Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?

[Spud]

Hope

If we assume, for the sake of argument, that there was a person that we refer to as Jesus, and he the was a charismatic preacher with a band of dedicated followers but was (for whatever reasons) executed as a trouble maker.

Within the bounds of naturalism there seem to be just two options.

1. Jesus was routinely killed, he stayed dead and his body routinely disposed of. The resurrection stuff is 'keeping the dream alive' propaganda arising from people within his following, and that the credulity of others allowing this propaganda to grow arms and legs. That people fabricate stuff, make mistakes or are gullible is part of known human behaviour that can't be dismissed without indulging in special pleading that early Christians were immune from human artifice.

2. Jesus wasn't dead at all if it is true that he was seen later.

If we accept that Jesus was actually killed then we reject option 2.

We are told by Luke and John that he had crucifixion scars, including one from being stabbed (John). It seems that for the eyewitnesses, this was enough to convince them.

If you are going to go for an option 3 involving divine intervention then you'd need something additional to human testimony, since what people say would be insufficient given the risks of lies or mistakes - you'd need 'something' that would provide an explanation that was mutually exclusive from anything naturalistic (such as what people say and do).

Whilst my rational, 20th/21st century scientific mind says this is 'humanly' impossible, my human experience tells me that there are plenty of events that occur in everyday life that science has no explanation for.  Rationally, therefore, I have to accept that there are areas of life which don't conform to the strait-jacket of scientific methodology.

One can argue that all religions have to be true or none; but that ignores that fact that there is only one whose founder claimed to be God in human form.

Here you are falling into fallacious arguments from incredulity, ignorance and authority.     

For non-eyewitnesses there is a problem, yes.

[Leonard James]

Aesthetic judgement is perfectly adequately explainable by science. It began in evolution when sexually reproducing species began to get choosy about who they would mate with.

And what does this have to do with poetry and the fact that often the sum of the meanings of the words used have little or nothing to do with the meaning of the poem?

Everything! It shows that we, along with many other species, inherited our aesthetic sense (choice of one thing being more attractive than another).

It was only natural that we would begin to project this "sense" on to other things than simple mate choice. As the human brain grew, so did its ability to think in many other directions, and once communication and language evolved, so did  the applications of our aesthetic sense into what we have today.

[Gordon]

We are told by Luke and John that he had crucifixion scars, including one from being stabbed (John). It seems that for the eyewitnesses, this was enough to convince them.

How do you know that 1) there were eye-witnesses at all, and 2) if there were, that they were telling the truth.

This is clearly a risk of propaganda for Jesus here - how have you assessed this risk?

[Nearly Sane]

We are told by Luke and John that he had crucifixion scars, including one from being stabbed (John). It seems that for the eyewitnesses, this was enough to convince them.

How do you know that 1) there were eye-witnesses at all, and 2) if there were, that they were telling the truth.

This is clearly a risk of propaganda for Jesus here - how have you assessed this risk?

Worse, surely, is how unreliable eye witness testimony is?

[Gordon]

We are told by Luke and John that he had crucifixion scars, including one from being stabbed (John). It seems that for the eyewitnesses, this was enough to convince them.

How do you know that 1) there were eye-witnesses at all, and 2) if there were, that they were telling the truth.

This is clearly a risk of propaganda for Jesus here - how have you assessed this risk?

Worse, surely, is how unreliable eye witness testimony is?

Yep - even without deliberate attempts to mislead the risk of error is an obvious problem with any eye-witness reports.

[Nearly Sane]

After all, eye witness evidence is deeply suspect on very mundane examples. So how it might be useful on extraordinary claims is hugely questionable.

[floo]

We are told by Luke and John that he had crucifixion scars, including one from being stabbed (John). It seems that for the eyewitnesses, this was enough to convince them.

How do you know that 1) there were eye-witnesses at all, and 2) if there were, that they were telling the truth.

This is clearly a risk of propaganda for Jesus here - how have you assessed this risk?

