Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?

[Outrider]

A former work colleague saw a ghost, weird how some Christians believe in magic but don't seem that interested in other types of mumbo jumbo.

Well, what was the evidence that what they saw was a ghost rather than a mirage, or some psychological vision?  That is the point; the early Christians didn't claim to see a ghost; they claimed to have met a tangible being; someone they could touch and hold a conversation with.

Wow like its super-magic so it must be definitely certainly 110% all the way true then?

Your confirmation bias is showing so much its embarassing.

You can only have 100%!

I'm currently charting a 124% year-on-year incident report level... just saying.

O.

[floo]

A former work colleague saw a ghost, weird how some Christians believe in magic but don't seem that interested in other types of mumbo jumbo.

Ah but they have the TRUTH!!!!

I would never claim to have been first in the queue when intelligence was being handed out. However, I can recognise it in others living with a highly intelligent husband and having children who take after him. I am in contact with lots of other very bright people too. It amuses me that one of the 'Christian' posters, who likes to tell me and others how thick we are, whilst apparently preening themselves on their intellectual acuity, doesn't come over as having too many functioning marbles if their posts are an indication of their intellect!

[BashfulAnthony]

A former work colleague saw a ghost, weird how some Christians believe in magic but don't seem that interested in other types of mumbo jumbo.

Well, what was the evidence that what they saw was a ghost rather than a mirage, or some psychological vision?  That is the point; the early Christians didn't claim to see a ghost; they claimed to have met a tangible being; someone they could touch and hold a conversation with.

Wow like its super-magic so it must be definitely certainly 110% all the way true then?

Your confirmation bias is showing so much its embarassing.

You can only have 100%!

I'm currently charting a 124% year-on-year incident report level... just saying.

O.

You cannot do more than all of something.  100% is the most you can do.

[jakswan]

A former work colleague saw a ghost, weird how some Christians believe in magic but don't seem that interested in other types of mumbo jumbo.

Well, what was the evidence that what they saw was a ghost rather than a mirage, or some psychological vision?  That is the point; the early Christians didn't claim to see a ghost; they claimed to have met a tangible being; someone they could touch and hold a conversation with.

Wow like its super-magic so it must be definitely certainly 110% all the way true then?

Your confirmation bias is showing so much its embarassing.

You can only have 100%!

Yeah but its magic init.

[BashfulAnthony]

A former work colleague saw a ghost, weird how some Christians believe in magic but don't seem that interested in other types of mumbo jumbo.

Well, what was the evidence that what they saw was a ghost rather than a mirage, or some psychological vision?  That is the point; the early Christians didn't claim to see a ghost; they claimed to have met a tangible being; someone they could touch and hold a conversation with.

Wow like its super-magic so it must be definitely certainly 110% all the way true then?

Your confirmation bias is showing so much its embarassing.

You can only have 100%!

Yeah but its magic init.

Uh?

[jeremyp]

The technical term for an account by somebody allegedly reporting a different person's experiences is "hearsay".

Regardless of the wikipedia definition you quote in a later post, this is untrue.  A document that is dictated to a scribe by an eyewitness is not regarded as hearsay.

This is irrelevant. Dictation to a scribe was a common way of writing a letter in those days.  Nobody disputes that such a letter was written by the person dictating rather than the scribe.  None of the gospels were even dictated by eye witnesses. 

[jeremyp]

Mark has traditionally been deemed to have been dictated to Mark by Peter,

No.  If it was believed that Mark was merely Peter's scribe, it would be called the Gospel of Peter.

as there are elements within the material that would only have been known to Peter.

As there are elements e.g. some geographical details that Peter would have known to be false.

Then there are some of Paul's epistles (not the ones regarded as using his name as a pseudonyms) where the material actually tells us that Paul is dictating it to someone else - usually Luke.

But we don't call them the letters of the scribes.

This is the first time, by the way, that I have heard anybody claim Luke was Paul's scribe.  How do you come to that conclusion?

[Hope]

Mark has traditionally been deemed to have been dictated to Mark by Peter,

No.  If it was believed that Mark was merely Peter's scribe, it would be called the Gospel of Peter.

Not necessarily. 

As there are elements e.g. some geographical details that Peter would have known to be false.

such as ...?

This is the first time, by the way, that I have heard anybody claim Luke was Paul's scribe.  How do you come to that conclusion?

Several Pauline epistles end with the comment along the lines of 'see, I sign this with my own hand' indicating that the rest of the material hadn't been written by his own hand.  We know that Luke accompanied Paul of several of his travels - and recorded some of them in Acts - so the suggestion that he also wrote at Paul's dictation isn't improbable.  In fact, even the 'legit' epistles have diverse linguistic markers that strongly suggest the use of 'secretaries' or at least one, who might have been in a position to phrase ideas that Paul had, in their own words under his supervision.

