[Colin2B]

Is anyone going to present credible evidence that God exists or have we decided there isn't any?

I doubt it.
When these threads began I had hopes that someone might come up with a credible way of showing whether God, or any god exists. Instead we have been given lists of people who believe and what they believe; but I never doubted that people believe in his existence, huge numbers of books and websites are proof of that belief.

We have also been treated to some false reasoning.

[Bored chemist]

When I present information to the contrary,

You did not present information.
You made a statement to the effect that the Apostle's belief  in resurrection was  better proved than anything else from the period.
I pointed out that practically every museum in the country has a Roman coin or two with Nero's face on it.
So that's a better candidate for "best proved".

So, for you to hold that view- in spite of the obvious fact that it's not true is evidence of a lack of clear thinking.
That's not  an insult, it's an observation.

[Bored chemist]

I believe, especially when a moderator who removes my comments joins in the insults. 

What insults?

[Bored chemist]

Quote from: duffyd on 07/04/2020 13:18:08
Metzger is considered the greatest textual critic of the 20th century

By whom
Quote from: duffyd on 07/04/2020 13:18:08
confirmed piece of ancient history is that the apostles were certain Christ rose from the dead.

That seems unlikely.
Is it, for example, as well confirmed as the fact that Nero was an emperor?

To tick that box it would need to be stamped onto all the coins of the era.

Is the Apostles' opinion really that well confirmed?

Even if it was; so what?
The question isn't about their belief, but about the fact.
And even if (this is now piling three levels of "what if" on top of eachother) he lived on after the crucifixion, couldn't it just be that the Romans botched an execution?

But seriously, did you actually believe the bit about " the most confirmed piece of ancient history "? Because if you did, it just shows a lack of clear thinking. Bored

Please learn to use the quote function properly

[duffyd (OP)]

Appeal! I asked for clarification.

And, what is wrong with appeals that someone would be censored for them? Where do the rules state that someone making appeals deserves censorship?

Where in the rules am I forbidden to discuss and/or have a "specific spirituality"?

I am not a part of any group. I am not discussing my "pet theory" either. Doesn't evangelize as referred to in the rules refer to something trivial? To be fair, I think there is more "evangelizing" if you like that word, on the despicable nature of those who hold to a religion and to the claims they construe about a religion, than the support any "religion" receives, but again, to be clear, I'm discussing my spirituality and why I believe it is legitimate.

"We are not here to argue the toss with you, (*I have not sought your input.) nor do we have to give definitive answers.
You asked for clarification and that has been given. The ‘rules’ are sufficiently broad to give us the leeway to decide what is or is not acceptable usage."

 I did not ask you to comment let alone argue. I presented this to everyone seeking the input of anyone who can advise me so that I don't make comments that I am not allowed to make.

"Just a couple of comments for further clarification then that’s it."

I am still unclear. Thanks for your effort. Don't feel pressured to continue to present your views. I am not seeking nor anticipating clarification from you and do not seek anything from you. 

"You say “Doesn't evangelize as referred to in the rules refer to something trivial?”. No, for the person who believes in a flat earth, they are just as passionate and committed to their ideas as you are. They just cannot provide credible evidence."

I have tried to present evidence for my position. In return I'm a target and the rules are repeatedly violated along the way

The rule says we are not to evangelize our petty theory. "Petty", "trivial", "inconsequential" along those lines is the way I interpret petty. I wanted/want to know if our "theory" or opinion is not petty, if it is something substantial, that we've researched, that we have examined and have decided that it is viable (not petty), are we "evangelizing" if we discuss it vs a trivial subject that is evangelized?

"You say “I am not a part of any group. ........ I'm discussing my spirituality and why I believe it is legitimate”. But you have identified yourself as part of a group (set) that believes in a particular god and a son of god called Jesus."

"The problem when discussing religions is that it is very easy for the enthusiast to cross the line into evangelising.  You may not like the term, but that’s what it is." c

Others identified me as such and have not ceased to insult me ever since then.
That's why I am asking, "when am I crossing the line?" I don't want to violate the rules.

