Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?

[Spud]

I was putting myself in the shoes of someone who has seen a great preacher/miracle worker die, then seen that person three days later alive, and touched marks that are consistent with his death, and had other people there to confirm, etc. They were convinced they had enough evidence. Here is the method that clearly identifies the supernatural.

It only does this for the eyewitness himself, though. For anyone else, something is needed to prove they were not lying or deluded: an infallible lie-detector and multiple independent witnesses, respectively.

But surely, if said eye-witness had other eye-witnesses to corroborate what they all experienced, then it doesn't 'only do(es) this for the eyewitness himself'.

Yes. They can all confirm to each other that a supernatural event has occurred. I meant that for anyone outside that circle, the multiple independent witnesses have to undergo an infallible lie detector in order for the event to be established.

The lie detector aspect which confirms the resurrection for the non-eyewitness is the change in the disciples, as recorded by non-eyewitnesses such as Luke (Acts) and whoever wrote Mark 16:9ff.

The apostles "collectively underwent an undeniable change following the alleged post-resurrection appearances of Christ. Immediately following His crucifixion, they hid in fear for their lives. Following the resurrection they took to the streets, boldly proclaiming the resurrection despite intensifying persecution. What accounts for their sudden and dramatic change? It certainly was not financial gain. The Apostles gave up everything they had to preach the resurrection, including their lives."
http://www.gotquestions.org/why-believe-resurrection.html

[Gordon]

Yes. They can all confirm to each other that a supernatural event has occurred. I meant that for anyone outside that circle, the multiple independent witnesses have to undergo an infallible lie detector in order for the event to be established.

The lie detector aspect which confirms the resurrection for the non-eyewitness is the change in the disciples, as recorded by non-eyewitnesses such as Luke (Acts) and whoever wrote Mark 16:9ff.

This doesn't seem like much of a test, Spud, since not only does it depend on other anecdotal claims it doesn't 'confirm the resurrection' at all since all it actually confirms is what some people thought.

The apostles "collectively underwent an undeniable change following the alleged post-resurrection appearances of Christ. Immediately following His crucifixion, they hid in fear for their lives. Following the resurrection they took to the streets, boldly proclaiming the resurrection despite intensifying persecution. What accounts for their sudden and dramatic change? It certainly was not financial gain. The Apostles gave up everything they had to preach the resurrection, including their lives."
http://www.gotquestions.org/why-believe-resurrection.html

That people are prepared to suffer and die for support of their preferred cause isn't unknown, and although this approach may say something about their commitment or sincerity it says nothing about the truth or otherwise of their cause. 

[Hope]

Claims of eye-witnesses, Hope, just claims and not facts.

Claims of their not being eye-witnesses are just claims, nor facts, Gordon.  Or do you have evidence to the contrary?  After all, the Gospel documents have plenty of widely corroborated details suggesting that they are trustworthy.

In addition, these are claims made in a book put together by supporters of Jesus - I'm sure you can see the risks here.

Oh yes, plenty of risks; death; persecution; rejection by their families and communities (and not just the Jewish authors); ...   You seem to think that 'risk' is only on the side of the detractors.

Furthermore, since the written records aren't absolutely contemporary with the events, but are written records of existing oral materials, the legitimate suggestions that the stories were tampered with as they moved further in time from the events are equally legitimately mitigated by the likelihood of any eye-witnesses pointing out that said changes had occurred.  When one remembers that all the alternative Gospels and Epistles, that so many like to refer to, date from the early 2nd century, how many of their authors are going to have had the oppportunity to have been eye-witnesses.

[Gordon]

Claims of their not being eye-witnesses are just claims, nor facts, Gordon.  Or do you have evidence to the contrary?  After all, the Gospel documents have plenty of widely corroborated details suggesting that they are trustworthy.

The burden of proof is with you guys, and by the way your 'trustworthy' assertion is special pleading.

Oh yes, plenty of risks; death; persecution; rejection by their families and communities (and not just the Jewish authors); ...   You seem to think that 'risk' is only on the side of the detractors.

More special pleading.

Furthermore, since the written records aren't absolutely contemporary with the events, but are written records of existing oral materials, the legitimate suggestions that the stories were tampered with as they moved further in time from the events are equally legitimately mitigated by the likelihood of any eye-witnesses pointing out that said changes had occurred.  When one remembers that all the alternative Gospels and Epistles, that so many like to refer to, date from the early 2nd century, how many of their authors are going to have had the oppportunity to have been eye-witnesses.

