Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?

[Nearly Sane]

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 order for them to be facts you would need to have met the burden of proof, that they are facts. have you?

[Spud]

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.

Fair enough. Maybe I should have stuck, for the moment, with,

"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.

from 392.
There didn't seem to be any disagreement with this. Is that OK?

[Nearly Sane]

Fair enough. Maybe I should have stuck, for the moment, with,

"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.

from 392.
There didn't seem to be any disagreement with this. Is that OK?

No, that isn't a method. It's simply an experience that cannot explain. You seem to be struggling with the concept of a method here, it needs to be something that would allow you to establish that the supernatural happened. Not being able to explain something does not amount to that. Science is a methodology because it allows checking of its results and is based on the assumption of naturalism.

To have a method based on super or supra naturalism you have to illustrate a way of determining it. Nothing in the above even begins to do it.

[Gordon]

Fair enough. Maybe I should have stuck, for the moment, with,

"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.

from 392.
There didn't seem to be any disagreement with this. Is that OK?

As NS has pointed out, Spud, this isn't a method since it is just another anecdotal claim and is, therefore, subject to all the limitations of anecdotal claims.

Moreover, since this claim is a supernatural one, you'll need a method that can show both clear evidence for the supernatural and is robust enough to counter the risks of people making mistakes or telling lies.

[Spud]

Fair enough. Maybe I should have stuck, for the moment, with,

"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.

from 392.
There didn't seem to be any disagreement with this. Is that OK?

No, that isn't a method. It's simply an experience that cannot explain. You seem to be struggling with the concept of a method here, it needs to be something that would allow you to establish that the supernatural happened. Not being able to explain something does not amount to that. Science is a methodology because it allows checking of its results and is based on the assumption of naturalism.

To have a method based on super or supra naturalism you have to illustrate a way of determining it. Nothing in the above even begins to do it.

OK. Maybe if you want a scientific method you would need to stick with walking on water or the like, because coming back from the dead experiments would present ethical difficulties! And its clear that you want to understand 'how' rather than be content with evidence that doesn't tell you how. I'm contending that the disciples (assuming they existed and told the truth) had all the evidence they needed for Jesus' resurrection- multiple witnesses, nail and spear marks, people who saw where the body had been put, etc.- even though they didn't understand 'how'.

I want to get that point across before going on to talk about how someone who was not an eye-witness can believe.

[Gordon]

OK. Maybe if you want a scientific method you would need to stick with walking on water or the like, because coming back from the dead experiments would present ethical difficulties!

Experiments regarding the claimed resurrection aren't required Spud since enough is known about what happens to bodies after death to know that if said body was really dead for 2/3 then it would stay dead: so science already tells us what happens naturally, and this knowledge contradicts what Christians believe. Therefore, as things stand, it would be sensible to reject this resurrection claim as being false since it is a natural impossibility.

And its clear that you want to understand 'how' rather than be content with evidence that doesn't tell you how. I'm contending that the disciples (assuming they existed and told the truth) had all the evidence they needed for Jesus' resurrection- multiple witnesses, nail and spear marks, people who saw where the body had been put, etc.- even though they didn't understand 'how'.

You mention some of the risks yourself here, Spud, in that the accounts of there being eye-witnesses who didn't makes mistakes or lie are no more than unsubstantiated claims: you may be 'content' with this, and if so then I'd say you were easily pleased.

I want to get that point across before going on to talk about how someone who was not an eye-witness can believe.

Then you'll need a method that can be seen to remove the risks of mistakes and/or lies.

[Leonard James]

All religions are based on human claims. There is no evidence whatever that a god has truly revealed itself ... just human claims.

So we have to face the fact that either no god exists, or if it does it doesn't want us to know about it.

It's that simple.

[~TW~]

All religions are based on human claims. There is no evidence whatever that a god has truly revealed itself ... just human claims.

So we have to face the fact that either no god exists, or if it does it doesn't want us to know about it.

It's that simple.

 So James in General the Christians claim that their God has immense intelligence far above our minds can even begin to imagine.

 Now you seem to be saying that is impossible we the human race are supreme in the universe and nothing but nothing can be more intelligent then us and it is impossible for such an intelligence to exist.

 Can you produce any evidence for this.

     ~TW~

[Leonard James]

All religions are based on human claims. There is no evidence whatever that a god has truly revealed itself ... just human claims.

So we have to face the fact that either no god exists, or if it does it doesn't want us to know about it.

It's that simple.

 So James in General the Christians claim that their God has immense intelligence far above our minds can even begin to imagine.

 Now you seem to be saying that is impossible we the human race are supreme in the universe and nothing but nothing can be more intelligent then us and it is impossible for such an intelligence to exist.

 Can you produce any evidence for this.

     ~TW~

I don't have to, because I didn't say it. You just invented that straw man.

