Can you please provide evidence for these Biblical events?

[Compassionist]

Can you please provide evidence for the following Biblical events?

1. Creation Miracles (Genesis 1–3)

Creation of the universe: God creates light, sky, land, seas, plants, stars, animals, and humans in six days.
Creation of angels: Implied in passages like Job 38:4–7; often considered an early act before physical creation.
Creation of Adam and Eve: God forms Adam from dust and breathes life into him; Eve is made from Adam’s rib.
Creation of other organisms: All species of plants and animals are said to have been created by divine command.
The Garden of Eden: A paradise created for Adam and Eve.
The Fall: The serpent speaks; Adam and Eve eat forbidden fruit and are evicted from Eden; curses are pronounced.

2. Early Genesis Miracles

The mark and protection of Cain (Genesis 4:15).
The longevity of pre-Flood humans (many living 900+ years).
Noah’s Flood (Genesis 6–9): God floods the entire world, saving only Noah, his family, and the animals in the ark.
The rainbow covenant: God sets a rainbow as a sign of the promise never again to flood the earth.
Confusion of languages at Babel (Genesis 11): Humanity’s speech is divided, and people scatter across the world.

3. Miracles in the Patriarchal Era (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph)

Call of Abram: God speaks directly to Abram (Genesis 12).
Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah: Fire and brimstone from heaven (Genesis 19).
Lot’s wife turned to salt (Genesis 19:26).
Birth of Isaac to elderly Sarah (Genesis 21).
God’s testing of Abraham: A ram provided in place of Isaac (Genesis 22).
Jacob’s ladder dream and wrestling with God (Genesis 28; Genesis 32).
Joseph’s prophetic dreams and interpretations (Genesis 37–41).

4. Miracles of Moses and the Exodus

The burning bush (Exodus 3).
Staff turned into a serpent (Exodus 4).
The Ten Plagues on Egypt (Exodus 7–12):

1. Water to blood
2. Frogs
3. Gnats or lice
4. Flies
5. Livestock disease
6. Boils
7. Hail
8. Locusts
9. Darkness
10. Death of the firstborn
The Passover protection (Israelites spared).
Parting of the Red Sea (Exodus 14).
Pillar of cloud by day and fire by night, guiding Israel.
Manna and quail were provided in the wilderness.
Water from the rock (Exodus 17).
Mount Sinai theophany: God’s voice, thunder, lightning, and tablets of stone.
Bronze serpent healing (Numbers 21).
Aaron’s rod budding (Numbers 17).
Moses’ radiant face after speaking with God (Exodus 34).

5. Miracles in the Time of Joshua, Judges, and Kings

Jordan River stops flowing so Israel can cross (Joshua 3).
Walls of Jericho fall (Joshua 6).
The sun stands still (Joshua 10).
Gideon’s fleece tests (Judges 6).
Samson’s strength feats (Judges 14–16).
Fire consumes Elijah’s offering on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18).
Elijah raises the widow’s son (1 Kings 17).
Elijah was taken up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kings 2).
Elisha parts the Jordan, purifies water, multiplies oil, raises the Shunammite’s son, feeds 100 men with loaves, heals Naaman’s leprosy, and makes an iron axe-head float (2 Kings 2–6).
The shadow on the sundial goes backwards for King Hezekiah (2 Kings 20).
Angelic destruction of the Assyrian army (2 Kings 19).
Daniel’s survival in the lions’ den (Daniel 6).
Three men survive the fiery furnace (Daniel 3).
Handwriting on the wall (Daniel 5).

6. Miracles in the Intertestamental and New Testament Era

Zechariah was struck mute until John the Baptist’s birth (Luke 1).
Virgin (immaculate) conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1; Luke 1).
Star of Bethlehem guiding the Magi (Matthew 2).
Angelic announcements to Mary, Joseph, and the shepherds.
John the Baptist’s prophetic calling before birth.

7. Miracles Performed by Jesus

Turning water into wine (John 2).
Healing the sick, blind, deaf, and lame (many Gospels).
Cleansing lepers (Matthew 8).
Casting out demons (Mark 5, etc.).
Feeding 5,000 (Matthew 14) and feeding 4,000 (Matthew 15).
Walking on water (Matthew 14).
Calming the storm (Mark 4).
Raising Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5).
Healing the centurion’s servant (Matthew 8).
Healing the bleeding woman (Mark 5).
Restoring sight to Bartimaeus (Mark 10).
Raising Lazarus from the dead (John 11).
The Transfiguration (Matthew 17).
Paying temple tax with a coin in a fish’s mouth (Matthew 17).
Cursing the barren fig tree (Mark 11).
The resurrection of Jesus (Matthew 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20).
Post-resurrection appearances (Luke 24; John 21).
Ascension into heaven (Acts 1).