In which case the risk of mistakes or lies influencing what these later people thought or wrote is especially acute in this case, as is the problem of showing the method whereby anecdotal claims can be seen to demonstrate supernatural intervention.

[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.

Jesus naturally returning from the dead is almost infinitessimally unlikely that we all agree it would not have happened, but that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing the Christian claim that God raised Jesus from the dead.

You may think it's not what we're discussing, but it's integral to everyone's position. We're all starting with naturalism as the background by which we come to assess the likelihood of an event. The whole point for the Christian in this instance is that this event is so implausible to happen naturally, that for all intents and purposes we might as well not believe it's possible. So to the Christian (or theist), not possible + happening = god... in a roundabout way.

When you add a god in, you remove that assessment of likelihood, so I see the question of "why is god raising Jesus from the dead implausible" as meaningless.

As far as I can tell, jeremyp was questioning it from the naturalistic background that we all start with, and not from a theistic one. Actually, it looks pretty obvious.

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

If there is no God, it is impossible for Jesus to have been raised from the dead. (Not G implies not R). That is what you have said here. Therefore, since Jesus was raised from the dead, there is a God. (R implies G - aka Modus Tollens).

I just said what you had said! I'm saying this is a position you agree with, not that it's mine. I think it's hooey. I can just as easily form an argument saying' "If there is no god, it is impossible for Jesus to have stayed dead. Therefore, since Jesus stayed dead, there is a god." I don't think you disagree with that either. I mean, do you really believe that Jesus (or anybody for that matter) could stay dead without god?

[Hope]

When you add a god in, you remove that assessment of likelihood, so I see the question of "why is god raising Jesus from the dead implausible" as meaningless.

Whereas I would suggest that this is possibly the most important question that has been posed on this thread.

I mean, do you really believe that Jesus (or anybody for that matter) could stay dead without god?

Now, that is a meaningless question, without an answer to the one you posed above.

[Andy]

When you add a god in, you remove that assessment of likelihood, so I see the question of "why is god raising Jesus from the dead implausible" as meaningless.

Whereas I would suggest that this is possibly the most important question that has been posed on this thread.

The answer is it isn't implausible. You just don't seem to understand why.

I mean, do you really believe that Jesus (or anybody for that matter) could stay dead without god?

Now, that is a meaningless question, without an answer to the one you posed above.

The answer is the same for the same reason. For theists, you should believe it by definition.

[Hope]

...and by the way your 'trustworthy' assertion is special pleading....  More special pleading.

No more so than all your attempts to oppose the Christian arguments.  After all, you restrict your arguments to a limited area of reality, thus pleading that that area is sacrosanct.

In which case the risk of mistakes or lies influencing what these later people thought or wrote is especially acute in this case, as is the problem of showing the method whereby anecdotal claims can be seen to demonstrate supernatural intervention.

Actually, you're wrong.  The burden of proof isn't on 'showing a method whereby anecdotal claims can be seen to demonstrate supernatural intervention', but on the reliability of oral tradition in the context of limited literary tradition, something that writers like Ong have shown to be high.

[Andy]

...and by the way your 'trustworthy' assertion is special pleading....  More special pleading.

No more so than all your attempts to oppose the Christian arguments.  After all, you restrict your arguments to a limited area of reality, thus pleading that that area is sacrosanct.

I would say that limitation is at the behest of asking you to provide us with a means to broaden our scope. Are you going to help, because so far all you do is shy away from it?

In which case the risk of mistakes or lies influencing what these later people thought or wrote is especially acute in this case, as is the problem of showing the method whereby anecdotal claims can be seen to demonstrate supernatural intervention.

Actually, you're wrong.  The burden of proof isn't on 'showing a method whereby anecdotal claims can be seen to demonstrate supernatural intervention', but on the reliability of oral tradition in the context of limited literary tradition, something that writers like Ong have shown to be high.

Actually, he's absolutely right, and again, this is more of your obfuscation. Supernatural intervention is a conclusion you draw from the anecdotal claims, based on some methodology or other of gauging the likelihood of when supernatural intervention is the best explanation. If only you would elucidate what it is so we could all have a go...

