Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?

[jeremyp]

No hint of Jesus' body still being there that I can see.

But three of those accounts are certainly not independent and the fourth may not be.  You don't know who wrote the stories or who their sources were.

Even if there was an empty tomb, it is implausible that a dead man got up and walked away.  It's much more likely that the body was moved by persons unknown or was never there are that the accounts are simply fiction.

I quite agree that the resurrection accounts are independent.  Each author made up his own.

Assertion in need of some evidence.

That dead men do not come alive is not evidence enough for you?

So no commonality.... apart from the empty tomb, angels/men, women visiting the tomb and so on?

I think you'll find that I argued that there is commonality but with embellishments right up to the point in time where Mark's gospel ends.

And why did the disciples who visited the tomb think they saw angels/men, why did individuals and groups get convinced they met and spoke and sometimes ate with Jesus? Why the start of the Christian church from a bunch of previously dispirited, defeated disciples?

All later rationalisation by people who weren't there. 

I think it's entirely possible that Jesus' followers, expecting him to be the Messiah rationalised his early death by claiming that he rose from the dead and ascended to heaven, particularly if they couldn't find is body for whatever reason.

Everything else is just post hoc invention.

This is all far more plausible than Jesus actually rising from the dead.

Your explanation needs to cover all the facts, not just bits. Surely you see that?

You haven't established any facts.  Surely you can see that?  The gospel stories are just stories of unknown provenance. 

I was replying to your, "You can't claim that all these people getting martyred is evidence for your story being true when the accounts of martyrdom come from the same story you are trying to prove.

Where do you think Josephus sourced the claims of Christian martyrs?  If he didn't see them himself, he probably read them in a book or he heard them from Christians who read them in a book.

Dionysius, according to Wikipedia, lived around 171 AD, so that would be about 110 years after Peter and Paul were martyred (if they were martyred). Do you have any good reason to think he was wrong, bearing in mind he was living in the same city and headed up the church there?

You're the one who brought him up.  It is for you to establish the credibility of his claim.  In fact, you need to establish that Peter and Paul were executed for their beliefs and not for any other reason. 

And actually, yes, I do have good reason for believing he was wrong  we have an almost contemporary source (he was seven when the alleged events happened) who claims that the Christians in Rome were executed for allegedly starting the Great Fire.

If they knew that the resurrection was all a hoax, why would they have stuck around there and get killed or suffer all the previous stuff they suffered, details of Paul's suffering being available in his writings and Acts?

This is ancient Rome.  They couldn't just hop on a plane and leave the country.  We have no eye witness account of their trials or death.  For all we know, the trial transcript could have gone like:

Peter: "I admit it was all a hoax"

Nero: "I don't care, I need you to die for the Great Fire so I don't get the blame".

Paul is interesting.  He clearly believed Jesus rose from the dead without ever seeing the empty tomb or having dinner with Jesus before or after the crucifixion.  Paul started believing based on a vision or hallucination.  That blows your argument out of the water.

[Shaker]

That was a superb post, JP. Even more so than usual.

[jeremyp]

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.

How do you disprove a story that isn't going to surface for another twenty years?

So Christianity didn't start until about 53 AD? There was no preaching of the gospel till then? There were no Christians in Jerusalem until at least 53 AD?

Really?

Are you incapable of imagining a scenario in which the Christians go off into hiding and don't come to the notice of the authorities until it breaks cover a few years later.

Your argument assumes that the authorities actually gave a toss about the Christians.  Most likely they thought that executing Jesus would end it and by the time Christianity was again becoming a problem, there was no sign of his body.  If it had been put in a mass grave as was custom for crucified criminals in those days, it would probably be lost within the week.

[Nearly Sane]

I'll take shifting the burden of proof for a thousand, Alex.

We Christians have provided one explanation. Your lot won't even try, but just keep chucking out sound bites.

Any chance you can provide a plausible explanation for the whole thing?

Thought not.

There is no such thing as the 'whole thing' - your explanation assumes claims as facts, and is not evidence itself - it is entirely circular.

And is still shifting the burden of proof - I find your approach deeply dishonest.

[jeremyp]

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.

Sorry, I must have missed it.  Where in Paul's letters is his account of the crucifixion?  Where in his letters is his account of the resurrection?  Yes he says Christ was executed.  Yes he says various people saw Christ after his death, but there is no account of the empty tomb.  There is no account of Jesus eating and drinking with people after his death.  There is no account of Jesus travelling to Emmaus, Galilee or ascending into heaven.