8. Miracles in the Acts of the Apostles

Tongues of fire and the gift of languages at Pentecost (Acts 2).
Peter and John heal a lame man (Acts 3).
Peter raises Tabitha (Dorcas) from the dead (Acts 9).
Paul blinds and heals various people (Acts 13–28).
Earthquake freeing Paul and Silas from prison (Acts 16).
Paul survives a viper bite (Acts 28).
Philip’s teleportation (Acts 8).
Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead for lying (Acts 5).

9. Apocalyptic and Prophetic Miracles

Visions of Heaven and angels (Revelation 4–5).
Trumpet and bowl judgments: cosmic catastrophes, locusts, plagues, blood rivers, darkness.
Two witnesses calling down fire (Revelation 11).
The New Jerusalem descending from heaven (Revelation 21).
Creation of a new heaven and new earth (Revelation 21–22).
God dwelling with humanity eternally - the final miracle of restoration.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #130]

HIstorical methodology cannot rest on prior probabilities and regularities alone; that is begging naturalism by clear philosophical dogma. Every historical claim must be considered on the specific data involved. Rare claims are sometimes true. What matters is the specific evidence, not a prior worldview.

The resurrection model does not contradict known science because it’s not claiming the resurrection happened physically, but supernaturally (which is outside of science by the definition of science).

Requiring extraordinary evidence for that supernatural claim has many problems. First, it favors naturalism by mere assertion, which is irrational; I’ve already shared my thoughts on that at length. Second, it is either too vague to be helpful or, when specific examples are given, not reasonable ones that call for epistemic certainty (like your time machine) that you admitted above should not be the epistemic standard.

You propose a stepwise method:

1. Jesus existed
2. Jesus was buried in a tomb
3. The tomb was empty
4. People experienced post-mortem appearances
5. Resurrection became central to the movement

This looks neat — but it quietly smuggles in a methodological problem.

Each step:
• depends on the same source class (the Bible),
• is not independently corroborated at the same strength,
• and becomes increasingly theory-laden.

Why not allow me to give the reasons and then judge if it just depends on the Bible as a source and is just theory-laden? My case for (#1) wasn’t.

2. Jesus was buried in a tomb

This tomb doesn’t have to be currently known, identifiable, and visitable. And trying to refute my case for it before even hearing my case for it seems misguided to me. I’d also prefer to keep this one step at a time. Right now it’s just talking about data to include (which is done individually), not possible explanations which must cover the whole data set (not just individually).

[Compassionist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #131]

On historical method and “begging naturalism”

Historical methodology cannot rest on prior probabilities and regularities alone; that is begging naturalism.

This is simply incorrect.

All historical reasoning relies on background regularities.
Without them, history collapses into radical underdetermination.

Historians always ask:
• What kinds of events recur?
• What causal mechanisms are already independently established?
• What explanations have worked across comparable cases?

This is not “begging naturalism.”
It is how inference works in every domain, including law, archaeology, and medicine.

If prior probabilities and regularities are excluded, then:
• forged documents,
• legendary accretions,
• hallucinations,
• propaganda,
• myth-making,

all become indistinguishable from literal miracles.

At that point, history ceases to be a discipline at all.

On “rare claims are sometimes true”

Rare claims are sometimes true. What matters is the specific evidence.

Agreed — but this cuts against your position, not in favor of it.

Rare claims are sometimes true because:
• they still fall within known causal domains,
• they still obey constraints,
• they still generate risky predictions.

A comet impact wiping out the dinosaurs was once a rare claim — but:
• it fits known physics,
• left physical traces,
• constrained alternative explanations.

A supernatural resurrection:
• introduces a discretionary agent,
• with no independently constrained behavior,
• producing a one-off outcome.

That is not “rare but possible.”
It is methodologically unconstrained.

On “the resurrection doesn’t contradict science”

The resurrection does not contradict known science because it’s supernatural.

This is precisely the problem.

