This is my opening response to Jonathan Sheffield’s argument that the Romans could have disproved the resurrection unless it really happened and therefore it must really have happened. Thus begins a new short debate. See Sheffield’s opening statement for a description of the debate and his opening case. As also explained there, this debate has an open comments policy: all polite and relevant remarks will be accepted after review. Patreon and Paypal supporters can have their comments published immediately.
-:-
That the Romans Neither Could Nor Cared to Investigate the Resurrection of Jesus
by Richard Carrier
Jonathan Sheffield wants us to think the Romans would have cared to investigate the resurrection of Jesus, and did; and that we’d know what they found—unless they couldn’t refute it. Therefore it happened. Every one of these conjectures is unsupported by any evidence; some are even contradicted by the evidence.
1
Sheffield falsely infers that because a century later folks forged competing versions of the Acts of Pilate, therefore Pilate investigated the resurrection. Non sequitur. There’s no evidence Pilate even heard these claims, much less investigated them, or even cared. Even the Acts of the Apostles never mentions Pilate doing anything in response to Christian claims of the resurrection of Jesus, despite claiming awareness of official Roman correspondence and recording many trials and hearings.
There’s no evidence any Romans ever investigated these claims. No investigation is mentioned anywhere, not even in the fake Acts of Pilate, nor even in the Acts of the Apostles, despite that describing court hearings before several Roman officials. In every such instance, the Romans are totally uninterested in investigating anything the Christians were claiming. Junius Gallio, uninterested; Claudius Lysias, uninterested; Antonius Felix, never once even asks about it; Porcius Festus, just laughs it off, outright saying he has no idea how to investigate such a claim, and consequently, never does; instead, he simply dismisses Paul as a lunatic. Sheffield’s own Bible reports on no other hearings before Roman authorities. We see the same response from Pliny, governor of Bithynia, eighty years later: after merely asking a couple of local believers a few questions, he dismisses the whole thing as superstitious nonsense. He conducts no investigation.
So Sheffield’s claim, that “it surely wasn’t for a lack of effort” that the Romans “failed” to debunk the resurrection, is contrary to all extant facts. No known effort was made. By even the Christians’ own accounts the Romans weren’t even interested in the claim. It wasn’t until the fourth century that Roman authorities tried “debunking” anything about Christianity, because only then was it popular enough to be a political problem—but by then they had no access to any relevant information.
2
There’s no evidence any prefectural records from first century Judea survived into the fourth century, or that they would contain anything about the resurrection of Jesus. Sheffield can’t even provide an actual citation from Cicero that Romans included everyday police reports in official acta. But after numerous fires (Rome’s archives having burned to the ground several times) and wars (Judea was twice razed by prolonged war action), and the inevitable decay of papyrus and declining need to fund the preserving of antiquated records, we see no one able to find or quote any—not even the Constantines, despite being Christians and ruling the whole empire for half a century. So we cannot infer any remained to be consulted.
Sheffield then falsely implies Justin Martyr and Tertullian knew a genuine “Acts of Pilate” in Roman archives. There’s no evidence they did. Instead all they cite is a late Christian forgery of the Acts of Pilate that was just a fawning summary of the Gospels, not a Roman record (see Tertullian, Apology 5 and 21; and Justin, Apology 1.35 and 1.48). As renowned biblical scholar F.F. Bruce put it in his classic treatise The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (1943):
It would no doubt be pleasant if we could believe this…but a story so inherently improbable and inconsistent with what we know of Tiberius, related nearly 170 years after the event, does not commend itself to a historian’s judgment.
This remains the opinion of all leading scholars. Christians routinely forged documents like this (see On the Historicity of Jesus, Chapter 5, Element 44). The only extant version even ridiculously gets the date wrong (it has Pilate report to Claudius, not Tiberius, an error of twenty years!) and absurdly depicts Pilate simply summarizing the Gospel of Matthew. Not credible.
