What Josephus wrote. "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

Now this is contained in every extant manuscript. It has not been shown to be a later addition. It has been conjectured, but not proven.

Tacitus wrote, "Therefore, to stop the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue." That does not prove the resurrection, but does strongly hints that it was widely believed (" the pernicious superstition"), and shows clearly that about thirty years after the resurrection, the Gospel had not only spread as far as Rome, but had a large number of adherents who were willing to do a horrible death rather than recant. And the question must be asked, why would they have done so if the dead body of Jesus was laying in a tomb outside of Jerusalem?

As to why I would include the NT, it is an historical document in it's own right. There is no good reason to discount it and many good reasons to accept it.

This is what Pliny said. "They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food–but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.” In singing hymns to Christ as, "to a god", they clearly believed He still lived.

It does not simply show that people "believed" something. It shows that they believed it so strongly they were willing to lose everything, including their lives, to keep that belief.

Paul said there were more than five hundred witnesses to the resurrection, most still alive at the time he wrote that. It would have been a very simple undertaking for the Jews, who hated the idea of the resurrection, to have contradicted the story from the outset simply by displaying the dead body of Jesus. Wonder why they didn't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

What Josephus wrote. "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

---

Josephus, a Jew, would not have said Christ was the Messiah. The language in the passage is too Christian. In another manuscript the words "They said" are found before "He appeared". "They said" is reportage, not agreement.

Quote:

---

Tacitus wrote, "Therefore, to stop the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue."

That does not prove the resurrection, but does strongly hints that it was widely believed (" the pernicious superstition")

---

I agree with you that it does not prove the resurrection. Your claim was that it was evidence of the resurrection. Btw, the "pernicious superstition" could mean simply Christianity, not necessarily the resurrection.

Quote:

---

As to why I would include the NT, it is an historical document in it's own right. There is no good reason to discount it and many good reasons to accept it.

---

I did not say to discount it. I said it cannot be used to prove a remarkable event like the resurrection simply by saying so. There is much history in the NT. I never denied that.

Quote:

---

This is what Pliny said. "They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food–but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.” In singing hymns to Christ as, "to a god", they clearly believed He still lived.

It does not simply show that people "believed" something. It shows that they believed it so strongly they were willing to lose everything, including their lives, to keep that belief.

---

That is true of their strong belief. It is NOT true as evidence of the resurrection.

Quote:

---

Paul said there were more than five hundred witnesses to the resurrection, most still alive at the time he wrote that. It would have been a very simple undertaking for the Jews, who hated the idea of the resurrection, to have contradicted the story from the outset simply by displaying the dead body of Jesus. Wonder why they didn't?

---

I don't know why some Jews did not contradict the story. Maybe some Jews did contradict it, but that is no longer remembered. In any case, it's hardly evidence for the resurrection.

Quote:

---

Josephus, a Jew, would not have said Christ was the Messiah. The language in the passage is too Christian. In another manuscript the words "They said" are found before "He appeared". "They said" is reportage, not agreement.

---

The surviving manuscripts disagree with you. Josephus, by the time he wrote in Rome, was a Jew more in name than by religious commitment. And "reportage" is exactly what we are looking for. It's what Luke did for much of Acts.

The rest of your comments can be answered by the concept of circumstantial evidence. I think it would be safe to say that it is, by far, the primary means of establishing history. How do we know Washington crossed the Delaware and won the Battle of Trenton? Video? Photographs? Ballistics? No, it is by circumstantial evidence that is so overwhelming that the only reasonable inference (which is what comes from circumstantial evidence) that can be drawn is that both events happened. The same is true of the Resurrection.

What kind of evidence are you looking for?

If the "pernicious superstition" referred to by Tacitus was not the resurrection, then what else could it have been?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

The surviving manuscripts disagree with you. Josephus, by the time he wrote in Rome, was a Jew more in name than by religious commitment. And "reportage" is exactly what we are looking for. It's what Luke did for much of Acts.

---

When Josephus wrote the passage in question he was a Jew. As a Jew, he never would have referred to Jesus as the Messiah. "Reportage" in this case is heresay. You cannot expect heresay to be evidence of a resurrection. For those interested, the problem is discussed at length at Testimonium Flavianum. However one looks at it, it is definitely NOT evidence of resurrection.

Quote:

---

The rest of your comments can be answered by the concept of circumstantial evidence.

---

You are helping my position. Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence, NOT direct evidence. Washington crossing the Delaware is insignificant in any scheme of history. The resurrection of a man is an incredibly miraculous event that may be unique in human history and therefore requires much, much more than circumstantial evidence.

Quote:

---

The same is true of the Resurrection.

---

By "the same is true of the Resurrection", you are referring to the proof of circumstantial evidence. As I have explained above, the required evidence for proof of a resurrection is far greater than what you offered.

Quote:

---

What kind of evidence are you looking for?

---

That is YOUR concern, not mine. You have claimed evidence for the resurrection. What you have cited as evidence is nothing more than circumstantial and lacking in proof.