If an event is defined as:
• outside scientific constraint,
• outside causal regularities,
• outside repeatability,

then science cannot help adjudicate it — which means:

Historical method loses its primary discrimination tools.

Saying “it’s supernatural” does not rescue the claim.
It removes it from evidential calibration.

That is why evidential burden increases — not because of scientism, but because constraint disappears.

On “extraordinary evidence”

Requiring extraordinary evidence favors naturalism by assertion.

No.

Extraordinary evidence is required when:
• explanatory flexibility increases,
• alternative explanations multiply,
• constraint weakens.

A claim that can explain almost anything must be supported by stronger evidence, not weaker.

This is not worldview bias — it is risk management in inference.

We reject:
• astrology,
• alien visitations,
• miracle healings,
• prophetic dreams,

on exactly these grounds.

On the stepwise resurrection argument

Each step depends on the same source class (the Bible) and becomes increasingly theory-laden.

This is a legitimate methodological objection — and it stands.

Why not allow me to give the reasons first?

You are free to give them. I didn't forbid you. Why are you taking so long to give them? You could have given them in your first post in this thread, but you didn't.

Even before details:
• the same texts report existence, burial, emptiness, appearances, and interpretation,
• later steps depend on earlier theological framing,
• independence between data points is weak.

That does not mean all steps are equally weak — but it does mean:

Confidence cannot increase monotonically step by step.

Each step compounds uncertainty rather than resolving it.

On “Jesus was buried in a tomb”

This tomb doesn’t have to be currently known.

True — but irrelevant.

The question is not whether a tomb could have existed.

The question is:
• how strong the evidence is,
• how independent it is,
• how sensitive it is to alternative explanations.

Roman crucifixion victims:
• were often left unburied,
• were buried in common graves,
• or disposed of without ceremony.

A tomb burial is:
• possible,
• not impossible,
• but not strongly constrained by non-Christian sources.

So yes — present your case.

But presenting a case does not remove the background asymmetry:
The same tradition reports the burial, the emptiness, the appearances, and the meaning.

That remains methodologically relevant no matter how carefully the case is staged.

You are right about one thing:

History must look at specific evidence.

But evidence does not float free of:
• background regularities,
• causal constraints,
• and comparative explanation.

Once a hypothesis invokes a discretionary supernatural agent:
• prior probabilities matter more, not less,
• constraints weaken,
• evidential burden rises.

This is not naturalism by fiat.
It is the price of abandoning constraint.

You are welcome to proceed step by step — but the methodological issue you are objecting to will not disappear by slowing the pace.

It is already in the structure of the claim itself.

Why would an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful God communicate with humans using books like the Bible, the Quran and the Vedas, etc.? The answer is that it wouldn't. Such a God does not exist. I know this because such a God would have prevented all suffering, injustice, and death. People wrote the Bible, the Quran, the Vedas and other religious books for people. God(s) had nothing to do with them because God(s) doesn't/don't exist.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #131]

Please see:

and this:

and this:

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #132]

To clarify, I didn’t say that historical reasoning doesn’t take into account regularities and probabilities, but that it can’t rest on those things alone which is what underpinned your comments like “inductive saturation" and more.

You do continue to operate under scientism as shown by comments like how if science cannot adjudicate history that means the historical method has lost its primary discrimination tools. Science is not the primary discrimination tool in history; they are different field and both valid sources of knowledge.

You’ve agreed the most reasonable position is that Jesus historically existed. So, now we look at whether Jesus was buried in a tomb. I think this is the most reasonable position for the following reasons:

1. We have early attestation in Paul’s writing that he received from others
2. We have early attestation in the pre-Markan passion story
3. We have multiple attestation in Paul, synoptics, John
4. That Joseph of Arimathea handled it would not have been invented by early or later Christians
5. The tomb would have been publicly known and there is no historical trace of a competing burial story
6.The story from the early enemies passed down was that the body was stolen, presuming the burial in a tomb
7. There is no reasonable chance of a common burial by the Romans as this was not for Jews in times of peace according to Philo, Josephus, and Roman law, archaeological evidence of crucified Jewish victims being buried, and evidence from non-Christian sources of Pilate being under pressure to maintain peace by respecting Jewish burial customs.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #134]

You didn't answer my question: Why would an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful God communicate with humans using books like the Bible, the Quran and the Vedas, etc.?