3
Sheffield then implies Emperor Antoninus had Justin killed to cover up the records Sheffield mistakenly thinks Justin cited in his address to Antoninus (an address there is no evidence was ever even delivered to Antoninus, much less read by him). False. Justin was not killed under Antoninus, but years later under Aurelius; and not by Aurelius, but Rusticus; and not to cover up a fake document, but for the same reason as those killed by Pliny: the capital crimes of illegal assembly and treasonously not paying homage to the Emperor. Even in the fawning Christian account of the trial and examination of Justin by Rusticus not once does any Roman record pertaining to Jesus even come up (much less the Acts of Pilate); nor is any investigation of the resurrection of Jesus mentioned. Not even Justin cites such things; Rusticus shows no interest at all.
This alone puts an end to Sheffield’s argument.
4
Next Sheffield gets wrong what the Acts of the Apostles says about Paul’s legal hearing before Festus and Agrippa. The resurrection of Jesus never comes up in that hearing (see my extensive demonstration of this point in Not the Impossible Faith, pp. 187-92). Sheffield quotes what Luke has Paul say to Agrippa:
For the king knows about these things … I don’t believe any are hidden from him, since this hasn’t been done in a corner.
Sheffield falsely implies that Paul is referring to the resurrection. But he isn’t. Of course there’s no evidence Paul really said this to any official, much less Agrippa—Acts is just late Christian propaganda, unreliable and unverifiable (see Chapter 9 of my book On the Historicity of Jesus and Chapter 7 of Not the Impossible Faith). Still, none of these “things” Paul says Agrippa “knows” relate to the resurrection.
This is all Luke claims Paul declared to Agrippa:
Paul is a devoted Pharisee (26:4-5); he’s accused of merely “hoping” for the fulfillment of scripture (26:6), even though all Jews share the same hope (26:7), which is the hope that God will resurrect all the faithful who’ve died (26:8); Paul persecuted Christians (26:9-11), but while traveling experienced a blinding celestial voice from God (26:12-18); Paul obeyed this voice and widely preached its message “to repent and turn to God and do works worthy of repentance” (26:19-20); the Jews seized Paul for preaching this message (26:21); and now he’s on trial, Paul insists, for “saying nothing but what both the prophets and Moses said was destined to happen” (26:22). Not a single reference to the resurrection of Jesus.
So all Paul appeals to is a private revelation from a spirit affirming Jesus lived (26:15), plus statements from “Moses and the Prophets” concerning “whether the messiah was destined to suffer and proclaim” salvation. Paul’s only evidence was revelation and scripture. “All that was needed to falsify the Resurrection,” Sheffield insists, “was just one credible witness.” But who could “witness” that the Apostles “didn’t” have private revelations? Sheffield’s argument is nonsensical.
As even Paul’s fellow Pharisees conceded in court, “We find nothing wrong with this man,” for “what if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?” Even they knew the only evidence to examine was whether Paul “actually” had a vision, which meant there was nothing to investigate. Because you can’t “debunk” a vision—without modern scientific knowledge of how commonly people hallucinate gods and spirits (or claim to). The most one could say is exactly what Festus said: “You’re insane, Paul.”
5
Sheffield then resorts to a fallacy of circular argument: he presumes the Gospel accounts of what happened are entirely true and not mythical, in order to argue the Gospel accounts of what happened are entirely true and not mythical. In Acts Paul never once mentions any missing body, in any trial or hearing he’s subjected to; he only ever enters two things into evidence: scripture and revelation. Just like the real Paul (Romans 16:25-26; 1 Corinthians 15:1-8; Galatians 1:11-17).
So for all we know the “empty tomb” was a later innovation by the author of Mark (see my article Why Did Mark Invent an Empty Tomb?). There’s no evidence it was ever heard of before then; there’s even evidence against that (Ibid.). Again, without a missing or identifiable body, there’s nothing to investigate. “Maybe Paul just saw a ghost.” “Paul’s just crazy.” As for Paul, so for all Apostles. Before the Gospels, no other evidence is mentioned; in the Gospels, everything is myth (see my article Resurrection: Faith or Fact?). There’s no way to bridge that gap without a circular argument. Sheffield simply “insists” the Gospels are independent witnesses. But all mainstream scholars today agree they copied each other and none were written by a witness or even says they spoke to one. Nor do we have any record of any witness reading them or confirming anything in them.
