Was the Resurrection a true, literal and physical event?

[Zzyzx]

.
Goose and Zzyzx have agreed to debate the topic of the truth of the resurrection.

Comments by others are welcome in a “comments” thread in General Chat.

It has been agreed that debate will be limited to ten posts each (after actual debate begins) and that certain “rules of debate” will be established as a basis for the debate. Toward that end I sent the following PM to Goose. He responded by PM and I encourage him to do so in this thread.

My suggestions toward a body of rules include:

1. Debate honestly and honorably with no questionable tactics or tricks
2. Ask not more than five questions per post (to be numbered for clarity)
3. Answer each numbered question in the next post or admit inability or unwillingness
4. Verify / substantiate all challenged claims or withdraw them forthwith
5. Use standard dictionary definitions for all words (no special meanings)
6. Avoid logical fallacies

Do you have other suggestions?

[Goose]

As I had already responded to Zzyzx's suggested rules in a PM to him before he posted them here in the forum I'll cut and paste my response to him, rather than retyping. Zzyzx can answer my PM here if he wishes.

My suggestions toward a body of rules include:

1. Debate honestly and honorably with no questionable tactics or tricks
2. Ask not more than five questions per post (to be numbered for clarity)
3. Answer each numbered question in the next post or admit inability or unwillingness
4. Verify / substantiate all challenged claims or withdraw them forthwith
5. Use standard dictionary definitions for all words (no special meanings)
6. Avoid logical fallacies

1. Agreed
2. This opening us up to the bury your opponent in questions and when he doesn't answer all of them claim that you have won tactic. This will take us all over the map. If one maximizes their question count over ten rounds that's fifty questions. We'll spend more time answering questions than presenting arguments and evidence. It will be very distracting. More questions will not answer the ultimate question of whether the Rez can be deemed true. Questions are not evidence. If one has specific questions about evidence presented I can appreciate that. I would suggest we limit questions to having relevance to the evidence or arguments presented. I won't answer questions that don't pretain to these things. Especially if they are arguments from silence. If this will be your tactic let me know now.
3. Ties into 2. I'm not going down rabbit trails answering fifty more questions on top the question for debate. We'll accomplish nothing.
4. Is what this debate is about. If a claim is backed with evidence and cogent arguments this request should be considered as met. The challenged claim is whether the Rez is true. Agreed?

Do you have other suggestions?

Yes. We establish our methodology for determining what we mean by true for an ancient event. I can suggest one if you'd like. But you challenged me so I'll allow you to propose one. That methodology should be able to be applied across the spectrum of ancient history without failing events we already consider to be true and are rarely questioned. Without a transparent and reasonably objective methodology this debate will digress into a personal and subjective evaluation of whether the Rez is true or not. This is important and I will not proceed with out it as I've already mentioned in my posts accepting your challenge.

I will present evidence, reasoning, criticism and questions to demonstrate that arguments proposing the theory of a literal “resurrection” has not been substantiated.

That's good. However, questions are not evidence. Again this is why we need a methodology. You use the word "substantiated." But, by what standard?

You may go first.

OK

In an opening post, kindly quote appropriate scriptures relating to the resurrection that you maintain are true and accurate (to avoid "version" or "translation" issues).

Yes, I will. I will also ask you to do the same.

I accept your suggestion that the debate be limited to a certain number of posts each and suggest that the thread be locked after ten posts each.

Agreed.

Because something is true does NOT mean that it is verifiable or verified. Because something is regarded as “true” in tradition does not mean that it is true. The definition of “true” is often broadened by Theists to mean something other than

I don't understand this. If it is considered true why the need for verification? I think in the case of the Rez, as it's a matter of history, that "true" has a different meaning than "true" in other disciplines such as science. We are looking at a historical question, therefore we should use the same idea for true as historians use. History deals more with degrees of probability rather than absolute certainty. Shouldn't the question for debate simply be "Was the Resurrection true?" I affirm the positive and you the negative.

Merriam Webster

“True” -- being in accordance with the actual state of: conformable to an essential reality: fully realized or fulfilled: being that which is the case rather than what is manifest or assumed

That's a fine definition and I don't have a problem with it as long as we apply it consistently with other historical events

(I should add that I forgot to say "Agreed" to Zzyzx's suggested rules 5 and 6.)




On a more puzzling note. Zzyzx has now changed the topic for debate without my consent FROM “Was the biblical resurrection story true and verifiable?” that he suggested in another thread
here...

.
Thank you for accepting the invitation to debate Head to Head the topic of “Was the biblical resurrection story true and verifiable?”

There's only one subject, in my opinion, that really matters - the Resurrection of Christ. I'm not personally interested in anything else. If you want a head to head on this let me know. Heck, I'll even let you set the rules as long as we can apply those rules to other ancient events. My only disclaimer is that I have a busy work schedule and will let you know now in advance that it may take me a few days(even weeks) between posts.

I agree that the “resurrection” is fundamental to Christianity and maintain that if the story is untrue the entire religion is false.

I have sent a PM to Admin asking that a thread be created in that sub-forum with the title above. Kindly send one of your own agreeing to the debate and the topic.

I will PM you with suggested rules and related matters.

...TO "Was the Resurrection a true, literal and physical event?"

So, what is the topic for debate, Zzyzx? Let's get that settled first.