[jeremyp]

No.  If it was believed that Mark was merely Peter's scribe, it would be called the Gospel of Peter.

Not necessarily. 

Yes, necessarily.  We know for a fact that Paul used a scribe and his letters are still attributed to him.

As there are elements e.g. some geographical details that Peter would have known to be false.

such as ...?

Mark 7:31 (NRSV) " Then he returned from the region of Tyre, and went by way of Sidon towards the Sea of Galilee, in the region of the Decapolis."

Sidon is in the opposite direction to the Sea of Galilee from Tyre.

Then look at Mark 5 where Gerasa is implied to be on the banks of the Sea of Galilee.  It's actually miles away.

This is the first time, by the way, that I have heard anybody claim Luke was Paul's scribe.  How do you come to that conclusion?

Several Pauline epistles end with the comment along the lines of 'see, I sign this with my own hand' indicating that the rest of the material hadn't been written by his own hand.

Nobody disputes that part.  He had a scribe.

We know that Luke accompanied Paul of several of his travels - and recorded some of them in Acts - so the suggestion that he also wrote at Paul's dictation isn't improbable.

Ah, so it was a guess.

[Spud]

You seem to be assuming that these NT accounts of Jesus being dead and then resurrected are necessarily true

Yes, I'm assuming that for the sake of argument. All you have said in your post (and Floo too) is about how a non-eyewitness can be sure it is true, but I am assuming that I (or you) am in the place of an eyewitness and I saw what they describe, and is it enough for me to be sure, if I was in their place.

Then, Spud, I'd say that you are far too easily pleased.

Not sure if you read correctly, Gordon. I said "is it enough for me to be sure, if I was in their place"- I was asking the question.

[Alien]

Why do you think the gorilla experiment has got anything to do with whether individual and groups of people on a dozen or so occasions met up with, talked with and sometimes at with someone they were convinced was the same Jesus who had been killed by crucifixion a few days earlier?

You're doing it again, Alan: assuming anecdotal claims as facts!

Nope.

[Spud]

Some have already asked "where is 'my' own personal eye-witness experience"

Good point, and I have been trying to show, before answering this question, that what is described is enough to convince an eyewitness him/herself that Jesus was alive again. And you gave a good answer to the question, ie that Jesus' death was once for all.

[Alien]

...Jesus naturally returning from the dead is almost infinitessimally unlikely that we all agree it would not have happened, but that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing the Christian claim that God raised Jesus from the dead.

You may think it's not what we're discussing, but it's integral to everyone's position. We're all starting with naturalism as the background by which we come to assess the likelihood of an event.

No, we are not "all starting with naturalism as the background".

Yes, we are. It's your whole routine for how you think you can clearly identify when a miracle has occurred. Look, you've even been finicky in your response when agreeing with me about it! - You see X as naturally impossible, but believe it happened, therefore a god.

That is not assuming/starting with naturalism, whether methodological or philosophical. All it says is that, whether there is a supernatural or not, it is not possible for a person dead for 2 days to come back to life via normal, physical processes. That is all. That does not make me a naturalist. A philosophical naturalist is someone who believes there is nothing beyond the physical world and a methodological naturalist is someone who uses methods which would not show up a supernatural event even if one happened.

By all means, if you want to claim that your starting point for assessing the likelihood of an event is filtered through theism, by my guest, but it makes your argument circular. Really, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in saying you start with naturalism, but perhaps I shouldn't.

Nope, I am not claiming my "starting point for assessing the likelihood of an event is filtered through theism." I was not a theist when I started looking at the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I became a (Christian) theist as a result, but it was not my starting point.

You, as a philosophical naturalist are,

I don't know how many times I have to either make the point or say things in a manner that make it crystal that I am not a philosophical naturalist. Please, don't turn into Vlad, as it's probably a good thing that you're going to post less if you do.

My apologies. How would you describe yourself, please?

those of us who have not assumed that the physical world is all there is may not be. I aren't.

As I've explained above, you are starting with it.

As explained above, I am not.

The whole point for the Christian in this instance is that this event is so implausible to happen naturally, that for all intents and purposes we might as well not believe it's naturally possible.

Why do you make this claim?

I've added 'naturally' in again if that makes it clearer.

We may be arguing at cross purposes. Hopefully my first paragraph above will help.

So to the Christian (or theist), not possible + happening = god... in a roundabout way.

Perhaps I am being finicky, but it should be "not naturally possible + happening = God". If it were "not possible", as you put it, it would not happen. That's what "not possible" entails.

Finicky? Yes and no. I was talking under the context of naturalism, so it's what I meant anyway, but there's no harm in you making it appear precise.

Appear precise?