 "No one is questioning the truth of your spirituality or of your belief, but proof of belief is not proof of the existence of that which is believed in." c

I disagree. The truth or the validity of what I think is a target by more than a few. In trying to back up why I think as I do, I face being banned and have had my comments removed. One person said Christ didn't die during his crucifixion. It was faked and his buddies played along because they wanted to increase their power to mistreat and murder people.

No matter what I would say in response, I'd be mocked further and criticized for refusing to abide by the rules,  unwilling to debate or told I'm evangelizing.

The Nicean Council did not write the New Testament. I made that statement and others just like it and in reply I got nonsense. And, then I'm condemned for not really wanting to debate in good faith by more than a few.

My comments are mocked, demeaned, degraded, twisted, and used as bait by more than a few. Calling me a liar, then expecting me to respond to comments like, "God didn't part the water. It was a troll named Gretchen" (I'm paraphrasing) and being attacked for not engaging in debate over that comment. I believe that falls outside the bounds of the letter and the spirit of the rules. 

Please don't misinterpret my response. I do not direct my thoughts to anyone in particular. I am trying to present issues that I think N.S. should address as a whole.

If someone questions the accuracy of my position regarding my interaction with others, visit CHAT and the recently posted topics related to God

[duffyd (OP)]

But seriously, did you actually believe the bit about " the most confirmed piece of ancient history "? Because if you did, it just shows a lack of clear thinking. Bored

I actually believe it. I was presenting information that supported my view that the N.T. is reliable for many reasons including the fact the earliest followers of Christ were utterly and inexplicably transformed from defeated, depressed, hopeless cowards into brave, bold, determined, leaders who went on to revolutionize the world. By the time you said I lack clear thinking, you had already told me to, "Tell the truth for the first time in your life" and I asked you not to direct your comments to me in the future or respond to me any more and that I wasn't going to respond to you. I've received 75 to 100 comments from you despite my request. Most are insulting and sarcastic.
 
Mind your own business, please. I will use the commenting format of my choosing.

[duffyd (OP)]

When I present information to the contrary,

You did not present information.
You made a statement to the effect that the Apostle's belief  in resurrection was  better proved than anything else from the period.
I pointed out that practically every museum in the country has a Roman coin or two with Nero's face on it.
So that's a better candidate for "best proved".

So, for you to hold that view- in spite of the obvious fact that it's not true is evidence of a lack of clear thinking.
That's not  an insult, it's an observation.

I disagree.

[duffyd (OP)]

 logo
HomeNews & Articles
The Tomb Was Empty — You Can Trust the Easter Story


The Tomb Was Empty — You Can Trust the Easter Story

By Dr. Tom Synder, Editor

*Editor’s Note: In light of the celebration of Easter, Movieguide® is running this article that was originally posted in 2019.

In recent years, there have been several movies and television programs focusing on Jesus and His Gospel, including A.D.: THE BIBLE CONTINUES, RISEN, THE YOUNG MESSIAH, and TYLER PERRY PRESENTS THE PASSION.

The question arises, therefore:

Can you trust what the Bible says about the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ in the Passover, Good Friday and Easter stories in the New Testament documents?

Top scholars, historians, and experts have repeatedly confirmed that the Bible is the most historically and intellectually reliable ancient text in the whole world, including the Bible’s account of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles and disciples who wrote the New Testament documents. Consider, for example, the work of numerous top scholars, historians and experts such as C.S. Lewis, Gary Habermas, F.F. Bruce, William Lane Craig, John A.T. Robinson, John Warwick Montgomery, Bruce Metzger, Simon Greenleaf, Stuart C. Hackett, J. Gresham Machen, Ronald Nash, Edwin Yamauchi, Craig Blomberg, John Wenham, Lee Strobel, Paul Maier, Michael R. Licona, and N.T. Wright.

These people are wonderfully astute thinkers, investigators and writers. They have refuted all of the important lies, half-truths, and silly comments against Jesus, Christianity and the Bible made by non-Christians and even by some allegedly former Christians.