Worse, surely, is how unreliable eye witness testimony is?

Yep - even without deliberate attempts to mislead the risk of error is an obvious problem with any eye-witness reports.

Agreed.

[BashfulAnthony]

After all, eye witness evidence is deeply suspect on very mundane examples. So how it might be useful on extraordinary claims is hugely questionable.

One might argue that the more amazing the event, the eye-wintness accounts are more likely to be remembered with clarity.

[Nearly Sane]

After all, eye witness evidence is deeply suspect on very mundane examples. So how it might be useful on extraordinary claims is hugely questionable.

One might argue that the more amazing the event, the eye-wintness accounts are more likely to be remembered with clarity.

You might if you had never read any analysis on eye witness accounts. The problem here, even were you to argue it, is that it assumes the eye witness knows the first observations are known to be part of something remarkable? In the case of a resurrection, that isn't true so even allowing for your argument, it makes no sense.

[Nearly Sane]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/

[BashfulAnthony]

After all, eye witness evidence is deeply suspect on very mundane examples. So how it might be useful on extraordinary claims is hugely questionable.

One might argue that the more amazing the event, the eye-wintness accounts are more likely to be remembered with clarity.

You might if you had never read any analysis on eye witness accounts. The problem here, even were you to argue it, is that it assumes the eye witness knows the first observations are known to be part of something remarkable? In the case of a resurrection, that isn't true so even allowing for your argument, it makes no sense.

Nobody witnessed the Resurrection.  We are talking about eye-witness accounts of seeing Him, and it is not even certain that those people were even aware of His death.  News travelled slowly in those days, and He was seen only a short time after His "death."

[Nearly Sane]

After all, eye witness evidence is deeply suspect on very mundane examples. So how it might be useful on extraordinary claims is hugely questionable.

One might argue that the more amazing the event, the eye-wintness accounts are more likely to be remembered with clarity.

You might if you had never read any analysis on eye witness accounts. The problem here, even were you to argue it, is that it assumes the eye witness knows the first observations are known to be part of something remarkable? In the case of a resurrection, that isn't true so even allowing for your argument, it makes no sense.

Nobody witnessed the Resurrection.  We are talking about eye-witness accounts of seeing Him, and it is not even certain that those people were even aware of His death.  News travelled slowly in those days, and He was seen only a short time after His "death."

So you are saying that the idea of eye witness that Spud was pushing is irrelevant?

[BashfulAnthony]

After all, eye witness evidence is deeply suspect on very mundane examples. So how it might be useful on extraordinary claims is hugely questionable.

One might argue that the more amazing the event, the eye-wintness accounts are more likely to be remembered with clarity.

You might if you had never read any analysis on eye witness accounts. The problem here, even were you to argue it, is that it assumes the eye witness knows the first observations are known to be part of something remarkable? In the case of a resurrection, that isn't true so even allowing for your argument, it makes no sense.

Nobody witnessed the Resurrection.  We are talking about eye-witness accounts of seeing Him, and it is not even certain that those people were even aware of His death.  News travelled slowly in those days, and He was seen only a short time after His "death."

So you are saying that the idea of eye witness that Spud was pushing is irrelevant?

I am saying that when talking of eye-witness accounts, it is by no means cut and dried, as we know with all eye-witness accounts.   I will always maintain that such accounts are not to be dismissed simply because they reflect an amazing occurrence.  And by that I mean seeing someone who it was reported as being dead.

[Nearly Sane]

After all, eye witness evidence is deeply suspect on very mundane examples. So how it might be useful on extraordinary claims is hugely questionable.

One might argue that the more amazing the event, the eye-wintness accounts are more likely to be remembered with clarity.

You might if you had never read any analysis on eye witness accounts. The problem here, even were you to argue it, is that it assumes the eye witness knows the first observations are known to be part of something remarkable? In the case of a resurrection, that isn't true so even allowing for your argument, it makes no sense.