[Gordon]

The burden of proof isn't on 'showing a method whereby anecdotal claims can be seen to demonstrate supernatural intervention', but on the reliability of oral tradition in the context of limited literary tradition, something that writers like Ong have shown to be high.

Nope - we could conclude until the cows come home that the gospel writers may well have sincerely believed the claims of the oral accounts they were recording as text and also that they accurately recorded what these prior oral accounts claimed - but this isn't the same thing at all as concluding that these claims are factually true.

To claim that they are true you would need to employ a method that both disposed of the risks of mistakes or lies and also revealed the evidence that demonstrates supernatural intervention. The problem here is that  you are stuck with all the attendant risks of ancient anecdotal claims of the fantastic as recorded by interested parties: you can choose accept these as being true on a personal basis of course, but you don't as yet have sufficient grounds to show the resurrection of Jesus as being historical fact.

So, since the burden if proof is yours, how about outlining a method that gets around all the problems of human artifice. 

[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.

OK, as has been offered before, show us how it was done. I've got a cross, some nails and a spear. Are you up for it?

I have no idea IF it was done, let alone how. Once again, though, 'I don't know' does not inevitably lead to 'therefore a god did it'.

O.

[Outrider]

True Christianity had nothing to do with people and worldly laws.
Want to see if you can see the true Christianity as opposed to that which is false... Clue; Jesus said - do as I do...

You're just one more voice in the multitude proclaiming an insight into what makes 'true' Christianity, but still none of you are offering a methodology by which the claims can be tested.

But the Spirit and Truth are the only evidence.

Show me 'spirit'. Define a test I can apply that results in evidence to make me think 'spirit' is something more than just a made-up concept to justify other made-up concepts that also don't have any evidentiary substantiation.

Want to explain what about these two things you think is like the above,

No, in exactly the same way I don't want to explain about unicorns, talking cheeses or the healing powers of homeopathy: because before I have any need to explain something you have to offer something more than an assertion that these things actually exist.

Billions of people believe Muhammed has superseded Judaism and that Christianity is fundamentally misguided, but their sincerity is, no doubt, insufficient to convince you. Why should your equally sincere but equally unsupported belief convince me?

You WISH....LOL 1.6 billion actually but there are 1.09 billion Christians in the Roman Catholic Church alone... In fact the Christian religion has a 1/3rd of of the worlds population. Where is Muhammed now, that's right he is dead. No miracles then.

By all the available evidence, if Jesus existed he's also dead. Thanks for making my point for me.

The fact is that it is a living religion. Spirit and Truth.

Gin and Tonic?

Sounds like a personal beef. Are you saying no atheists or pagans agreed with those decisions. Well, you do not have a point do you.

Damned straight it's a personal beef, I don't like people imposing limits on freedom because of blind prejudice, antiquated superstition or stupidity. I'm sure there probably are some atheists and pagans that objected to various of those decisions, and in other discussions I'd deal with the arguments they'd make: in this argument I'm referencing the people who take their religious sentiment and vote in accordance with it to ensure that their superstition restricts my life and the life of others.

Your reply proves differently. You couldn't even understand or reply to the post with displaying you never bothered it in a meaningful manner let alone open minded. In fact your reply showed you never even contemplated the actual things being discussed.

Should I take that as a 'no, I have no idea about this alleged 'correct' order for the NT'?

I have asked, repeatedly, for information to expand upon the original question. I have asked, repeatedly, for someone to explain why I should treat claims of gods differently to claims of leprechauns, and as yet no-one has tried.

Keep with the red herring assertions if you'd like, but I'd prefer an answer to the questions that might move the discussion on a little....

And that's a 'No I have nothing to offer that's a reason to think believing in Jesus has any more justification than believing in leprechauns'.

O.

[Outrider]

I can't see how it depends on that. My views might me ones you vehemently disagree with or they might be ones you like. In either case, how does my engagement in debate stop you from doing anything at all?

Whether your views are ones that I agree or disagree with isn't the point, it's whether you have any justification for them.

'I believe a leprechaun wants us all to stop gay people marrying' is patently nonsense, but when you replace 'a leprechaun' with 'god' suddenly it's supposed to be a valid justification for enshrining that baseless belief in law.