When you add a god in, you remove that assessment of likelihood, so I see the question of "why is god raising Jesus from the dead implausible" as meaningless.

OK, that's unfortunate for you then.

<shrugs> Don't see it myself, but if you feel it would be better for me to see meaning in it, then provide the method etc... ...you know the drill.

Have done on a number of occasions on various threads. Getting a bit tired of repeating it. Look at what happened (death on a cross, burial in a known tomb, tomb found empty, individuals and groups on about a dozen occasions convinced they had met, spoken with and sometimes eaten with Jesus who was again right as ninepence. You know the score.

I think it's hooey. I can just as easily form an argument saying' "If there is no god, it is impossible for Jesus to have stayed dead.

Agreed so far.

Therefore, since Jesus stayed dead, there is a god." I don't think you disagree with that either.

I do disagree with your statement that Jesus stayed dead. He was seen by individuals and groups on a dozen or so occasions that we know of and spoke to those people, who were individuals and groups, and sometimes even ate with them.

I was drawing a parallel with your argument, that's all. I don't agree with either conclusion, as you yourself just said, "Therefore, since Jesus was raised from the dead, there is a god". I could've latched onto that myself, but it would be shifting away from the point. I know what you believe happened, I'm just making the point that if the opposite happened, then it doesn't mean a god doesn't exist, but also it can equally be used to conclude god exists. It's that I don't think you disagree with...

Why would anyone ever argue that "If there is no god, it is impossible for Jesus to have stayed dead"?

I mean, do you really believe that Jesus (or anybody for that matter) could stay dead without god?

Er, yes, I do believe people could stay dead without God. Did you mean to ask that?

Yes, I meant it. You're just showing yourself up to being inconsistent and having tunnel vision for one argument you use for god by isolating it from the others you use. I'll ask again and expand:

Do you really believe that Jesus (or anybody for that matter) could stay dead without a god when you simultaneously believe that the laws of nature, that dictate people stay dead, were created (and sustained?) by a god?

Yes, if there is no God then there is no God to create and sustain the laws of nature.

[Alien]

...Jesus naturally returning from the dead is almost infinitessimally unlikely that we all agree it would not have happened, but that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing the Christian claim that God raised Jesus from the dead.

You may think it's not what we're discussing, but it's integral to everyone's position. We're all starting with naturalism as the background by which we come to assess the likelihood of an event.

No, we are not "all starting with naturalism as the background". You, as a philosophical naturalist are, but those of us who have not assumed that the physical world is all there is may not be. I aren't.

Tell us how to assess the likelihood of an event if you have the assumption that God could make anything happen at any time.

I don't have that assumption.

[Gordon]

You seem to be assuming that these NT accounts of Jesus being dead and then resurrected are necessarily true

Yes, I'm assuming that for the sake of argument. All you have said in your post (and Floo too) is about how a non-eyewitness can be sure it is true, but I am assuming that I (or you) am in the place of an eyewitness and I saw what they describe, and is it enough for me to be sure, if I was in their place.

Then, Spud, I'd say that you are far too easily pleased.

Not sure if you read correctly, Gordon. I said "is it enough for me to be sure, if I was in their place"- I was asking the question.

How do you know that they were telling the truth: in fact, how do you know there really were eye-witnesses at all? If Jesus was dead then they must have been lying, or the whole eye-witness stuff is propaganda, or if they really did see him then he clearly wasn't previously dead.

If you go down the route of 'was dead - then seen' then you'll need more than a few unsupported and unattributed accounts: you'll need a method to show the supernatural evidence in a way that counters the risk of mistakes or lies.

There is nothing in these claims that couldn't easily be fabricated - and this is a risk that you guys seem reluctant to take seriously, and presumably early Christians were not immune from human failings.

[jeremyp]

Tell us how to assess the likelihood of an event if you have the assumption that God could make anything happen at any time.

I don't have that assumption.

Yes you do.  When I point out that dead people do not come alive again, you say "they could if God".

[floo]

You seem to be assuming that these NT accounts of Jesus being dead and then resurrected are necessarily true

Yes, I'm assuming that for the sake of argument. All you have said in your post (and Floo too) is about how a non-eyewitness can be sure it is true, but I am assuming that I (or you) am in the place of an eyewitness and I saw what they describe, and is it enough for me to be sure, if I was in their place.

Then, Spud, I'd say that you are far too easily pleased.

Not sure if you read correctly, Gordon. I said "is it enough for me to be sure, if I was in their place"- I was asking the question.

How do you know that they were telling the truth: in fact, how do you know there really were eye-witnesses at all? If Jesus was dead then they must have been lying, or the whole eye-witness stuff is propaganda, or if they really did see him then he clearly wasn't previously dead.