Not only can you have complete faith in the New Testament documents and what they say about the virgin birth, divinity, crucifixion, resurrection, and teachings of Jesus Christ, but you can also rely on what they say about non-Christian places, people and events, such as the names and titles of Roman government officials. In fact, the New Testament writer Luke (the books of Luke and Acts), the medical companion of Paul, an apostle appointed by Jesus Christ Himself and accepted by Christ’s other major apostles, including Peter, specifically says in Luke 1:3 that he “carefully investigated everything” he writes in Luke and Acts to Theophilus and other assumed readers.

In a court of law, the burden of proof for denying the credibility of an eyewitness falls on those who wish to undermine that credibility. An eyewitness should therefore be given the benefit of the doubt “unless we have clear evidence to the contrary.”1 Since, however, the New Testament books make great demands on people and their lifestyles, it seems fair to ask what is the evidence to support the historical reliability of these ancient documents.

Historians use two standard tests for determining the reliability of an ancient document like the New Testament documents.

The first test is the bibliographic test. This test asks three questions:  1) How many copies and fragments of copies do we have of a particular document? 2) Are the copies basically the same, or do they show a wide variety of differences, indicating they have undergone an extensive amount of editing or redaction? 3) What is the time gap between the dates of the copies we have and the approximate date on which the document was probably written?  The more copies we have, the less editing they have undergone, and the closer the time gap, the more accurate they seem to be and the more reliable the text of the document is.

Using this test, how does the New Testament stack up?

As biblical scholar John A.T. Robinson and other scholars attest, the New Testament books were probably written between 40 A.D. and 70 A.D., although some scholars believe the Apostle John wrote John and Revelation about 95 A.D. or so. The earliest complete copies we have, excluding small fragments, some of which are dated from about 44 A.D. to 130 A.D., can be dated between 300 and 400 A.D., or 260-360 years later. In total, however, we have more than 5,000 Greek copies and fragments, 10,000 Latin Vulgate copies and fragments, and 9,000 other versions of the New Testament dated between 40 and 1200 A.D. In comparison, we have only 643 manuscripts (copies and fragments) of Homer’s Iliad, written about 900 BC, with the earliest extant copy dated 400 BC, 500 years later. Also, we have only ten copies of Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars, written 58 to 50 BC, with the earliest copy dated 900 A.D., a gap of almost 1,000 years, and only 21 copies or fragments of the works of Tacitus, written about 100 A.D., with the earliest copy or fragment dated 1000 A.D., a span of 900 years.

According to New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger, only 40 lines, or about 400 words, of the 20,000 lines in the New Testament documents are seriously in doubt. In contrast, Homer’s Iliad contains approximately 15,600 lines, but 764 lines have been questioned by scholars. As, Christian scholar and philosopher Norman L. Geisler writes, “The New Testament writings are superior to comparable ancient writings. The records for the New Testament are vastly more abundant, clearly more ancient, and considerably more accurate in their text.”2

Copies of manuscripts are not the only source of our knowledge about the New Testament documents, however.

Before the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., the writings of the Ante-Nicene church fathers contain about 32,000 citations of the New Testament text. “Virtually the entire New Testament could be reproduced from citations contained in the works of the early church fathers,” says Christian philosopher J. P. Moreland.3 Furthermore, although every church father does not quote every book of the New Testament, every book is quoted as authoritative and authentic by some important church father. This indicates that the New Testament writings were “recognized as apostolic [originating from Jesus Christ’s own appointed church leaders] from the very beginning.”4

There is no reason, therefore, to doubt the accuracy of the copies of the New Testament. The bibliographic test clearly shows that the text of the New Testament has not been significantly altered by the Christian church. We can trust that the translations we now have are as close to the original writings as possible.

The second test historians use to determine the reliability of an ancient document is the external test. In this test, historians look at what external sources say about the document.

We have already mentioned the testimony of the early church fathers with regard to the bibliographic test. Their testimony also satisfies the external test.