Nobody witnessed the Resurrection.  We are talking about eye-witness accounts of seeing Him, and it is not even certain that those people were even aware of His death.  News travelled slowly in those days, and He was seen only a short time after His "death."

So you are saying that the idea of eye witness that Spud was pushing is irrelevant?

I am saying that when talking of eye-witness accounts, it is by no means cut and dried, as we know with all eye-witness accounts.   I will always maintain that such accounts are not to be dismissed simply because they reflect an amazing occurrence.

But if they were all we had, legally they would be. Did the miracle of the sun, much better recorded than anything to do with a resurrection happen?

[BashfulAnthony]

After all, eye witness evidence is deeply suspect on very mundane examples. So how it might be useful on extraordinary claims is hugely questionable.

One might argue that the more amazing the event, the eye-wintness accounts are more likely to be remembered with clarity.

You might if you had never read any analysis on eye witness accounts. The problem here, even were you to argue it, is that it assumes the eye witness knows the first observations are known to be part of something remarkable? In the case of a resurrection, that isn't true so even allowing for your argument, it makes no sense.

Nobody witnessed the Resurrection.  We are talking about eye-witness accounts of seeing Him, and it is not even certain that those people were even aware of His death.  News travelled slowly in those days, and He was seen only a short time after His "death."

So you are saying that the idea of eye witness that Spud was pushing is irrelevant?

I am saying that when talking of eye-witness accounts, it is by no means cut and dried, as we know with all eye-witness accounts.   I will always maintain that such accounts are not to be dismissed simply because they reflect an amazing occurrence.

But if they were all we had, legally they would be. Did the miracle of the sun, much better recorded than anything to do with a resurrection happen?

I cannot say for sure as I wasn't there.  I see no reason to dismiss all the accounts as lies .

[Nearly Sane]

After all, eye witness evidence is deeply suspect on very mundane examples. So how it might be useful on extraordinary claims is hugely questionable.

One might argue that the more amazing the event, the eye-wintness accounts are more likely to be remembered with clarity.

You might if you had never read any analysis on eye witness accounts. The problem here, even were you to argue it, is that it assumes the eye witness knows the first observations are known to be part of something remarkable? In the case of a resurrection, that isn't true so even allowing for your argument, it makes no sense.

Nobody witnessed the Resurrection.  We are talking about eye-witness accounts of seeing Him, and it is not even certain that those people were even aware of His death.  News travelled slowly in those days, and He was seen only a short time after His "death."

So you are saying that the idea of eye witness that Spud was pushing is irrelevant?

I am saying that when talking of eye-witness accounts, it is by no means cut and dried, as we know with all eye-witness accounts.   I will always maintain that such accounts are not to be dismissed simply because they reflect an amazing occurrence.

But if they were all we had, legally they would be. Did the miracle of the sun, much better recorded than anything to do with a resurrection happen?

I cannot say for sure as I wasn't there.  I see no reason to dismiss all the accounts as lies .

Which is not what is being asked? Could they be wrong? If yes, that applies to any claims and is made even stronger with less numbers with are way less documented.

[BashfulAnthony]

After all, eye witness evidence is deeply suspect on very mundane examples. So how it might be useful on extraordinary claims is hugely questionable.

One might argue that the more amazing the event, the eye-wintness accounts are more likely to be remembered with clarity.

You might if you had never read any analysis on eye witness accounts. The problem here, even were you to argue it, is that it assumes the eye witness knows the first observations are known to be part of something remarkable? In the case of a resurrection, that isn't true so even allowing for your argument, it makes no sense.

Nobody witnessed the Resurrection.  We are talking about eye-witness accounts of seeing Him, and it is not even certain that those people were even aware of His death.  News travelled slowly in those days, and He was seen only a short time after His "death."

So you are saying that the idea of eye witness that Spud was pushing is irrelevant?

I am saying that when talking of eye-witness accounts, it is by no means cut and dried, as we know with all eye-witness accounts.   I will always maintain that such accounts are not to be dismissed simply because they reflect an amazing occurrence.