[Goose]

Zzyzx, you there? It's been almost a week since my last post. I know you've posted elsewhere and even started other threads since my last post here, so what's up? Are we done here? Your silence leads me to conclude that one of the following must be true:

1. You are not interested in a traditional debate where the participants present evidence and arguments to support their position and keep their questions on topic. You feel at a disadvantage if you can't ask five questions per post. or;

2. You are having difficulty constructing a historical methodology that finds the Resurrection untrue yet still affirms the truth of other historical events we generally accept as true. or;

3. You are having difficulty establishing an unbiased standard by which the resurrection must be "substantiated." or;

4. You are still deliberating on the debate topic that you feel will yield you the greatest advantage. or;

5. You've lost interest. or;

6. All of the above.

[Zzyzx]

.
Goose,

You seem to want to avoid debate by quarreling about what you will and will not do in debate. You may find it puzzling that I posted my communication here but others will realize that placing things in public view opens all aspects of the debate to public scrutiny.

My suggestions toward a body of rules include:

1. Debate honestly and honorably with no questionable tactics or tricks
2. Ask not more than five questions per post (to be numbered for clarity)
3. Answer each numbered question in the next post or admit inability or unwillingness
4. Verify / substantiate all challenged claims or withdraw them forthwith
5. Use standard dictionary definitions for all words (no special meanings)
6. Avoid logical fallacies

1. Agreed
2. This opening us up to the bury your opponent in questions and when he doesn't answer all of them claim that you have won tactic. This will take us all over the map. If one maximizes their question count over ten rounds that's fifty questions. We'll spend more time answering questions than presenting arguments and evidence. It will be very distracting. More questions will not answer the ultimate question of whether the Rez can be deemed true. Questions are not evidence. If one has specific questions about evidence presented I can appreciate that. I would suggest we limit questions to having relevance to the evidence or arguments presented. I won't answer questions that don't pretain to these things. Especially if they are arguments from silence. If this will be your tactic let me know now.
3. Ties into 2. I'm not going down rabbit trails answering fifty more questions on top the question for debate. We'll accomplish nothing.

Note that #2 LIMITS the number of questions it does NOT require questions.

Since questions ARE a legitimate part of debate, I WILL ask questions.

Since you make a case for not answering questions, I withdraw #3 and acknowledge that you may choose to not answer questions.

However, I will copy all unanswered or incompletely answered questions in a final summarization and will comment upon the refusal to answer.

Do you have other suggestions?

Yes. We establish our methodology for determining what we mean by true for an ancient event. I can suggest one if you'd like. But you challenged me so I'll allow you to propose one. That methodology should be able to be applied across the spectrum of ancient history without failing events we already consider to be true and are rarely questioned. Without a transparent and reasonably objective methodology this debate will digress into a personal and subjective evaluation of whether the Rez is true or not. This is important and I will not proceed with out it as I've already mentioned in my posts accepting your challenge.

Kindly present for my consideration the methodology that you require. Do not attempt to shift the burden to me since it is YOU who makes the requirement.

In an opening post, kindly quote appropriate scriptures relating to the resurrection that you maintain are true and accurate (to avoid "version" or "translation" issues).

Yes, I will. I will also ask you to do the same.

Are you asking ME to quote scriptures that YOU will defend?

Or, are you asking me to quote scriptures that I will defend? If so, notice that I am NOT defending scriptures; you will be making that attempt.

Because something is true does NOT mean that it is verifiable or verified. Because something is regarded as “true” in tradition does not mean that it is true. The definition of “true” is often broadened by Theists to mean something other than

I don't understand this. If it is considered true why the need for verification?

Your statements below illustrate EXACTLY why I emphasize verification.

You seem to imply that anything “considered true” need not be verified if challenged. By that “reasoning”, if the Flat Earth is “considered true” and is challenged (perhaps by new knowledge), the old theory need not be defended because it is “considered true”.

By the same “reasoning” the “resurrection” is considered true by many Christians. It, therefore, need not be verified.

What a wonderful, simple world it must be for those who simply believe whatever is popular and “accepted as true” with no questions and no need for “facts” to be shown to be true.

It is “accepted as true” by Islam and Judaism that Jesus was NOT a messiah or savior. Does that mean that position must be true because it is “accepted as true”?

I think in the case of the Rez, as it's a matter of history, that "true" has a different meaning than "true" in other disciplines such as science.

Correction: The resurrection is proposed to be “a matter of history”. Unless it actually occurred, it is not history but legend, fable, fantasy, fiction or fraud.

We are looking at a historical question, therefore we should use the same idea for true as historians use. History deals more with degrees of probability rather than absolute certainty.

If you wish to acknowledge that the claimed resurrection cannot be defended as being more than “probable” you are NOT defending it as a literal event.

Say it out loud. “The resurrection PROBABLY occurred”. Now, say, “The resurrection DID occur”. Do you notice a difference?

Does Christianity acknowledge that it is based upon an event that “probably” occurred? That would change many sermons, wouldn’t it?

Shouldn't the question for debate simply be "Was the Resurrection true?" I affirm the positive and you the negative.

Agreed. If we can agree to “rules of debate” and actually intend to go ahead with debate, I will request that Admin change the title.

[Goose]

.
Goose,

You seem to want to avoid debate by quarreling about what you will and will not do in debate. You may find it puzzling that I posted my communication here but others will realize that placing things in public view opens all aspects of the debate to public scrutiny.

It's not quarrelling Zzyzx. It's establishing the ground rules before the debate begins. It's a standard process in debates.