On historical method vs. scientism

I didn’t say that historical reasoning doesn’t take into account regularities and probabilities, but that it can’t rest on those things alone.

Agreed — and I have never claimed otherwise.

What I have claimed is this:

Regularities and background probabilities are not optional inputs; they are the scaffolding that makes historical inference possible at all.

When I referred to inductive saturation, the point was not “history reduces to statistics,” but this:

• when a hypothesis repeatedly relies on rare, unconstrained causal moves
• when alternative explanations are already sufficient and independently supported
• when additional assumptions stop reducing uncertainty

then evidential returns flatten.

That is not scientism — it is methodological discipline.

Science is not the primary discrimination tool in history.

Correct — but constraint is.

And science supplies the best-established causal constraints we have.

If history ignores those constraints, it does not become richer — it becomes arbitrary.

On “science cannot adjudicate history”

If science cannot adjudicate history, that does not mean historical method loses its primary discrimination tools.

This is a mischaracterization of my claim.

The point is not that science must adjudicate all history.

The point is that:

When a historical claim explicitly invokes causes that lie outside all known causal regularities, discrimination becomes dramatically weaker.

That is not scientism.
That is acknowledging what loses leverage when constraints are removed.

Now, on the burial in a tomb

You list seven reasons. I’ll address them one by one — not rhetorically, but methodologically.

1. Early attestation in Paul

Paul says Jesus was:
• buried,
• raised,
• appeared.

He does not mention:
• a tomb,
• Joseph of Arimathea,
• women visitors,
• an empty grave.

“Buried” is entirely compatible with:
• a trench grave,
• a common burial,
• temporary placement,
• unknown disposal.

Therefore, Paul supports burial, not tomb burial.

2. Pre-Markan passion narrative

Calling something “pre-Markan” does not make it independent.

What we have is:
• a narrative source embedded in Mark,
• already shaped by theological aims,
• already post-Easter in outlook.

This is not neutral reportage — it is interpretive tradition.

Early does not equal independent and reliable.

3. Multiple attestation (Paul, Synoptics, John)

This is source multiplication, not independent corroboration.

Paul does not attest to the tomb.
John is literarily dependent on Synoptics.
The Synoptics are literarily related to each other.

So the structure looks like this:

• one burial claim (Paul, non-specific)
• one tomb burial narrative tradition expanded and retold

That is not four witnesses — it is one tradition retold four times.

4. Joseph of Arimathea would not be invented

This is an argument from incredulity.

Joseph of Arimathea:
• solves a narrative problem (who buries Jesus?),
• is safely dead and unverifiable,
• is not referenced outside Christian texts.

Elite or sympathetic outsiders are common literary devices in ancient narratives.

This is not strong disconfirmation of invention.

5. The tomb would have been publicly known

This assumes:
• public access,
• public interest,
• stable location,
• willingness to investigate.

But Jerusalem was:
• politically volatile,
• administratively chaotic,
• flooded during Passover,
• unconcerned with verifying executed criminals.

Absence of competing burial stories is exactly what we expect when:
• no one knew,
• no one cared,
• or the story emerged later.

6. “The body was stolen” presumes a tomb

This argument fails on its own logic.

The theft story:
• appears only in Matthew,
• is polemical,
• is late,
• is designed to neutralize the empty tomb claim.

It presupposes the tomb because it was written in response to the tomb narrative.

That is circular reinforcement, not independent confirmation.

7. Roman burial practices and Jewish customs

This is the strongest point — and still not decisive.

Yes:
• Jewish law valued burial,
• exceptions existed,
• political pressure could influence Pilate.

But also:
• crucifixion was Roman punishment,
• burial was discretionary,
• peacekeeping varied case by case.

We have one archaeological example (Yehohanan) — and one example does not establish a rule.

At best, this shows:
tomb burial was possible, not probable.

What you do not establish is the level of confidence required for the later steps:
• empty tomb,
• resurrection inference,
• supernatural causation.

And this matters because:

Every subsequent claim inherits the uncertainty of the burial claim.

That is not scientism.
That is how evidential chains work.

We can continue step by step — but methodological inflation won’t turn possibility into probability, and probability won’t turn into miracle without paying an evidential cost.

That cost remains unpaid.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #135]

You didn't answer my question: Why would an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful God communicate with humans using books like the Bible, the Quran and the Vedas, etc.?