But if they were all we had, legally they would be. Did the miracle of the sun, much better recorded than anything to do with a resurrection happen?

I cannot say for sure as I wasn't there.  I see no reason to dismiss all the accounts as lies .

Which is not what is being asked? Could they be wrong? If yes, that applies to any claims and is made even stronger with less numbers with are way less documented.

Ask yourself why any follower of Jesus would make these various claims, at a time when the disciples had gone into hiding for fear of the Jewish Authorities, not to mention the Romans.  Why would they draw attention to themselves and risk putting their lives in mortal danger by making such claims?  It doesn't add up.

[cyberman]

Ask yourself why any follower of Jesus would make these various claims, at a time when the disciples had gone into hiding for fear of the Jewish Authorities, not to mention the Romans.  Why would they draw attention to themselves and risk putting their lives in mortal danger by making such claims?  It doesn't add up.

That's a reasonable question. I'm not saying it is unanswerable - but if someone is told, with plausible threat, that if they continue to say they witnessed the resurrection, for example, they will be tortured to death, then what would make them stick to their story? It can't be so glibly dismissed as by saying "well they were obviously lying", can it?

[jakswan]

Ask yourself why any follower of Jesus would make these various claims, at a time when the disciples had gone into hiding for fear of the Jewish Authorities, not to mention the Romans.  Why would they draw attention to themselves and risk putting their lives in mortal danger by making such claims?  It doesn't add up.

That's a reasonable question. I'm not saying it is unanswerable - but if someone is told, with plausible threat, that if they continue to say they witnessed the resurrection, for example, they will be tortured to death, then what would make them stick to their story? It can't be so glibly dismissed as by saying "well they were obviously lying", can it?

What would make men fly planes into buildings, it can't be so glibly dismissed as by saying "well they were obviously lying", can it?

[cyberman]

Ask yourself why any follower of Jesus would make these various claims, at a time when the disciples had gone into hiding for fear of the Jewish Authorities, not to mention the Romans.  Why would they draw attention to themselves and risk putting their lives in mortal danger by making such claims?  It doesn't add up.

That's a reasonable question. I'm not saying it is unanswerable - but if someone is told, with plausible threat, that if they continue to say they witnessed the resurrection, for example, they will be tortured to death, then what would make them stick to their story? It can't be so glibly dismissed as by saying "well they were obviously lying", can it?

What would make men fly planes into buildings, it can't be so glibly dismissed as by saying "well they were obviously lying", can it?

But the people who flew those planes did not, as far as I know, claim to have witnessed first hand the events on which their religion was founded. I am not sure how this really addresses the point?

[Leonard James]

Ask yourself why any follower of Jesus would make these various claims, at a time when the disciples had gone into hiding for fear of the Jewish Authorities, not to mention the Romans.  Why would they draw attention to themselves and risk putting their lives in mortal danger by making such claims?  It doesn't add up.

That's a reasonable question. I'm not saying it is unanswerable - but if someone is told, with plausible threat, that if they continue to say they witnessed the resurrection, for example, they will be tortured to death, then what would make them stick to their story? It can't be so glibly dismissed as by saying "well they were obviously lying", can it?

What would make men fly planes into buildings, it can't be so glibly dismissed as by saying "well they were obviously lying", can it?

I would suggest that in the case of Jesus' followers, who believed him to be the son of "God", it was loyalty to him that made them suffer and die. It is not unknown for many people in war nowadays to do the same thing; lie or die to protect their comrades.

As for the pilots who committed suicide, it was their belief in Islam and the 'reward' they were going to get.

[BashfulAnthony]

Ask yourself why any follower of Jesus would make these various claims, at a time when the disciples had gone into hiding for fear of the Jewish Authorities, not to mention the Romans.  Why would they draw attention to themselves and risk putting their lives in mortal danger by making such claims?  It doesn't add up.