Quote:

---

If the "pernicious superstition" referred to by Tacitus was not the resurrection, then what else could it have been?

---

Easy. Christianity fits perfectly.

When you claim there is evidence for the resurrection, and not being able to offer proof of such evidence, you are undermining faith in Christianity. I don't think that's your intent, but it is the effect.

The Josephus passage is suspect, and doesn't appear in some manuscripts. See Edwin Yamauchi, "Josephus and the Scriptures" in Fides et Historia 1960.

We don't need Josephus anyway. There's enough in the gospels and Acts to establish the probability that it happened.
1. He was dead.
2. Nobody expected him to rise, when he told his boys he would they didn't get it.
3. He was in a sealed, guarded tomb.
4. Days later the tomb was found empty and the guards had no explanation.
5. The disciples were in despair. They had nothing left, their leader was dead, and they were preparing to go back to their lives. They did not expect a resurrection.
6. Some time after the disappearance of the body, multiple people claimed to have had direct personal contact with the risen Jesus.
7. Saul's conversion was the unlikeliest event in the whole story, and he attributed it to a direct encounter with the risen Jesus.
8. James, Jesus' brother, didn't believe in him until after a post-resurrection appearance, whereupon he became a leader in the Jerusalem group.
9. The despairing clowns who had lost everything suddenly became the boldest proclaimers on the planet, willing to give up their lives for what they said happened. Since these were in direct contact with Jesus from the beginning, it's doubtful that liars would make martyrs. SOMETHING happened to them. Mass hallucination isn't a thing and neither is a mass hysteria where everybody sees and experiences exactly the same thing. Something objectively life-changing happened to these people. To date, there is no better explanation.
10. The efforts by the Jewish leadership to suppress the message says they knew something real happened, as well, but it threatened their power so they tried to squelch it, to the point of killing people. If the body had been moved, all they had to do was go get it, parade it through the streets of Jerusalem, and that would be the end of it. They didn't. They didn't even try, nobody asked about the body or any of the rest. They knew.

Put it all together and you have a strong historical case for a unique, one-time resurrection event.

Please note that this stuff isn't mine. I'm indebted to Dr. Gary Habermas for the material.

Quote:

---

That is YOUR concern, not mine. You have claimed evidence for the resurrection. What you have cited as evidence is nothing more than circumstantial and lacking in proof.

---

But as has been pointed out, circumstantial evidence is all that is available for most historical events. Many a criminal has been convicted on circumstantial evidence. If you reject CE, then you reject practically all of history. That's why I asked what kind of evidence would satisfy you.

Quote:

---

If the "pernicious superstition" referred to by Tacitus was not the resurrection, then what else could it have been?


Easy. Christianity fits perfectly.

---

Not really. The worship of a long dead Savior would hardly have been compelling. What "superstition" would be needed to worship a dead man?

Quote:

---

I'm indebted to Dr. Gary Habermas for the material.

---

His "minimal facts" argument is very good.

Tacitus on the Christians

"Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular."

"pernicious [mischievous] superstition" = Christianity

https://www.livius.org/sources/conte...he-christians/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

We don't need Josephus anyway. There's enough in the gospels and Acts to establish the probability that it happened.

---

That may be true but the discussion here was that there is proof of evidence that the resurrection happened. You have changed the terms to indicate "probability".

The problem with your items 1 through 8 is that they each originate in the NT, a book(s) that is the only record of the resurrection and that clearly is written for believers to begin with. Such a miraculous, unique, one-time occurrence requires more than the testimony of those who are the originators of the claim.

The fervor shown in item 9 is not all that uncommon. Humans have been known to give their lives for reasons far less than a resurrection.

Item 10 implies that the Jewish leadership was aware of the resurrection - "They knew". That can be dismissed without comment. Even if you meant something different, it is hardly proof or probability of the resurrection.

I believe that the resurrection is a matter of faith. Trying to prove it as a certainty is an exercise in futility. If probability is required to support the faith of a Christian, then believe as necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

But as has been pointed out, circumstantial evidence is all that is available for most historical events. Many a criminal has been convicted on circumstantial evidence. If you reject CE, then you reject practically all of history. That's why I asked what kind of evidence would satisfy you.

---

My answer was, and is, that circumstantial evidence is not enough for such a rare event as the resurrection from death. Comparing it to "most historical events" is a problem since it is absolutely unique in human history, not remotely like most historical events.

Quote:

---

The worship of a long dead Savior would hardly have been compelling. What "superstition" would be needed to worship a dead man?

---

We know for a fact from extra-Biblical records that the Christians were despised for many reasons. The Romans saw Christianity as a superstition, a way to demean and justify their treatment of Christians. This is all well-documented, from Nero to Constantine, the latter being the champion of the new religion.

Quote:

---

His "minimal facts" argument is very good.

---

See my reply to DW on this matter.

Quote:

---

My answer was, and is, that circumstantial evidence is not enough for such a rare event as the resurrection from death. Comparing it to "most historical events" is a problem since it is absolutely unique in human history, not remotely like most historical events.