6
Sheffield then pivots through a bunch of non sequiturs: no, we don’t have to know who “actually” wrote the Gospels to know it wasn’t the Disciples; no, we don’t need a witness to “what really happened” to know it wasn’t celestial magic; and no, we don’t have to produce a body.
Indeed, that wouldn’t have been possible. Exhuming corpses was a capital crime and would outrage the populace; and corpses weren’t legally identifiable after three days anyway; yet Sheffield’s own Bible tells us the Christians didn’t start publicly claiming Jesus rose from the dead until fifty days later (see Acts 2 and Acts 1:2-4). There’s no evidence anyone was even claiming the body was missing. Acts, again, never mentions such a claim, nor any investigation of it. In his own letters Paul appears to say Jesus rose in a new body, not the old one he died in; a view of resurrection held by many Jews of his time. Nor is a resurrection even remotely any of the most likely causes of a body going missing; and had another cause been found, or even a body produced, no sources survive that would tell us. (On all the foregoing points I present the evidence and demonstrations in the bibliography below: with a summary in item 5, and in more detail in items 6 through 8.)
7
Sheffield then falsely claims Pilate would have investigated “the resurrection” as thoroughly as the Roman Senate had once investigated the incursion of the Bacchus cult in Rome centuries before. We actually have contemporary inscriptions on that event, evidence wholly lacking for any of Sheffield’s claims about Jesus; and there’s just no parallel between that and Christianity in respect to Sheffield’s argument.
First, the Bacchants were not being investigated for any supernatural claims; only whether anyone was a member, because membership in a secret foreign cult was then regarded as a threat to the state. It had long since ceased to be by the time of Pilate, when this same Bacchus cult was widespread, entirely legal, and not even remotely regarded as threatening.
Second, there’s no evidence Pilate cared one whit about sectarian disputes among Jews. And that’s exactly what Acts repeatedly reports: Roman authorities didn’t care one whit about sectarian disputes among the Jews. The Jews were under a treaty with Rome that protected their religious freedom (see my discussion of this point in the bibliography, item 6, “Burial of Jesus”). Rome had also reversed its policy since the Bacchanal incident, instead cultivating wide tolerance of foreign cults as a strategy of imperial governance (as long as they procured a state license and proved their loyalty).
By contrast, none of what the Christians were doing was in Rome, none were secretly infiltrating the Senate, none engaged in any political or military threats or actions (in contrast to another false analogy Sheffield mentions, that of “The Egyptian”), and they hadn’t yet run afoul of illegal assembly laws—as the Jews had the right from the state to assemble, and Christians were at that point just Jews. So there’s no reason to expect any Romans cared. And as Acts says, they didn’t.
Sheffield’s argument thus has nothing to stand on.
8
Sheffield then trots out another false analogy, entirely based on a Christian myth about Domitian, nowhere else reported. But even in that implausible tale, the matter pertained solely to claimants to the throne of Judea (and no Christian was claiming that), not “the resurrection of Jesus” (which posed no political issue whatever); and even then, in the Christians’ own account, Domitian ended up being wholly disinterested, and did nothing about it. That’s exactly what Pilate would have done. We have no evidence otherwise.
9
Consequently all the evidence shows the Romans didn’t care, there was no evidence for them to investigate, and no records existed to consult. And even if they ever did, there’s no evidence they didn’t cast doubt on the resurrection—because we haven’t been allowed to read them.
-:-
See Jonathan Sheffield’s response.
-:-
Bibliography
- Richard Carrier, Not the Impossible Faith (Philosophy Press 2009).
- Richard Carrier, “Christianity’s Success Was Not Incredible” in The End of Christianity, ed. John Loftus (Prometheus 2011): 53-74, 372-75.
- Richard Carrier, “Why the Resurrection is Unbelievable” in The Christian Delusion, ed. John Loftus (Prometheus 2010), pp. 291-315.
