Tacitus

[revivin]

Can you think of what would be better evidence than what we have in the 27 books of the NT? If you can't then realize it is the best possible evidence could provide which therefore proves Jesus resurrected.

[JesusHChrist]

Can you think of what would be better evidence than what we have in the 27 books of the NT? If you can't then realize it is the best possible evidence could provide which therefore proves Jesus resurrected.

What better evidence do we have for Orks than the collected works of Tolkien?

[Tonus]

Can you think of what would be better evidence than what we have in the 27 books of the NT?

The originals. Or original writings of Jesus himself. Or original writings from god. Any of these plus extensive corroboration from the people who witnessed them, preserved in seemingly supernatural ways instead of just copies of copies of letters whose writers cannot be identified. Or if god would just show up and make the whole thing moot.

The list of possibilities for better evidence is pretty extensive, it seems to me. If you believe that a cobbled-together set of unsourced copies is sufficient evidence for a claim, then you have to accept just about every other religious texts and the claims they contain. Heck, just about any ancient book that makes any sort of claims that we cannot independently verify. My guess: when it comes to those books, you judge using a very different set of criteria.

[revivin]

You could have 27 books detailing multiple eyewitness testimony but you don't have that for your Orks.

---

[quote='revivin' pid='733378' dateline='1408472591']
The originals.

Actually we don't have the originals for anyone in antiquity so you can't ask for a higher standard than what history already provides.

But the 27 books of the NT are the closest to their events than for anyone in antiquity.

[FatAndFaithless]

Actually we don't have the originals for anyone in antiquity

Are you serious?

[Ravenshire]

How do you know they saw anything at all?

I see these multiple points of testimony very well corroborated they were martyred and nothing to suggest otherwise so that's why I believe they were martyred. Claiming otherwise needs evidence.

And the reason why I believe they saw Jesus alive from the dead is because Paul wrote he spent 15 days with Peter, with John and James the brother of Jesus. They all had the same gospel message of resurrection and as eyewitnesses.

You seem to be having some trouble with the concept of burdon of proof. You are the one making the claim therefore the burdon is yours.

[revivin]

You seem to be having some trouble with the concept of burdon of proof. You are the one making the claim therefore the burdon is yours.

The Bible provides that proof so the burden is on you to find what would be better evidence? I can't think of any can you?

[Tonus]

Actually we don't have the originals for anyone in antiquity so you can't ask for a higher standard than what history already provides.

In other words, the Bible doesn't stand out from any other ancient text. A real god would've done a better job of standing out from the crowd.

[FatAndFaithless]

You seem to be having some trouble with the concept of burdon of proof. You are the one making the claim therefore the burdon is yours.

The Bible provides that proof so the burden is on you to find what would be better evidence? I can't think of any can you?

There's no way you're serious.

[revivin]

the Bible doesn't stand out from any other ancient text. A real god would've done a better job of standing out from the crowd.

The Bible does a better job because the 27 books of the NT are closer to their events than for any other text in history. And since you can't find what could be better proof than these 27 books, you acknowledge God provided the best proof in these 27 books.