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.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Just wanted to say I respect you For_The_Kingdom for honorably throwing in the towel. Most users just wander off and leave debates hanging rather than admit defeat.

In the MPG I gave you I incorrectly said you didn't admit defeat, when you actually did. I can't edit that post, but the sentiment remains valid.

Great job taking on Z and giving it your best.

Don't get it twisted. When I said "you win", it was based solely on my forfeiture; not "you win because your arguments were better".

LOL.

[OpenYourEyes]

Just wanted to say I respect you For_The_Kingdom for honorably throwing in the towel. Most users just wander off and leave debates hanging rather than admit defeat.

In the MPG I gave you I incorrectly said you didn't admit defeat, when you actually did. I can't edit that post, but the sentiment remains valid.

Great job taking on Z and giving it your best.

Don't get it twisted. When I said "you win", it was based solely on my forfeiture; not "you win because your arguments were better".

LOL.

I actually applaud your choice to give up the debate. From the start, as documented in this thread, I saw that this debate was going nowhere unless the level of evidence was first agreed upon. There have been 4 head-to-head debates on this issue that pretty much ended the same way and my insight was based precisely on those debates.

Historical standards are not going to be enough to convince everyone, but one thing we can do is to keep these types from making historical claims entirely, otherwise we can expose their double standards and conflict with the field of history.

[Zzyzx]

.

Don't get it twisted. When I said "you win", it was based solely on my forfeiture; not "you win because your arguments were better". .

If there are better arguments to support the resurrection than “they believed� and “empty tomb = deceased came back to life and left�, it would have been prudent to present them. In the event that convincing evidence comes to mind, feel welcome to reopen the debate.

I actually applaud your choice to give up the debate. From the start, as documented in this thread, I saw that this debate was going nowhere unless the level of evidence was first agreed upon.

Restated in my words: The claimed resurrection cannot be defended as a literal, actual event that occurred in the real world UNLESS all agree to accept Bible stories about the resurrection as “historical evidence� to confirm that the resurrection occurred.

In reasoned discussion or debate a source CANNOT be used as evidence to support itself.

There have been 4 head-to-head debates on this issue that pretty much ended the same way and my insight was based precisely on those debates.

It would be prudent to consider (as I trust readers do) that my statement above is correct – the resurrection cannot be defended unless both parties agree that Bible stories are authoritative, truthful and accurate.

Historical standards are not going to be enough to convince everyone,

Do “historical standards� accept tales of supernatural characters and events as being literally true and accurate accounts?

but one thing we can do is to keep these types from making historical claims entirely, otherwise we can expose their double standards and conflict with the field of history.

“These types� – those who do not believe in gods, have no need to defend historical stories.

The “types� who present Bible stories as truthful and accurate DO have the burden of demonstrating they are true and accurate.

That may be a difficult concept for those accustomed to assuming that the Bible is TRUTH and not questioned, challenged or defended (as in church, HH, or TD&D). That doesn't fare very wel on a level playing field, does it?


Edited to add: I opened a thread to discuss rules of debate for "resurrection" http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 319#812319

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to OpenYourEyes]

I don't want to distract too much from your debate so I will limit my discussion here. I just would recommend on your next head-to-head that you admit that you are really looking for SCIENTIFIC verification for stories in the Bible. If you admit your scientific agenda from the start, then perhaps many won't go into these trying to debate you on a historical level.

By "scientific verification," you are referring to physical evidence. As opposed to what... hearsay and rumor? Of course the evidence will necessarily need to be physical to be compelling. "That's what I heard," or "that's what I believe," is not evidence of anything. Physical evidence makes for a compelling argument. "It's true because I say so," is no argument at all.

In other words, the Bible can be used as a valid historical source and this is in line with the field of history, just as historians accept Plato, Socrates, and some of the other ancient historical figures based on written accounts. If you want "conclusive" proof then you won't find it with history, especially ancient history.

Biblical accounts (Gospel Matthew) mention Herod the Great. Herod is a well known historical figure who can be verified to have existed by various sources outside of the NT. Most of the cities mentioned in the Bible can be recognized as actual cities. So, does the Bible contain actual verifiable history in it? Yes it does. Does that indicate that every claim made by the Bible must therefore be true and accurate? Well, no of course not. Many of the claims of the Bible defy all reason, common sense, and are completely unverifiable by outside sources. Joshua's "Day The Earth Stood Still," story (Josh.10:12-13), or Gospel Matthew's "Night Of The Living Dead" tale (Matt.27:52-53) are perfect examples.