For instance, several second century fathers affirm that the book of John in the New Testament was written by the Apostle John. These writers include Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Theophilus of Antioch, and Tertullian of Carthage.

The testimony of Irenaeus is important “because he had been a student of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna (martyred in 156 A.D. after being a Christian for 86 years), and Polycarp in turn had been a disciple of the Apostle John himself.”5 Not only does Irenaeus affirm the authorship of John’s gospel, he also reports that Matthew produced his gospel for the Jews, perhaps in Aramaic, while Peter and Paul were founding the Christian church in Rome (about 55 A.D.). Irenaeus also writes that Mark, Peter’s disciple, set down his gospel after Peter’s death, around 65 A.D., and that Paul’s friend Luke wrote his gospel sometime thereafter. In a letter to his colleague Florinus, quoted by church historian Eusebius, Irenaeus mentions how both he and Florinus had heard Polycarp talk about what John and other witnesses had told Polycarp about Jesus.

According to Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, writing between 130 and 140 A.D., the Apostle Matthew compiled a collection of Jesus’ sayings in Aramaic, which Papias says many people later translated into Greek. Papias also testifies that the Apostle John told Papias that Mark composed his gospel on the basis of information supplied by the Apostle Peter himself.

Another source that satisfies the external test is the Old Testament prophecies that Jesus Christ fulfilled during His time on Earth. Old Testament verses such as Genesis 3:15, Isaiah 53:1-12, Psalm 16, Psalm 22, Isaiah 50:5-9, Isaiah 7:14, Jeremiah 31:31-33, Daniel 9:25-27, and Daniel  7:13-14. By fulfilling these prophecies, Jesus presents another testimony in His favor.

Finally, we have the Apostle Paul’s testimony in his own letters, which are among the earliest of all New Testament writings. Paul’s letter to the Galatians has been dated as early as 48 A.D. The dates of his other letters may be established as follows:  1 and 2 Thessalonians, 50 A.D.; 1 and 2 Corinthians, 54-56 A.D.; Romans, 57 A.D.; and Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, and Ephesians, around 60 A.D. Many scholars, including more liberal ones, believe that Paul’s description of the resurrection of Jesus Christ in 1 Corinthians 15 can be traced back to an ancient catechism from the early to middle 30s A.D.! There are many other early creedal passages in the New Testament documents like this one from 1 Corinthians, such as Philippians 2:6-11 and John 1:1-18.

The New Testament gospels are also consistent with the external evidence from ancient non-Christian sources. Even the Jewish Talmud contains references to Jesus Christ and five of the disciples. These references say Jesus was a sorcerer who led the people astray and who came to add things to the Jewish law. Eventually, they say, Jesus was executed on the eve of Passover for heresy and for misleading the Jewish people. Following his death, his disciples healed the sick in his name.6

Although portions of his text are in doubt, Jewish historian Josephus, who wrote about 90 A.D., mentions John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, and James, the brother of Jesus. According to New Testament scholar F. F. Bruce, we have “very good reason for believing”7 that Josephus confirms the dates of Christ’s ministry, his reputation for practicing “wonders” of some kind, his kinship to James, his crucifixion by Pilate, his messianic claim, and the fact that his disciples believed Jesus rose physically from the dead.

Cornelius Tacitus, the “greatest Roman historian in the days of the Empire,”8 refers to Jesus Christ’s execution under Pilate and relates Roman Emperor Nero’s persecution of Christians after the great fire ravaged Rome in 64 A.D. Also, writing in 112 A.D., C. Plinius Secundus (Pliny the Younger), governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, wrote to Emperor Trajan asking for advice about how to deal with troublesome Christians. In his letter, Pliny reports that the Christians meet on a fixed day to pray to Christ as God and promise each other to follow certain moral standards. He also says they refuse to curse the name of Jesus. The evidence from Pliny, and others, clearly shows that the Early Christians did indeed worship Jesus Christ as God. This worship is confirmed by the writings of Ignatius, a major leader of the early Christian church.