- Richard Carrier, “Resurrection: Faith or Fact?” (27 March 2019).
- Richard Carrier, “Stephen Davis Gets It Wrong” (2006).
- Richard Carrier, “The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb” (pp. 105-232), “The Plausibility of Theft” (pp. 349-68), and “The Burial of Jesus in Light of Jewish Law” (pp. 369-92) in The Empty Tomb, ed. Jeff Lowder and Robert Price (Prometheus 2005).
- The Empty Tomb online FAQs.
- Debate between Richard Carrier and Jake O’Connell On Paul’s Theory of Resurrection (2008).
- Richard Carrier, “Why Did Mark Invent an Empty Tomb?” (23 February 2020).
Okay, so let me get this right.
Nothing happened.
Because nothing happened the Romans did not investigate. (Even though 100 years in the future someone would claim something happened.)
2,000 years after this “nothing-happened” (that someone a 100 years in the future claimed did happen) someone will claim that because the Romans did not investigate the-fact-nothing-happened (because they did not know 100 years in the future someone would say something did happen), it must have happened.
Yes. Makes perfect sense to me.
As it says in the bible somewhere. “Then I saw her face, and I’m a believer. Not a trace of doubt in my mind.” I think there is also something about something only being true in fairy tales in an earlier passage.
Thanks Pauandruss for the summary.
All these – presumably historical – jewish and roman personalities – who’re arrantly serviced as foils in creating christian literature & propaganda.
Did none think to charge these christians writers with libel or slander?
Slander laws did not operate that way in antiquity. Nor could the authors have been found to prosecute: the treatises are anonymous. And we don’t know what was actually being said in their lifetimes. The Gospels either post date their deaths or don’t say anything libelous under ancient laws. They also weren’t likely published in Judea.
I just noticed there is a video debate scheduled on Modern Day Debate on this topic (Dr. Carrier and Mr. Sheffield). Is that meant to be a final word after the written debate?
Yes. That’s the neutral YouTube channel I mentioned (I’ve since updated the intro to include that link). As described in the opening entry, we will do our two opens, and just one rebuttal each, then close out live on Modern Day Debate.
On a separate note I’m curious what your response you would give to someone that says “Christianity is not a religion, it is a relationship with Jesus Christ”.
Or similarly “Religion is man’s attempt to reach God.
Christianity is God’s attempt to reach man”.
My thoughts are that any belief system that based on a particular theology and associated doctrine is by definition a religion.
What are your thoughts?
On the other hand if someone just believed in the existence of a Deity based strictly on and limited to their belief in an intelligently designed universe but with no other associated beliefs (theological or otherwise) to go along with that then I wouldn’t consider them to be a religious person per say.
I have no patience with semantic games.
The only response required to such nonsense is an eye-roll and a laughing-to-tears emoji.
That’s interesting as Christians often allege Muhummudunism not a religion. I suspect because the US constitution guarantees the free exercising of religion (not christianity specifically) and this freedom ineluctably means allowing Muhummuduns to implement more halal things such as flogging and stonings for adulterers/fornicators, gold standard, sexual segregation, amputation of limbs for theft etc as this is part of their religion as per Quran, Sunnah and practice of the rightly-guided caliphs and consensus (ijma’).
Congress can’t abridge this.
Can you send me to an example somewhere on the internet where Christians say Islam “is not a religion”? (Rather than “is a false religion”)
I have never heard that one before.
I know Geert Wilders, a right wing politician from the Netherlands, doesn’t think islam is a religion.* He’s also a big fan of “judeo-christian culture”. I’m not sure if Wilders is a christian; though he certainly seems to value christianity as a cultural counterweight to islam – as a lot of right wing politicians seem to do. Even the atheist ones. As an atheist myself, that baffles me.
