Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?

[Alien]

As explained many times before, I see it as the best explanation for the empty tomb (after Jesus was killed by crucifixion), for people as individuals and groups on about a dozen known occurrences being convinced that they met him right as ninepence in the following days and for the start of the Christian church by a bunch of previously dispirited, defeated people.

How do you know that the 'empty tomb' aspect of this story isn't pure fiction?

Because all the authorities had to do do disprove it was point people to Jesus' body in the tomb if it was not empty.

It is that simple.

Of course, Alan, it's very simple.  The authorities not explaining a missing corpse is far less probable than that the corpse came back to life and walked out on his own.  It's so simple - if you happen to have confirmation bias.

This is incorrect. You have given an explanation for just one of the things which needs explaining. Why won't you explain the whole lot?

[Gordon]

As explained many times before, I see it as the best explanation for the empty tomb (after Jesus was killed by crucifixion), for people as individuals and groups on about a dozen known occurrences being convinced that they met him right as ninepence in the following days and for the start of the Christian church by a bunch of previously dispirited, defeated people.

How do you know that the 'empty tomb' aspect of this story isn't pure fiction?

Because all the authorities had to do do disprove it was point people to Jesus' body in the tomb if it was not empty.

It is that simple.

You are assuming that the 'empty tomb' element was an issue at the time of the alleged resurrection: but that the tomb was empty and that the body of Jesus was there at all are claims and not facts. So, how to you know that this isn't just a later addition by Jesus supporters at the time the story was first written down decades later?

After all propaganda is a risk, and if you can't acknowledge this then you are indulging in special pleading that those early Christians/NT writers were immune from human artifice in support of their cause.

If there is a risk that it isn't true at all, and there is this risk, then your challenge to 'explain' these claims is spurious since your challenge involves assuming that claims are facts, and I'd say that such assumptions are unjustified.

[jjohnjil]

As explained many times before, I see it as the best explanation for the empty tomb (after Jesus was killed by crucifixion), for people as individuals and groups on about a dozen known occurrences being convinced that they met him right as ninepence in the following days and for the start of the Christian church by a bunch of previously dispirited, defeated people.

How do you know that the 'empty tomb' aspect of this story isn't pure fiction?

Because all the authorities had to do do disprove it was point people to Jesus' body in the tomb if it was not empty.

It is that simple.

Of course, Alan, it's very simple.  The authorities not explaining a missing corpse is far less probable than that the corpse came back to life and walked out on his own.  It's so simple - if you happen to have confirmation bias.

This is incorrect. You have given an explanation for just one of the things which needs explaining. Why won't you explain the whole lot?

What's that then, the chance of people making up stories ... lying ... the stories being told over and over again and being misquoted before they were written down - any of those less likely than a dead man walking?

[Leonard James]

What's that then, the chance of people making up stories ... lying ... the stories being told over and over again and being misquoted before they were written down - any of those less likely than a dead man walking?

Quite! Every intelligent person nowadays knows perfectly well that truly dead people don't come back to life. They also know how swiftly daft rumours can spread through a population.

You don't need to have the brain of Einstein to see which is the most likely.

[Andy]

As explained many times before, I see it as the best explanation for the empty tomb (after Jesus was killed by crucifixion), for people as individuals and groups on about a dozen known occurrences being convinced that they met him right as ninepence in the following days and for the start of the Christian church by a bunch of previously dispirited, defeated people.

How do you know that the 'empty tomb' aspect of this story isn't pure fiction?

Because all the authorities had to do do disprove it was point people to Jesus' body in the tomb if it was not empty.

It is that simple.

So I suppose that means in opposition to that, all Jesus had to do was show himself to the authorities, proving it right?

[Hope]

So I suppose that means in opposition to that, all Jesus had to do was show himself to the authorities, proving it right?

Well, it is recorded that he did appear in public.  All the authorities had to do was to show his body to show that the person appearing was an impostor.

[Hope]

Quite! Every intelligent person nowadays knows perfectly well that truly dead people don't come back to life. They also know how swiftly daft rumours can spread through a population.

