Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?

[Hope]

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.

What is fantastical spinning about stating that Paul encountered Jesus at a time after his return to heaven.  Yes, he was very clear about his being a physical being whilst with the 11/12 disciples, but there is no need to assume that he was merely physical, especially when he made it clear that he was God.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

What is fantastical spinning about stating that Paul encountered Jesus at a time after his return to heaven.  Yes, he was very clear about his being a physical being whilst with the 11/12 disciples, but there is no need to assume that he was merely physical, especially when he made it clear that he was God.

Man rises from dead, and later appears as ghost - and it isn't fantastical? As pointed out earlier if it isn't fantastical/implausible/impossible then it isn't really worth the effort.

[Alien]

We do have specific mentions of Jesus not being in the tomb in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John though.

Mt 28:5, 6: But the angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid; for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here; for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay.
Mk 16:5, 6: And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe; and they were amazed. And he said to them, "Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him.
Lk 24:2, 3:  And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in they did not find the body.
Jn 20:2-7: So she ran, and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him." Peter then came out with the other disciple, and they went toward the tomb. They both ran, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first; and stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; he saw the linen cloths lying, and the napkin, which had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place by itself.

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

You are still assuming that all these claims are facts - how do you know that they aren't fiction: you may choose to accept them on a personal basis but they still remain claims and not facts. After all the whole 'empty tomb' aspect is the type of detail that someone concocting a story to maintain the reputation of the recently dead Jesus as being divine might add in for effect: a definite risk, people being what they are.

Yes, they would have died because they were Christians. 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?

You still aren't getting this, Alan. Nobody is claiming that these early Christians knew that the resurrection was a hoax - I'd expect that they were just as sincere as you are in their Christian beliefs - the point here is that their preparedness to die doesn't mean that the story they sincerely believed is necessarily true.

So, I ask yet again, what is the explanation for all that went on? Why do we have various writers in the NT saying these things? You say no-one is claiming they knew it was a hoax, so do you mean they were just mistaken? If so, how did they make that mistake? How did they mistakenly come to be convinced that people on a dozen or so occasions were themselves convinced, in groups and as individual, that they had met with the risen Jesus and sometimes even eaten with them? How did they mistakenly come to believe that the tomb was empty? Why didn't the authorities just point out Jesus' rotting body in the tomb? Why did Saul make such a radical change to his life and become a fervent follower of Jesus, suffering imprisonments, beatings, at least one shipwreck and finally death? What mistake did he make to get so caught up?

Come on, Gordon, at least give it a try, please.

Rumour and self-delusion are the answer to all your questions.

Please explain.

[Shaker]

Man rises from dead, and later appears as ghost - and it isn't fantastical? As pointed out earlier if it isn't fantastical/implausible/impossible then it isn't really worth the effort.

Moreover, if that isn't fantastical/implausible/impossible then we're entitled to conclude that you don't really know what these words mean.

[Alien]

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.

Why do you think they are not independent? You said earlier that the resurrection accounts are independent, yet you say the empty tomb accounts are not. Why do think that, please?

  You don't know who wrote the stories or who their sources were.

As before, you and I disagree on this.

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.

But it is not claimed that "a dead man got up and walked away," but rather than God raised him from the dead and then that he walked away/around. We have accounts of him meeting up with people on about a dozen occasions.

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?

I agree that dead men do not come alive unless there is a God who raises them. The only one I know of whom he raised, never to die again, is Jesus. We have accounts of him meeting up with people on about a dozen occasions.

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.

? Would you please fill that out a bit.

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. 

Why do you think they were not there? The Gospel-writers certainly thought they were there as did Paul (1 Cor 15).

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.

How would that work?

Everything else is just post hoc invention.

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

Why?

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.

OK, let me rephrase that. Your explanation needs to cover why the Gospel-writers and Paul and so on wrote those accounts. Do you not think they genuinely believed those accounts? If not, why not, please?

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.

Why probably? Please show your workings.

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 you mean Tacitus, I like the term "almost contemporary source". I'll remember that since he was writing in about 112 AD. Even better we have the Gospels and Paul from well before them. That would make them "very nearly contemporary sources", would it not?

As for Christians in Rome being executed for allegedly starting the Great Fire, Tacitus clearly does not believe they started it, but explains that Nero used them as a scapegoat.

From the Wikipedia article, "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".

Anyway, I don't know Dionysius' source(s), but he was living in the city where the alleged martyrdoms took place. We know from Acts that Paul was in Rome at least at one point and was in prison there.

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".

Really. I doubt whether Nero was at any trial.

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.

Why do you think it was a vision or a hallucination? Remember he also spent time with Peter and James (see Gal 1 end).

[Alien]

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

Apart from all the assertions and other holes.

[Alien]

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.

So why did the Gospel-writers lie about what happened? What would their motive have been?

[Alien]

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.

So why do you think the Gospel-writers and Paul claimed those things happened?

[Alien]

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. 

He doesn't tell us what time of day it was or where they took place, but he does tell us some of the people claiming to have seen the resurrected Jesus, including Peter whom he spoke to not long (<3 years?) after Jesus' crucifixion (Galatians 1).

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

A vision or hallucination that other people heard? How does that work?

[Shaker]

But it is not claimed that "a dead man got up and walked away," but rather than God raised him from the dead and then that he walked away/around.

And this is what you regard as plausible, is it?

I agree that dead men do not come alive unless there is a God who raises them. The only one I know of whom he raised, never to die again, is Jesus.

Believe, not know. It's a belief, not an item of knowledge.