---

The only logical answer for the evidence presented is that the resurrection took place. There is no other logical answer.

Quote:

---

We know for a fact from extra-Biblical records that the Christians were despised for many reasons. The Romans saw Christianity as a superstition, a way to demean and justify their treatment of Christians. This is all well-documented, from Nero to Constantine, the latter being the champion of the new religion.

---

Fair enough, but it remains true that a religion based on an obviously dead man would not have gotten very far. It is completely obvious that it was a resurrection based faith.

I'd still like to know what evidence you would accept?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

The only logical answer for the evidence presented is that the resurrection took place. There is no other logical answer.

---

No offense but I don't think you understand what logic is. For starters, you are assuming, without proof, that the events described are actual occurrences. That remains to be seen, regardless of what you or I may believe. Saying something is so doesn't make it so. Your premise is defective.

Quote:

---

The worship of a long dead Savior would hardly have been compelling. What "superstition" would be needed to worship a dead man?

---

I don't know what you mean by saying this again.

Quote:

---

Fair enough, but it remains true that a religion based on an obviously dead man would not have gotten very far.

---

Buddhism is based on a dead man and is a major world religion older than Christianity. The ancient Egyptians believed in gods that not only were not dead, they never even existed and that religion lasted thousands of years, longer than Christianity.

Quote:

---

It is completely obvious that it was a resurrection based faith.

---

No one here has denied that the resurrection is, and was, a basis for the faith of Christians. I don't know why you posted that.

Quote:

---

I'd still like to know what evidence you would accept?

---

I already answered that. The claim for evidence is your thing, not mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I'd still like to know what evidence you would accept?

---

Evidence means proof. Faith is not based on evidence, but on spiritual apprehension/understanding.

Quote:

---

I already answered that. The claim for evidence is your thing, not mine.

---

You just did an end-run around the question. It remains unanswered.

As to the rest, you are right that saying something is so doesn't make it so. No one has suggested that. So I'm not sure what you are after. Events of history have been put forward in abundance, events which, as all circumstantial evidence does, calls for inferring some answers, and that is where logic comes in.

I do appreciate the calm discussion.

Quote:

---

The resurrection of a man is an incredibly miraculous event that may be unique in human history and therefore requires much, much more than circumstantial evidence.

---

This is you setting forth a requirement, so I assume you have some idea of what is needed. If it requires, "much, much more than circumstantial evidence," then what would that be? Perhaps this is not you, but I'm convinced that Jesus could walk up to many people in His glory and shake hands with them, show them His scars, and they would still walk away and not believe. For them, there is no sufficient evidence.

But as I said, I’m not saying that’s you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I'm convinced that Jesus could walk up to many people in His glory and shake hands with them, show them His scars, and they would still walk away and not believe. For them, there is no sufficient evidence.

---

Read Mitch Albom's new book, The Stranger in the Lifeboat.

Quote:

---

from Athos
I already answered that. The claim for evidence is your thing, not mine.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You just did an end-run around the question. It remains unanswered.

---

YOU are the one claiming evidence, not me. I don't know why you are blaming me for something I never claimed - if that is what an end-run is.

Quote:

---

As to the rest, you are right that saying something is so doesn't make it so. No one has suggested that. So I'm not sure what you are after.

---

When you claim something to be true that cannot be proved, you are saying that your claim makes it so. Yes, you are suggesting that in this particular case.

Quote:

---

Events of history have been put forward in abundance, events which, as all circumstantial evidence does, calls for inferring some answers, and that is where logic comes in.

---

No, that is not logic. It can be persuasion, it can be opinion, it can be hoped for - but it is not logic. My best advice to you is to google "logic" and learn what constitutes logic. An inference is a conclusion based on a premise which is true. You have not proven your premise to be true. You believe it, as many do, but not proven it. I think you have admitted that.

Quote:

---

If it requires, "much, much more than circumstantial evidence," then what would that be?

---

That is up to you to discover whatever that may be, and then present it here. I think you are way over-complicating this. It's just a matter of your evidence to support your claim. Asking others for evidence for what are claiming is not how it works.

Quote:

---

Perhaps this is not you, but I'm convinced that Jesus could walk up to many people in His glory and shake hands with them, show them His scars, and they would still walk away and not believe. For them, there is no sufficient evidence.

---

Even if there are those who will not believe any evidence, that does not relieve you of presenting evidence to support your claim.

Quote:

---

When you claim something to be true that cannot be proved,

---

That would include practically all of ancient history.

You want to see, "...much, much more than circumstantial evidence," but you don't know what that would be? I find the evidence to be overwhelming, but you don't. Each to his own. I guess we'll just leave it there.

Once again, there is no agreement found. That's why I am questioning all of this. It is fruitless. But we were civil, and I do appreciate that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

That would include practically all of ancient history.

---

I have no idea why you are saying that.

Quote:

---

You want to see, "...much, much more than circumstantial evidence," but you don't know what that would be? I find the evidence to be overwhelming, but you don't. Each to his own. I guess we'll just leave it there.