Sadfly enough for you, every intelligent person nowadays knows perfectly well that truly dead people have been known to come back to life, and medical records have shown this.  It even has a name - Lazurus syndrome.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_syndrome

[Gordon]

So I suppose that means in opposition to that, all Jesus had to do was show himself to the authorities, proving it right?

Well, it is recorded that he did appear in public.  All the authorities had to do was to show his body to show that the person appearing was an impostor.

Which assumes that the authorities at the time were aware that there was a resurrection claim that needed immediate debunking - hard for them to do if the resurrection story is propaganda added decades later by Jesus fans.

Since you believe the resurrection claim how have you excluded the risk of this being later propaganda?

[jjohnjil]

So I suppose that means in opposition to that, all Jesus had to do was show himself to the authorities, proving it right?

Well, it is recorded that he did appear in public.  All the authorities had to do was to show his body to show that the person appearing was an impostor.

Why do you imagine the authorities were interested in whether or not Jesus' followers were putting the story around that their leader had returned from the dead?  I expect they treated them like any other sect's nutters!

[Andy]

So I suppose that means in opposition to that, all Jesus had to do was show himself to the authorities, proving it right?

Well, it is recorded that he did appear in public.  All the authorities had to do was to show his body to show that the person appearing was an impostor.

And if they thought he was the genuine article you would have thought they would have written it down...

[Shaker]

Quite! Every intelligent person nowadays knows perfectly well that truly dead people don't come back to life. They also know how swiftly daft rumours can spread through a population.

Sadfly enough for you, every intelligent person nowadays knows perfectly well that truly dead people have been known to come back to life, and medical records have shown this.  It even has a name - Lazurus syndrome.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_syndrome

Unfortunately for you, your link at no point and in no way states that so-called Lazarus Syndrome entails the coming back to life of the genuinely dead.

I found this out by reading the link, which you patently didn't.

[Hope]

Why do you imagine the authorities were interested in whether or not Jesus' followers were putting the story around that their leader had returned from the dead?  I expect they treated them like any other sect's nutters!

Actually, yes; they would have been very interested, jj.  After all, it was they who had had him crucified for the very reason of blasphemy - his claiming to be God.  Incidentally, how many 'other (Jewish) sects' were there at that time in history?  I accept that history records that there had been a number of political 'Messiahs' who had been dealt with over the preceding 50-odd years, but history makes no mention of any resultant 'sects'.  There were the Zealots, but it tended to be from within their ranks that these 'Messiahs' emerged.  Jesus clearly wasn't one of them.

[Gordon]

Quite! Every intelligent person nowadays knows perfectly well that truly dead people don't come back to life. They also know how swiftly daft rumours can spread through a population.

Sadfly enough for you, every intelligent person nowadays knows perfectly well that truly dead people have been known to come back to life, and medical records have shown this.  It even has a name - Lazurus syndrome.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_syndrome

,
A small number of cases involving recovery following attempts at cardiac resuscitation, with all the trauma and modern medical intervention/drugs involves and prior to actual death: so not the the same thing at all as recovery 3 days post-death from major tissue and bony injury in antiquity.

[Gordon]

Why do you imagine the authorities were interested in whether or not Jesus' followers were putting the story around that their leader had returned from the dead?  I expect they treated them like any other sect's nutters!

Actually, yes; they would have been very interested, jj.  After all, it was they who had had him crucified for the very reason of blasphemy - his claiming to be God.  Incidentally, how many 'other (Jewish) sects' were there at that time in history?  I accept that history records that there had been a number of political 'Messiahs' who had been dealt with over the preceding 50-odd years, but history makes no mention of any resultant 'sects'.  There were the Zealots, but it tended to be from within their ranks that these 'Messiahs' emerged.  Jesus clearly wasn't one of them.

Special pleading again - if the resurrection elements were propaganda added decades later then the authorities at the time would have assumed that they had just disposed of a troublemaker - and moved on.