If you go down the route of 'was dead - then seen' then you'll need more than a few unsupported and unattributed accounts: you'll need a method to show the supernatural evidence in a way that counters the risk of mistakes or lies.

There is nothing in these claims that couldn't easily be fabricated - and this is a risk that you guys seem reluctant to take seriously, and presumably early Christians were not immune from human failings.

Agreed.

[Alien]

Tell us how to assess the likelihood of an event if you have the assumption that God could make anything happen at any time.

It's famous so you probably know the quote, JP, but J.B.S. Haldane said much the same thing - if you have entities you can't define doing things you can't explain by means you don't understand, the world is a chaotic, incoherent and capricious mess and science is impossible.

Try replacing "entities" with "the laws of physics" and see whether you agree with the sentence. With all the laws of physics, if you go deep enough we run out of understanding, yet no-one claims that means the world is chaotic, incoherent and capricious mess and science is impossible. Doing that shows Haldane was incorrect in making that claim.

[Outrider]

Tell us how to assess the likelihood of an event if you have the assumption that God could make anything happen at any time.

It's famous so you probably know the quote, JP, but J.B.S. Haldane said much the same thing - if you have entities you can't define doing things you can't explain by means you don't understand, the world is a chaotic, incoherent and capricious mess and science is impossible.

Try replacing "entities" with "the laws of physics" and see whether you agree with the sentence. With all the laws of physics, if you go deep enough we run out of understanding, yet no-one claims that means the world is chaotic, incoherent and capricious mess and science is impossible. Doing that shows Haldane was incorrect in making that claim.

No, because when you change 'entities' to 'laws of physics' you change 'can't define' and 'can't explain' to 'haven't defined and 'can't explain yet'.

Science isn't, implicitly, beyond comprehension. Gods are.

O.

[jeremyp]

Tell us how to assess the likelihood of an event if you have the assumption that God could make anything happen at any time.

It's famous so you probably know the quote, JP, but J.B.S. Haldane said much the same thing - if you have entities you can't define doing things you can't explain by means you don't understand, the world is a chaotic, incoherent and capricious mess and science is impossible.

Try replacing "entities" with "the laws of physics" and see whether you agree with the sentence. With all the laws of physics, if you go deep enough we run out of understanding, yet no-one claims that means the world is chaotic, incoherent and capricious mess and science is impossible. Doing that shows Haldane was incorrect in making that claim.

Is all this quibbling your way of telling me that you can't answer the question I posed?   How do you assess the likelihood of an event if you have the assumption that God could make anything happen at any time?

[Hope]

How do you assess the likelihood of an event if you have the assumption that God could make anything happen at any time?

Surely you ought to be asking "Why would you assess the likelihood ...'.  God doesn't work with stats., probabilities and likelihoods. 

[Gordon]

How do you assess the likelihood of an event if you have the assumption that God could make anything happen at any time?

Surely you ought to be asking "Why would you assess the likelihood ...'.  God doesn't work with stats., probabilities and likelihoods.

or at all!

[jeremyp]

How do you assess the likelihood of an event if you have the assumption that God could make anything happen at any time?

Surely you ought to be asking "Why would you assess the likelihood ...'.  God doesn't work with stats., probabilities and likelihoods.

Exactly.  Unfortunately, rational discourse about the real World is all about probabilities and likelihoods. All this discussion we are having about evidence, eye witnesses, best explanations etc becomes meaningless if a god exists that interferes with the World.

[Hope]

How do you know that they were telling the truth: in fact, how do you know there really were eye-witnesses at all? If Jesus was dead then they must have been lying, or the whole eye-witness stuff is propaganda, or if they really did see him then he clearly wasn't previously dead.

Obviously, you will regard these as the only options since you are bound by the assumption that supranatural events can't occur - since they contravene the laws of nature as we know them.

If you go down the route of 'was dead - then seen' then you'll need more than a few unsupported and unattributed accounts: you'll need a method to show the supernatural evidence in a way that counters the risk of mistakes or lies.

Unfortunately, the equivalent can be said about scientific reportage, Gordon.  Over my liftime, there have been plenty of such mistakes or lies within the scientific community.  That doesn't invalidate science.

There is nothing in these claims that couldn't easily be fabricated - and this is a risk that you guys seem reluctant to take seriously, and presumably early Christians were not immune from human failings.

Which is why several of us have, over the months, worked our ways through the various oppositional explanations and shown why they are either impossible or nigh on so.

[Hope]

Exactly.  Unfortunately, rational discourse about the real World is all about probabilities and likelihoods. All this discussion we are having about evidence, eye witnesses, best explanations etc becomes meaningless if a god exists that interferes with the World.

Only if you regard the 'real World' as immune from the involvement of the supernatural creator.  A concept that is, in itself, all-but impossible if it was created.