---

I'm happy to leave it there. But I insist on you NOT misquoting me. I never said I "don't know what that would be". What I DID say was the job of providing evidence falls on you since you are the one who is making the claim. Misquoting your opposition is NOT a valid discussion technique.

You are free to find your position "overwhelming" but, as I have explained in detail, it is not evidence.

Quote:

---

Once again, there is no agreement found. That's why I am questioning all of this. It is fruitless.

---

Lack of agreement does not mean the discussion has been fruitless. It only means one side has not agreed with the other. It can be quite fruitful when the truth has been displayed.

Quote:

---

I have no idea why you are saying that.

---

Because practically all of ancient history is established by circumstantial evidence.

I have asked what evidence you would accept. You have stated, "As I have explained above, the required evidence for proof of a resurrection is far greater than what you offered." If that is so, then you must have some idea of what that "far greater" evidence would be. Otherwise, how would you know I had not "offered" it, and if I did offer it, how would you know it was the "far greater" evidence you require?

I did NOT misquote you. I never offered, "don't know what that would be," as a quote, so I didn't claim you had said that. It was included in a question (with no quotation marks) you have so far declined to answer other than deflecting it. So I'll simply say again that you must have some idea of what that "far greater" evidence would be. Otherwise, how would you know I had not "offered" it? Can you say what it would be? It seems unreasonable to me for a person to say the evidence offered so far does not reach some standard, but then be unwilling or unable to specify what that standard is.

Quote:

---

You are free to find your position "overwhelming" but, as I have explained in detail, it is not evidence.

---

You have agreed that it is circumstantial evidence (post 124) which, as has been established, is what most of history is built upon. So it is unquestionably evidence, a type that is the primary currency of both the detective and the historian and without which most of history would be unaccepted and most crimes would remain unsolved.

Yes, "probability" is a better word than proof, and in historical study it's what we have. You dismiss the gospels because they were written with certain things in mind, but that's a straw man. All history was written with certain things in mind. They were written within the lifetimes of those who were there and purport to be written by people who were there. Simply dismissing them because they include miraculous events isn't good history.

The fervor you describe was out of place here. We know the disciples were despairing. Most were in the process of returning to their day jobs because this whole thing was over. They weren't expecting a resurrection, they were expecting a similar fate because of being associated with Jesus.

Something transformed them. It wasn't just zeal because they didn't have any. As for dismissing 10 out of hand, sorry, can't do that. We have written records saying that they ordered the guards to lie about what happened. Under ordinary circumstances, if those guards had really let someone come steal the body, their lives would have been forfeit. So we know the Jewish leaders understood SOMETHING happened that they couldn't explain. And when the disciples started talking about what did happen, the leaders panicked. They started arresting them, jailing them, killing them, anything to suppress the message.

As as historian that tells me something important. They knew.

Your mileage may vary, but that's how we do history. Add the fact that Caesar's Gallic Wars is accepted as fairly accurate and the manuscripts we have are fairly correct, the ones we have are thousands of years after the fact and there's less than a handful of them. With the NT we have over 5000 manuscripts, parts of manuscripts, bits and pieces, some dating to less than 100 years after the events. So we have good records. The only question is what one does with them.

The historical probability is that the resurrection happened. There have been no truly valid alternatives suggested over 2000 years. There was no time for legend to develop, these men gave their lives for what they said they saw and experienced, and contrary to popular belief, liars do not make martyrs, especially when nobody related to the movement has anything to gain by someone's martyrdom. So they were telling the truth as they knew it.

It happened. Like it or not, it happened. The very rise of the Christian message and the vicious opposition to it, as well as the other evidence, say it happened.

YMMV, but I'm doing history the best I know how. I put it out there and people can do what they want with the evidence. You can lead a person to eternal life, but you can't make them drink of it.

Quote:

---

Quote Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
That would include practically all of ancient history.
I have no idea why you are saying that.

---

Because it's a fact. We know what little we do about the Sumerians, for example, because of the accident of a fire in a clay tablet library. But we have no idea how much of what we read is true and how much might be someone's Great Sumerian Novel. Ugaritic gives us the story of King KRT who went through all kinds of gyrations to win the hand of Lady HRY, how 'El helped him and all kinds of stuff. Is the story true? Were KRT and HRY real people, and the writer threw in the religious elements? Or is it an epic poem? We don't know, because all we have is the circumstantial evidence of the writings.

This is why doing ancient history is so iffy. If we write off even the vast majority of "circumstantial evidence" we're left with nothing but pretty artifacts that can tell us nothing.

Quote:

---

Yes, "probability" is a better word than proof, and in historical study it's what we have.

---

Good point. Probability is a better word. Of course there are degrees of probability. I would contend the resurrection is a high degree given the amount of evidence.

I think the writing of Caesar is a good example. He contends, for instance, that the Romans built a bridge several hundred meters across the Rhine River in only ten days starting from scratch. That would seem to be an absolutely incredible feat, and yet it is generally accepted as true.