I’m sorry, I think I misread what you wrote and thought we’d already talked about that. I believe God interacted with and communicated with individuals and groups and then took on human flesh in Jesus and the Bible is the human recording of those interactions that God has helped shape. So, the initial communication isn’t the Bible, but I also don’t see any issue with God choosing this as a method.

I agree regularities and background probabilities are important, but they can be overcome by the specific evidence; that’s my point. And I don’t think anything I’ve presented goes against any constraints without evidence. If you believe otherwise, show it specifically.

When a historical claim explicitly invokes causes that lie outside all known causal regularities, discrimination becomes dramatically weaker.

But what you consider “all known causal regularities” is what naturalism teaches. That’s where you are begging the question in favor of naturalism.

Step B: The facts

1. We agree the most reasonable position is that Jesus historically existed
2. We are asking if it is more reasonable that Jesus was buried in a tomb or not?

Paul does not directly state Jesus was buried in a tomb, but calling this a burial culturally implies a proper burial that confirms Jesus’ death and burial as a public, locatable place.

Scholars believe the passion narrative is pre-Markan because it uses non-Markan vocabulary and style, flows like a pre-packaged unit with fewer editorial interruptions than elsewhere in Mark, has Aramaic and Palestinian details that look early and local while Mark wrote in Greek. It shows burial in a tomb. All sources are biased, so we can’t just chuck it out as a historical source.

John is not dependent on the Synoptics or it would be called a Synoptic. So we have Paul, pre-Markan sources, the Synoptics agreeing, John as multiple sources attesting to the burial.

Saying Joseph wouldn’t be invented is not an argument from incredulity, but the criteria of embarrassment which is a part of normal historical study. The early Christians and Sanhedrin were enemies, so the Christians would not have invented a member of the Sanhedrin to solve the narrative problem.

Jesus’ burial would have been in a publicly accessible place and the Jewish leaders would definitely have interest in it. It was the Jewish leaders responsibility to bury Jews, even criminals, to avoid defiling the land. If Jesus had not been buried, opponents of the Christian movement would have pointed it out in their literature.

The whole point of the stolen body tradition being preserved in Matthew is that it was polemical. Matthew is addressing what opponents are saying and their story affirms they knew Jesus was buried in a tomb. That tradition isn’t in response to the Gospels having been written, but what opponents had been saying about Jesus’ body. No apologetic from opponents about a non-burial because they knew he was buried. This isn’t circular.

Crucifixion was Roman punishment, but they were also smart about their power and allowed Jewish customs in times of peace to keep peace. It wasn’t just up to the political leader’s whims of the day, they followed these rules as an empire.

Now, all of this doesn’t establish 100% certainty, but cumulatively they show it is more reasonable to believe Jesus was buried in a tomb with enough confidence to treat it as a fact. Casting less than 100% certainty on each individual piece does not result in the alternative being more reasonable.

So, what is your answer to 2? Is it more reasonable to believe Jesus was buried in a tomb or not buried in a tomb?

[Compassionist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #136]

On God communicating via books

I don’t see any issue with God choosing this as a method.

That response does not address the problem — it merely asserts permissibility.

The question was not “could God do this?”
The question was:

Why would an all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful God choose a communication method that predictably produces massive confusion, disagreement, violence, and exclusion?

The empirical facts are not in dispute:

• Thousands of mutually incompatible interpretations
• Dozens of competing “holy books”
• Centuries of wars, executions, apostasy and blasphemy laws, and persecution
• Billions of sincere believers born into contradictory traditions

If God is:
• all-knowing — He foresaw this outcome
• all-powerful — He could have chosen otherwise
• all-loving — He would avoid predictable moral catastrophe

Saying “God helped shape the Bible” does not solve this. It intensifies the problem.

A perfect communicator does not choose a medium that guarantees systematic misunderstanding by most recipients.

On “known causal regularities” and naturalism

What you consider “all known causal regularities” is what naturalism teaches.

No. This is a category mistake.

“Known causal regularities” are not a metaphysical commitment — they are an empirical summary of how the world has behaved without exception.

Naturalism does not define them.
Observation does.

The issue is not that resurrection is supernatural.
The issue is that it is:

• causally unconstrained
• non-repeatable
• exception-making
• indistinguishable from error given historical tools

Calling that “begging naturalism” is backwards.

It is precisely because history lacks tools to constrain divine discretion that evidential burden rises.