Note that #2 LIMITS the number of questions it does NOT require questions.

OK, I misunderstood. Fair enough and this is a good idea to limit the questions to five.

Since questions ARE a legitimate part of debate, I WILL ask questions.

I don't think I said anywhere that one shouldn't ask questions, only that those questions be relevant to the topic and evidence/arguments presented.

Since you make a case for not answering questions, I withdraw #3 and acknowledge that you may choose to not answer questions.

I probably won't answer questions that I don't feel have any bearing on whether or not the Resurrection was true or false.

However, I will copy all unanswered or incompletely answered questions in a final summarization and will comment upon the refusal to answer.

What you don't seem to understand is that questions pertaining to the Resurrection, whether or not they are answered or answered satisfactorily, do not prove the Resurrection true or false. Unanswered questions might prove in your mind that the resurrection wasn't true, but your unanswered questions would not objectively show it to be untrue. See the difference? That's why you are avoiding methodologies. A transparent and unbiased methodology applied equally will work against you, not for you. The opinions and conclusions of ANYONE who avoids (or doesn't use/disclose) a transparent methodology for HOW they arrived at their position should be taken with a very large bag of salt. I'll give you another chance to propose a methodology. I can give one, but if I do, I don't want to be accused of stacking the deck.

In an opening post, kindly quote appropriate scriptures relating to the resurrection that you maintain are true and accurate (to avoid "version" or "translation" issues).

Yes, I will. I will also ask you to do the same.

Are you asking ME to quote scriptures that YOU will defend?

Are you telling me you will not quote from the New Testament? As a preliminary warning, I'll be asking you to give your methodology for rejecting the Bible. I'm going to apply that methodology to other ancient works to see what happens.

Or, are you asking me to quote scriptures that I will defend? If so, notice that I am NOT defending scriptures; you will be making that attempt.

To make it easy for you and avoid rabbit trails I'll treat the NT like a collection of ancient works, no different than Plutarch or Tacitus.

Your statements below illustrate EXACTLY why I emphasize verification.

You seem to imply that anything “considered true” need not be verified if challenged. By that “reasoning”, if the Flat Earth is “considered true” and is challenged (perhaps by new knowledge), the old theory need not be defended because it is “considered true”.

You are committing a categorical fallacy with your analogy (a fallacy I anticipate you'll commit many times in this debate). If you have evidence that the theory that Jesus rose from the dead is false, you better bring that evidence with you to the debate.

By the same “reasoning” the “resurrection” is considered true by many Christians. It, therefore, need not be verified.

You keep using the word "verified" as though that actually means something important. Verified by who? By what standard? "Substantiated" by who? By what standard?

I think in the case of the Rez, as it's a matter of history, that "true" has a different meaning than "true" in other disciplines such as science.

Correction: The resurrection is proposed to be “a matter of history”. Unless it actually occurred, it is not history but legend, fable, fantasy, fiction or fraud.

Hey, that's what we are looking at. How do we know anything in ancient history happened, Zzyzx? Do we just call things fables arbitrarily? If you are going to take the position that it's all made up, you assume a burden of proof to demonstrate that to be true and provide a powerful enough explanation for the existence of the evidence. It won't be enough for you to merely declare it a myth.

We are looking at a historical question, therefore we should use the same idea for true as historians use. History deals more with degrees of probability rather than absolute certainty.

If you wish to acknowledge that the claimed resurrection cannot be defended as being more than “probable” you are NOT defending it as a literal event.

Zzyzx is now making up the rules for historical enquiry. Why, Zzyzx? Why wouldn't an event that was deemed "probable" (as "probable" as any other event from ancient history) using a historical methodology be literal? Care to explain to the class?

Say it out loud. “The resurrection PROBABLY occurred”. Now, say, “The resurrection DID occur”. Do you notice a difference?

No I don't because we are dealing with history. History is degrees of probability. Caesar PROBABLY crossed the Rubicon, Caesar DID cross the Rubicon. Caesar crossed the Rubicon is TRUE. The evidence supports that Caesar crossed the Rubicon is more than probable, it's considered virtually undisputable. Would you agree with this?

Shouldn't the question for debate simply be "Was the Resurrection true?" I affirm the positive and you the negative.

Agreed. If we can agree to “rules of debate” and actually intend to go ahead with debate, I will request that Admin change the title.

Agreed.

[Zzyzx]

.

You seem to want to avoid debate by quarreling about what you will and will not do in debate. You may find it puzzling that I posted my communication here but others will realize that placing things in public view opens all aspects of the debate to public scrutiny.

It's not quarrelling Zzyzx. It's establishing the ground rules before the debate begins. It's a standard process in debates.

I am sure that you would not attempt to mislead me Goose, so kindly cite several similar examples of “establishing the ground rules before debate begins” that have occurred in DC&R forums.

I have only been a member about a year and have less than 2500 posts, so I might have overlooked such “standard practice” in these debates.

Surely you can substantiate what you claim. You are not just throwing out meaningless words or claims to make your “arguments” sound good are you?

Care to explain to the class?

“Explain to the class”????? Are you attempting to demean the readers of this forum by suggesting that they are the “class” and you are the “teacher”? Are you attempting to demean me with your comment?

That is not a very auspicious start to an exchange of ideas to be placed before intelligent, discerning people.

We are looking at a historical question, therefore we should use the same idea for true as historians use. History deals more with degrees of probability rather than absolute certainty.