1 Corinthians 15:3-8

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, (Peter) and then to the Twelve.
After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

We have no record of Paul being present at the crucifixion, so we can't count him as a witness to that. We do have him claiming to have met the risen Jesus on the Road to Damascus. This appearance is a bit different to the other accounts in that Jesus had already ascended to heaven, but this does seem to be written as something other than a vision as other people heard something to (Acts does not say whether they saw the bright light which flashed around Paul). What do you think convinced the Christian-chasing/hating Saul to become a follower of Jesus Christ?

Saying "Jesus died" is not really an account. You'd expect a few details.  He doesn't give an account of any of Jesus' resurrection appearances either, he just lists people who allegedly saw Jesus. 

And I disagree with your characterisation of Paul's experience.  It seems exactly like a vision or hallucination.

[jeremyp]

Yes. I do note your ambiguity though. A "dead man coming alive again" would normally mean a man coming to life again naturally. Is that what you mean? If not, why put it ambiguously?

Stop trying to pigeon hole my words.  I didn't add any qualifier like "naturally" nor was there anything ambiguous in what I said.

[jeremyp]

Why is my explanation implausible?

It's a dead man coming alive again.  If that isn't implausible, what is? 

[Andy]

Why is my explanation implausible?

It's a dead man coming alive again.  If that isn't implausible, what is?

And I thought that was the whole point. If it's not supposed to be seen as so implausible, then it wouldn't be seen as miraculous and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Nearly Sane]

Why is my explanation implausible?

It's a dead man coming alive again.  If that isn't implausible, what is?

And I thought that was the whole point. If it's not supposed to be seen as so implausible, then it wouldn't be seen as miraculous and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Indeed it is also meant to be seen in normal terms as impossible, never mind implausible.

[BashfulAnthony]

That was a superb post, JP. Even more so than usual.

That was the post that exemplifies all that I repeatedly say about the atheist nerds on here.  To go into such detail as he does, about something he does not believe; and to do so over and over again, over a period of years, indicates an obsession that requires attention.  Very disconcerting.

[Gordon]

Alan

You seem to be struggling to grasp what I've said over many posts, so I'll summarise rather than make replies to several posts that would all say essentially the same.

1. The NT details (empty tomb, Jesus being seen post-crucifixion) are claims and not historical facts: they are evidence only of what some interested people recorded.

2. It may be that some of the details are true: the bit about there being a Jesus who was crucified (as were many in that place and time) but the details about claimed events later are exactly that: claims.

3. In situation like this, where there is a movement/cause of sorts, a charismatic leader and committed passionate followers then in circumstances like this (the leader is killed) propaganda by no doubt devastated but committed followers is a risk.

4. Therefore, since there is a risk of 'keeping the dream alive' propaganda, then stuff like 'guess what - the tomb was empty - so he must have risen from the dead - and was seen later' is the sort exactly the sort of thing that might be fabricated to suit an audience for whom a religious narrative involving claims of divine intervention would carry great weight given the time, place and culture.

You seem to be basing your belief in divine intervention on the basis these claims are facts yet it must be obvious to you that some of the details you are relying to to show Jesus was resurrected could well be propaganda - propaganda is at the very least a risk but you seem reluctant to explain how this risk can be dispensed with: your only response is to cling limpet-like to these details being historically true, with an added dash of special pleading about the motivations of early Christians.

You repeated challenge to others 'explain' all these details is laughable since you are presuming that the details themselves (empty tomb etc) are amenable to explanation - yet you ignore the most pragmatic explanation of all, and one that neatly disposes of all the details: that Jesus was killed (and remained permanently dead) but that wasn't enough to prevent his followers from promoting the cause with creative propaganda claiming resurrection. 

[jeremyp]

That was a superb post, JP. Even more so than usual.

That was the post that exemplifies all that I repeatedly say about the atheist nerds on here.  To go into such detail as he does, about something he does not believe; and to do so over and over again, over a period of years, indicates an obsession that requires attention.  Very disconcerting.

If you don't want to have a mature debate with people who disagree with you, then fine, but please stop criticising the people that do.

[floo]

That was a superb post, JP. Even more so than usual.

That was the post that exemplifies all that I repeatedly say about the atheist nerds on here.  To go into such detail as he does, about something he does not believe; and to do so over and over again, over a period of years, indicates an obsession that requires attention.  Very disconcerting.