Quote:

---

jlisenbe
Yes, "probability" is a better word than proof, and in historical study it's what we have.
Good point. Probability is a better word. Of course there are degrees of probability. I would contend the resurrection is a high degree given the amount of evidence.

I think the writing of Caesar is a good example. He contends, for instance, that the Romans built a bridge several hundred meters across the Rhine River in only ten days starting from scratch. That would seem to be an absolutely incredible feat, and yet it is generally accepted as true.

---

The double standard for other ancient works vs. the New Testament continues to fascinate me.

Is this acceptable? Don't we need to start fighting about something??? :)

Quote:

---

Is this acceptable? Don't we need to start fighting about something??? :)

---

It is terribly concerning. Just seems kind of unnatural, doesn't it? (<:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

You dismiss the gospels

---

Wow - what a bad start! I have NOT "dismissed the Gospels". I have asked for the claimed evidence that the resurrection occurred.

Quote:

---

All history was written with certain things in mind. They were written within the lifetimes of those who were there and purport to be written by people who were there. Simply dismissing them because they include miraculous events isn't good history.

---

I have NOT dismissed "all history" because "they include miraculous events". I don't know of any history that has proven miraculous events.

Quote:

---

As for dismissing 10 out of hand, sorry, can't do that. We have written records saying that they ordered the guards to lie about what happened.

---

By "written records" are you referring to the Gospel? If not, please cite the written records.

Quote:

---

Under ordinary circumstances, if those guards had really let someone come steal the body, their lives would have been forfeit.

---

True. So they lied disproving the resurrection occurred. However, as you claim, if the guards HAD seen the resurrection isn't it far more plausible they would have been completely and totally astounded at witnessing the most important and impressive miracle of all time accompanied by midday darkness and by an angel coming down from heaven. Surely, they would have been immediately converted. But no, they return to the Jewish elders and accept a bribe to deny the miraculous event.

Quote:

---

So we know the Jewish leaders understood SOMETHING happened that they couldn't explain.

---

And you are claiming this SOMETHING was the resurrection. A SOMETHING that was so unimpressive to the witnessing guards that they accepted a bribe to deny it. Not bloody likely.

Quote:

---

And when the disciples started talking about what did happen, the leaders panicked. They started arresting them, jailing them, killing them, anything to suppress the message.

---

But not because the Jewish leaders knew the resurrection occurred. Obviously, they did not believe that. If they HAD believed it, they would have run through the streets declaring the arrival of the Messiah!

Quote:

---

As as historian that tells me something important. They knew.

---

Please explain how, as an historian, they KNEW the resurrection happened and then went around killing those who, like themselves, believed it. I must admit, I've never heard anything so unconvincing on this issue. Matthew's story is dismissed by a majority of scholars.

Quote:

---

Caesar's Gallic Wars is accepted as fairly accurate and the manuscripts we have are fairly correct, the ones we have are thousands of years after the fact and there's less than a handful of them.

---

Nowhere in Caesar's Gallic Wars does Caesar claim that a man was resurrected from the dead. I should know, I spent a year translating him. The point I have been trying to make is that a man rising from the dead requires a burden of proof equal to the fantastic claim. Comparing the resurrection to other ordinary historical events is a non-sequitur.

Quote:

---

With the NT we have over 5000 manuscripts, parts of manuscripts, bits and pieces, some dating to less than 100 years after the events. So we have good records. The only question is what one does with them.

---

5000 manuscripts, parts of, bits and pieces all writing that a man rose from the dead is not proof of a man rising from the dead. I should not have to say that to an historian.

Quote:

---

The historical probability is that the resurrection happened.

---

No, that is a matter of faith. And if it's a "probability", then it's not 100% "historical". That's what I've been saying all along.

Quote:

---

There have been no truly valid alternatives suggested over 2000 years.

---

There were no truly valid alternatives suggested to explain the earth's orbit for hundreds of thousands of years.

Quote:

---

So they were telling the truth as they knew it.

---

That has never been in contention here.

Quote:

---

It happened. Like it or not, it happened.

---

Your enthusiasm is noted. Enthusiasm is not evidence.

Quote:

---

The very rise of the Christian message and the vicious opposition to it, as well as the other evidence, say it happened.

---

I'm sorry, but none of what you say is evidence. It's faith. Nothing wrong with faith. It's the core of all religion, including Christianity and the resurrection.

Quote:

---

I put it out there and people can do what they want with the evidence.

---

Repeating the word "evidence" is not evidence.

Quote:

---

You can lead a person to eternal life, but you can't make them drink of it.

---

This sounds vaguely like a threat. Please don't go that route, DW. We like you too much.

Quote:

---

We know what little we do about the Sumerians, for example, because of the accident of a fire in a clay tablet library. But we have no idea how much of what we read is true and how much might be someone's Great Sumerian Novel. Ugaritic gives us the story of King KRT who went through all kinds of gyrations to win the hand of Lady HRY, how 'El helped him and all kinds of stuff. Is the story true? Were KRT and HRY real people, and the writer threw in the religious elements? Or is it an epic poem? We don't know, because all we have is the circumstantial evidence of the writings.