*The source is an interview in the newspaper De Telegraaf, reproduced on Wilders’ website here: https://www.pvv.nl/component/content/article/36-fj-related/geert-wilders/9610-telegraaf-interview-geert-wilders-islam-is-wat-mij-betreft-geen-religie.html
The relevant bit is this:
“Maar de islam is wat mij betreft geen religie. Het is een totalitaire, gevaarlijke en gewelddadige ideologie, verkleed als een religie.” (But the islam is, as far as I’m concerned, not a religion. It is a totalitarian, dangerous and violent ideology, dressed up as a religion. [my own translation]).
That’s just a ham-fisted way of saying it’s a false religion.
Dr Carrier
[I did reply – but unsure if you received it. I try again more briefly.]
It’s becoming commoner to deny Islam a religion in conservative evengelical circles esp in the context of religious liberty and the constitution.
eg
https://religionandpolitics.org/2019/07/16/a-push-to-deny-muslims-religious-freedom-gains-steam/
Asma T Uddin -a muhummudun lawyer documents these attempts in her book:
‘When Islam Is Not a Religion: Inside America’s Fight for Religious ‘
And her articles
https://themaydan.com/2019/09/when-islam-is-not-a-religion-inside-americas-fight-for-religious-freedom/
I suppose practising muhummudunism as muhummud practist it is an anathema to the US constitution.
Don’t know if Calvinist Christian Reconstructionists practise theocracy somewhere in America.
Fascinating. And ridiculous. I had never heard of this silly fringe argument before.
Just out of curiosity, how much evidence is there behind officials in Pilate’s position submitting documentation in which it would be possible for Jesus to be mentioned in the first place and where was such documentation archived? From what I could find, it seems that during the reign of Tiberius, that would be Aerarium populi Romani in the Temple of Saturn at the Forum Romanum, right?
I’m curious to see how Jonathan Sheffield will answer that question.
I really want to see a Bart Ehrman v Richard Carrier debate…
Hi Richard, I need your full take on this please
If Mark’s gospel was a myth and and an answer to Paul celestine Christ, why did the other 3 Gospels adopt, copy, and endorsed most of the facts, miracles, stories and resurrection tales in the the Mark Gospel with some modifications for sure. The apologists always bring up this argument.
The same reason all myths did that. Pick any myth, about any god or mythical hero, and you will find numerous redactions that copy from previous myths, and change or add whatever they want. And as I note in OHJ, the trend had even become to rewrite myths as histories over time (e.g. Plutarch’s Life of Romulus), exactly as the Gospels progress to do. It’s all just how this was done in antiquity. The Christian mythology follows the same exact pattern as every other.
Genesis 1:26
“Let us make man in our image”
What is meant by “us”?
Some possible explanations:
First, God may be referring to Himself and the angels. This seems unlikely given the rest of Scripture’s depiction of angels. These beings are presented as servants and messengers, not creators or rulers.
Second, this could be what scholars call a plural of self-exhortation or self-encouragement, meaning He is referring only to Himself. This would also be referred to as “the royal ‘we,'” something we see used by human kings and rulers when making proclamations or decrees.
The third possibility is that God is speaking as a Trinity, of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. According to Scripture as a whole, the full Trinity was present at creation. Genesis 1:2 describes the Spirit of God hovering over the waters, and John 1:1–3 reveals that the Word, Christ, was active in the creation of all things.
Do you think any of the possibilities make sense? Or something else? Or do we simply not know?
This article will get you up to speed.
It is actually widely agreed that when Genesis was written it meant an actual council of gods, led by Yahweh. Because monotheism hadn’t been invented yet. By the second temple period, this had evolved into an angelological interpretation: God is indeed speaking for his committee of angels, all of whom were created and given assignments that basically make them the functional equivalents of subordinate gods, before everything narratively depicted in Genesis occurs. But the council of gods was changed to a council of angels only in post-exile theology (when the Hebrews were exposed to this same device as already adopted by the Persian Zoroastrians).
There isn’t really much good evidence for the “plural of excellence” interpretation; it’s largely anachronistic (a late medieval idea). And even when introduced, it’s actually a literal plural (“we” in any “royal we” refers to a nation of people, i.e. when a king says “we” he means that literally, if counterfactually; hence that really is just another variant of “speaking for a divine council”).