If you don't want to have a mature debate with people who disagree with you, then fine, but please stop criticising the people that do.

But that would be denying him one of his few pleasures in life!

[Nearly Sane]

That was a superb post, JP. Even more so than usual.

That was the post that exemplifies all that I repeatedly say about the atheist nerds on here.  To go into such detail as he does, about something he does not believe; and to do so over and over again, over a period of years, indicates an obsession that requires attention.  Very disconcerting.

If you don't want to have a mature debate with people who disagree with you, then fine, but please stop criticising the people that do.

I don't believe in communism and have spent much time arguing against it in detail over a number of years. I must therefore be an acommunist obsessive nerd.

[BashfulAnthony]

That was a superb post, JP. Even more so than usual.

That was the post that exemplifies all that I repeatedly say about the atheist nerds on here.  To go into such detail as he does, about something he does not believe; and to do so over and over again, over a period of years, indicates an obsession that requires attention.  Very disconcerting.

If you don't want to have a mature debate with people who disagree with you, then fine, but please stop criticising the people that do.

I don't believe in communism and have spent much time arguing against it in detail over a number of years. I must therefore be an acommunist obsessive nerd.

If you argue against it daily, and for years without fail, then you are an obsessive nerd.

[floo]

And the 'Christian' WUM, par excellence, has the cheek to talk about 'obsessive nerds'! Now that is very funny indeed!

[BashfulAnthony]

And the 'Christian' WUM, par excellence, has the cheek to talk about 'obsessive nerds'! Now that is very funny indeed!

There you are again: on here prattling. You are an obsessive nerd, par excellence!

[Outrider]

If you argue against it daily, and for years without fail, then you are an obsessive nerd.

Being a nerd already implies having an obsessive nature - you're as well saying 'deluded faith-heads'...

O.

[BashfulAnthony]

If you argue against it daily, and for years without fail, then you are an obsessive nerd.

Being a nerd already implies having an obsessive nature - you're as well saying 'deluded faith-heads'...

O.

Well, if you say I am deluded, it's merely your opinion.  Calling atheists obsessive nerds is proven simply by reading this forum every day.

[floo]

One can take delight in knowing that those of us badmouthed by BA are doing something right. If he agreed with us on matters of faith we would need to be very concerned indeed!

[BashfulAnthony]

One can take delight in knowing that those of us badmouthed by BA are doing something right. If he agreed with us on matters of faith we would need to be very concerned indeed!

Hysterical laughing at the end of your post, noted!   

[Gordon]

After several years of discussing this with you on and off I don't see you ever coming to the conclusion that Jesus did die and was raised from the dead.

Why on earth did you think I ever would, since every argument I've come across promoting Jesus/God is fallacious in one way or another.

I'm still unsure why you bold and italicise the word "know" each time you post to me.

Because you are presenting claims as being historical facts: I'm just pointing out that you don't have 'knowledge'; just a sense of personal conviction that these claims are true.

However, I would really appreciate it if you did try to come up with something which accounts for Jesus being killed by crucifixion, the empty tomb (as recorded by the four canonical gospels and assumed by Paul since he spoke of Jesus' bodily resurrection), people on a dozen or so occasions both as individuals and groups meeting and sometimes eating with what they were convinced was the risen Jesus and the start of the Christian church from a bunch of previously dispirited and defeated disciples. If you don't believe the tomb was empty, what is your plausible scenario for why the four gospel writers and Paul thought it was?

I have - if propaganda is involved then this covers both the details (empty tomb etc) being fictitious and that those early Christians not 'in' on the propaganda itself were victims of it (just as you may be).

Will you do that for me one day? Please. You see the reason I keep asking you is that I have yet to see any non-Christian on this board give a plausible scenario. True you can explain away individual bits of the accounts on their own, but I don't remember anyone even trying to come up with a plausible overall scenario.

I just did.

[Spud]

Alan

You seem to be struggling to grasp what I've said over many posts, so I'll summarise rather than make replies to several posts that would all say essentially the same.

1. The NT details (empty tomb, Jesus being seen post-crucifixion) are claims and not historical facts: they are evidence only of what some interested people recorded.

2. It may be that some of the details are true: the bit about there being a Jesus who was crucified (as were many in that place and time) but the details about claimed events later are exactly that: claims.