The New Testament writings are themselves full of references to secular history in the first century. Archeological evidence confirms many of these references to historical events and persons and to political factions, geographical areas, social differences, etc. For instance, the Apostle John in his gospel displays accurate knowledge about buildings and landscapes in Jerusalem and the surrounding countryside before 70 A.D. Luke, the author of the third gospel and the book of Acts, has been especially cited for his sense of the historical context in the first century A.D. His books contain many references to the imperial history of Rome and a detailed chronicle of the Herod family. Luke is also very accurate in his use of various official titles in the Roman Empire, no mean feat considering the fact they sometimes changed titles in a short period of time during switchovers in administrations. Also, according to one study Luke accurately shows knowledge of some “32 countries, 54 cities and nine islands.”9

Luke’s description of the founding and rise of the Christian church in Acts also matches what we know from other historical writings and archeology. Acts itself contains several instances where the apostles and various local churches receive reports from other Christians about efforts to spread the message of Jesus Christ. This habit of giving reports adds to the historical credibility of the New Testament accounts. Thus, as St. Paul notes in Chapter 26 of Acts, all these things were not done in a corner, they were common knowledge.

The writers of the New Testament, most of whom knew Jesus personally, had a strong motive to obey the warnings of the Roman and Jewish authorities to stop preaching about Jesus. Instead, these men did the opposite and risked their lives and physical well-being to preach the good news of Jesus Christ’s resurrection. They preached repeatedly and openly in the Jewish synagogues, leaving themselves vulnerable to the hostile Jewish religious leadership.

“The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies,” says historian John Warwick Montgomery, “which would at once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to do so.”10 Yet they never hesitated to confront Jewish leaders, hostile pagan forces, and even the Roman authorities. They endured rejection, persecution, torture, and even death. If their testimony was full of holes, how could they have gotten away with such bad testimony? If the resurrection of Jesus Christ did not occur, how do we account for the empty tomb and the resurrection appearances by Jesus?

The Jews and pagans who opposed the apostles had the means, motive, and opportunity to completely refute the evidence for Jesus Christ’s resurrection and the content of His teachings, yet they never could shake the eyewitness testimony of the first Christian evangelists. These hostile witnesses failed to produce the kind of solid evidence that would overturn the first Christians’ testimony about Jesus Christ, including the meaning of Jesus Christ’s life and sacrificial death on the cross. Thus, the eyewitnesses among Christ’s disciples passed the test of their own cross-examination with flying colors!

According to the New Testament documents, Jesus Christ proved his claim to be God by his bodily resurrection from the dead and gave his disciples “many convincing proofs that he was alive (Acts 1:3).” He appeared to more than 500 people at one time, most of whom were still living over 15 years later, when the Apostle Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthian church (see 1 Corinthians 15:1-6). He also appeared to nonbelievers and hostile skeptics like his brother James, the Apostle Paul and the Apostle Thomas. He also gave special authority and power to all of his apostles, who themselves performed public miracles.

Finally, the New Testament writings are internally consistent. None of the documents deny the resurrection and most of them explicitly proclaim it. Although the documents contain passages that are difficult to interpret or create questions about the text, many books have been written which clear up these textual problems. Among the best ones are John W. Haley’s Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (Springdale, PA:  Whitaker House) and Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties by Gleason Archer (Grand Rapids:  Zondervan, 1982).

Even if someone could prove there are unresolvable problems in the New Testament text, however, “they cannot be used as evidence to prove that the resurrection did not take place.” Neither would they necessarily affect essential Christian teachings. For example, Greek historian Polybius and Roman historian Livy disagree over what route Hannibal took when he crossed the Alps, but both agree he arrived in Italy.

The fact is, the New Testament documents do agree with one another. They do not contradict each other. All of them teach the following:  Jesus underwent a public execution. His death was certified by the Roman authorities. He was placed in a private tomb, the location of which was known. Jesus then appeared to his female disciples and to the male apostles. He commanded them to lead all people into repentance, belief and forgiveness of sins in the name of the Triune God (Matthew 28:18-20). The internal consistency of these documents in these matters is beyond reproach.