If you wish to acknowledge that the claimed resurrection cannot be defended as being more than “probable” you are NOT defending it as a literal event.

Zzyzx is now making up the rules for historical enquiry.

Au contraire. Zzyzx is pointing out inconsistencies in your statements. You ARE attempting to equate “probable” with “literal”.

Is the topic of the debate “The resurrection probably occurred”?

Is Christianity based upon a resurrection that PROBABLY occurred? Does Christianity generally recognize that the resurrection is probable rather than factual?

Why, Zzyzx? Why wouldn't an event that was deemed "probable" (as "probable" as any other event from ancient history) using a historical methodology be literal?

I do not regard “probable” and “literal” as interchangeable.

You will be asked to defend the claim that the resurrection is “as probable as any other event from ancient history”.

If your true position is that the resurrection probably occurred but is not certain, kindly say so honestly we can then change the title of the debate (again).

Say it out loud. “The resurrection PROBABLY occurred”. Now, say, “The resurrection DID occur”. Do you notice a difference?

No I don't because we are dealing with history.

Because we are dealing with times past (some would say history) does NOT remove the burden of proof from those who claim that an event actually occurred.

We are also dealing with history when discussing the American Revolution. I have no difficulty accepting that the revolution did, literally, occur because it was widely reported by independent sources worldwide over long periods of time. There are many accounts (convergence of evidence) that verify that the event DID occur. The event does not conflict with anything we know about nature, including human nature.

I would NOT say that the American Revolution “probably occurred”. Would you?

History is degrees of probability. Caesar PROBABLY crossed the Rubicon, Caesar DID cross the Rubicon. Caesar crossed the Rubicon is TRUE. The evidence supports that Caesar crossed the Rubicon is more than probable, it's considered virtually undisputable. Would you agree with this?

I have little interest in whether Caesar crossed the Rubicon. It is not a matter that is used as a basis for a modern belief system.

However, if someone proclaimed that Caesar died and came back to life to become the icon for a new religion, I might be inclined to challenge those “resurrection” claims.

I am aware that much of what we learn as “history” is a particular VIEW of events rather than a literal fact of occurrence. The history of the War Between the States, for example, is NOT known in unvarnished truth, but is viewed very differently by southerners and northerners, for example. I am comfortable saying that the war occurred because it was widely reported by independent sources. However, specifics about exactly what occurred, how things occurred, and why things occurred differ widely.

I probably won't answer questions that I don't feel have any bearing on whether or not the Resurrection was true or false.

You are free to refuse to answer any questions you choose. Readers will evaluate the merit of the questions and the lack of answers.

However, I will copy all unanswered or incompletely answered questions in a final summarization and will comment upon the refusal to answer.

What you don't seem to understand is that questions pertaining to the Resurrection, whether or not they are answered or answered satisfactorily, do not prove the Resurrection true or false.

One thing that I do realize is that a person who avoids pertinent questions in debate is generally not regarded as credible or convincing. You are free to be as credible and convincing as you choose.

You will be providing proof that the resurrection is literally true. Your answers to questions will confirm the proofs you supply (or invalidate them).

Unanswered questions might prove in your mind that the resurrection wasn't true, but your unanswered questions would not objectively show it to be untrue. See the difference?

You have the opportunity to demonstrate your “proofs” to convince readers that what you say has merit and credibility.

That's why you are avoiding methodologies.

You are the one who raised concerns about methodologies. I have no suggestions on the matter at this time. Are you attempting to coerce me into taking a position that I do not occupy?

A transparent and unbiased methodology applied equally will work against you, not for you. The opinions and conclusions of ANYONE who avoids (or doesn't use/disclose) a transparent methodology for HOW they arrived at their position should be taken with a very large bag of salt. I'll give you another chance to propose a methodology. I can give one, but if I do, I don't want to be accused of stacking the deck.

You are free to propose whatever you like. I am not compelled to agree.

In an opening post, kindly quote appropriate scriptures relating to the resurrection that you maintain are true and accurate (to avoid "version" or "translation" issues).

Yes, I will. I will also ask you to do the same.

Are you asking ME to quote scriptures that YOU will defend?

Are you telling me you will not quote from the New Testament?

My references to biblical statements will be to the scriptures that you choose to attempt to defend. Any other reference will be to the King James Version. I have no intention of defending any scriptures.

As a preliminary warning, I'll be asking you to give your methodology for rejecting the Bible. I'm going to apply that methodology to other ancient works to see what happens.

WARNING???? You are warning me?

What is the intent of such a “warning”?

Or, are you asking me to quote scriptures that I will defend? If so, notice that I am NOT defending scriptures; you will be making that attempt.

To make it easy for you and avoid rabbit trails I'll treat the NT like a collection of ancient works, no different than Plutarch or Tacitus.

I do not request that you “make it easy for [me]”. Just present your arguments in an honorable, honest manner.

Your statements below illustrate EXACTLY why I emphasize verification.

You seem to imply that anything “considered true” need not be verified if challenged. By that “reasoning”, if the Flat Earth is “considered true” and is challenged (perhaps by new knowledge), the old theory need not be defended because it is “considered true”.

You are committing a categorical fallacy with your analogy (a fallacy I anticipate you'll commit many times in this debate).

You have ignored the meaning of what was said in attempting to skirt the issue and dispute an example.

Try again. Your statements illustrate that what is “considered true” need not be verified if challenged.

