Shadow thread for Resurrection H2H

[Zzyzx]

.
Anyone interested in commenting on the Resurrection H2H (For_The_Kingdom vs. Zzyzx) is welcome to do so here.

[OpenYourEyes]

[Replying to post 17 by rikuoamero]

This is not my debate. Perhaps some of the things that you bring up will be covered in the head-to-head debate.

I just want both debaters in the head-to-head to keep in mind that the Bible can be used as evidence from a historical-standpoint just as I explained in my previous post and in post #13.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 17 by rikuoamero]

This is not my debate. Perhaps some of the things that you bring up will be covered in the head-to-head debate.

I just want both debaters in the head-to-head to keep in mind that the Bible can be used as evidence from a historical-standpoint just as I explained in my previous post and in post #13.

I think the piece you are missing is 'verifiable' evidence. Sure, the Bible can be considered evidence, but verifiable evidence of what? Since it is a collection of writings compiled by a biased source, I don't think one can honestly use it as anything more than support for the fact that some claims are made. i.e. the Bible claims 'X'. Ok, a claim is made in the Bible. Now what? Do you have any other supporting evidence?

I could just as easily write some miraculous story on a piece of paper, scan it, then distribute it on the internet so everyone can read it. Does this mean whatever I wrote is true? Would you not want some other evidence about what was written if the story mattered to you? Do you normally accept single sources as good evidence when considering something important to you? Or is it just the Bible?

[OpenYourEyes]

[Replying to post 17 by rikuoamero]

This is not my debate. Perhaps some of the things that you bring up will be covered in the head-to-head debate.

I just want both debaters in the head-to-head to keep in mind that the Bible can be used as evidence from a historical-standpoint just as I explained in my previous post and in post #13.

I think the piece you are missing is 'verifiable' evidence. Sure, the Bible can be considered evidence, but verifiable evidence of what? Since it is a collection of writings compiled by a biased source, I don't think one can honestly use it as anything more than support for the fact that some claims are made. i.e. the Bible claims 'X'. Ok, a claim is made in the Bible. Now what? Do you have any other supporting evidence?

I could just as easily write some miraculous story on a piece of paper, scan it, then distribute it on the internet so everyone can read it. Does this mean whatever I wrote is true? Would you not want some other evidence about what was written if the story mattered to you? Do you normally accept single sources as good evidence when considering something important to you? Or is it just the Bible?

Are you referring to verification beyond written accounts?

Sure, historians would like verifiable evidence but thst is not the halmark of historical method, largely because we can not always verify human affairs of the past beyond written accounts. On that level, the Bible itself can be used as evidence for people, places, and events, although that does not include evidencing the validity of theology. The resurrection was not just a subject of theology.

I also quoted from the forum rules to support my case. Refer to post #13.

[Zzyzx]

.

Give me an example of non-scientific verifiable evidence that would prove a resurrection.

Providing evidence for “resurrections� is YOUR (generic term) problem, NOT mine. I would not take or defend a position unless I knew that I had verifiable evidence.

Actually, to keep you from pushing the goal post, you should be obligated to answer, EVEN before the debate starts.

The two of us involved in H2H debate agreed on “rules of engagement�. That is not negotiable with those not involved.

Otherwise, if you expect SCIENTIFIC evidence but yet your opponent presents HISTORICAL evidence, then clearly the debate is a waste of time.

As I say repeatedly, I do NOT expect “scientific evidence�. I know what scientific evidence means although many seem to have no clue. However, I do expect VERIFIABLE evidence. Someone (or several people) writing stories that claim something happened is NOT verifiable evidence.

BOTH participants went into the debate with false expectations

I, for one, had NO “false expectations�. I fully expected that no verifiable evidence would be presented. So far, that has proved correct – with only stories and “they believed� offered as though such things constituted evidence.

and this is probably just one of the reasons your last 3 head-to-head opponents have gotten frustrated w/ you.

Opponents often become frustrated when challenged to provide verifiable evidence and they cannot.

In your debate, you said that you wanted something more than "ancient stories" (or written accounts). I see that your example contains written records, like state records, deeds, documents from attorneys, etc. I'm assuming that the "verification" feature in your example are the multiple written sources that corroborate each other.

Notice that the sources I cite are disconnected from one another and are matters of official record AND are verifiable. I can produce original documents.

You have but the reason I asked is to keep you from changing the goal post. You claim that you want evidence, but it's only smart that your opponent know the type of evidence that you want so he or she can argue on that level.

How smart need one be to understand the meaning of verifiable evidence? Must I simplify and say “evidence that can be shown to be truthful and accurate�?