That is methodological, not ideological.

Now, Step B: Was Jesus buried in a tomb?

You ask for a yes/no answer.
But history does not work that way.

The correct question is not:

“Is tomb burial more reasonable than no tomb burial?”

The correct question is:

Is tomb burial established with sufficient confidence to support downstream claims like an empty tomb and resurrection?

That answer is no.

Now, point by point.

“Burial” in Paul

Calling this a burial culturally implies a proper burial.

That is false.

In Second Temple Judaism, “buried” simply means disposed of, not:
• honorably buried,
• privately entombed,
• or publicly identifiable.

Paul gives:
• no tomb,
• no location,
• no Joseph,
• no women,
• no empty grave.

Paul confirms death and disposal — nothing more.

Pre-Markan passion narrative

Even if pre-Markan, it is still:
• post-Easter,
• theological,
• community-shaped,
• anonymous.

Early ≠ independent ≠ neutral.

A pre-Markan source is still a Christian tradition, not external corroboration.

Multiple attestation

John is not dependent or it would be called a Synoptic.

This is incorrect.

John is literarily independent in structure, but not independent in tradition.

He:
• presupposes the same passion framework,
• reflects developed theology,
• postdates Synoptics,
• expands narrative detail.

This is tradition multiplication, not multiple witnesses.

Joseph of Arimathea and embarrassment

The “criterion of embarrassment” is weak here.

Joseph:
• conveniently solves a narrative problem,
• is uncheckable,
• is absent from Paul,
• disappears from later tradition.

Elite insiders aiding protagonists is a common ancient literary move.

This is not strong evidence.

Public tomb and silence of opponents

This assumes facts not in evidence:

• that opponents knew the burial site
• that they cared to refute burial details
• that polemics survive neutrally
• that silence implies agreement

Absence of counter-literature proves nothing in an ancient, illiterate, politically unstable context.

Stolen body tradition

Matthew’s polemic:
• appears late,
• only in Matthew,
• is explicitly apologetic.

It presupposes the tomb because Matthew is responding to the Christian tomb claim.

This is internal polemic, not independent confirmation.

Roman and Jewish burial practices

Yes, burial sometimes occurred.

But:
• crucifixion victims were exceptions,
• burial was discretionary,
• enforcement varied,
• one archaeological case proves possibility, not norm.

Possibility ≠ probability.

Cumulative case fallacy

Casting less than 100% certainty on each piece does not make the alternative more reasonable.

This misunderstands cumulative reasoning.

If every link is:
• weak,
• dependent,
• assumption-laden,

then stacking them does not strengthen the chain.

Uncertain premises do not yield a secure conclusion just because they are numerous.

Final answer to your question

Is it more reasonable to believe Jesus was buried in a tomb?

Here is the precise answer:

It is reasonable to believe Jesus was buried or disposed of after death.
It is possible that this involved a tomb.
It is not established with sufficient confidence to treat tomb burial as a fixed historical fact.

And therefore:

The tomb cannot bear the evidential weight required for an empty tomb claim — let alone a resurrection inference.

That is not skepticism for its own sake.

That is proportional belief.

If you want to proceed to Step 3, we must first agree on this methodological point:

Historical claims that anchor miracles must be established at a higher standard than ordinary claims — because everything downstream depends on them.

Right now, that standard has not been met.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #137]

I don’t see any issue with God choosing this as a method.

That response does not address the problem — it merely asserts permissibility.

No, it questions your understanding of God’s method of communication as well as why this method is a bad one. I responded that God interacted with individuals and communities, incarnated as a human for thirty some years and interacted with individuals, and now interacts with individuals through the Spirit. The Bible is a recording of those interactions. But the Spirit also talks with individuals through those recordings.

Yes, this isn’t the best way to guarantee perfect epistemic clarity for all, but it is a perfect way to invite people into a deeper relationship with the Spirit. This way is much better for a God who loves us and wants a relationship with us, while your method is all about knowing the right facts about God.

We also have an intellect to sift through which books are from God and which ones aren’t. This does not guarantee systematic misunderstanding, as the means are available for them to understand what they need to understand for salvation and to then grow in understanding all the rest.

“Known causal regularities” are not a metaphysical commitment — they are an empirical summary of how the world has behaved without exception.

Naturalism does not define them.
Observation does.