What IS done is to attempt to demonstrate that validation is not required – for a flurry of reasons – but validation is NOT provided.

If you have evidence that the theory that Jesus rose from the dead is false, you better bring that evidence with you to the debate.

I am accustomed to dealing with the common theistic “argument”, “Prove my claims false or accept them as true”.

By the same “reasoning” the “resurrection” is considered true by many Christians. It, therefore, need not be verified.

You keep using the word "verified" as though that actually means something important. Verified by who? By what standard? "Substantiated" by who? By what standard?

That is the heart of the debate about whether the resurrection is “true” or not. You will be attempting to convince intelligent, discerning readers that the resurrection did, in fact, really occur.

I think in the case of the Rez, as it's a matter of history, that "true" has a different meaning than "true" in other disciplines such as science.

Correction: The resurrection is proposed to be “a matter of history”. Unless it actually occurred, it is not history but legend, fable, fantasy, fiction or fraud.

Hey, that's what we are looking at. How do we know anything in ancient history happened, Zzyzx? Do we just call things fables arbitrarily? If you are going to take the position that it's all made up, you assume a burden of proof to demonstrate that to be true and provide a powerful enough explanation for the existence of the evidence. It won't be enough for you to merely declare it a myth.

I am also accustomed to dealing with the common Theistic “argument” that runs something like, “nothing else can be proved conclusively, so religious claims cannot be expected to be proved either, therefore whatever I propose must be accepted”.

You will have adequate opportunity to attempt to employ that “reasoning” if you so choose.

[Goose]

It's not quarrelling Zzyzx. It's establishing the ground rules before the debate begins. It's a standard process in debates.

I am sure that you would not attempt to mislead me Goose, so kindly cite several similar examples of “establishing the ground rules before debate begins” that have occurred in DC&R forums.

This is actually rather amusing considering YOU were the one that challenged me and then told me you would PM the suggested rules. Have you forgotten that already? This implies that clearly you understand that there is a hashing-out of the rules process before a debate. Why are you whining about this now?

Care to explain to the class?

“Explain to the class”????? Are you attempting to demean the readers of this forum by suggesting that they are the “class” and you are the “teacher”? Are you attempting to demean me with your comment?

Relax, Zzyzx. It's just an expression.

We are looking at a historical question, therefore we should use the same idea for true as historians use. History deals more with degrees of probability rather than absolute certainty.

If you wish to acknowledge that the claimed resurrection cannot be defended as being more than “probable” you are NOT defending it as a literal event.

Zzyzx is now making up the rules for historical enquiry.

Au contraire. Zzyzx is pointing out inconsistencies in your statements. You ARE attempting to equate “probable” with “literal”.

That is a strawman argument. "Literal" was never part of my argument. You introduced the "literal" and "physical" parts remember? I simply hold that the resurrection is true (you can call this probable, more than probable, very probable or whatever. I'm just calling it true for simplicity sake) - as true as any other event from ancient history we consider true and rarely, if ever, question. (If you want to debate whether the Rez was physical or spiritual, we can do that too.)

Is the topic of the debate “The resurrection probably occurred”?

I don't know, you tell me. You are the challenger.

Is Christianity based upon a resurrection that PROBABLY occurred? Does Christianity generally recognize that the resurrection is probable rather than factual?

I would say it is very probable to the point of being a historical fact, but not absolutely certain. We can't be absolutely 100% certain about history. There are no absolutely certain historical facts. Something that is historically true is a historical fact. I see those as essentially the same statement.

Why, Zzyzx? Why wouldn't an event that was deemed "probable" (as "probable" as any other event from ancient history) using a historical methodology be literal?

I do not regard “probable” and “literal” as interchangeable.

Who said they were interchangeable? You seem to think an event that is less than probable MUST be non-literal. That would be the logical fallacy known as a non-sequitur.

You will be asked to defend the claim that the resurrection is “as probable as any other event from ancient history”.

That's the point of the thread, Zzyzx. The way we will do this is by evaluating the evidence in comparison to the evidence for other ancient events. If we have as good of evidence or better for the resurrection as other events that are already considered probable or very probable we should have no reason to deny the resurrection the same status. Unless, one has a bias toward either the supernatural or Christianity.

If your true position is that the resurrection probably occurred but is not certain, kindly say so honestly we can then change the title of the debate (again).

When I say the resurrection is true, I mean that it is true in the same way that I mean Caesar crossed the Rubicon is true.

Say it out loud. “The resurrection PROBABLY occurred”. Now, say, “The resurrection DID occur”. Do you notice a difference?

No I don't because we are dealing with history.

Because we are dealing with times past (some would say history) does NOT remove the burden of proof from those who claim that an event actually occurred.

Right, and that burden of proof should be the same as the burden of proof required for other historical events from the same period. That would be fair and rational.

We are also dealing with history when discussing the American Revolution. I have no difficulty accepting that the revolution did, literally, occur because it was widely reported by independent sources worldwide over long periods of time. There are many accounts (convergence of evidence) that verify that the event DID occur. The event does not conflict with anything we know about nature, including human nature.

This is another categorical fallacy (that's two and we haven't even started the debate yet). The American Revolution is a relatively modern series of events collectively known as the American Revolution. The Resurrection is a single ancient event reportedly having taken place at a single moment in time and space. You should find a single event reported during the American Revolution to draw a more accurate parallel. Actually, you should find an event from the same period as Christ to be fair and not commit anachronisms or categorical fallacies.