It's only smart that YOU know what you're talking about in knowing what you want, and being CONSISTENT with that,

I am extremely consistent in asking for verifiable evidence.

so that when evidence is offered to your standard, you will know to concede.

In ten years debating here NO verifiable evidence that the “resurrection� occurred has been presented – only STORIES and CLAIMS – no more “evidence� than Elvis sightings prove he came back to life.

So if I experienced something, and witnesses came in and gave testimony, and it was recorded, then those are multiple sources. By your standards, which hopefully remains consistent, you'd accept my claim.

NOWHERE have I agreed to accept a claim even with witness accounts. Produce the evidence and I (and readers) will evaluate its merits.

You're being vague which leaves room for you to shift the goal post. You said your goal was something more than just what's written, and now you're throwing in that it has to be "official records" after I gave you an example about multiple witnesses and it being documented.

A person who HAS verifiable evidence is not likely to be reluctant or hesitant to set forth that evidence for all to evaluate. Those who LACK evidence often shuck and jive by asking “what evidence am I supposed to present.� Sound familiar?

I'm not sure what distinguishes your standards from an arbitrary standard that someone can just make up at the top of their head, and then keep changing the standard AFTER someone offers evidence that is compatible to a vague standard that you throw out.

It is rather simple and straight-forward. Lay out the evidence. If all you have is stories, claims and “they believe� go ahead with the shuck and jive.

This is why I asked for a SPECIFIC standard that you'd expect for proving the resurrection. You have history and then you have science. Both are the best tools we have for their respective areas of inquiries.

VERIFIABLE

Scaling this down to historical standards, we have multiple sources of Jesus's death and resurrection. Remember, the Bible is not simply ONE source, but rather a COLLECTION of books from different sources compiled into one book or anthology.

Bible believers often attempt to claim that the gospels are “multiple sources� – even though the identity of writers is unknown AND there is strong evidence that they copied from one another or a common source.

My point was not just about the gospels, but rather the Bible overall. The resurrection is also talked about in 1 Corinthians 15 and in the book of Acts. I believe some of this already came up during your debate, but the point is these books that I mentioned are not from the same source.

Several writings by company representatives selected by management for inclusion in promotional literature are NOT independent / disconnected. The promotional literature IS a single source even if it quotes several people.

Writings by several representatives of a company are selected by management to be included in company promotional literature. Some of the writings contain long passages that are identical word-for-word. Is the promotional literature from "multiple sources"?

In the case of the disciples, if they all

experienced similar things, why would they need to write completely dissimilar accounts? [/quote]
Are you NOT aware that extensive passages from the gospels are identical wording – known as “the Synoptic Problem�? Are examples needed to show Bible believers what they do not know about the gospels?

About 90 percent of Mark's material is found in Matthew, while about 50 percent of Mark is found in Luke. In addition, nearly 235 verses in Matthew and Luke are similar to one another. In those places where agreement appears, incredible similarities can extend even to identical tense and mood for every word in an entire verse (or more). Given that Jesus probably spoke in Aramaic, these similarities are even more asounding. In some places, the Evangelists have identical parenthetical material," http://www.theopedia.com/synoptic-problem

Ninety percent and fifty percent similar to identical wording does NOT suggest independent sources.

The epistles and Acts are not identical to the gospels. John's Gospel is not really identical to the other 3 gospels. While the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) contain a lot of similarity, but there are some differences, as well. One hypothesis to explain both the similarities and differences is the the two-source hypothesis.

Regardless the “hypothesis to explain� there is extensive copying from each other or from a common source. Either way suggests that the copyist is not relaying their personal experience or knowledge.

Out of all of this, I simply hope that it registers that it is within the forum rules to use the Bible as historical evidence for claims that relate to history. You seriously need to figure out what you mean by "NON-scientific verifiable evidence that includes something more than written accounts", which by the way can include multiple witness accounts just as in my example.

Advise noted. As I have observed previously “If I was seeking advice about debate, you would not be the first person on the list to ask (or on the list at all).�

[benchwarmer]

Are you referring to verification beyond written accounts?

I'm referring to any other verification. All we have to go by for determining the possibility for an ancient event (i.e. where no living witnesses remain) are written accounts and archeological artifacts.

We also can determine plausibility using written accounts, artifacts, and any current knowledge.

Speaking only for myself (although I see many others with the same view), I don't demand absolute proof when it comes to a lot of the 'God' claims made by various posters. What I do hope to see is convincing evidence. Surely you can see how a single, biased source is not convincing to a skeptic. Especially for events that involve things that are not plausible (miracle claims, etc.)