My point is that what you allow in that summary is constrained by your naturalism, which you then bring into the discussion and say that anything that doesn’t fit in your summary doesn’t count in the known causal regularities.

Step B: Was Jesus buried in a tomb?

You ask for a yes/no answer.
But history does not work that way.

The correct question is not:

“Is tomb burial more reasonable than no tomb burial?”

The correct question is:

Is tomb burial established with sufficient confidence to support downstream claims like an empty tomb and resurrection?

No, that is absolutely the wrong question. We are simply trying to determine the facts. Downstream claims are irrelevant for that, both what your downstream claim would be and what mine would be. That is a very bad methodology that will bias your historical study. The historical question is whether it is more reasonable that Jesus was buried in a tomb or not.

My point about Paul’s implication of a burial in a tomb wasn’t about the word used, but about the context that would be understood within the culture. Just stating it was a burial would be meant/understood as a common one, especially since that is the only burial narrative we have any evidence for whatsoever.

You can’t throw out sources by Christians because they are Christian. If Jesus wasn’t buried in a tomb, the Christian sources would have reflected this or we would have traces of competing narratives on this. We don’t even get that from the enemy side. The only reason Matthew treats it is because that is what opponents were saying. John is absolutely considered an independent tradition (not just structure) by scholars. Treating all Christian sources as one tradition is just wrong.

Joseph is not how Christians would have solved a narrative problem, wouldn’t have been a part of the tradition Paul quoted as it would have been simplified, and whether Joseph disappeared in later traditions is completely irrelevant.

Roman sources do not show that crucifixion victims were the exceptions, it shows that not burying them were the exceptions and came during times of war.

I agree with the majority of scholars that the cumulative case here is that it is more reasonable to believe that Jesus was buried in a tomb. I don’t use cumulative in the way you are painting it. I think these chains are all strong and built on evidence, not assumption. Thus, if one is weak and your reason tells you to cast it out, it doesn’t weaken the overall claim.

If you want to proceed to Step 3, we must first agree on this methodological point:

Historical claims that anchor miracles must be established at a higher standard than ordinary claims — because everything downstream depends on them.

I will not agree to that claim because I think it is completely and clearly irrational. Downstream claims are irrelevant. Changing how you analyze the historical fact because of downstream claims is fallacious; analyze the claims on their own merit, not downstream claims later on. And requiring supernatural claims to be established at a higher standard simply favors naturalism and treats that as the default.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #138]

A. On God’s method of communication

God interacted with individuals and communities, incarnated as a human, and now interacts through the Spirit. The Bible records those interactions.

This reframes the claim but does not resolve the problem.

The issue is not whether some individuals feel personally guided or relationally engaged. The issue is systemic outcomes given God’s attributes.

An all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful God would foresee that:

• different people would sincerely report incompatible spiritual “communications”
• those reports would generate mutually exclusive doctrines
• entire populations would be born, live, and die under false beliefs through no fault of their own
• religion would be used to justify coercion, violence, and exclusion

A method that:
• privileges subjective internal experience,
• lacks publicly verifiable calibration,
• and produces massive divergence,

is precisely the worst possible method if the goal includes moral clarity, fairness, and harm minimization.

Calling this an “invitation to relationship” does not answer why:
• salvation hinges on discernment most humans demonstrably fail at,
• epistemic access is radically unequal,
• and error carries catastrophic consequences.

A loving relationship does not require epistemic roulette.

B. On “known causal regularities” and naturalism

What you allow in that summary is constrained by your naturalism.

No — what constrains the summary is inter-subjective observation.

Known causal regularities are not:
• metaphysical commitments,
• ideological filters,
• or philosophical dogmas.

They are simply:
what has occurred repeatedly, reliably, and without exception under observation.

Supernatural intervention is excluded not because of naturalism, but because it:
• has no stable frequency,
• no predictive constraints,
• no independent calibration,
• and no failure conditions within historical method.

That is not worldview bias.
That is methodological limitation.

If divine action cannot be constrained even in principle, then history has no tools to distinguish it from mistake, legend, or fabrication.

C. On the correct historical question about the tomb

The correct question is whether it is more reasonable that Jesus was buried in a tomb or not.

This is precisely where methodology breaks.

History does not evaluate claims in isolation from their inferential role.

A claim that functions as a load-bearing premise for a miracle cannot be evaluated as if it were an ordinary biographical detail.

This is not bias — it is epistemic responsibility.