History is degrees of probability. Caesar PROBABLY crossed the Rubicon, Caesar DID cross the Rubicon. Caesar crossed the Rubicon is TRUE. The evidence supports that Caesar crossed the Rubicon is more than probable, it's considered virtually undisputable. Would you agree with this?

I have little interest in whether Caesar crossed the Rubicon. It is not a matter that is used as a basis for a modern belief system.

That's a philosophical/theological answer to a historical question. Do you believe Caesar crossed the Rubicon? I'll bet you do.

However, if someone proclaimed that Caesar died and came back to life to become the icon for a new religion, I might be inclined to challenge those “resurrection” claims.

Rightly so. I would do the same. We could pass the evidence/claims through a transparent methodology. But considering there is no such claim I think you've presented a Red Herring fallacy.

I am aware that much of what we learn as “history” is a particular VIEW of events rather than a literal fact of occurrence. The history of the War Between the States, for example, is NOT known in unvarnished truth, but is viewed very differently by southerners and northerners, for example. I am comfortable saying that the war occurred because it was widely reported by independent sources. However, specifics about exactly what occurred, how things occurred, and why things occurred differ widely.

Despite those differences we can establish that there was a war, yes? We'll keep that in mind for later.

That's why you are avoiding methodologies.

You are the one who raised concerns about methodologies. I have no suggestions on the matter at this time. Are you attempting to coerce me into taking a position that I do not occupy?

Why don't you occupy it? You would expect the scientific community to reveal their methodology for arriving at the conclusion that "X" is true/untrue wouldn't you? Why should historical enquiry be any different?

A transparent and unbiased methodology applied equally will work against you, not for you. The opinions and conclusions of ANYONE who avoids (or doesn't use/disclose) a transparent methodology for HOW they arrived at their position should be taken with a very large bag of salt. I'll give you another chance to propose a methodology. I can give one, but if I do, I don't want to be accused of stacking the deck.

You are free to propose whatever you like. I am not compelled to agree.

Anyone that objects to having a transparent methodology losses credibility to pronounce the proposition in question is objectively true/false. Without a methodology it simply boils down to what we like and don't like. Not very objective.

Since you are having trouble, I'll assist you. Taken from here: Evidence for the Resurrection

The Methodology:

A "fact" shouldn't necessarily need to pass all of the listed criteria to be considered probable. Failing any one particular criterion does not necessarily make the fact false. Indeed very few, if any at all, ancient historical "facts" we rarely question would adequately pass all the requests of such a rigorous criteria as set out below. However, a fact that fails to pass a single criterion we would be justified in believing it to be improbable. Passing one or two should be sufficient to have the "fact" be at least considered probable. If a fact passes three I think we can be confident that it is very probable and so on. This methodology is not fool-proof of course as it is open to our biases and ultimately subjective to a degree. However, this seems to be the only way (I know of) to establish a reasonably objective treatment of evidence - i.e. pass the evidence through a standard set of criteria using a consistent methodology that can be applied to ALL ancient events. So, using criteria such as (but not limited to)...
1. Eyewitness attestation
2. Early attestation (the earlier the better - written during the lifetime of possible eyewitnesses is preferred)
3. Multiple independent attestation (independent does not mean non-Christian, but rather independent from other sources)
4. Enemy or neutral source attestation
5. The Principle of Embarrassment (If it's embarrassing or harmful to the case it is very likely that it is authentic or actually happened. It's very unlikely to have been propaganda simply “made up”)

This methodology can be applied to the potential facts that support a claim or to the claim itself. I prefer to apply this methodology to the potential facts that support the claim. In this way we avoid the fallacy of Begging the Question that the claim itself is true. Rather we look for the best explanation for the facts that pass the methodology. Would you agree to this? If not, why?

Your statements below illustrate EXACTLY why I emphasize verification.

You seem to imply that anything “considered true” need not be verified if challenged. By that “reasoning”, if the Flat Earth is “considered true” and is challenged (perhaps by new knowledge), the old theory need not be defended because it is “considered true”.

You are committing a categorical fallacy with your analogy (a fallacy I anticipate you'll commit many times in this debate).

You have ignored the meaning of what was said in attempting to skirt the issue and dispute an example.

Try again. Your statements illustrate that what is “considered true” need not be verified if challenged.

What IS done is to attempt to demonstrate that validation is not required – for a flurry of reasons – but validation is NOT provided.

Firstly, your "Flat Earth" analogy is open to interpretation and is not a teaching of the Bible per se. Secondly, and more importantly your analogy is a categorical fallacy. The Resurrection of Christ is reported to be an event that took place once in time and space - i.e. it is a historical question. The assertion that the world is flat or spherical is not a historical question. So to say that we would need the same type of "verification" for the Resurrection as we would for the claim that the earth is flat is clearly fallacious.

If you have evidence that the theory that Jesus rose from the dead is false, you better bring that evidence with you to the debate.

I am accustomed to dealing with the common theistic “argument”, “Prove my claims false or accept them as true”.

And I'm accustomed to the non-theistic retreat to "you can't prove a negative" and "you are the one making the claim therefore you have the burden of proof." However, rational people go with the weight of the evidence, not against it. If my side of the scale is full of evidence and yours is virtually empty, that places you in the irrational or wishful thinking camp, I'm afraid.

By the same “reasoning” the “resurrection” is considered true by many Christians. It, therefore, need not be verified.