---

It's an epic poem. Do you seriously think all that talk of gods and goddesses is true?

Quote:

---

If we write off even the vast majority of "circumstantial evidence" we're left with nothing but pretty artifacts that can tell us nothing.

---

Nothing could be further from the truth. Historical study has given us tremendous amounts of information about the past - especially ancient history. I admit to being shocked to read such a statement coming from the pen of a self-proclaimed historian. "If we write off even the vast majority of "circumstantial evidence" we're left with nothing but pretty artifacts that can tell us nothing." I trust you don't really believe that.

Quote:

---

Nothing could be further from the truth. Historical study has given us tremendous amounts of information about the past - especially ancient history. I admit to being shocked to read such a statement coming from the pen of a self-proclaimed historian. "If we write off even the vast majority of "circumstantial evidence" we're left with nothing but pretty artifacts that can tell us nothing." I trust you don't really believe that.

---

Can you give some examples of ancient history largely based on direct evidence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

The double standard for other ancient works vs. the New Testament continues to fascinate me.

---

I'm always surprised when the New Testament is compared to other ancient works by saying the NT is not given the credence of those other works - a double standard.

The answer for that is simplicity itself. The other ancient works do not make a claim similar to the NT that God himself came to earth in the person of a human being, performed miracles, rose from the dead, and ascended bodily into heaven.

Because it is believed as true that Caesar conquered Gaul based on ancient writings, the NT must therefore be also true since it too is based on ancient writings. Must I point out that the one doesn't prove the other?

If it were true that the resurrection was provable, what need for faith?

You still have not outlined what evidence would be needed to satisfy you.

Faith is not based upon blind acceptance. Faith is very much evidence based. Hence Paul went about telling people that the resurrected Christ had been seen by more than five hundred people.

When did the disciples believe, before they saw the resurrected Christ, or afterwards?

Quote:

---

Can you give some examples of ancient history largely based on direct evidence?

---

Does your non-answer mean "no"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You still have not outlined what evidence would be needed to satisfy you.

---

More than once now, I have told you that the responsibility for providing evidence lies with you since you are the one making the claim.

Quote:

---

Faith is not based upon blind acceptance. Faith is very much evidence based.

---

Faith is the assent to an idea for which complete evidence is lacking. Christianity requires a strong faith. That is not in dispute.

Quote:

---

Hence Paul went about telling people that the resurrected Christ had been seen by more than five hundred people.

---

This is as poor an example as is possible. It is hearsay. In any case, how many of those 500 believed Paul? How many did not? (Rhetorical - neither you nor I know the answer).

Quote:

---

When did the disciples believe, before they saw the resurrected Christ, or afterwards?

---

How could anyone possibly know when the Apostles believed what they did?

Quote:

---

Can you give some examples of ancient history largely based on direct evidence?

---

Quote:

---

Does your non-answer mean "no"?

---

No.

Quote:

---

More than once now, I have told you that the responsibility for providing evidence lies with you since you are the one making the claim.

---

And more than once I have replied that claiming evidence does not meet some standard without being able to define that standard just doesn't make sense. If you don't know what the standard is, then how could you possibly know it has not been met?

Quote:

---

This is as poor an example as is possible. It is hearsay. In any case, how many of those 500 believed Paul? How many did not? (Rhetorical - neither you nor I know the answer).

---

The testimonies of Paul, John, and Matthew are direct eye-witness testimony. As to the 500, the point Paul was making was that most of those 500 were still living and could have been asked about it by any skeptic who chose to. It would be an incredibly foolish strategy if those hundreds were not still living and willing to testify. Imagine sending a group to interview those individuals and the group coming back reporting, "They all said it was nonsense. They never saw a resurrected Christ and Paul is an abject liar if he says otherwise."

Quote:

---

How could anyone possibly know when the Apostles believed what they did?

---

By reading the several accounts in the Gospels. There is, for instance, John 20:19ff.

Quote:

---

Does your non-answer mean "no"?


No.

---

Sure looks that way. Frankly, this seems to be a problem here. There is an unknown and undefined standard which is nonetheless alleged to be unmet. There is history well established by a preponderance of hard evidence...somewhere...we guess. At some point you have to be willing to deliver the goods.

Now I'll take a stab at the historical question. There certainly is a great deal of archaeological evidence and it is valuable. It ranges from the Great Pyramids to the ruins of long abandoned cities, but the written historical accounts of individuals such as Luke, Herodotus and Josephus provide far more information. For instance, practically nothing would known of the major military conflicts of ancient times without the written accounts which describe them. And in case you question including Luke in that list, bear in mind that no less an authority than Sir William Ramsay, who was initially an avowed skeptic and unbeliever, said of Luke, "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense...in short, this author should be placed along with the greatest of historians."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

And more than once I have replied

---

Solid evidence that you have not understood what I said.

Quote:

---

claiming evidence does not meet some standard without being able to define that standard just doesn't make sense. If you don't know what the standard is, then how could you possibly know it has not been met?