You're invoking Hope's "If God, then magic" non-argument. Doubtless it's integral to theism. Make shit up with absolutely no regard for testable, verifiable evidence and you can claim absolutely anything.

As, indeed, your lot actually do.

[Alien]

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.

Yes, there is. If you wanted to be unambiguous, you would right something like "whom God allegedly raised from the dead". Perhaps it is just sloppiness?

[Alien]

Why is my explanation implausible?

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

Why is God raising Jesus from the dead implausible?

[Shaker]

Why is my explanation implausible?

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

Why is God raising Jesus from the dead implausible?

This is a joke question, isn't it?

Come on now, you've had your fun - let's get back to the serious discussion, you teasing little scamp, you.

[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.

So why do you think the Gospel-writers and Paul claimed those things happened?

not a clue, not even sure who these people are so have insufficient information to even hazard a guess.

[Nearly Sane]

Why is my explanation implausible?

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

Why is God raising Jesus from the dead implausible?

This is a joke question, isn't it?

Come on now, you've had your fun - let's get back to the serious discussion, you teasing little scamp, you.

  I would have to agree with Alan, it isn't implausible. It also is not plausible which is based on an assessment of probability which is based on an assumption of naturalism.

[Andy]

Why is my explanation implausible?

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

Why is God raising Jesus from the dead implausible?

God wasn't mentioned here, you've just changed the game by adding that in now.

And you pretty much just said so yourself that it's impossible without god, so you agree.

[Leonard James]

Why is my explanation implausible?

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

Why is God raising Jesus from the dead implausible?

"God" himself is implausible. People coming back from death is implausible. You'd hardly expect to get a plausible from two implausibles, would you?

[Spud]

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.

The propaganda theory doesn't explain why, for example, they say that Jesus was seen by the women first. Or that the grave clothes were folded neatly.

[Gordon]

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.

The propaganda theory doesn't explain why,, for example, they say that Jesus was seen by the women first. Or that the grave clothes were folded neatly.

Of course it does - these are details that could be part of a fictional resurrection story, along with that there was an empty tomb etc: these are just claims, Spud, not historical facts.

[Spud]

Would the non-Christians here believe that the resurrection took place if they saw it, eg if they were able to stand in the upper room with the 12 on that Sunday when Jesus appeared to them?

[Outrider]

Would the non-Christians here believe that the resurrection took place if they saw it, eg if they were able to stand in the upper room with the 12 on that Sunday when Jesus appeared to them?

I'd be most likely to presume some 'David Blaine' style deception had occurred.

O.

[Gordon]

Would the non-Christians here believe that the resurrection took place if they saw it, eg if they were able to stand in the upper room with the 12 on that Sunday when Jesus appeared to them?

Certainly.

Provided there was CCTV from the point of death from crucifixion and that a fully qualified medical team with suitable equipment first confirmed that the injuries and cause of death was consistent with crucifixion, that brain death was established, that the that post-mortem changes over the next 2/3 days were in line with the known stages of decomposition in respect of the climatic norms of the middle-east in spring/early summer, and there was then a return to full biological functions sufficient for the recently deceased to (as Alan often reminds us) interact with others and share meals.

If that was the case, and the medical results confirming this after being subjected to separate peer review, then it would be a serious proposition.

Meantime though we have a bunch of ancient anecdotal claims that are indistinguishable from fiction, and that you guys are taking far too literally.

[Spud]

Would the non-Christians here believe that the resurrection took place if they saw it, eg if they were able to stand in the upper room with the 12 on that Sunday when Jesus appeared to them?

I'd be most likely to presume some 'David Blaine' style deception had occurred.

O.

What about if you saw what John describes (the last breath, the spear in the side) then you saw him and were able to feel the wounds with your hands, three days later.

[Spud]

Would the non-Christians here believe that the resurrection took place if they saw it, eg if they were able to stand in the upper room with the 12 on that Sunday when Jesus appeared to them?

Certainly.

Provided there was CCTV from the point of death from crucifixion and that a fully qualified medical team with suitable equipment first confirmed that the injuries and cause of death was consistent with crucifixion, that brain death was established, that the that post-mortem changes over the next 2/3 days were in line with the known stages of decomposition in respect of the climatic norms of the middle-east in spring/early summer, and there was then a return to full biological functions sufficient for the recently deceased to (as Alan often reminds us) interact with others and share meals.

If that was the case, and the medical results confirming this after being subjected to separate peer review, then it would be a serious proposition.

Meantime though we have a bunch of ancient anecdotal claims that are indistinguishable from fiction, and that you guys are taking far too literally.

This is the kind of evidence Thomas wanted- his request was a bit more simple though!

[Outrider]

What about if you saw what John describes (the last breath, the spear in the side) then you saw him and were able to feel the wounds with your hands, three days later.

I've seen a guy tear up a piece of paper that I gave him, two feet in front of me, and then found it while in an envelope he'd already given me.

Human perception is both limited and over-rated - eye-witness accounts are far from reliable, and the weaknesses of both human sensory perception and mental processing are increasingly well-studied.

We are easy to deceive, especially when we have preconceptions to play on: if someone sets up a 'mock crucifiction', and all the appearances concur with the idea of a crucifiction, we're going to presume that a crucifiction is happening.

If, later on, despite how well I was observing the situation, the crucified guy walks back into the room I wouldn't presume magic or the suspension of the normal laws of physics, I'd put a recommendation on their Facebook page and walk away wondering how they'd done it.

No matter how convincing the original display is, I'd still put an unknown but rational explanation as more likely than an unknown 'supernatural' explanation: deception, no matter how difficult or convoluted, is still a more likely explanation than 'a god did it'.

O.