You keep using the word "verified" as though that actually means something important. Verified by who? By what standard? "Substantiated" by who? By what standard?

That is the heart of the debate about whether the resurrection is “true” or not. You will be attempting to convince intelligent, discerning readers that the resurrection did, in fact, really occur.

Hey, you're not answering the question. Take note readers! Zzyzx has not answered the question verified by who, by what standard?. I 've asked several times now.

We will be expected to accept Zzyzx's verdict at the end of the debate. Why? Because he says so.

Hey, that's what we are looking at. How do we know anything in ancient history happened, Zzyzx? Do we just call things fables arbitrarily? If you are going to take the position that it's all made up, you assume a burden of proof to demonstrate that to be true and provide a powerful enough explanation for the existence of the evidence. It won't be enough for you to merely declare it a myth.

I am also accustomed to dealing with the common Theistic “argument” that runs something like, “nothing else can be proved conclusively, so religious claims cannot be expected to be proved either, therefore whatever I propose must be accepted”.

Huh? Where did I do this?

There's another important question you have not answered. "How do we know anything in ancient history happened, Zzyzx?" You should answer this question. It's becoming painfully obvious that you do not know how to answer this question using tools of historical enquiry, but would rather have us accept your personal subjective conclusions and world views.

Here are the two important questions Zzyzx has failed to answer. (Or doesn't know how to answer)

1. How do we know anything in ancient history happened, Zzyzx?

2. Verified by who? By what standard? "Substantiated" by who? By what standard?

Considering Zzyzx's objective to is to demonstrate that the Resurrection is not "verifiable" and not "substantiated" I think it VERY pertinent that he answer these questions.

We are making progress. I think we've agreed on your 5 rules. I think we've agreed on the question for debate "Was the Resurrection true?" We just need to establish our methodology for determining whether or not the Rez was true.

[Zzyzx]

.
Goose,

It is time to “Put-up or Shut-up”. If you do not feel qualified to debate the topic at this time, say so.

Since you exhibit a reluctance to start debate, I will make an opening statement.

In attempting to defend the “resurrection” tale as being “true” you have made a blatantly false statement.

You state,

Why wouldn't an event [referring to the resurrection] that was deemed "probable" (as "probable" as any other event from ancient history) using a historical methodology be literal?

Tales of a dead body coming back to life are NOT as probable as the building of pyramids in Egypt. Both are ancient history. Building of pyramids and accounts thereof are given high probability by the existence of pyramid structures.

Kindly demonstrate that tales of a “resurrection” are equally probable to construction of pyramids or acknowledge that your statement is false.

[Goose]

.
Goose,

It is time to “Put-up or Shut-up”.

I did "put up" in my last post, Zzyzx. I gave a methodology which you completely ignored (along with the rest of my post).

If you do not feel qualified to debate the topic at this time, say so.

What Zzyzx really means here is "I hope Goose just goes away."

Since you exhibit a reluctance to start debate, I will make an opening statement.

Patience Zzyzx. Let's get our ducks in a row first. Let's start with the methodologies and you answering some important unattended to questions.

1. How do we know anything in ancient history happened, Zzyzx?

2. Verified by who? By what standard? "Substantiated" by who? By what standard?

In attempting to defend the “resurrection” tale as being “true” you have made a blatantly false statement.

You state,

Why wouldn't an event [referring to the resurrection] that was deemed "probable" (as "probable" as any other event from ancient history) using a historical methodology be literal?

Firstly, that quote from me is out of context. You inserted the "referring to the resurrection" which was NOT what I was referring to. I was asking a general question about history in repsonse to your assertion, not making an assertion myself. A question you did not answer by the way. In response to your assertion I asked:

If you wish to acknowledge that the claimed resurrection cannot be defended as being more than “probable” you are NOT defending it as a literal event.

Zzyzx is now making up the rules for historical enquiry. Why, Zzyzx? Why wouldn't an event that was deemed "probable" (as "probable" as any other event from ancient history) using a historical methodology be literal? Care to explain to the class?

Secondly, that quote in context has nothing to do with what follows next.

Tales of a dead body coming back to life are NOT as probable as the building of pyramids in Egypt.

Why Zzyzx? What is the methodology you employ to arrive at this conclusion? Because you have no methodology you cannot tell us with any objectivity that anything from history is more or less probable than anything else. It's just your personal opinion you're offering. You arbitrarily assign "probable" to certain things and events but you can't objectively demonstrate why something from ancient history is more probable than anything else.

Both are ancient history. Building of pyramids and accounts thereof are given high probability by the existence of pyramid structures.

The existence of pyramids is evidence that some person or people built something at some point in time. The existence of pyramids themselves do not prove anything other than this. The accounts you speak of are strengthened by the existence of the pyramids. Wouldn't this work in a similar manner for Biblical accounts? I think so. Why would you trust accounts from an ancient Egyptian culture that believed in the after-life and such notions yet reject the Biblical?

Kindly demonstrate that tales of a “resurrection” are equally probable to construction of pyramids or acknowledge that your statement is false.

How would you like me to demonstrate that Zzyzx? It's your request so you tell me what you would like to see and the methodology we should use to deem one of these occurences more "probable." Don't build strawman arguments with categorical fallacies then tell me to go demonstrate your arguments false. Do your own homework.