The royal we (pluralis majestatis) is extremely common in Arabic literature and the Quran
eg
And lo! when We said to the angels [2:34]
That is from the news of the unseen which We reveal to you [3:44]
Then We sent after them Moses and Aaron to Pharaoh and his establishment with Our signs, but they behaved arrogantly and were a criminal people. 10:75
Which is a medieval language. I can’t speak to the history of the practice in its ancient language predecessors. Nor do I know enough of early medieval Arab culture to speak to what that actually meant when written (it might in fact be a literal plural, same way as in Hebrew: God is speaking to or of his angelic council, through whose agency God effects his plans on earth).
Hi Richard. When do you expect Jonathan Sheffield to respond to your opening response? It’s gone very quiet.
Be patient. The opening post in this debate said “weeks” as the timeline. Sheffield sent me his reply a few days ago. I’ve been engaged in meeting deadlines for other work; I scheduled to get his reply up today. You were told the timeline was weeks not days. So do please let people get their work done at the pace they told you they would do it in.
His response appeared an hour after your snappy response to me! Sheffield moves in mysterious ways! Now to read it.
You seem to have a reading problem. Please fix that.
I just told you Sheffield submitted it days ago and my posting it was delayed by my own work schedule. And that I had already scheduled to post it the day I answered your comment.
Dr. Carrier, you stated, “So all Paul appeals to is a private revelation from a spirit affirming Jesus lived (26:15)”
Could you clarify your statement on this? According to Acts 26:15, it wasn’t a spirit affirming Jesus, it was Jesus affirming himself to Paul. One could argue that a spirit was impersonating Jesus here, but I do not see the affirming aspect.
Also, you stated, “Paul’s only evidence was revelation and scripture.”
I’ve read where you affirm 1 Corinthians as Pauline and first century (if I recall correctly). Paul had mentioned in chapter 15 numerous eye witnesses that had seen Jesus after the resurrection. One of the groups he mentioned was a crowd of over 500 men at one time (vs. 6). Were all these men hallucinating at once? Also, he was not speaking in the chapter of spiritual or mythical resurrection was he? His main argument in the text was not so much about these believers in Corinth denying Jesus’ physical resurrection, but their own. His argument was that since Christ had risen, they too would follow in the same pattern. He stated that Christ was the firstfruits from the dead (vs. 20). He used the term dead 13 times in chapter 15. Almost all are referring to dead bodies. He even parallels the physical deadness that Adam brought to all men (vs. 21-22) with the physical resurrection that Christ will bring to all (vs. 21-23). I am curious about your answer to this. It seems odd for him to make a physical resurrection defense here in 1 Corinthians 15 and a spiritual one in Acts 26.
One cannot presume a claim is real. Paul thought Jesus visited him spiritually. Whether that was true was unknowable to any Roman official, or Jewish. It wasn’t even knowable that that spirit was authentic (much less real), exactly as the Sanhedrin I quoted declared. Paul himself said there were other spirits pretending to be Jesus.
That no trials or hearings throughout Acts ever reference a missing body (neither the authorities ever noticed or investigated one, nor the Christians ever cited one) disproves any notion that the original belief was of corpse reanimation. It was of body replacement, exactly as Paul himself explains (see my debate on the point that I already linked to above; and all the resources cited therein, adding now the first section of Why Did Mark Invent an Empty Tomb?). This is an impossible belief to prove or falsify. Which is why that’s what the authorities all said about it even in Acts.
On the appearance to “five hundred,” read Then He Appeared to Over Five Hundred Brethren at Once!
I realize I’m late to the party and probably won’t be read, but as I read this response, I immediately thought you’ve got to be kidding?
I mean, you kept saying “they (Romans) didn’t care?
Seriously? You have to be a “Liar, Lunatic or Loon” to believe that. And by Loon, instead of Lord, you’d have to be intellectually dishonest to believe, much less say “they didn’t care”?
Of course they cared, to whatever degree you’re willing to apply by the evidence of history, they certainly cared, they actually cared enough to persecute and blame the Christians to a degree the whole world noticed.