For some reason, a lot of theists don't seem to grasp the difference between accepting a plausible, mundane event and an implausible, supernatural event.

Sure, historians would like verifiable evidence but thst is not the halmark of historical method, largely because we can not always verify human affairs of the past beyond written accounts. On that level, the Bible itself can be used as evidence for people, places, and events, although that does not include evidencing the validity of theology. The resurrection was not just a subject of theology.

I agree with you, the Bible can be used as evidence. However, depending on the claim you are trying to support, it may not be very compelling evidence. That is the point many seem to be missing. Just because it is accepted as evidence of one thing does not automatically mean it is useful or compelling for everything that Christianity proclaims (assuming one could even come up with a coherent list for that).

[Zzyzx]

.

Actually, to keep you from pushing the goal post, you should be obligated to answer, EVEN before the debate starts.

The two of us involved in H2H debate agreed on “rules of engagement�. That is not negotiable with those not involved.

Apparently the discussions couldn't have been that clear since you and your opponent have already argued about the type of evidence to be used.

Perhaps you can start a consulting service for those who intend to engage in H2H debates – and render expert opinions. Check with Otseng to see if such a position is available.

This even led to you citing the forum rules but ironically you left out the part where it talks about the Bible being allowed to be used as evidence on historical matters.

What part of “4. Unsupported Bible quotations are to be considered as no more authoritative than unsupported quotations from any other book.� is difficult to understand? http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=9741

Otherwise, if you expect SCIENTIFIC evidence but yet your opponent presents HISTORICAL evidence, then clearly the debate is a waste of time.

As I say repeatedly, I do NOT expect “scientific evidence�. I know what scientific evidence means although many seem to have no clue. However, I do expect VERIFIABLE evidence. Someone (or several people) writing stories that claim something happened is NOT verifiable evidence.

Verifiable evidence can mean different things so it can also be vary from person-to-person. It can involve testimony, witness accounts, empirical verification, written verification. The nurses at my workplace typically verify doctor's orders using either verbal or written orders from the doctor.

Yes, “My mother says so� is adequate “verification� for some people if the bar is set low enough. “This book says so� clears only a slightly higher bar. “These three witnesses who saw Bigfoot� isn't much better (same for supernatural claims).

Nurses are wise to verify by actually checking to see if the doctor's orders are correctly communicated or understood.

BOTH participants went into the debate with false expectations

I, for one, had NO “false expectations�. I fully expected that no verifiable evidence would be presented. So far, that has proved correct – with only stories and “they believed� offered as though such things constituted evidence.

The bible does constitute as historical evidence unless proven otherwise, with the exception of the theological and/or non-literal parts, of course.

Kindly identify for all to consider the parts of the Bible that constitute historical evidence and the parts that are non-literal. AND identify the means by which anyone can make that distinction.

Most of us are aware that Christendom does NOT have internal agreement regarding which parts of the Bible are literally true and what it “really means�. Thus, there are tens of thousands of denominations within Christianity that have often very different “interpretations.�

Please review the forum rules before making such a claim that the Bible does not constitute as evidence.

What part of “4. Unsupported Bible quotations are to be considered as no more authoritative than unsupported quotations from any other book.� is difficult to understand? http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=9741

and this is probably just one of the reasons your last 3 head-to-head opponents have gotten frustrated w/ you.

Opponents often become frustrated when challenged to provide verifiable evidence and they cannot.

Three solid debaters, St Jb, WinePusher, For_the_Kingdom, are the ones with the problem and not you? LoL. I can see if it was only one member, but when you have 2 or 3, and maybe soon to be four debates with people complaining about YOUR style,

Some Apologists have been complaining about my style of debate for ten years (here) – primarily when they do not fare well in debate and are looking for excuses. Notice that after repeated failures in debate (with Non-Theists in general), most tend to disappear from threads and from the Forum (or they become angry / hostile / emotional enough to repeatedly violate Forum Rules and be banned).

Perhaps the more astute learn that they cannot provide substantiation for their stories and claims in a debate environment that does not give their beliefs and literature preferential treatment. Arguments that must seem convincing in church, revival meetings, religious websites do NOT hold up on our level playing field where no ideology is given preferential treatment.

I don't think you can blame anyone if they start considering that you might be the common cause of problems,

I gladly acknowledge causing problems for Apologists – typically by asking questions about fundamental beliefs of Christianity to which they cannot or will not give straight answers. Such as: Verifiable evidence that:

Humans possess a soul
An “afterlife� is more than imaginary
Jesus was more than a wandering Jewish preacher (“supernatural� in any way).

which is reflected in these poor quality debates where the debaters quit and get frustrated or the debate ends prematurely.