When all is said and done, the evidence for the historical reliability of the New Testament documents is in fact better than the evidence for Julius Caesar or any other historical figure in the ancient world.

“We are confronted with a hard core of historical fact,” writes F. F. Bruce: “(a) the tomb was really empty; (b) the Lord appeared to various individuals and groups of disciples both in Judea and Galilee; (c) the Jewish authorities could not disprove the disciples’ claim that He had risen from the dead.”12

 Adds Bruce Metzger,


***“The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is overwhelming. Nothing in history is more certain than that the disciples believed that, after being crucified, dead, and buried, Christ rose again from the tomb on the third day, and that at intervals thereafter he met and conversed with them.”


Bruce Metzger is considered the finest New Testament scholar of textual criticism in the world in the 20th century.

Nero is well known in China, Pakistan, India, Indonesia, The Crimea? Jesus is the most recognized name in the world. (Am I preaching?)

[duffyd (OP)]

When I present information to the contrary,

You did not present information.
You made a statement to the effect that the Apostle's belief  in resurrection was  better proved than anything else from the period.
I pointed out that practically every museum in the country has a Roman coin or two with Nero's face on it.
So that's a better candidate for "best proved".

So, for you to hold that view- in spite of the obvious fact that it's not true is evidence of a lack of clear thinking.
That's not  an insult, it's an observation.

I disagree.

It is an insulting observation.

[duffyd (OP)]

When I present information to the contrary,

You did not present information.
You made a statement to the effect that the Apostle's belief  in resurrection was  better proved than anything else from the period.
I pointed out that practically every museum in the country has a Roman coin or two with Nero's face on it.
So that's a better candidate for "best proved".

So, for you to hold that view- in spite of the obvious fact that it's not true is evidence of a lack of clear thinking.
That's not  an insult, it's an observation.

Keep reading

[Bored chemist]

If someone questions the accuracy of my position regarding my interaction with others, visit CHAT and the recently posted topics related to God

OK, let's do that.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79132.msg599647;topicseen#msg599647

You said that I had refused to do something when, in fact, I had already done it.

[Bored chemist]

I actually believe it.

You believe that there is better evidence that the apostles  believed Jesus was resurrected than that Nero was emperor.

Really?
In spite of the fact that I could get the evidence for one of them, and post it to you?
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Roman-coin-Nero/164188947201?hash=item263a6c8301:g:kSUAAOSwFb5aLnpU

Show me the equivalent evidence for the Apostles belief.

(And I remind you that, of course, teh Apostles had a pretty good reason to lie.)

[Bored chemist]

By the time you said I lack clear thinking, you had already told me to, "Tell the truth for the first time in your life"

OK, show everybody where I said that.

[duffyd (OP)]

You haven't presented any evidence that supports your argument. You have presented evidence that you are gullible and the useful tool of sociopathic religious charlatans.

Is anyone going to present credible evidence that God exists or have we decided there isn't any?

I doubt it.
When these threads began I had hopes that someone might come up with a credible way of showing whether God, or any god exists. Instead we have been given lists of people who believe and what they believe; but I never doubted that people believe in his existence, huge numbers of books and websites are proof of that belief.

We have also been treated to some false reasoning.

"You haven't presented any evidence that supports your argument. You have presented evidence that you are gullible and the useful tool of sociopathic religious charlatans."

A moderator never rebuked the participant who said this about me nor did he remove it. No warning. Nothing.

[Bored chemist]

By the time you said I lack clear thinking, you had already told me to, "Tell the truth for the first time in your life"

OK, show everybody where I said that.

[evan_au]

The preferred method of science is to do experiments, which can then be reproduced by others, in the same (or slightly different) conditions, to produce a confirmed, published and reproducible result.

However, when it comes to an event in history (like the death and claimed resurrection of Jesus), this preferred method falls down. We can't just run experiments, rerunning history with variations - that is outside our control.