---

The evidence required is at least as fantastic as what is being claimed - i.e., God in human form rising from the dead and ascending into heaven! Such a standard for evidence makes eminent good sense. THAT'S the standard you need to meet. Satisfied?

Quote:

---

The testimonies of Paul, John, and Matthew are direct eye-witness testimony.

---

They are from the same source (NT) that is the source for the claim of the resurrection (NT). Also - In a courtroom (not a perfect analogy, but it may help you understand), it would be like a witness testifying to the truth of an event by giving his word. More proof than that is required.

Quote:

---

As to the 500, the point Paul was making was that most of those 500 were still living and could have been asked about it by any skeptic who chose to............................etc., etc., etc...............................................roup to interview those individuals and the group coming back reporting, "They all said it was nonsense. They never saw a resurrected Christ and Paul is an abject liar if he says otherwise."

---

There is no need to state your personal beliefs on a different issue. We can do Paul some other time. The issue here is evidence for the resurrection.

Quote:

---

By reading the several accounts in the Gospels. There is, for instance, John 20:19ff.

---

Proving the Bible by citing the Bible is a no-no.

Quote:

---

Sure looks that way. Frankly, this seems to be a problem here. There is an unknown and undefined standard which is nonetheless alleged to be unmet. There is history well established by a preponderance of hard evidence...somewhere...we guess. At some point you have to be willing to deliver the goods.

---

You may try to your heart's content to turn it around. The fact remains, and always will remain, the evidence is UP TO YOU, not others. Another court room analogy - the delivery of evidence is always and only up to the prosecution (you).

Quote:

---

Now I'll take a stab at the historical question. There certainly is a great deal of archaeological evidence and it is valuable. It ranges from the Great Pyramids to the ruins o......................................etc., etc., etc. ......................................stance, practically nothing would known of the major military conf question including Luke in that list, bear in mind that no less an authority than Sir William Ra.........................etc., etc., etc..............................................re his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense...in short, this author should be placed along with the greatest of historians."

---

You're going far afield. What is your point? Does any of this prove the resurrection?

Quote:

---

I'm always surprised when the New Testament is compared to other ancient works by saying the NT is not given the credence of those other works - a double standard.

---

I gave several other examples of ancient literature that claim miraculous events, you didn't comment on them, only on Caesar.

Quote:

---

The answer for that is simplicity itself. The other ancient works do not make a claim similar to the NT that God himself came to earth in the person of a human being, performed miracles, rose from the dead, and ascended bodily into heaven.

---

Except I showed you others that make miraculous claims and you haven't mentioned them.

Quote:

---

Because it is believed as true that Caesar conquered Gaul based on ancient writings, the NT must therefore be also true since it too is based on ancient writings. Must I point out that the one doesn't prove the other?

---

I never said it did. Please don't put words in my fingers. I gave them as similar examples of how the double standard works.
See, the vast majority of the New Testament isn't about the miraculous stuff. It's about the new movement trying to find itself and figure out where its footing was. That makes it immensely valuable for history.

And just as a side note, you poo-poohed the first eight of my bits of evidence because they're only found in the New Testament, but I have to point out that you're setting up a much higher bar than even the most critical of New Testament scholars. I don't know of any who dispute any of those facts, even though they only come from one source. They are the ones who set the bar, and they're okay with the material.

Quote:

---

If it were true that the resurrection was provable, what need for faith?

---

Thanks for bringing this up, because "faith" that isn't based on something solid isn't faith at all. The writings themselves say it: we haven't followed carefully crafted fables. We are following what people's eyes saw, ears heard, and hands touched. It's eyewitness testimony. THAT is what faith is. Too many people have tried to define it the Mark Twain way, and it's wrong. Genuine faith has a foundation. And we have a mighty good one.

Oh yes, one more thing:

Quote:

---

how many of those 500 believed Paul? How many did not?

---

I'm afraid you read that sdrawkcab. Paul didn't tell them, they told Paul. They didn't need Paul's testimony, they had their own and shared it with him.

Quote:

---

The evidence required is at least as fantastic as what is being claimed - i.e., God in human form rising from the dead and ascending into heaven! Such a standard for evidence makes eminent good sense. THAT'S the standard you need to meet. Satisfied?

---

Of course not. That is not a standard. It's simply a vague, thoroughly imprecise "moving target" that one imagines will never be met. Perhaps you can give us an example of what would satisfy you.

Quote:

---

They are from the same source (NT) that is the source for the claim of the resurrection (NT). Also - In a courtroom (not a perfect analogy, but it may help you understand), it would be like a witness testifying to the truth of an event by giving his word. More proof than that is required.

---

Not even close to being correct. You have asked for direct evidence. Eye-witness testimony, in the actual words of the eye witness, is direct evidence. So in a courtroom, a witness testifying to the truth of an event he actually witnessed is an EYE WITNESS. Do you understand now? You complain about circumstantial evidence, and then you complain about direct evidence. Rather hard to please, aren't we?

Quote:

---

Proving the Bible by citing the Bible is a no-no.