Poor quality of debate? Readers decide for themselves to whom and when poor quality of debate applies.

You have but the reason I asked is to keep you from changing the goal post. You claim that you want evidence, but it's only smart that your opponent know the type of evidence that you want so he or she can argue on that level.

How smart need one be to understand the meaning of verifiable evidence? Must I simplify and say “evidence that can be shown to be truthful and accurate�?

There are different types of evidence and different ways to verify them. Your simplistic and uncritical explanation fails to factor in that point.

Opinion noted and given the same consideration as “advice� offered.

To some, using science is one way to verify something and to others it can be independent but corroborating sources, witness sources included.

Yup, three Bigfoot hunters (who do not know one another) give independent, corroborating, witness testimony about seeing Bigfoot. Scores of independent people give corroborating witness testimony that they saw Elvis.

Shall their testimonials be regarded as independent corroborating witness sources to verify that Bigfoot exists and Elvis came back from the dead?

Unless you're dealing something with defined standards, such as in history or science, you're leaving the door open for many different types of standards, evidence, and means of verifying.

The door is open. Verification is the problem for claimants. “Take my word for it (or his or this book)� is inadequate in honorable and reasoned debate.

You claim not to be looking for scientific verification but yet you won't accept historical standards. You're really making this harder than it should be.

Exactly what “historical standards� should I accept regarding claims of supernatural characters and events?

Do “historical standards� accept claims of ANY supernatural characters and events? Do Apologists use “historical standards� to believe tales about Thor, Odin, Quetzalcoatl, Vishnu?

Apply the same “historical standards� to biblical claims of supernatural characters and events.

so that when evidence is offered to your standard, you will know to concede.

In ten years debating here NO verifiable evidence that the “resurrection� occurred has been presented – only STORIES and CLAIMS – no more “evidence� than Elvis sightings prove he came back to life.

In 10 years, I don't know of anyone who has claimed to have verifiable evidence that Jesus was resurrected.

Apologists typically claim that Jesus was “resurrected�. That is a claim of knowledge which, in honorable and reasoned discussion or debate is expected (and required) to be substantiated. Offering as “evidence� the tales that make the claim is NOT substantiation.

I thought you would've learned that by now after 10 years. You might lack an understanding of what 'historical' reasoning/evidence means or amounts to.

Negative personal remarks are inappropriate in honorable debate / discussion.

I'm not sure what distinguishes your standards from an arbitrary standard that someone can just make up at the top of their head, and then keep changing the standard AFTER someone offers evidence that is compatible to a vague standard that you throw out.

It is rather simple and straight-forward. Lay out the evidence. If all you have is stories, claims and “they believe� go ahead with the shuck and jive.

Not just stories but also the start of a religion, an empty tomb with a bunch of implausible natural explanations leaving the door open for unnatural explanations, etc, etc.

Thousands tombs are found to be empty. Does that give evidence that the deceased came back to life and left?

Perhaps if one of your debates can actually end as scheduled rather than prematurely,

“End as scheduled�? There is no “end� scheduled in the present debate (and I do not recall others having a scheduled ending – though I am not certain and do not regard it as important enough to check).

It is not my problem if someone disappears from debate. That happens frequently when people are not faring well.

you might acquire some information that may dispel some of your unreasonable views.

Advise noted. As I have observed previously “If I was seeking advice about debate, you would not be the first person on the list to ask (or on the list at all).�

My point was not just about the gospels, but rather the Bible overall. The resurrection is also talked about in 1 Corinthians 15 and in the book of Acts. I believe some of this already came up during your debate, but the point is these books that I mentioned are not from the same source.

Several writings by company representatives selected by management for inclusion in promotional literature are NOT independent / disconnected. The promotional literature IS a single source even if it quotes several people.

Which came first, the formation of the canon or the writings? Clearly you have your history backwards. The idea of a New Testament canon came after the time of the apostles.

An Apologist should be aware that writings were selected for inclusion in what became known as the New Testament by committees of churchmen at the behest of Roman emperors centuries after they were supposedly written.

Are you NOT aware that extensive passages from the gospels are identical wording – known as “the Synoptic Problem�? Are examples needed to show Bible believers what they do not know about the gospels?

Yes, that relates to Luke's and Matthew's dependence on Mark's Gospel, but that doesn't take away from Mark's gospel, the "Q-document', and the other NT writings that attest to Jesus and his resurrection.