We routinely do this elsewhere:

• forensic standards rise when consequences are higher
• evidence thresholds rise when claims overturn background knowledge
• confidence requirements rise when error cascades

Refusing to adjust evidential standards based on inferential weight is not neutrality — it is negligence.

D. On Paul and “burial”

Burial would be culturally understood as a common burial.

That is an unsupported assumption.

In Second Temple Jewish and Greco-Roman contexts:
• “burial” confirms death,
• not location,
• not honor,
• not permanence.

Paul:
• names no tomb,
• names no individual,
• names no women,
• mentions no empty grave.

If tomb burial were foundational, Paul’s silence is inexplicable.

E. On Christian sources and independence

You can’t throw out sources because they are Christian.

Correct — and no one has.

But dependence is not eliminated by sincerity.

The problem is not bias alone, but:

• shared tradition streams,
• theological development,
• narrative elaboration,
• post-Easter retrojection.

John’s independence in genre does not equal independence in tradition.

Multiple retellings of the same inherited story are not multiple witnesses.

F. On Joseph of Arimathea

The criterion of embarrassment is weak here.

Joseph:
• resolves a narrative problem,
• cannot be cross-checked,
• appears suddenly,
• disappears just as suddenly.

Elite benefactors aiding protagonists is a standard literary trope.

This is not decisive evidence.

G. On Roman burial practices

Yes, burial sometimes occurred.

But:
• crucifixion victims were exceptions,
• burial was discretionary,
• enforcement varied,
• peace-time norms were not guarantees.

Possibility ≠ probability
And probability ≠ historical establishment

H. On cumulative cases

If one chain is weak, it doesn’t weaken the overall claim.

This is false.

If the chains are:
• mutually dependent,
• assumption-laden,
• and drawn from the same tradition stream,

then cumulative reasoning amplifies uncertainty, it does not cancel it.

Weak premises do not gain strength by aggregation.

I. On higher evidential standards for miracle-anchoring claims

That is irrational and fallacious favoring of naturalism.

No — it is standard epistemic practice.

If a claim:
• overturns uniform experience,
• licenses supernatural inference,
• and anchors extraordinary conclusions,

then higher confidence is required by rational proportionality, not by ideology.

This is how we reason in:
• law,
• medicine,
• engineering,
• science,
• and everyday risk assessment.

Refusing proportional standards would make any extraordinary claim immune to scrutiny.

Final clarification

You say:
“We are just trying to determine the facts.”

But facts are not free-floating.

They are evaluated within:
• evidential context,
• inferential consequence,
• and methodological constraint.

A tomb burial is possible.
It is not established with the confidence required to function as a historical anchor for resurrection claims.

That conclusion does not assume naturalism.
It follows from disciplined historical reasoning.

If we proceed to Step 3, it must be with that clarity intact — otherwise the entire inquiry collapses into confirmation rather than investigation.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #139]

You are back to asserting (without support) that people will not believe or act in certain ways “through no fault of their own” and blaming this on one of God’s chosen methods of communication. This doesn’t follow from including the Bible as a source and it is irrelevant to our discussion about the historicity of the resurrection.

Your phrase “what has occurred repeatedly, reliably, and without exception under observation” only includes scientific observation, right? And your begging of naturalism as the default is clear in your later response to me. You say that if a claim overturns uniform experience and licenses supernatural inference, it requires higher standard of evidence. Just because it is supernatural and overturns what you think is uniform experience from your naturalistic worldview.

Good historical method absolutely evaluates facts in isolation from downstream claims about those and other facts. Once the supernatural comes in you start special pleading simply because it is supernatural and against your already held beliefs. I don’t think that is rational.

On the burial of Jesus, the tradition Paul received and is passing on is something short and quick to give the gist of the Christian message, not a detailed account like the Gospels. The tradition’s silence on extra details is not inexplicable but perfectly reasonable for what it is. All historical scholars treat John and the Synoptics as separate traditions against what you are doing. Then you repeated a bunch of the same stuff instead of addressing my new claims, so it looks like we are done there.

If you don’t accept that it is more reasonable to conclude Jesus was buried in a tomb, then you are free to go from my case and I can say no more. If anyone else agrees that Compassionist is not being reasonable here on possible fact #2 and wants to continue the case, I’m open to it.

Thank you, Compassionist for sharing your thoughts and challenging mine. I really have appreciated it.