If you have reasoned arguments against a point then, by all means, raise them in the Houses of Parliament, ask for laws to be founded upon them.

Enshrining religious sentiment in law BECAUSE it is religious sentiment, however, is an unjust imposition.

Nice dodge though.

You probably shouldn't be assuming that just because you didn't understand the argument that it was a 'dodge' - you're supposed to be demonstrating charity, aren't you? Maybe I didn't read that bit right...

O.

[floo]

What can't be explained today may well be explained in the future, with no input from any deity. What we take for granted today like electricity, microwaves, instant communication, with the other side of the world, for instance, would have seemed supernatural to the people living a few hundred years ago. Humans are the real gods, their ingenuity knows no bounds, imo.

[jakswan]

Claims of their not being eye-witnesses are just claims, nor facts, Gordon.  Or do you have evidence to the contrary?  After all, the Gospel documents have plenty of widely corroborated details suggesting that they are trustworthy.

They are also contradictory some contain some falsehoods and have been known to have been changed, so shouldn't be overly relied upon.

[jeremyp]

Agreed.  Let's see your authenticated eye witness accounts of Jesus having a meal with the disciples.

OK, we'll start with Luke 22:7ff,

OK I thought it was obvious that I was asking for eye witness information of post resurrection meal, but it was my mistake not to allow you to move the goal posts in this instance, so we'll run with it.

Whose eye witness account is it in Luke 22:7 onwards?  How have you authenticated it?  In your answer, bear in mind that even Luke states he was not an eye witness at the beginning of his gospel.

this is corroborated by Matthew 26: 17ff and Mark 14:12ff.

Well, actually, Matthew and Luke both used Mark as the primary source of their accounts.  If there was an eye witness to Luke's version, it was the probably the same eye witness to Mark and Matthew's version.  Even if they were different, I still need you to answer who were they and how have you authenticated the account?

But you actually missed the point of my post.  If an eye-witness's evidence is corroborated by one or more other eye-witnesses' evidence, it isn't the only original eye-witness' evidence that is corroborated.

You have missed my point:  there's no need to theorise about whose eye witness evidence corroborates whose unless you have an eye witness account and the only eye witness account you have of Jesus post resurrection from any first century source is that of Paul.  And this is what Paul says of his sighting:

and last of all [Christ] appeared to me also

It's a little bit short on detail.

[Hope]

Agreed.  Let's see your authenticated eye witness accounts of Jesus having a meal with the disciples.

OK, we'll start with Luke 22:7ff,

OK I thought it was obvious that I was asking for eye witness information of post resurrection meal, but it was my mistake not to allow you to move the goal posts in this instance, so we'll run with it.

My apologies: but why is an authenticated eye witness account of a meal so important?  Is it because there is only one account of this whilst there are more accounts of other sorts of social interaction.

Whose eye witness account is it in Luke 22:7 onwards?  How have you authenticated it?  In your answer, bear in mind that even Luke states he was not an eye witness at the beginning of his gospel.

I addressed this and the subsequent question in my post #399

You have missed my point:  there's no need to theorise about whose eye witness evidence corroborates whose unless you have an eye witness account and the only eye witness account you have of Jesus post resurrection from any first century source is that of Paul.  And this is what Paul says of his sighting:

and last of all [Christ] appeared to me also

It's a little bit short on detail.

"last of all", jeremy.  Paul lists a number of individuals Christ appeared to other than to him. 

[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?

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.

Your assumption of naturalism.

no, probability as it is taught as  branch of science and used in the study of history in all schools and universities in this country, since as a branch of science it is methodological naturalistic, as is the study of history.

That is badly put. Because something is taught in schools and universities it does not thereby make it correct. Heck, theology is taught in schools and universities in this country and you seem to disagree with the correctness of what is being taught. As it happens, the use of probability theory, itself, does not require adherence or assumption of naturalism. You will have seen the equation I quoted in http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10415.msg533156#msg533156

Now, how you assign values to the right hand side of that equation is a matter of debate, but we can at least give rough figures, even if it is only "very low" or "very high".

[Alien]

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?

Wot, as in not being able to tell whether someone has got nail wounds in their hands or have been stabbed or is eating with you or is talking with you?

[Alien]

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

Why?

[Outrider]

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?