So, immediately you were discredited with extreme prejudice that shows your obvious ignorance, fear or concern for how much they obviously cared.
I suspect you won’t care for my response, so now I’ll watch the entire debate because you lost credibility from this opening blindness.
Regards
They didn’t actually persecute the Christians for their beliefs (like in the resurrection or anything). That’s a myth. When rarely they bothered, it was for illegal assembly—a political crime, not a religious one—and when, in prosecuting that, the religious beliefs came up at all, they declared them pointless superstition of no interest to them.
Evidence decides truth. And the evidence is: the Romans literally did not care what the Christians were claiming. Until centuries later, and then for completely different reasons, which still generated no interest at all in whether their beliefs (such as about the resurrection) were true.
This is all discussed and demonstrated in the debate you are commenting on. Which suggests you never actually read it. You violated your own Lord’s commandments to bear false witness by pretending you read the debate and thus know what the claims and evidence actually are. This is what your worldview has made of you. It is not admirable. A more certain demonstration of your religion’s falsity you could not have here given to everyone.
Own goal there. Well done.
I not only read it, I then watched it, but I’ll accept your response.
I stand by what I stated.
To say they didn’t care as you repeatedly stated show your intellectual dishonesty with such an absolute.
To say, they didn’t care to ANY DEGREE, all of Rome from highest to lowest is simply the ultimate condemnation of your own words.
I realize you’re convinced of your stand, which is why it will cause your fall to all the more harder.
Respectfully
Watched it? There is no video of this debate. Are you really this dedicated to lying? What has happened to you as a person that this is what you do now?
This debate has only existed in writing. And your comments betray the fact that you don’t even know what the arguments are in it. You lied. And you lied again. Ten Commandments be damned. Your own God be damned. Shame on you.
Notice what you are doing to yourself. You are evading the truth by resorting to rhetorical deceptions (for example, changing the debate subject from only resurrection belief and the Roman authorities to “ANY DEGREE, all of Rome from highest to lowest” is a lie; that is not what the debate you are commenting was about; this is a fallacy of self-deception called Moving the Goalposts), rather than admitting you literally did not know I already argued the things I just told you, in the debate you are commenting on. You lied. To me. To your God. To the world.
Why?
You need to take a hard look at yourself and what has become of you. Your moral character has been shattered, forcing you to become this lying, self-deceiving denigrator of the truth. Your religion has ruined you. Maybe someday you will realize what it has done to you, and realize in turn that it is therefore not a true religion at all, but a corruptor of souls.
You might want to stop Worshipping the Antichrist. For only the Anti-Christ, whom you have mistaken for the Christ, would be whispering into your soul to convince you to tell lies to yourself and us all, as if that was going to help your cause, when in fact it just proves to us all how damned you and your false faith are.
Scott’s response reflects a frustration I often have talking (or rather commenting back and forth online — does “talking” now encompass what we’re doing now? I suspect “talking” itself is an evolving verb, but I digress) to Christians whereas their history and/or understanding is so twisted and off base, it’s hard to have a reasonable discussion/debate that lands at any conclusion (other than the Christian thinks you’re possessed by demons of confusion).
The usual hangup is “But Luke was there! He’s talking to eyewitnesses!” or similar bromides parroted from apologists.
Do you have a favorite place to send someone (for willing open minds, i.e. the occasional inquisitive Christian who is perhaps having doubts, but at the very least is open-minded) that is a good starting point? I mean by this a “laypersons” level book or perhaps one of your blogs that addresses such basics it’s easy to read (and hard to ignore)?
Maybe a specific video series (or one specific amazing interview)?
I always want to start with “let’s pretend we’re unbiased and want to know what’s true,” but alas, that’s hard with people who already “know” everything and think you’re the idiot.
I sympathize. I experience that same sentiment many times.
I don’t keep up well enough with video media to know what’s best for that purpose. There could be all kinds of things that are great, I don’t know; although the documentary Marketing the Messiah might serve well at least for an opener.
