Whoops, how did that get in there?

And I'm sure you just forgot that the "so many" isn't only from the Gospels, is it?

Oh, and notice, Gospels is plural.

The problem here is that if Jesus rose from the dead and they saw the risen Christ, they did not "believe", they knew. There is a big difference between the two.

The problem is that if Billy was abducted by aliens and Bob saw the returned Billy, Bob did not "believe", he knew. There is a big difference between the two.

If the apostles' accounts are acceptable method for historical veracity for events of this magnitude...actually...forget this whole tangent.

There is no way anybody on this forum accepts' the method of the biblical story of Jesus as sound enough to make claims as to what happened in history on a general basis. That makes this discussion a complete joke; its only value would be as basis for a case study on observer bias.

The list of absolute absurdities one would have to believe if one actually DID approach this fairly and said "I accept all historical claims as long as they are as solid as biblical claims" is next to unfathomable.

Does Paul say he himself saw the resurrected Chris or that he heard people say that they saw him? Thanks.

From Acts 9

Not really.

The starting place for knowledge is entirely different. You're beginning with a public figure that was known and recognized by large numbers of people, and he is killed publicly, and THEN you have a bunch of people reporting seeing him.

so?

edit: it is written that large numbers of people recognized him. as well as his public killing. just because somebody wrote it down, doesn't mean its true.

Is this true? Do you have a bunch of people reporting seeing him, or do you have a few publicists claiming a bunch of people reported seeing him? Are there sources other than the Gospels for many reporting on the resurrection?

Are you questioning the historicity of Jesus?

You've missed the point. The point is that the starting place for knowledge is not the same as UFOs and the Loch Ness monster. At this point, I'm neither arguing for nor against the resurrection part.

no, though it certainly is questionable. its not as certain as say...Caesar Augustus' existence.

i still think the analogy is apt, and if you dont find it apt, then switch UFO's with Elvis.

I'm simply questioning whether there are independent sources, other than the Gospels, which verify that many people reported the resurrection. The Gospels cannot be taken as serious history, as they were not intended as such.

Which "verify"? I'm not sure what standard of verification you're looking for.

But to clarify again, I'm not talking about the resurrection, but rather the distinct difference between claims about the Loch Ness Monster (which has always been shrouded in mystery) and claims about Jesus (a public figure).

What makes it historical records "serious"?

Interesting claim. Care to bear the burden of proof for this claim?

If people today claim that they saw Elvis, nobody takes them seriously, right? Do you think it was so much different back then? If so, why?

sigh. only theists muster the will power to argue the inarguable. count the number of independent sources mentioning each...its not even close. caesar wins by 100:1. and this thread isnt about the historicity of jesus, so lets just drop it.

0 for 2,714.

one day an analogy is going to work on RGT, i cant wait for that day.

you do realize that, at some point, all analogies break down. few people take claims of Elvis being alive as serious. i guess thats where the analogy breaks down.

then again, how many people took christianity seriously for the first 100 years. i dunno. dont really care either.

i look forward to what insignificant part of this post you choose to address rather than the fact that no amount of personal eye witness testimony is enough to verify that someone was resurrected.

10,000 people could come forward tomorrow with a personal eye witness account of some guy being resurrected. each and everyone saw it, and each and everyone has written an account of what they saw. and this still is fairly crappy evidence.

Well, you have a piece of cloth and a few records written some centuries after his supposed death of Jesus by very obscure sources.

On Caesar you have Sallust, Suetonius, Plutarch, Appian, Cicero, Dio Cassius, Livy, Lucan, Valerius Maximus, Vitruvius, Catullus...several of which are regarded as the most solid and verified historians/writers in classic history. Let's not forget too mention that Caesar is mentioned in the histories of Cleopatra, Mark Anthony, Octavian, Cicero and Cato, and is indeed the binding link in almost all historical accounts of classical times in the times of his reign.

You also have the very nice little fact that names, buildings and ruins through Central Europe fit Caesars own writings perfectly, and let's be honest...depiction of Caesar...unlike depictions of Jesus, has an uncanny resemblance with eachother. Also, we shouldn't forget that supernatural miracles don't play a very high profile in the writings regarding Julius Caesar which certainly lends them far more credibility.

About the only way you can claim they have an equal amount of proof is by disputing that historical sources are reliable at all, and all you end up with then is saying that there is no evidence of the existence of either. This would be fine, except it's not true that you believe this.

fwiw, there are many many cases of highly anomalous activity caught on radar. Even a case where a UFO landed outside a military base in the UK and left imprints which were radio active (documented in goverment reports)

Consider the argument dropped for this thread, but you should seriously take a close look at the historical scholarship. Given what you have stated, I find it highly unlikely that you've done much investigation into this particular claim (and finding Jesus myth supporters on the internet does not actually count as research). Essentially no reputable historians doubt the historicity of Jesus.

Did I ever claim that eye witness testimony is enough to "verify" the resurrection?

I should have bolded the claim instead of just copying both sentences (since there were actually two claims being made):

It really isn't questionable in the mind of reputable historians.

With respect to Caesar, I'm not sure that knowing "more" means knowing "more certainly" that he exists. But this is a debate that we're probably going to disagree on how one should measure "certainty of existence." I follow a line of reasoning closer to academic historians, in which a name on a receipt of a shipment (or a ship log or a single journal entry) is sufficient to verify that a person exists. Have two journal entries does not make someone twice as likely to have existed.

i dont think you know what the word doubt means

Does anyone know of or have any info regarding the letters from Pontius Pilate?

I just came across these but have not been able to dig up much info.

Thanks!

It is a novel written in letter form by W.P. Crozier

Thanks Melchy,
I'll check it out.

Those 4 things that Ehrman admits to are all plausible. Someone rising from the dead is not plausible. And this is the biggest mistake people make when accepting miraculous claims...

If you claim a fish was seen in a body of water not normally known to have fish, that can be tolerated at least until you finish providing the rest your case.

But if you claim that a fish was seen driving a bus down I-5 in rush hour, you're going to need more than eye witnesses. Even if a 1 million people claimed to have witnessed this event, it should not enough for the other 4 billion people on this planet to believe it.

It gets back to: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The likelihood of someone coming back from the dead, or a fish driving a bus, are so remote that it is much more probable that the eyewitnesses (however many) are mistaken than that the event actually occurred.

So for your fish-bus scenario, can you give an amount of evidence that is "extraordinary" enough for it to be supported? You're saying that 1 million eye witnesses is not enough. So what else would you need?

Now let's turn it around. Suppose you were among the 1 million people who was an eye witness to the event. Would being an eye witness to the event be sufficient for you to believe that it happened? Or would you still be looking for "extraordinary evidence"?

Well, I'm not a trained scientist, but first I think you'd need to test for any other means the bus could have been driven while appearing as though it were a fish. Once all other possibilities have been falsified the fish scenario would become more and more likely. Again, I'm not a scientist. But it starts with evidence! The more evidence to show either a). The fish actually drove the bus, or b). There was no other possibility, the more plausible the claim becomes.

Ah.. This is a very good question and one that requires a great deal of intellectual honesty on my part. Of course, had I been a first hand witness to the event, I might desperately want to believe it. However, I would sincerely hope that I would refrain from believing my own eyes in the face of overwhelming odds and until more evidence came in.

The human mind (and eye) is extremely susceptible to delusion and optical illusion. See this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4

So to answer your question. No. I wouldn't believe my own eyes. I'd think I was being tricked or that there was another explanation before I believe that I saw a fish driving a bus (or a man rise from the dead). I would only start believing it after scientists and experts could say that it was more likely than not.