Wot, as in not being able to tell whether someone has got nail wounds in their hands or have been stabbed or is eating with you or is talking with you?

As in being asked to watch a group of about six people intently and not spotting the man dressed as a gorilla joining in the group...

http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/gorilla_experiment.html

Eye-witness testimony accuracy, consistency and reliability are horrendously over-estimated in general understanding.

O.

[Alien]

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

"Eyewitness identification typically involves selecting the alleged perpetrator from a police lineup" - so not talking with them and eating with them?
"At the trial, which may be years later, eyewitnesses usually testify in court." - so not a day or so later then?

Did you actually read the article?

[Alien]

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?

Educate yourself Alan. Read about the synoptic problem.

Yes, I have done that and have looked into it in depth. I find it fascinating in a geeky sort of way. I think Mark Goodacre, in particular, makes some very interesting claims about its resolution.

Now, please answer why you think the empty tomb accounts are not independent when you think the resurection accounts are independent.

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

As before, you and I disagree on this.

That doesn't make you any less wrong.

I shall avoid getting into a "You're wrong", "No, you're wrong" argument.

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 have an account of Harry Potter defeating Lord Voldemort. 

So what?

By the way, you cannot both claim that Jesus was resurrected because God and God exists because Jesus was resurrected as you do.  Your argument is circular.

It would be circular if I argued for that. Agreed.

The basis of your whole defence of the resurrection accounts is goddidit.  If you believe in God and God can do anything then, of course, your resurrection fairy tales are possible but so is everything else, except rational discourse.

More accurately, you assumption of philosophical naturalism leads you to the conclusion that Jesus could not have been raised from the dead.

Following on from your point above, if I am arguing for the truth of Christianity as opposed to any other form of deism or theism (i.e. where the existence of God is already granted) then I don't need to demonstrate that God exists. The question then becomes whether it is probable that God would raise Jesus from the dead.

If, however, I am looking at the alleged resurrection of Jesus from the dead to demonstrate God's existence then, yes, I cannot assume God's existence as part of my argument. What I can say though is that, as atheists here tend to recognise, it seems impossible to demonstrate that God does not exist and therefore you and I should leave the possibility that he does exist open in our arguments.

[Alien]

But you do not have ANY eye witnesses, you have a book that days there were some.

Don't we?  I accept that Luke would not have been an eye-witness, but Mark may have been one of the group of followers that included the 12 disciples and who would likely have taken part in the meal; Matthew may have been one of the 12.  Add to that the possibility that Mark's Gospel is the gospel according to Peter, we actually end up with the possibility of 2, possibly even 3 eye-witnesses.

OK, all this is educated surmise, but then your assertion that we don't have ANY eye-witnesses is simply surmise.

Claims of eye-witnesses, Hope, just claims and not facts.

You have asserted that these are (just) claims and not facts. That is a positive claim for something. What evidence to you have that the claims made by the NT-writers were (just) claims and not facts? You have gone beyond "I see no good reason to believe they these claims are correct."

In addition, these are claims made in a book put together by supporters of Jesus - I'm sure you can see the risks here.

But why were they supporters/followers of Jesus. I'm sure you can see the risk that they were genuine and accurate.

[Gordon]

You have asserted that these are (just) claims and not facts. That is a positive claim for something. What evidence to you have that the claims made by the NT-writers were (just) claims and not facts? You have gone beyond "I see no good reason to believe they these claims are correct."

These are anecdotal claims, Alan, made in an ancient book of imprecise provenance, that haven't been shown to be undisputed historical facts - you who say they are more than claims have the burden of proof here: I'm quite happy to stick at claims since I see no route from them to historical facts since you guys haven't provided a method that can be used to confirm supernatural agency.   

But why were they supporters/followers of Jesus. I'm sure you can see the risk that they were genuine and accurate.

Indeed - effective propaganda tends to have the effect of encouraging people to believe certain things: but where these no doubt sincere beliefs involve claims that a dead person was resurrected then their sincerity alone isn't really sufficient grounds to accept that their beliefs are true.

This is, again, where you need a method that can satisfactorily remove the problems of human artifice.

Update: Just to add, Alan, since I know you are fond of dictionary definitions, this one seems to support my use of 'claim' since the NT anecdotes about resurrection and Jesus being seen and interacted with fit this definition of 'claim' -  'State or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof:' 

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