Read my post again.

[floo]

All religions are based on human claims. There is no evidence whatever that a god has truly revealed itself ... just human claims.

So we have to face the fact that either no god exists, or if it does it doesn't want us to know about it.

It's that simple.

 So James in General the Christians claim that their God has immense intelligence far above our minds can even begin to imagine.

 Now you seem to be saying that is impossible we the human race are supreme in the universe and nothing but nothing can be more intelligent then us and it is impossible for such an intelligence to exist.

 Can you produce any evidence for this.

     ~TW~

It is you who has to produce evidence for your fanciful assertions!

[~TW~]

All religions are based on human claims. There is no evidence whatever that a god has truly revealed itself ... just human claims.

So we have to face the fact that either no god exists, or if it does it doesn't want us to know about it.

It's that simple.

 So James in General the Christians claim that their God has immense intelligence far above our minds can even begin to imagine.

 Now you seem to be saying that is impossible we the human race are supreme in the universe and nothing but nothing can be more intelligent then us and it is impossible for such an intelligence to exist.

 Can you produce any evidence for this.

     ~TW~

I don't have to, because I didn't say it. You just invented that straw man.

Read my post again.

 I introduced something you have not considered,but we right now are looking for intelligent life right at this moment.You have just not considered that an intelligent life out there may be far,far greater then us.The problem is yours.

Or do you think we are searching for life that is not there.Make your mind up. 

  ~TW~

[Gordon]

Be careful with all that straw, TW.

Extra-terrestrial life hasn't featured in this thread, and has no relevance to what Len was actually saying.

[Leonard James]

All religions are based on human claims. There is no evidence whatever that a god has truly revealed itself ... just human claims.

So we have to face the fact that either no god exists, or if it does it doesn't want us to know about it.

It's that simple.

 So James in General the Christians claim that their God has immense intelligence far above our minds can even begin to imagine.

 Now you seem to be saying that is impossible we the human race are supreme in the universe and nothing but nothing can be more intelligent then us and it is impossible for such an intelligence to exist.

 Can you produce any evidence for this.

     ~TW~

I don't have to, because I didn't say it. You just invented that straw man.

Read my post again.

 I introduced something you have not considered,but we right now are looking for intelligent life right at this moment.You have just not considered that an intelligent life out there may be far,far greater then us.The problem is yours.

Or do you think we are searching for life that is not there.Make your mind up. 

  ~TW~

If you think anybody is searching for gods out there, you are dafter than I thought you were, which is saying something!

Have fun in your straw house! 

[floo]

All religions are based on human claims. There is no evidence whatever that a god has truly revealed itself ... just human claims.

So we have to face the fact that either no god exists, or if it does it doesn't want us to know about it.

It's that simple.

 So James in General the Christians claim that their God has immense intelligence far above our minds can even begin to imagine.

 Now you seem to be saying that is impossible we the human race are supreme in the universe and nothing but nothing can be more intelligent then us and it is impossible for such an intelligence to exist.

 Can you produce any evidence for this.

     ~TW~

I don't have to, because I didn't say it. You just invented that straw man.

Read my post again.

 I introduced something you have not considered,but we right now are looking for intelligent life right at this moment.You have just not considered that an intelligent life out there may be far,far greater then us.The problem is yours.

Or do you think we are searching for life that is not there.Make your mind up. 

  ~TW~

It is quite likely that somewhere out there is intelligent life which is more evolved than ours, and nothing to do with any deity, as I guess you were implying!

[jeremyp]

My apologies: but why is an authenticated eye witness account of a meal so important?

I just chose "having a meal" as a random example of Jesus having social interactions after his resurrection.  If you'd like to pick on another kind of interaction e.g. walking and talking with people or letting them touch his wounds, please feel free to do so.

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

No you didn't, you conceded that I am probably correct about Luke's account not being that of an eye witness.  That's not addressing it, except to concede the point.

It seems that you are now claiming that Mark's description of the Last Supper is an eye witness account, so same question:  whose eye witness account is it and how have you authenticated it?
 

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.

Yes, but if Paul says person x saw the risen Jesus (where x is not Paul himself), it is by definition not an eye witness account. 

[Nearly Sane]

No, that isn't a method. It's simply an experience that cannot explain. You seem to be struggling with the concept of a method here, it needs to be something that would allow you to establish that the supernatural happened. Not being able to explain something does not amount to that. Science is a methodology because it allows checking of its results and is based on the assumption of naturalism.

To have a method based on super or supra naturalism you have to illustrate a way of determining it. Nothing in the above even begins to do it.

OK. Maybe if you want a scientific method you would need to stick with walking on water or the like, because coming back from the dead experiments would present ethical difficulties! And its clear that you want to understand 'how' rather than be content with evidence that doesn't tell you how. I'm contending that the disciples (assuming they existed and told the truth) had all the evidence they needed for Jesus' resurrection- multiple witnesses, nail and spear marks, people who saw where the body had been put, etc.- even though they didn't understand 'how'.