Your comparison is categorical fallacy number three (at this rate, you'll hit double digits in no time). The construction of multiple pyramids is another series of events by many people over many, many years. The Resurrection is reported to be a single event in space and time concerning one person.

[Zzyzx]

.
Why, Mr. Goose, I do declare that it appears at though you are AFRAID to debate Mr. Zzyzx on the topic of the resurrection. Your gyrations and protestations make it ever more apparent that you prefer to jockey for position and critique style rather than to debate issues.

Regarding your emphasis on “methodology” – as repeatedly stated I do not subscribe to any particular methodology in debate but use whatever fits the circumstances. My overall guideline is honesty.

1) What is your preferred “methodology”, Sir?

You apparently prefer a specific “methodology” which you seem hesitant to identify. If you cannot debate without achieving your ideal conditions, you are invited to say so honestly and to seek a more easily intimidated opponent.

You are probably aware of my style of debate. If you are not, perusal of the “Flood Debate” in this sub-forum will provide that information. It is a straight-forward, no nonsense, no BS approach that is based upon some knowledge of science, observation of the real world I inhabit, and wide reading.

If you are not comfortable debating against my style, kindly just acknowledge that rather than continuing the gyrations. Readers probably expect real debate rather than a dance.


Regarding your claim that I misunderstood or quoted out of context something you said:

Firstly, that quote from me is out of context. You inserted the "referring to the resurrection" which was NOT what I was referring to. I was asking a general question about history in repsonse to your assertion, not making an assertion myself.

Here is the ACTUAL exchange from post #5:

We are looking at a historical question, therefore we should use the same idea for true as historians use. History deals more with degrees of probability rather than absolute certainty.

If you wish to acknowledge that the claimed resurrection cannot be defended as being more than “probable” you are NOT defending it as a literal event.

Zzyzx is now making up the rules for historical enquiry. Why, Zzyzx? Why wouldn't an event that was deemed "probable" (as "probable" as any other event from ancient history) using a historical methodology be literal? Care to explain to the class?

Now you are attempting to say that you were NOT talking about the “resurrection” in that quotation??????

I leave it to readers to decide whether you are being truthful or not.

It appears to me as though you were clearly saying that the resurrection was as verifiable as any event of ancient history and that when confronted with evidence to the contrary, you claim to have been saying something different. However, that is my opinion and readers might reach a different conclusion.

2) Do you concede that the “resurrection” is LESS verifiable than other events of ancient history such as the building of pyramids?

If so, I raise the point that since the LESS verifiable claimed event is used as THE basis of a major religion, there is reason to doubt the validity of that religion AND its claims that its namesake “arose from the dead”.

3) Do you maintain that a dead body actually, literally, physically came back to life?

If so, perhaps you are unaware of what is known, by actual studies by forensic biologists, of what happens to a body after death occurs – in moderate atmospheric conditions of temperature, pressure and humidity.

What happens to the body after death?

1. Heart stops beating and/or lungs stop breathing.

2. Body cells no longer receive supplies of blood and oxygen.

Blood drains from capillaries in the upper surfaces and collects in the blood vessels in the lower surfaces.
Upper surfaces of the body become pale and the lower surfaces become dark.

3. Cells cease aerobic respiration, and are unable to generate the energy molecules needed to maintain normal muscle biochemistry.

Calcium ions leak into muscle cells preventing muscle relaxation.
Muscles stiffen and remain stiff (rigor mortis) until they begin to decompose.

4. Cells eventually die and the body loses its capacity to fight off bacteria.

5. The cells' own enzymes and bacterial activity cause the body to decompose - muscles lose their stiffness.
Timing?

Brain cells can die if deprived of oxygen for more than three minutes. Muscle cells live on for several hours. Bone and skin cells can stay alive for several days.
It takes around 12 hours for a human body to be cool to the touch and 24 hours to cool to the core.

Rigor mortis commences after three hours and lasts until 36 hours after death.
Forensic scientists use clues such as these for estimating the time of death.

http://www.deathonline.net/decompositio ... _stops.htm

Step 1: Initial decay
Initial decay occurs from 0 to 3 days after death. Although the body appears fresh from the outside, many things are going on inside the body to contribute to the process of decomposition. The bacteria that are normally inside the intestines of a living person begin to feed on the contents of the intestine and the intestine itself. Eventually these bacteria break out into the body cavity and start to digest other organs. Since the intestine is no longer intact, the body's digestive enzymes, which were kept safely inside the intestine and stomach, leak out and spread through the body helping to break down more organs and tissues. At the same time, enzymes inside individual cells leak out and digest the cell and its connections with other cells.

Let's not forget about the insects! From the moment of death flies are attracted to the smell of the decomposing body. Without the normal defenses of a living body, these flies are able to lay their eggs around wounds and other body openings (mouth, nose, eyes. etc.). Within 24 hours most of these eggs hatch and the larvae, or maggots, move into the body to feed on the dead tissue.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/20 ... .Gb.r.html

The above discussion is the professional opinion of a microbiologist who studies the matter of decomposition of human bodies after death.

4) Do you dispute the above description of what occurs to a body after death? If so, state your case citing credible expert conclusions (not simply your opinions) that demonstrate alternatives under moderate atmospheric conditions of temperature, pressure and humidity.

If you choose to not dispute the evidence above, but to claim that it does not apply in the case of the “resurrection”, you incur the burden of demonstrating exactly why a “special case” plea is justified for your argument -- based upon evidence (not conjecture or dogma).