I'm claiming the historic evidence supporting NT claims is stronger than the evidence for comparable ancient history claims.

It's amazing the number of atheists one comes across who are blindingly ignorant of the factual basis of your claim, and even confidently assert the contrary view.

It's worth noting that the earliest extant manuscript we have for Julius Caesar (who died in 44 B.C.) is from the 9th century A.D. His best known work, on the Gallic War (which I had to study in high school), is generally read according to the text in the best preserved manuscripts of it which date from the 11th-12th century A.D.

The most prominent Roman historians who wrote about Caesar are Cicero and Sallust. Their earliest extant manuscripts also generally date from the 9th century A.D.

By contrast, the earliest extant papyri of the New Testament date from circa 110 A.D., well under a century after the crucifixion of Jesus. As the eminent Scottish scripture scholar F. F. Bruce wrote, "There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a good textual attestation as does the Gospels and the New Testament." In terms of interval between time of events portrayed to earliest surviving (and sheer number of) manuscripts, the New Testament simply blows away the entirety of the classical Greco-Roman 'competition'.

And here are some scholarly opinions on the 'Jesus Myth', er, myth.

Is the evidence for Jesus' resurrection on a par with the evidence for Julius Ceasar's existence?

Hey Raevmo

I agree with Bradford, the evidence for Christ existence is on a par with Julius Cesar's but the resurrection is on a par with Caesars' crossing the Rubuicon for example.

Ive often made this claim and I think this would be a great exercise to test it.

Would you please list the sort of evidence you have for Ceasars existence and for his crossing the Rubuicon. Then we can see if Christ and his resurrection meets the same standard.

I'm tingling with excitement (I mean it)

Peace

me: Raevmo, is English your first language?

r: No, it's my third. And yours?

My third is Italian, if you mean spoken. If just reading knowledge, third would be Latin in my case.

I disagree. There is no time to perform infinitely many miracles, hence God has to choose, even if he wants to perform them all.

God can create an infinite series of universes or an equivalent multiverse, so time is not a problem.

me: The two most important scientific theories of modern times are mutually contradictory.

r: I guess you mean Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity (some people might consider other scientific theories more important). Yes, and that means at least one of them (probably both) is wrong.

But then it's ok for religions to be mutually contradictory, for the time being.

You can buy it on amazon. It's over 700 pages.

No pdf?

I don't know, but I doubt it.

Oh, I noticed you failed to answer my question concerning Miss Teen South Carolina.

Raevmo, is English your first language?

No, it's my third. And yours?

There being no reasonable limit entails that it's not reasonable for God not to perform every conceivable miracle. Hence, if there are no reasonable limits, then God has reason to perform every conceivable miracle.

I disagree. There is no time to perform infinitely many miracles, hence God has to choose, even if he wants to perform them all.

The two most important scientific theories of modern times are mutually contradictory.

I guess you mean Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity (some people might consider other scientific theories more important). Yes, and that means at least one of them (probably both) is wrong. Just like most or all of the religious "theories".

You can buy it on amazon. It's over 700 pages.

No pdf?

I'm not ruling out claims because of their religious implications "” I'm just ruling out claims because of a lack of evidence. I note you haven't answered my questions:

To rule out claims on an evidentiary basis you would have to be familiar with the evidence which you are not.

Is the evidence for Jesus' resurrection more than hearsay upon hearsay? (if not, it would be laughed out of court)

Hearsay entails I know this because John Doe said it and John Doe is unavailable as a direct witness. The witnesses to the resurrection testified directly as to what they witnessed. That includes at least two of the four Gospel writers- John and Matthew and other NT authors like James, Paul and Peter.

Is the evidence for Jesus' resurrection on a par with the evidence for Julius Ceasar's existence?

Not with his existence but it is on a par with actions attributed to Caesar. IOW, by evidentiary standards it passes muster.

me: But by parity of reasoning, God ought to perform every conceivable miracle at least once if there are no reasonable limits.

r: You mean by absence of reasoning. Why should God perform *everything* conceivable? There's no time.

Er, because ex hypothesi no limit would be reasonable.

Raevmo, is English your first language? Do you see the connection between the words 'reason' and 'reasonable'? There being no reasonable limit entails that it's not reasonable for God not to perform every conceivable miracle. Hence, if there are no reasonable limits, then God has reason to perform every conceivable miracle. Which —-> absurdity. Hence my question: given that there are reasonable limits to God's actions (because of the aforementioned absurdity of supposing the contrary), why should limb regeneration not be placed beyond such limits, but decapitation-reversal and intergalactic superluminal female ambulation wearing only a bikini and no special breathing apparatus should? Wouldn't you like to see Miss Teen South Carolina become our first ambassador to Andromeda?

If not, why not? Is it because some cruel people make fun of her? How do you think her parents feel?

I'm sorry you have to wait so long. But why do you think there are reasonable limits?

Because I believe that the creator is supremely rational, and hence understands physics and biology, and understands that the notion of physical beings routinely being able to flout physics and biology a) is incoherent, and b) renders their creation as physical beings pointless, which is something a supremely rational creator would not do, as I explained before.

I was brought up in an a-religious family, not anti-religious. My parents just didn't (and don't) give a damn about religion.

But you obviously do given how often you post about it.

So I wasn't brainwashed into believing or disbelieving any particular religion.

Except materialism.

The fact that there are so many mutually contradictory religions convinced me that they are probably all wrong.

The two most important scientific theories of modern times are mutually contradictory.

If you would send me a copy of Wright's work, I'd be happy to read it.

You can buy it on amazon. It's over 700 pages. Or you can at least browse some of his work following the links I posted here.

What is unfair is ruling out claims because of their religious implications and then issuing empty challenges to the effect- where is the evidence?

I'm not ruling out claims because of their religious implications — I'm just ruling out claims because of a lack of evidence. I note you haven't answered my questions:

Is the evidence for Jesus' resurrection more than hearsay upon hearsay? (if not, it would be laughed out of court)

Is the evidence for Jesus' resurrection on a par with the evidence for Julius Ceasar's existence?

Bradford, you must be joking. Are you seriously claiming that the evidence for Jesus' resurrection is on a par with the evidence for Julius Caesar's existence?

I'm claiming the historic evidence supporting NT claims is stronger than the evidence for comparable ancient history claims. As for the specific claim of the resurrection- it is well documented by historic standards. It also has obvious religious implications which relegate it to that field. In other words the claim itself is ruled out a priori because of the nature of the claim. But if those are the rules then skeptics like you are in no position to complain about lack of supporting evidence.

This reminds me of congressional speeches that were recorded and replayed on a US cable channel known as C-Span a few years ago. At that time congressmen and women would give speeches in which they challenged anyone to come forth with counter evidence to what the speaker was claiming. The camaras were fixed on the speaker so the viewers had no way of knowing the speaker was in a room empty except for the speaker and the filming crew. Eventually congressional leaders ordered the cameramen to span the room when such empty challenges were made. The challenges ceased. If your disbelief is based on a lack of credible historic documentation then you need to engage those scholars whose expertise encompasses such matters. If the skepticism is grounded in personal incredulity that too needs to be identified- it's your right to disbelieve. What is unfair is ruling out claims because of their religious implications and then issuing empty challenges to the effect- where is the evidence?

And this is the confidence which we have in him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us

How is it the skeptics manage to overlook the operative phrase in that promise?