3. In situation like this, where there is a movement/cause of sorts, a charismatic leader and committed passionate followers then in circumstances like this (the leader is killed) propaganda by no doubt devastated but committed followers is a risk.

4. Therefore, since there is a risk of 'keeping the dream alive' propaganda, then stuff like 'guess what - the tomb was empty - so he must have risen from the dead - and was seen later' is the sort exactly the sort of thing that might be fabricated to suit an audience for whom a religious narrative involving claims of divine intervention would carry great weight given the time, place and culture.

You seem to be basing your belief in divine intervention on the basis these claims are facts yet it must be obvious to you that some of the details you are relying to to show Jesus was resurrected could well be propaganda - propaganda is at the very least a risk but you seem reluctant to explain how this risk can be dispensed with: your only response is to cling limpet-like to these details being historically true, with an added dash of special pleading about the motivations of early Christians.

You repeated challenge to others 'explain' all these details is laughable since you are presuming that the details themselves (empty tomb etc) are amenable to explanation - yet you ignore the most pragmatic explanation of all, and one that neatly disposes of all the details: that Jesus was killed (and remained permanently dead) but that wasn't enough to prevent his followers from promoting the cause with creative propaganda claiming resurrection.

It doesn't read to me like am attempt to maintain Jesus' divinity. The gospel authors go to great lengths to show that Jesus was dead. Also that they got the right tomb. If you are going to try and prove a resurrection you've got to prove the death as well and show that the body was buried in a certain place.

[Gordon]

Alan

You seem to be struggling to grasp what I've said over many posts, so I'll summarise rather than make replies to several posts that would all say essentially the same.

1. The NT details (empty tomb, Jesus being seen post-crucifixion) are claims and not historical facts: they are evidence only of what some interested people recorded.

2. It may be that some of the details are true: the bit about there being a Jesus who was crucified (as were many in that place and time) but the details about claimed events later are exactly that: claims.

3. In situation like this, where there is a movement/cause of sorts, a charismatic leader and committed passionate followers then in circumstances like this (the leader is killed) propaganda by no doubt devastated but committed followers is a risk.

4. Therefore, since there is a risk of 'keeping the dream alive' propaganda, then stuff like 'guess what - the tomb was empty - so he must have risen from the dead - and was seen later' is the sort exactly the sort of thing that might be fabricated to suit an audience for whom a religious narrative involving claims of divine intervention would carry great weight given the time, place and culture.

You seem to be basing your belief in divine intervention on the basis these claims are facts yet it must be obvious to you that some of the details you are relying to to show Jesus was resurrected could well be propaganda - propaganda is at the very least a risk but you seem reluctant to explain how this risk can be dispensed with: your only response is to cling limpet-like to these details being historically true, with an added dash of special pleading about the motivations of early Christians.

You repeated challenge to others 'explain' all these details is laughable since you are presuming that the details themselves (empty tomb etc) are amenable to explanation - yet you ignore the most pragmatic explanation of all, and one that neatly disposes of all the details: that Jesus was killed (and remained permanently dead) but that wasn't enough to prevent his followers from promoting the cause with creative propaganda claiming resurrection.

It doesn't read to me like am attempt to maintain Jesus' divinity. The gospel authors go to great lengths to show that Jesus was dead. Also that they got the right tomb. If you are going to try and prove a resurrection you've got to prove the death as well and show that the body was buried in a certain place.

No doubt - thing is, Spud, I'm not trying to 'prove a resurrection', since I don't think there was one! Indeed, since these accounts are just claims, I think there is a real risk that some or all of what is claimed about this alleged resurrection may be fictitious propaganda. 

[Dicky Underpants]

We have no record of Paul being present at the crucifixion, so we can't count him as a witness to that. We do have him claiming to have met the risen Jesus on the Road to Damascus. This appearance is a bit different to the other accounts in that Jesus had already ascended to heaven, but this does seem to be written as something other than a vision as other people heard something to (Acts does not say whether they saw the bright light which flashed around Paul). What do you think convinced the Christian-chasing/hating Saul to become a follower of Jesus Christ?

Christ's 'appearance' to Paul really should cause you to reflect on the veracity of all these resurrection accounts, since it recounts an entirely 'spiritual' Christ (added to which the accounts of the experience differ as to whether a voice was heard or not). John's account has Christ specifically referring to his physicality, and assuring his disciples that he is not a spirit. To reconcile all these discrepancies it is necessary to just keep spinning fantastical scenario after scenario.