trying cases for 30 years, there is evidence that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. Whether it convinces you or anyone else is an entirely different proposition. The evidence would be admitted in the proceeding, and the jury would be allowed to consider it.  I’ve defeated your “no evidence” motion for summary judgment.

Now, will you admit that you were WRONG when you said that there is no evidence of the resurrection of Jesus?  No, of course you won’t.  You are no more interested in truth than the Christians you criticize.

 
TheBrotherMario
 
Avatar
 
 
TheBrotherMario
Total Posts:  4488
Joined  02-04-2011
 
 
 
17 August 2014 01:49
 

Regurgitation, by Steve above.

Nothing new or original, by Steve above.

Nothing of “actual truth”, by Steve above.

For example: How can Steve know for certain that Jesus “twisted” the Old Testament rather than “fulfilled” the Old Testament, as he claimed?

He can’t. He can only put his faith in another skeptic’s writing that Jesus “twisted” it.

I’ll put my faith in the millions of church steeples reaching up into the sky proclaiming that Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament.

Why is it that a skeptic can unabashedly make a claim that ancient Jews were “desperate to believe”, but cannot see his own desperation to believe in whatever a fellow skeptic writes, no matter how tenuous?

Unfuckingbelievable.

[ Edited: 17 August 2014 01:52 by TheBrotherMario]
 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21577
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
17 August 2014 01:53
 
TheBrotherMario - 16 August 2014 11:49 PM

Regurgitation, by Steve above.

Nothing new or original, by Steve above.

Nothing of “actual truth”, by Steve above.

Did you really expect anything else?

 
 1 2 3 >  Last ›