[Hope]

Which assumes that the authorities at the time were aware that there was a resurrection claim that needed immediate debunking - hard for them to do if the resurrection story is propaganda added decades later by Jesus fans.

Since you believe the resurrection claim how have you excluded the risk of this being later propaganda?

May I turn this round and ask you whether you have considered that, since Paul started his ministry within 5 or 6 years of Jesus' death and resurrection, and the message of Jesus' resurrection had clearly been doing the rounds for several years before that (as can be seen by the fact that he was on his way to Damascus to oppose those who taught the idea when he was converted), the 'later progaganda' argument has very slim legs to stand on?

I'm sorry to say this Gordon, but the more you and others argue for this 'later propaganda' idea, the more you reinforce the argument for the reality of the resurrection because of the increasingly shrinking timescale that your 'later' arguments allow for.

[Hope]

Special pleading again - if the resurrection elements were propaganda added decades later then the authorities at the time would have assumed that they had just disposed of a troublemaker - and moved on.

I quite agree, Gordon:   IF ... .  As I have just pointed out to you, your window for 'later propaganda' decreases with just about every example you give.  After all, the 'decades later' argument is shown to be fatuous by the history of Paul's ministry, which started well within a decade of the events, and was no more than an extension of what was already happening - as Acts 1 and 2 show.  Peter's sermon that it records occurred about 40 DAYS after the events it purports to be referring to.  No self-respecting authority, especially one that had arranged for someone's execution, would have ignored the preaching of that person's resurrection within a month or so of the events.

[Leonard James]

Sadfly enough for you, every intelligent person nowadays knows perfectly well that truly dead people have been known to come back to life, and medical records have shown this.  It even has a name - Lazurus syndrome.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_syndrome

It is clear that the criteria for declaring a person dead are faulty, and should be revised. If a person is dead, they don't come back to life.

[Hope]

It is clear that the criteria for declaring a person dead are faulty, and should be revised. If a person is dead, they don't come back to life.

The problem is that you are dealing with 3 very different things, Len.  Remember that we already have the well-known idea of 'spontaneous healing' (that has no medical or scientific explanation) that some here have proposed as being more acceptable than the concept of miracles.  We then have the issue of whether or not the criteria for declaring a person dead need to be rethought.  Finally, we have the issue of whether any criteria we come up with in respect to a person being declared dead have any relevance to deity.

[jjohnjil]

Special pleading again - if the resurrection elements were propaganda added decades later then the authorities at the time would have assumed that they had just disposed of a troublemaker - and moved on.

I quite agree, Gordon:   IF ... .  As I have just pointed out to you, your window for 'later propaganda' decreases with just about every example you give.  After all, the 'decades later' argument is shown to be fatuous by the history of Paul's ministry, which started well within a decade of the events, and was no more than an extension of what was already happening - as Acts 1 and 2 show.  Peter's sermon that it records occurred about 40 DAYS after the events it purports to be referring to.  No self-respecting authority, especially one that had arranged for someone's execution, would have ignored the preaching of that person's resurrection within a month or so of the events.

So of the two ... the authorities not doing what you expect them to do ... and a three day old cadaver getting up and walking out .... Is there any contest?

If it was in the DM tomorrow, which account would you think slightly more likely, Hope?

[Hope]

So of the two ... the authorities not doing what you expect them to do ... and a three day old cadaver getting up and walking out .... Is there any contest?

Well, since it would seem to be the case that the authorities didn't do what you assumed they did, I'll leave you to answer the question. 

If it was in the DM tomorrow, which account would you think slightly more likely, Hope?

If it was in the DW tomorrow, I wouldn't believe it, but not for the reason you would.  Jesus made it very clear that this was a once for all time/people event.  If someone else was to claim that they had died and risen again on a 'once for all' basis, why would I believe it.  If, on the other hand, the DW reported on a return to life following a medical declaration of their death, I would simply say that this could well have been another example of the Lazurus syndrome.