---

Nope. You asked how anyone could know when the disciples began to believe in the resurrection. That is a NT story, so quite naturally the answer is to be found...in the NT! Where would you think it would be found?

Quote:

---

You're going far afield. What is your point? Does any of this prove the resurrection?

---

The topic was the value of circumstantial evidence to the study of history. You had said that DW's statement about the value of CE was off base. I asked if you knew of ancient history based largely upon direct evidence. You had avoided the question, so I answered it for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

I gave several other examples of ancient literature that claim miraculous events, you didn't comment on them, only on Caesar.
Except I showed you others that make miraculous claims and you haven't mentioned them.

---

I sincerely apologize. I will go look for them now - or you could give me your post #s where they can be found, just so I don't miss them again.

Quote:

---

I never said it did. Please don't put words in my fingers.

---

That Caesar reference was directed at Jl who made it. I thought that was obvious. Again, I'll be careful going forward.

Quote:

---

See, the vast majority of the New Testament isn't about the miraculous stuff. It's about the new movement trying to find itself and figure out where its footing was. That makes it immensely valuable for history.

---

I have never doubted the immense historical value of the NT. Words-in-mouth this time?

Quote:

---

And just as a side note, you poo-poohed the first eight of my bits of evidence because they're only found in the New Testament,

---

I "poo-poohed" nothing. I gave a reasoned analysis re the difficulty of proving the NT events by citing the NT.

Quote:

---

I have to point out that you're setting up a much higher bar than even the most critical of New Testament scholars.

---

That is true. The issue of NT scholars can be a tricky one.

Can you deny that just about every one over the years has come with a built-in prejudice of believing the NT? At least most of it. Much valuable criticism of the NT has come from non-biblical historians. I agree the problem there might be the opposite - a built-in anti-Bible prejudice.

That is why the arguments pro and con must be examined as closely as possible and using modern-day tools (like your own study of ancient Greek).

Quote:

---

I don't know of any who dispute any of those facts, even though they only come from one source. They are the ones who set the bar, and they're okay with the material.

---

They are easy to find. Google the topic and you will find them.

Quote:

---

Thanks for bringing this up, because "faith" that isn't based on something solid isn't faith at all.

---

I never said it was (based on nothing).

Quote:

---

The writings themselves say it: we haven't followed carefully crafted fables. We are following what people's eyes saw, ears heard, and hands touched. It's eyewitness testimony.

---

Actually, it's hearsay - third party sourced. It is testimony written down in a book that took centuries to arrive in its present condition. However, let's not get far off the track - the issue here is evidence for the resurrection.

Quote:

---

Oh yes, one more thing: I'm afraid you read that sdrawkcab. Paul didn't tell them, they told Paul. They didn't need Paul's testimony, they had their own and shared it with him.

---

A minor point. But it provides you with your ounce of flesh.

Quote:

---

Because it is believed as true that Caesar conquered Gaul based on ancient writings, the NT must therefore be also true since it too is based on ancient writings. Must I point out that the one doesn't prove the other?

---

That was not my point. The issue was probability vs. proof. Caesar's writings were just an example of that distinction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

I gave several other examples of ancient literature that claim miraculous events, you didn't comment on them, only on Caesar. Except I showed you others that make miraculous claims and you haven't mentioned them.

---

As promised, I went back and looked at each of your posts and not a single one had "other examples of ancient literature that claim miraculous events". As far as Caesar, I can't find you claiming miraculous events by him.

Homer and Virgil certainly wrote about miraculous events, but I assume you meant miraculous events like the resurrection that are still claimed to be true, not fiction.

I hope this was just an oversight on your part, and not something devious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

That is not a standard. It's simply a ....... "moving target" that one imagines will never be met. Perhaps you can give us an example of what would satisfy you.

---

Good for you. That's it - precisely. It will "never be met". There is no example that will prove the resurrection. That's the point!

Quote:

---

Eye-witness testimony, in the actual words of the eye witness, is direct evidence. ....... Do you understand now?

---

A book written centuries ago is NOT an eye-witness. It is hearsay. Do you understand now? Finally?

Quote:

---

You asked how anyone could know when the disciples began to believe in the resurrection. That is a NT story, so quite naturally the answer is to be found...in the NT! The topic was the value of circumstantial evidence to the study of history. You had said that DW's statement about the value of CE was off base. I asked if you knew of ancient history based largely upon direct evidence. You had avoided the question, so I answered it for you.

---

Your deflection is noted. Now how about getting back to the resurrection?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

A book written centuries ago is NOT an eye-witness. It is hearsay.

---

Let's say Atticus was an eyewitness centuries ago. He wrote a book about his experience. Anyone who reads that book is not an eyewitness. That person's report about it is hearsay.

A book written by an eyewitness is eye witness testimony. It is certainly not hearsay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

A book written by an eyewitness is eye witness testimony. It is certainly not hearsay.

---

Exactly! If you are saying I'm wrong, please reread what I posted.

You do realize you are in disagreement with Athos? That's a first!!