If the writings attributed to “Matthew� and “Luke� (whoever they may have been) contain much of what is presented in “Mark� what does that say about the accounts being “independent�?

About 90 percent of Mark's material is found in Matthew, while about 50 percent of Mark is found in Luke. In addition, nearly 235 verses in Matthew and Luke are similar to one another. In those places where agreement appears, incredible similarities can extend even to identical tense and mood for every word in an entire verse (or more). Given that Jesus probably spoke in Aramaic, these similarities are even more asounding. In some places, the Evangelists have identical parenthetical material," http://www.theopedia.com/synoptic-problem

Ninety percent and fifty percent similar to identical wording does NOT suggest independent sources.

Theopedia? Did you verify this information yourself by checking multiple sources and making sure the evidence is verifiable, or do you only need this level of evidence when something goes against your pre-established beliefs?

I consulted several sources that said much the same – and used the one which was most concise.

Do you question the amount of common text – or do you just wish to quibble about my methodology?

The epistles and Acts are not identical to the gospels. John's Gospel is not really identical to the other 3 gospels. While the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) contain a lot of similarity, but there are some differences, as well. One hypothesis to explain both the similarities and differences is the the two-source hypothesis.

Regardless the “hypothesis to explain� there is extensive copying from each other or from a common source. Either way suggests that the copyist is not relaying their personal experience or knowledge.

Mark copied from Matthew, Luke, and John?

What part of “there is extensive copying from each other or from a common source� is difficult to understand?

The epistles also depend on Mark's gospel?

Have I stated that the “epistles� depend on Mark's gospel? In honorable debate one does NOT misconstrue another's position. Is honor negotiable if “defending the faith�?

Did you verify all of this HISTORICAL evidence which I thought you were not a fan of?!

I consulted several sources – including religious sources.

Has some sort of emotional or personal problem interfered with reasoned debate / discussion?

Thank you for presenting readers with a religionist attitude and viewpoint to compare with that of Non-Theist.

[Peds nurse]

[Replying to post 26 by OpenYourEyes]


Moderator Warning



Hello OYE! Your post isn't really addressing the topic, mostly it attacks Zzyzx. I understand you are frustrated, but if you want to address Mr. Z personally, then send a pm.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[OpenYourEyes]

[Replying to post 26 by OpenYourEyes]


Moderator Warning



Hello OYE! Your post isn't really addressing the topic, mostly it attacks Zzyzx. I understand you are frustrated, but if you want to address Mr. Z personally, then send a pm.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

I apologize for the attacks. I'll try to stick to expressing my opinion on the debate.

[OpenYourEyes]

.
Anyone interested in commenting on the Resurrection H2H (For_The_Kingdom vs. Zzyzx) is welcome to do so here.

My two cents is that your head-to-head debate should be temporarily suspended. Until you and your opponent can establish what level of "truth" or "proof" is required then you guys will likely not satisfy each other's expectations. There is some evidence of that happening based on a few comments in your debate.

From what I can tell not just from For_The_Kingdom, but also based on other debates, the acceptance of the resurrection is on the level of HISTORY using historical standards which involves accepting written documents as evidence. Admittedly, there are alternative explanations for the empty tomb, but the plausibility is debatable, which I assume will be part of the debate.

And lastly, For_The_Kingdom made a comment about wanting to use the Bible as evidence, and this should be allowed, not just because he wants to but also because the forum rules says so.

[Divine Insight]

And lastly, For_The_Kingdom made a comment about wanting to use the Bible as evidence, and this should be allowed, not just because he wants to but also because the forum rules says so.

I don't see the point to your complaints, especially concerning the debate in question.

You suggest that a rule #3 that you found should apply here.

3. For factual claims like the existence of individuals, places, and events, the Bible can be considered as providing evidence, but not necessarily conclusive evidence.

But what does it apply to in this debate?

It's not going to serve as evidence that there actually were eyewitnesses. All it could possibly serve as evidence for is that the authors of these texts claim that there were eyewitnesses.

That's not the same as evidence that there actually were eyewitnesses. Neither is it evidence that what these supposed eyewitnesses might claim to have seen actually happened.

All it can serve as evidence for is that the authors of these stories made the claim that there were eyewitnesses.

I think Z has already acknowledged that much. He has acknowledged that the Bible makes claims about there supposedly being eyewitnesses. That in no way amounts to "evidence" that there actually were any eyewitnesses.

So I don't understand what the problem is.

Z most certainly isn't violating or ignoring this rule. He acknowledges that the authors of the Bible claimed there were eyewitnesses.

What more do you expect?