[Gordon]

Special pleading again - if the resurrection elements were propaganda added decades later then the authorities at the time would have assumed that they had just disposed of a troublemaker - and moved on.

I quite agree, Gordon:   IF ... .  As I have just pointed out to you, your window for 'later propaganda' decreases with just about every example you give.  After all, the 'decades later' argument is shown to be fatuous by the history of Paul's ministry, which started well within a decade of the events, and was no more than an extension of what was already happening - as Acts 1 and 2 show.  Peter's sermon that it records occurred about 40 DAYS after the events it purports to be referring to.  No self-respecting authority, especially one that had arranged for someone's execution, would have ignored the preaching of that person's resurrection within a month or so of the events.

You are still assuming these claims are facts.

Tell me, how long after the event was the CLAIM that Paul preached about the resurrection 40 days after the event actually recorded in the NT documentation? How do you know the claims about what Paul is alleged to have said isn't part of later post-hoc propaganda?

[Leonard James]

It is clear that the criteria for declaring a person dead are faulty, and should be revised. If a person is dead, they don't come back to life.

The problem is that you are dealing with 3 very different things, Len.  Remember that we already have the well-known idea of 'spontaneous healing' (that has no medical or scientific explanation) that some here have proposed as being more acceptable than the concept of miracles.  We then have the issue of whether or not the criteria for declaring a person dead need to be rethought.  Finally, we have the issue of whether any criteria we come up with in respect to a person being declared dead have any relevance to deity.

1) Spontaneous healing shows that we don't yet know everything about how the human body works.

2) The criteria for death clearly fall short of being correct, which is really because of 1.

3) I can see no reason for connecting either 1 or 2 with myth stories about gods.

[jjohnjil]

So of the two ... the authorities not doing what you expect them to do ... and a three day old cadaver getting up and walking out .... Is there any contest?

Well, since it would seem to be the case that the authorities didn't do what you assumed they did, I'll leave you to answer the question. 

If it was in the DM tomorrow, which account would you think slightly more likely, Hope?

If it was in the DW tomorrow, I wouldn't believe it, but not for the reason you would.  Jesus made it very clear that this was a once for all time/people event.  If someone else was to claim that they had died and risen again on a 'once for all' basis, why would I believe it.  If, on the other hand, the DW reported on a return to life following a medical declaration of their death, I would simply say that this could well have been another example of the Lazurus syndrome.

Do I really need to answer the first point. Hope, or are you mixing me up with the Alien?

As for the second, so if I tell you I am going to fly to Jupiter on gossamer wings and it will be a once for all time event, you'll believe me?  Not a chance!

Funny how you believe a 2000 year old, third hand, account that's just as barmy though.

[Hope]

You are still assuming these claims are facts.

In exactly the same way that you are assuming that they aren't. 

Tell me, how long after the event was the CLAIM that Paul preached about the resurrection 40 days after the event actually recorded in the NT documentation? How do you know the claims about what Paul is alleged to have said isn't part of later post-hoc propaganda?

Paul wrote about the resurrection claims in his letters, and the earliest of those would have been Galations.  Scholars generally date the authorship of that as between 45 and 55 AD.  In other words, the earliest written record we have of the crucifixion and resurrection events could have been authored within 10-12 years of the event.  It is clear that Galations was written to a congregation that had been in existence for some time.  Whether it had been established by Paul or by someone else, perhaps earlier than Paul's entry into the process, we don't know, but clearly the Gospel had been being preached verbally for some years before Paul or nyone else wrote any of it down.

As for the 40 days, remember that all the dates surrounding the crucifixion, resurrection and what is called Pentecost by the church all fit in with important festivals in the Jewish calendar.  The dates weren't simply dates plucked out of the air at random.

[Shaker]

In exactly the same way that you are assuming that they aren't.

Correct, because in the absence of any supporting evidence that's the rational default position.

Remember: we're not all all-consumed by the negative proof fallacy as you are. Evidentialists want to see positive evidence for believing a given proposition or claim - the lack of evidence against isn't sufficient to take it as true no matter how many times you repeat it.