Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?

[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.

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

He lived in simpler times though!

[Spud]

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.

You managed to get inside an envelope? Nice one!

[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?

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.

How do you know John (assuming just for a second that he actually said what you say he did say) wasn't over egging the pudding for effect?

[Outrider]

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.

You managed to get inside an envelope? Nice one!

He was quite the magician, I can tell you!

O.

[Spud]

I will assume that the detail which the gospels give is enough so that anyone who actually did see what they describe would believe it was genuine, not a hoax.
Back later.

[Gordon]

I will assume that the detail which the gospels give is enough so that anyone who actually did see what they describe would believe it was genuine, not a hoax.
Back later.

Jolly good - you do that, but be careful not to confuse your personal assumptions or unsupported ancient claims with facts.

[Andy]

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?

Your example doesn't match the actual sight of a resurrection.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

Nope. As I have posted many times - I would need a methodology that I could use to investigate such claims and I don't have one - science assumes naturalism. I have asked many times for a methodology from believers but nothing has been forthcoming.

[Andy]

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?

Nope. As I have posted many times - I would need a methodology that I could use to investigate such claims and I don't have one - science assumes naturalism. I have asked many times for a methodology from believers but nothing has been forthcoming.

Ah, but to be fair to Spud, he didn't mention god or the supernatural here, just a resurrection.

[Hope]

Nope. As I have posted many times - I would need a methodology that I could use to investigate such claims and I don't have one - science assumes naturalism. I have asked many times for a methodology from believers but nothing has been forthcoming.

Sorry, NS, your claim that nothing has been forthcoming is a lie.  What hs happened is that the methodology(s) that have been put forward don't match your assumptions and pre-conceived ideas.  That doesn't mean that they aren't valid.  As you say, 'science assumes naturalism', and if one believes that everything has to fit with the rules of science, obviously you won't understand/accept that there are parts of life that don't fit that requirement.

[Gordon]

What hs happened is that the methodology(s) that have been put forward don't match your assumptions and pre-conceived ideas.

What methodologies?

That doesn't mean that they aren't valid.

That depends on the methodologies that we have yet to see the details of.

As you say, 'science assumes naturalism', and if one believes that everything has to fit with the rules of science, obviously you won't understand/accept that there are parts of life that don't fit that requirement.

These 'parts of life' are what, exactly?

[Nearly Sane]

Nope. As I have posted many times - I would need a methodology that I could use to investigate such claims and I don't have one - science assumes naturalism. I have asked many times for a methodology from believers but nothing has been forthcoming.

Sorry, NS, your claim that nothing has been forthcoming is a lie.  What hs happened is that the methodology(s) that have been put forward don't match your assumptions and pre-conceived ideas.  That doesn't mean that they aren't valid.  As you say, 'science assumes naturalism', and if one believes that everything has to fit with the rules of science, obviously you won't understand/accept that there are parts of life that don't fit that requirement.

If it is a lie, you will be able to show this by explaining a supernatural methodology. I await with interest.

[Hope]

If it is a lie, you will be able to show this by explaining a supernatural methodology. I await with interest.

Hang on, you have already stated that you "would need a methodology that I could use to investigate such claims and I don't have one - science assumes naturalism".  This shows that you assume that any methodology has to fit the parameters of scientific naturalism.  Ironically, over the months you have regularly reiterated that any non-naturalistic methodology isn't a methodology - so I'm not wasting my time revisiting the methodology that I, Jim, Alien and others have laid out for you in the past.

[Nearly Sane]

If it is a lie, you will be able to show this by explaining a supernatural methodology. I await with interest.

Hang on, you have already stated that you "would need a methodology that I could use to investigate such claims and I don't have one - science assumes naturalism".  This shows that you assume that any methodology has to fit the parameters of scientific naturalism.  Ironically, over the months you have regularly reiterated that any non-naturalistic methodology isn't a methodology - so I'm not wasting my time revisiting the methodology that I, Jim, Alien and others have laid out for you in the past.

No, I am explaining that science is naturalistic therefore any non naturalistic claim would need a non naturalistic methodology. I am not ruling out that such a thing could be which is why I am asking those who believe in such things for a methodology - and yet again you avoid providing any such thing.

[Hope]

No, I am explaining that science is naturalistic therefore any non naturalistic claim would need a non naturalistic methodology. I am not ruling out that such a thing could be which is why I am asking those who believe in such things for a methodology - and yet again you avoid providing any such thing.

But you are ruling one out by the very fact that you have refused, in the past, to accept the methodology that has been given you, by arguing that it doesn't fit the naturalism that you seem to regard as essential to any methodology.

[Andy]

No, I am explaining that science is naturalistic therefore any non naturalistic claim would need a non naturalistic methodology. I am not ruling out that such a thing could be which is why I am asking those who believe in such things for a methodology - and yet again you avoid providing any such thing.

But you are ruling one out by the very fact that you have refused, in the past, to accept the methodology that has been given you, by arguing that it doesn't fit the naturalism that you seem to regard as essential to any methodology.

Not in my experience. You either totally misunderstand or you're a mahoosive bullshitter. Do you not realise that when asking for a method for supernatural claims, then that's pretty much the antithesis of expecting it to fit naturalism?

[Nearly Sane]

No, I am explaining that science is naturalistic therefore any non naturalistic claim would need a non naturalistic methodology. I am not ruling out that such a thing could be which is why I am asking those who believe in such things for a methodology - and yet again you avoid providing any such thing.

But you are ruling one out by the very fact that you have refused, in the past, to accept the methodology that has been given you, by arguing that it doesn't fit the naturalism that you seem to regard as essential to any methodology.

I haven't seen any coherent methodology - and to be frank I haven't seen even an incoherent one. So I'm not ruling it out. I'm asking for it - so come on stop being evasive and just describe it, link to it rather than this dissembling.