That's a reasonable question. I'm not saying it is unanswerable - but if someone is told, with plausible threat, that if they continue to say they witnessed the resurrection, for example, they will be tortured to death, then what would make them stick to their story? It can't be so glibly dismissed as by saying "well they were obviously lying", can it?

What would make men fly planes into buildings, it can't be so glibly dismissed as by saying "well they were obviously lying", can it?

I would suggest that in the case of Jesus' followers, who believed him to be the son of "God", it was loyalty to him that made them suffer and die. It is not unknown for many people in war nowadays to do the same thing; lie or die to protect their comrades.

As for the pilots who committed suicide, it was their belief in Islam and the 'reward' they were going to get.

I would like to know what is wrong with you.  Apart from your all but pathological obsession with a thing you don't even believe in, you exhibit absolutely no intellectual credibility by merely denouncing every single aspect of the Bible stories out of hand

 The comparison between the followers of Jesus and what they claimed, and the 9/11 murderers is a case in point.  In fact, the two bear no resemblance.  The 9/11 psychopaths were a well-organised group of radicalised volunteers, who were ready to kill Westerners, because they detest all things Western.  They planned their atrocity for months, even years in advance, and were a highly efficient bunch.  The followers of Jesus, on the other hand, were largely illiterate, or at best, semi-literate, individuals, who simply attested to what they had seen.  There was no group organisation, no planning or collusion,  and especially no intent to die for what they were saying:  they put themselves in mortal danger because they wanted to witness what they had experienced.  I don't suppose any of them sought martyrdom.  That is the situation, and for you to make any comparison between the two events, is frankly, ignorant.

[Leonard James]

I would like to know what is wrong with you.  Apart from your all but pathological obsession with a thing you don't even believe in, you exhibit absolutely no intellectual credibility by merely denouncing every single aspect of the Bible stories out of hand

 The comparison between the followers of Jesus and what they claimed, and the 9/11 murderers is a case in point.  In fact, the two bear no resemblance.  The 9/11 psychopaths were a well-organised group of radicalised volunteers, who were ready to kill Westerners, because they detest all things Western.  They planned their atrocity for months, even years in advance, and were a highly efficient bunch.  The followers of Jesus, on the other hand, were largely illiterate, or at best, semi-literate, individuals, who simply attested to what they had seen.  There was no group organisation, no planning or collusion,  and especially no intent to die for what they were saying:  they put themselves in mortal danger because they wanted to witness what they had experienced.  I don't suppose any of them sought martyrdom.  That is the situation, and for you to make any comparison between the two events, is frankly, ignorant.

There is nothing wrong with me, BA ... the fault is yours. You are unobservant and bitchy.

If you look again you will see I was answering Cyberman's post which contained both references, it was not me making the comparison.

I wish you would not trail around after me looking for imaginary things to complain about. You're a childish twit! 

[Hope]

I would suggest that in the case of Jesus' followers, who believed him to be the son of "God", it was loyalty to him that made them suffer and die. It is not unknown for many people in war nowadays to do the same thing; lie or die to protect their comrades.

I think we need to know at which point in their dealings with Jesus did these followers first 'believe him to be the son of "God"'.  The implication from all the records we have is that this awareness only came with their meeting with the resurrected Jesus, suggesting that that prior to that, they were no different to all the other messianic followers of the day who had simply dispersed on the death of their chosen leaders.  This also helps to put the 'the disciples stole the body' story under intense scrutiny.

[Leonard James]

I would suggest that in the case of Jesus' followers, who believed him to be the son of "God", it was loyalty to him that made them suffer and die. It is not unknown for many people in war nowadays to do the same thing; lie or die to protect their comrades.

I think we need to know at which point in their dealings with Jesus did these followers first 'believe him to be the son of "God"'.  The implication from all the records we have is that this awareness only came with their meeting with the resurrected Jesus, suggesting that that prior to that, they were no different to all the other messianic followers of the day who had simply dispersed on the death of their chosen leaders.  This also helps to put the 'the disciples stole the body' story under intense scrutiny.

Surely he himself taught that he was the son of "God".