But on the books front, I always recommend Bart Ehrman’s Jesus, Interrupted as the best starting point.
That summarizes the state of mainstream New Testament scholarship reasonably well (it has all the basics). It is written from the perspective of a recent de-convert (so he sympathizes with the “apologetical” POV even as he relates how he was shocked to discover it was false). And if a Christian won’t read that because he thinks even Ehrman is too radical and biased to consult, then they are probably beyond all hope of return to rationality anyway and you should move on.
[ … ]
I apologize, Scott. My new system crashed your third and latest comment. I did see it before I lost the data, and I did notice that in it you apologized for confusing an aftershow for the debate.
Which only illustrates my point.
You didn’t know. Even the show explains this. So that you didn’t know this, demonstrates you did not even watch that aftershow.
But you claimed you did. Twice.
That’s lying.
And again, you clearly didn’t know what our debate was about, either. It was about the resurrection belief and the Roman state.
Your second comment (above) indicated you thought it was about any aspect of the religion at all, and any Romans at all. Only someone who did not even listen to the aftershow (much less did not read the actual debate) could make that mistake. Yet you made that mistake. Because you lied when you claimed you watched or read any of this.
Then your first comment likewise betrayed no knowledge of any of that debate’s content, such as all the things I said about why the Roman state had no interest in the resurrection, and all the evidence I presented proving that it didn’t. You didn’t know any of that. Which proves to me again that you lied when you claimed you watched or read any of this.
Lying is only discrediting your faith, not defending it.
You’ve done grave damage to your own cause here.
And that’s now the story of you.
But there is hope. You can think on why you have done this. And maybe fix what’s gone wrong with you.
I’m not sure if you’re on medication or just need medication, perhaps it’s just the obvious anger in you.
I did not lie…
To lie needs intent on deception, none of which was there.
As I stated and included what I read, the link you provided and the reason I thought what I watched was indeed the same debate.
You said the same thing that you continually repeat ad nauseum “they didn’t care”.
That was my whole focus and the reason for my comments, even the one you deleted and lost, on purpose, or by accident, who am I to say (just like a lie).
Regardless, bottom line again, I don’t believe you’re being intellectually honest, even that is not necessarily a lie.
I don’t think you can say they did not care to any degree, thus they didn’t investigate it just because you don’t see a report, comments in history or other yet.
You simply don’t know that, there is no evidence for that found yet, to say such a thing about events over 2000 years ago
The Christians, perhaps even more than the Jews were a thorn in their behinds, they did care to some degree, whatever degree.
And no, I’m not just talking about the religions, I’m talking about the specific topic the debate was about, the one I read and the one I watched.
The persecutions, the troubles Indicted on them would give some degree of care about the main focus if their faith and claims, the resurrection.
But, it’s okay, you’ve repeatedly displayed that you’re convinced you know every Romans mindset.
You know every thing they did, didn’t do and why.
You know in absolute terms that I intentionally lied, that I was being intentionally deceptive…
I mean, how could I possibly compete with your all knowing abilities?
Bottom line, I disagree with your omniscience, but wish you luck in this life and the next
You pretended you had read the debate and seen our discussion. You said this multiple times, even when challenged. So you had full intent. This was not an accident.
And your comments continue to indicate you do not know the content of either the debate or the followup discussion.
That proves you did not read or watch them, beyond cursorily.
You can continue lying all you want to. That’s on you. But it doesn’t change reality.
The reality is: You lied here in an attempt to defend your faith. And when you got caught, you lied again to try and hide your previous lie.
And when you lie to defend your faith, you disprove the truth of your faith. The opposite of what you intend. This is an own goal.
And everyone here now sees this.
“Still, none of these “things” Paul says Agrippa “knows” relate to the resurrection.”
‘None’ is singular. Ergo, “none of these “things”…relateS…”
None is only singular only when it refers to a quantity of one thing (no amount is left, hence “None of the coffee is left”) but plural when it refers to a plurality of things (no things are left, hence “None of the doughnuts are left”). See the commentary at Mirriam-Webster.