And then of course there is the claim that the corpse of Jesus returned to life and then subsequently flew of up into the sky. Most Christians, such as yourself, indicate that this story is verified to be historically accurate by the "fact" that the risen Jesus was seen by hundreds of individuals. And that claim, that complete assumption, as you already know, evaporates entirely upon actual investigation of it. Because there are NO such hundreds of claims. Only the single claim of Paul contained in 1Cor. The claim of an unbelievable event for which Paul himself was not even present to personally witness. In actual fact there are only five primary sources for the story of the risen Jesus. These are known through Christian tradition as Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. 1 Peter makes a passing reference to the risen Jesus, but gives no details at all.

[OpenYourEyes]

[Replying to post 33 by Zzyzx]

Just to respond to one of your comments to me....


You claim that a source can not be used as support for itself, but this would depend on what the debate is on. If the debate is on historical matters, then yes, a written account can be used as evidence in support of a historical point. If the debate is on theology, then yes, a written account can be used as evidence in support of a theological point. An independent source is not needed for these type of debates.

[Zzyzx]

.

You claim that a source can not be used as support for itself, but this would depend on what the debate is on. If the debate is on historical matters, then yes, a written account can be used as evidence in support of a historical point.

Creative verbal gymnastics.

Try replying to what I actually said “In reasoned discussion or debate a source CANNOT be used as evidence to support itself.�

Do historians use an account to verify ITSELF as true? In other words, if an account says something on page 1 and again on page 10 is it assumed that whatever was said is true? Of if an account includes “What I say is true� do historians accept that as evidence of truth?

If the debate is on theology, then yes, a written account can be used as evidence in support of a theological point.

More creative verbal gymnastics. Perhaps theologians use Bible stories to prove Bible stories true – when discussing matters between themselves. However, if they step out into the real world such assumptions are contrary to valid argumentation.

An independent source is not needed for these type of debates.

In debates using C&A sub-forum Guidelines that does not apply. Perhaps it would be appropriate to move to HH or TD&D (I will not be joining discussions or debates in which the Bible is considered authoritative or proof of truth).

[OpenYourEyes]

[Replying to post 36 by Zzyzx]

Historians don't always verify in the sense you are using it. A document can be accepted with no external verification if it's all that's available.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 36 by Zzyzx]

Historians don't always verify in the sense you are using it. A document can be accepted with no external verification if it's all that's available.

Unless you can name a single other historical "event" that is based on a supernatural claim, then you have no basis to declare that any of the supernatural claims found in the NT are as historically valid as any other historical claim.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 36 by Zzyzx]

Historians don't always verify in the sense you are using it. A document can be accepted with no external verification if it's all that's available.

What do you mean by 'accepted'? You appear to be glossing over a number of details here.

If the only evidence of event X is a single document, then one can hardly conclude that event X is a historical fact, beyond all doubt.

At best, one could only say that document Y makes a claim that event X happened. That's it. With no other data, all one can honestly say is that a claim has been made.

One could then analyze the document itself to determine who wrote it, when, why, etc. One could also determine the plausibility of the claimed event.

Even if every thing lines up:
1) We know who the author is and have supporting evidence that the author existed.
2) We know when the document was written based on other supporting evidence.
3) We know why the document was written (i.e. was it clearly written to record history, was it a letter to a friend, was it a narrative, etc)
4) The event X in question is plausible (i.e. does not violate the known laws of science and appears to at least be possible)

None of this means that Event X actually happened. Without more supporting evidence we only have a claim. It may be a solid claim, but still only a single claim.

Should we accept as fact things that are only based on a single claim even if the claim appears solid? Would you base your life on it? Would you deem it fair if you were on trial facing life in prison and this claim was used against you?

[OpenYourEyes]

[Replying to post 36 by Zzyzx]

Historians don't always verify in the sense you are using it. A document can be accepted with no external verification if it's all that's available.

What do you mean by 'accepted'? You appear to be glossing over a number of details here.

If the only evidence of event X is a single document, then one can hardly conclude that event X is a historical fact, beyond all doubt.

At best, one could only say that document Y makes a claim that event X happened. That's it. With no other data, all one can honestly say is that a claim has been made.

One could then analyze the document itself to determine who wrote it, when, why, etc. One could also determine the plausibility of the claimed event.

My point was that written accounts can be accepted by historians without external evidence or verification. By using the term "accepted", I'm referring to historians using a document for historical information or data. Whether or not that data is reliable is at bare minimum based on internal evidence (analyzing the document itself as you said) for any discrepancies, etc.

I will be away for at least 2 weeks so if there's any response I'll get to it later on.