What was the argument you are speaking of? As has been made clear by my posts I am unaware of what argument you are talkign about. Perhaps it would be made clear if you restated it.

Then provide links to these items outside of the bible. I would like to read them. That is what I have been arguing and you have not provided any links to the texts. Nor have you provided any links for the other sources outside of the bible.

BumFluff122

1. The 12 Apostles claimed to have seen Jesus risen from the dead.

2. 11 of them suffered martydom for their faith because they didn't recant. The other died of old age.

3. People do not die for something they know to be a lie.

4. Therefore, Jesus rose from the dead.

*Notice an important nuance in the argument. They didn't merely claim to believe he rose from the dead, but that they had seen him risen from the dead. Please don't make comparisons to people today who die for their religion who have no firsthand knowledge of its truthfulness.

**If you're going to claim they hallunicated in seeing him, you better be ready to explain how that was possible considering the circumstances.

I already gave you a source for point 1. As for point 2, right now I can give you sources for 3 of them. Peter and Paul's martyrdoms are talked about in a 1st century letter by Clement of Rome. James' is mentioned Josephus' Antiquities. Furthermore, for general evidence in favor of early Christians willingness to die for their faith (early would include people who claimed to have seen Jesus), you can see this remarked on by non-Christian Roman historians like Tacitus and Suetonius, along with Roman governor Pliny the Younger in their histories, who tell us that early Christians were persecuted and killed.

I see this is a lose - lose situation with you.

The bible is coherent: Look at the glory of the bible

The bible is inconsistent: Check it out, the accounts are so different that it's hard to believe that it's the same story. This is obviously proof of it's validity.

Josephus credibility as a historian is questionable.

_Tobli_

Sorry, but I'm not arguing for inerrancy here. Nothing you have said deals with my proposition about historicity. Neither did I say the 4 gospels were "so different that it's hard to believe that it's the same story." More like I was sayign they're different enough to count as evidence against it being made up in a conspiracy. Care to show why Josephus' credibility is questionable?

No, this has been happening. I've been this way for months. I just don't believe any more.

Ikouze

Why are asking this question? Are you still wanting to and hoping there is an answer?

Yeah, but they are fairly inconsistent. Which was mentioned in the video series i provided.

_Tobli_

As I have said, errors in a document don't automatically disprove the historicity of events recounted in that document. Inconsistencies would be evidence against a conspiracy by the first Christians, if anything.

You don't understand. What I am stating is that the ONLY evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is that of the bible.BumFluff122

Ok. I obviously disagree. You could prove your statement by refuting my argument.

The bible is also the holy text that you are gettign these occurrences from.BumFluff122

As I have said, only one of the martyrdoms of the Apostles is recorded in the Bible. The rest are not. And that one is even corraboted in a non-Christian source (Josephus, a first century Jewish historian).

Therefor you are using the bible to validate the bible. I have never heard a non-christian scholar claim that Jesus rose from the dead. I said 'outside religious texts'.

BumFluff122

You obviously didn't read my last post. I said it is the scholarly consensus that the first Christians claimed to have seen the risen Jesus (my point 1), NOT that it is the scholarly consensus that Jesus rose from the dead.

Genesis easily allows for God having "made" other humans for their children to mate with.

As has been mentioned before many believers die for their faith. That doesn't mean their faith is true. BumFluff122

And I have repeated ad infinitum, you all are not making a crucial distinction that makes your responses irrelevant. I still await a response that deals with this crucial difference.

As for point 1... are you referring to where I stated "God killed more people in the bible than Satan did?" I've already discussed that I stated that merely in a humourous context.BumFluff122

I was referring to point 1 of my argument.

But not because I believe in God or am doing it for my own personal salvation. I'd do it to brign hapiness to other people/ And many atheists feel and do the same things.BumFluff122

Are you saying this is why Christians do this, and they don't care about the happiness of the others they're helping? Some Christians do know atheists do charity work.

You are talking about the truthfulness of the bible. Everything that you are stating that happened as fact comes from the bible. Jesus' resurrection is merely one of those points.BumFluff122

Once again, you show your inability to comprehend my argument. Did you not read that point 4 was about the resurrection, not the truthfulness of the Bible. Anyway, as for point 1, it is uncontested by Christian and non-Christian scholars that the apostles claimed to have seen the risen Jesus [Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 231].

You are basically stating that His resurrection is factual because the bible says so. And evidence for that comes from, again, the bible.BumFluff122

Nope, I'm stating it is because of a sound argument for it.

You need to provide some sources outside the bible and any religious text that state that the author witnessed the resurrection or saw Jesus after his death.BumFluff122

If you need a religious text to show you the authors of the 3 of the gospels had seen Jesus after he rose, then just read the end of any of them. They quite plainly say that Peter, John, and Matthew saw Jesus.

Well in a world without God, people don't kill each other because there is no punishment, they don't do it because it is wrong. Shhadow_Viper

Sorry, under Christian morality, you don't kill people because it is wrong, not because of fear of punishment. Although, you have said nothing to make me think fear of punishment is a bad motivator for keeping people from doing bad things. Also, in a world without God, nothing is objectively right or wrong.

I'm pretty sure a murdering rapist on death row is gonna be pretty serious about sincerely repenting as they are grasping at the last possible chance to evade further punusihment.Shhadow_Viper

Well I'm not. They were obviously sincere in their murders and rapes, so I have evidence to believe that if they're not even trying to repent until the moment of death, then they aren't sincere about their repentance.

I do not hide behind a Cross to show others I am a good person my actions do that for me. Shhadow_Viper

So are you saying Christians believe they're good people just because they're Christians?

Why would a caring and wonderful God put people in situations where they have no choice but to suffer and die? How can you even defend that?starfox15

Allowing humanity to go through a period of time where there will be suffering enables for a greater good to be had for them than if there had been no suffering in the first place. God, being love, wants the greatest good for humanity by his very nature, so he has to allow evil and suffering to exist for a time.

In America, where everything we have is taken care of and reasonably easy, its simple to believe in a God that cares. Take that mentality elsewhere and you can punch holes through everything they say.starfox15

The problem with your idea is that Christianity is growing in the Global South where there is more suffering.

Link that you should check out.

_Tobli_

That is quite long. It would be more beneficial if you could argue his case here.

Again, you are using the 'factual evidence' in the bible to prove the truthfullness of the bible. Where are the non religious sources outside the bible that you would consider 'factual evidence'. The reason why the existence of Jesus is specifically due to evidence outside any religious texts. Where is the evidence outside any religious texts for his resurrection that do not quote or is not about religion.

BumFluff122

I'm not talking about the truthfulness of the Bible here, but Jesus' resurrection. This argument hinges on the Apostles dying for their faith, and the evidence for that comes from non-biblical sources, which I will be providing when I get the time to get the list together. As for my defense of point 1, you haven't even interacted with it. Here's a hint, deal with my arguments for each point, not the argument as a whole. You're coming across as misunderstanding it. Also, why did you need to know my personal beliefs?

I don't see the difference. The apostles truly believed that whatever they saw was what they claimed it was, so much so that they died for it. Muslims truly believed that whatever they had been told was completely true, so much so that they died for it.

Both groups were absolutely, 100% convinced to what they believed to be true. That doesn't mean that either belief is true.

GabuEx

If you can't tell the difference between seeing something and hearing about something, then there's not much I can do for you. Observation in their case would have been a reliable source of information. Hearing about something doesn't always mean it's reliable.