Some areas of science are like that - Astronomy and Geology, for example. We can't rerun the history of the Earth, or create stars of our own*.

So, when it comes to non-reproduce-able events, scientists adopt a modified method - they try to collect as much evidence as they can, from different sources, and attempt to build a credible picture. Other scientists will collect slightly different aspects of the data. But the goal is to produce a consensus view among experts in the field, applying the techniques of evidence and analysis. The consensus is often formed in the heat of fiery debate.

Historical events fall into this area where we must apply a modified scientific method, to look at events that appeared in the past.

While scientists have, at times resorted to insults to win debates, we don't permit that here.
- Requiring evidence is not an insult
- Setting a high bar for the evidence is expected

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

- Some of the evidence quoted above is based on analysis of ancient texts, which can be rather opaque to those who don't read those languages.
- While a coin minted during the reign of Nero is understandable by everyone

Overall, keep down the snide comments, and try to address the requests for evidence.

*At least, in Astronomy, we can look into space, and see stars of different ages, and piece together their life history from looking at many different stars.
- In Geology, we are (so far) very restricted in the number of other worlds we can look at to compare with Earth

[duffyd (OP)]

When I present information to the contrary,

You did not present information.
You made a statement to the effect that the Apostle's belief  in resurrection was  better proved than anything else from the period.
I pointed out that practically every museum in the country has a Roman coin or two with Nero's face on it.
So that's a better candidate for "best proved".

So, for you to hold that view- in spite of the obvious fact that it's not true is evidence of a lack of clear thinking.
That's not  an insult, it's an observation.

I disagree.

When you attempt to prove I'm wrong, don't misquote or misinterpret what I said. One reason I don't like to interact with you, and there are quite a few, is that you change what I've said.

For example, "You made a statement to the effect that the Apostle's belief  in resurrection was  better proved than anything else from the period." No. I did not. I quoted a world renown scholar, Bruce Metzger who said, "The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is overwhelming. Nothing in history is more certain than that the disciples believed that, after being crucified, dead, and buried, Christ rose again from the tomb on the third day, and that at intervals thereafter he met and conversed with them.”

[duffyd (OP)]

You did not present information.
You made a statement

This is an other reason I don't respond to you. "You did not present information.
You made a statement..." bc

I quoted a scholar. That is information. I shouldn't have to explain that.

[Bored chemist]

When you attempt to prove I'm wrong, don't misquote or misinterpret what I said.

You first.

By the time you said I lack clear thinking, you had already told me to, "Tell the truth for the first time in your life"

OK, show everybody where I said that.

[Bored chemist]

For example, "You made a statement to the effect that the Apostle's belief  in resurrection was  better proved than anything else from the period." No. I did not. I quoted a world renown scholar, Bruce Metzger who said, "The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is overwhelming. Nothing in history is more certain  ...

Thanks for the meaningless clarification.

Did you quote that scholar because you thought he was lying?
That would be odd, because you have subsequently said you believe it.

If I say " Einstein said  E=MC^2", i am tacitly making that statement.
I am certainly making a statement to that effect (I chose my words carefully)
Do you not understand that "nothing is more certain" is equivalent to nothing is better proved?

quoted a world renown scholar, Bruce Metzger who said, "The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is overwhelming. Nothing in history is more certain than that the disciples believed that, after being crucified, dead, and buried, Christ rose again from the tomb on the third day, and that at intervals thereafter he met and conversed with them.”

And , in my original reply to that I pointed out the problems
Firstly
" a world renown scholar,"Is the logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority.
Secondly, what the apostles believed isn't the issue here- they might have been mistaken (they might have believed what they wanted to believe).

Thirdly, and most importantly, the assertion  you reported is obviously untrue.

"Nothing in history is more certain than that ..."
Plenty of things in history are more certain than that- for example, the fact that Nero was emperor of Rome.

(In fact, his statement is more general and more absurd. Is it really more certain that, for example, "Queen Elizabeth was crowned in 1953"?)

And yet you say you believe it...