[floo]

I will assume that the detail which the gospels give is enough so that anyone who actually did see what they describe would believe it was genuine, not a hoax.
Back later.

#
Only if they were unquestioning and gullible!

[Dicky Underpants]

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

Well, no one heard a voice, according to Acts 22:9
 "Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me".

Which of course contradicts Paul's account in his epistles.

[Dicky Underpants]

I will assume that the detail which the gospels give is enough so that anyone who actually did see what they describe would believe it was genuine, not a hoax.
Back later.

Since this text was written much later than Paul's account of his supposed experience of Christ and his extensive ruminations on Christ's resurrection and that of humanity in general (which probably the majority of Christians purport to believe in), you need to consider just why there are such differences and, for a start, suspect that later cannot be trusted in its details.
All this seems to involve a remarkable capacity for double-think. You are of course familiar with 1Corinthians 15, where Paul states the absolute distinction between the physical and the spiritual:
""[43]The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
------------
[49] Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.
[50] I tell you this, brethren: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable."

Yet at the end of John's gospel, Jesus is saying he is not a spirit, and directly pointing to his physical wounds to demonstrate the solid reality of his physical body.

I see good reason for doubting all these accounts (on the lines that Gordon, Jeremy and others have stated), and the traditional explanations just have me rolling my eyes.

[Spud]

, 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,

Mark uses the word 'corpse' rather than 'body', post-crucifixion. (15:42-46)

I'm quite surprised; NS seems to be saying that the evidence given the disciples- ie to have witnessed Jesus' death, burial and resurrection- is insufficient as a methodology, even for them. Or maybe he's saying it's insufficient when it comes to you or I believing on the basis of their testimony. That I can agree with, except that it is sufficient evidence for someone who is already open to the possibility.

On that issue, Jesus says, "Blessed are those who do not see and yet believe".

[Gordon]

, 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,

Mark uses the word 'corpse' rather than 'body', post-crucifixion. (15:42-46)

I'm quite surprised; NS seems to be saying that the evidence given the disciples- ie to have witnessed Jesus' death, burial and resurrection- is insufficient as a methodology, even for them. Or maybe he's saying it's insufficient when it comes to you or I believing on the basis of their testimony. That I can agree with, except that it is sufficient evidence for someone who is already open to the possibility.

On that issue, Jesus says, "Blessed are those who do not see and yet believe".

NS is correct.

The post of mine you have quoted an extract from was to note (albeit sarcastically) that the type of medical evidence that would be robust enough to confirm resurrection from traumatic injury and confirmed brain death 2/3 days post-mortem with biological recovery sufficient to interact and share meals with others, which is what Alan tells us, doesn't exist and that current knowledge about death is sufficient to conclude that a 'corpse' (or indeed a dead body) that had been clinically dead for 2/3 days would remain quite dead.

So, if you are going to claim that Jesus was dead, and then wasn't etc, then a method based on naturalism doesn't help so you would need to define what non-naturalistic phenomena 'is' in the first place, and also a methodology that can be used to identify and describe 'it'. That you think the anecdotal claims in the NT 'is sufficient evidence for someone who is already open to the possibility.' does raise other problems, confirmation bias being just one, and what constitutes 'evidence' being another.

On that issue, Gordon says, 'Blessed are those who don't believe everything they read'.


   

[floo]

, 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,

Mark uses the word 'corpse' rather than 'body', post-crucifixion. (15:42-46)

I'm quite surprised; NS seems to be saying that the evidence given the disciples- ie to have witnessed Jesus' death, burial and resurrection- is insufficient as a methodology, even for them. Or maybe he's saying it's insufficient when it comes to you or I believing on the basis of their testimony. That I can agree with, except that it is sufficient evidence for someone who is already open to the possibility.

On that issue, Jesus says, "Blessed are those who do not see and yet believe".

In other words, 'Blessed be the gullible'!

[Nearly Sane]

, 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,

Mark uses the word 'corpse' rather than 'body', post-crucifixion. (15:42-46)

I'm quite surprised; NS seems to be saying that the evidence given the disciples- ie to have witnessed Jesus' death, burial and resurrection- is insufficient as a methodology, even for them. Or maybe he's saying it's insufficient when it comes to you or I believing on the basis of their testimony. That I can agree with, except that it is sufficient evidence for someone who is already open to the possibility.

On that issue, Jesus says, "Blessed are those who do not see and yet believe".

Evidence is not a methodology, science is. It is your methodology that determines what is acceptable evidence. Science only works naturalistically. In order to evaluate a supernatural claim, I would need a methodology that allows me to determine what is evidence for that. Do you have one?

[Hope]

I'm quite surprised; NS seems to be saying that the evidence given the disciples- ie to have witnessed Jesus' death, burial and resurrection- is insufficient as a methodology, even for them. Or maybe he's saying it's insufficient when it comes to you or I believing on the basis of their testimony. That I can agree with, except that it is sufficient evidence for someone who is already open to the possibility.

On that issue, Jesus says, "Blessed are those who do not see and yet believe".

Spud, I think that NS and several others here are being ingenuous, because although they are happy to accept the eye-witness accounts of people living today, they refuse to accept the eye-witness accounts of people from certain parts of history when those eye-witness accounts witness to events that don't fit their understanding of the universe

Evidence is not a methodology, science is. It is your methodology that determines what is acceptable evidence. Science only works naturalistically. In order to evaluate a supernatural claim, I would need a methodology that allows me to determine what is evidence for that. Do you have one?

I suppose it depends on what you mean by science, NS.  Is it the narrow discipline that is so prevalent today -

The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment

or the archaic and broader

Knowledge of any kind

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/science