I want to get that point across before going on to talk about how someone who was not an eye-witness can believe.

No, I don't want a scientific method since that works on teh assumption of naturalism. I want a method that allows one to determine a superantural thing happened. Lots of people saw David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear, indeed I was one of them. He didn't actually make it disappear though

[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.

Why?

Yesterday I saw a bus

Yesterday my mate and I saw an alien spacecraft

Yesterday 99,999 people and I saw the sun dance about in the sky

[jeremyp]

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

It's pretty obvious from at least one of my previous posts.  The resolution of the synoptic problem is that, in all probability, Matthew and Luke copied Mark.  However, Mark's gospel ends at the point where the women leave the garden i.e. it has no resurrection accounts in it.  Matthew and Luke's resurrection accounts are, therefore, independent of Mark's by definition because he doesn't have any.  I think it is a fair assumption they are independent of each other because they don't describe the same sightings.

As far as I am aware, John's account of the crucifixion and the empty tomb is not dependent on Mark's.  Unfortunately, we don't know if it is independent of Mark's account because we do not know the original sources of either.  John's resurrection accounts don't match with Luke or Matthew's so they are independent of each other.

So we have three authors, each describing a different set of resurrection sightings but, unfortunately, that means that they can't corroborate one another.

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

Fine, but you are wrong in asserting that we know who the authors of the gospels are.

I have an account of Harry Potter defeating Lord Voldemort. 

So what?

You have an account of a man rising from the dead.  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.

Well you do.  That Jesus died and was resurrected is one of your Flakey Five.

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

You are Vlad and I claim my five pounds!

This has nothing to do with his  philosophical naturalism bullshit.

You cannot reason about the real World by deduction alone, you have to use, what is known as inductive reasoning.  Induction is inferring conclusions from observations.  For instance, I observe lots of people sitting on chairs successfully, therefore, by inductive reasoning, I infer that I can sit on a chair without it collapsing.  Inherent in this form of reasoning is the assumption that the World is basically predictable, that we can estimate probabilities of uncertain events based on our experience of events we have observed.

This assumption goes out the window as soon as you invoke a god because God can upset the apple cart anytime she likes.  There really is no point in you arguing that Jesus' resurrection is the most likely explanation for the NT Bible stories because the idea that one explanation is more probable than another relies on principles that are null and void if God can interfere with the World.

[Alien]

...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.

No, we are not "all starting with naturalism as the background". You, as a philosophical naturalist are, but those of us who have not assumed that the physical world is all there is may not be. I aren't.

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.

Why do you make this claim?

So to the Christian (or theist), not possible + happening = god... in a roundabout way.

Perhaps I am being finicky, but it should be "not naturally possible + happening = God". If it were "not possible", as you put it, it would not happen. That's what "not possible" entails.

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.

OK, that's unfortunate for you then.

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.

So what?

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.

OK, understood.

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.

Agreed so far.

Therefore, since Jesus stayed dead, there is a god." I don't think you disagree with that either.

I do disagree with your statement that Jesus stayed dead. He was seen by individuals and groups on a dozen or so occasions that we know of and spoke to those people, who were individuals and groups, and sometimes even ate with them.

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

Er, yes, I do believe people could stay dead without God. Did you mean to ask that?

[Alien]

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.

But you and others seem to be suggesting that it could have been a trick (that is what you are suggesting, isn't it?). If so then you must surely have some reason for so suggesting. If you don't know it is possible to pull off such a trick, why suggest it was a trick? You are claiming it was something you don't seem to really believe yourself.

Help me here.

[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?

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.

Why do you think the gorilla experiment has got anything to do with whether individual and groups of people on a dozen or so occasions met up with, talked with and sometimes at with someone they were convinced was the same Jesus who had been killed by crucifixion a few days earlier?

[Gordon]

I do disagree with your statement that Jesus stayed dead. He was seen by individuals and groups on a dozen or so occasions that we know of and spoke to those people, who were individuals and groups, and sometimes even ate with them.

Super -  so, since you are accepting of these accounts, on what basis have you excluded the possibility of lies: after all, that people lie is known human behaviour, so how have you accounted for this possibility?

[Gordon]

Why do you think the gorilla experiment has got anything to do with whether individual and groups of people on a dozen or so occasions met up with, talked with and sometimes at with someone they were convinced was the same Jesus who had been killed by crucifixion a few days earlier?

You're doing it again, Alan: assuming anecdotal claims as facts!

[Andy]

...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.

No, we are not "all starting with naturalism as the background".

Yes, we are. It's your whole routine for how you think you can clearly identify when a miracle has occurred. Look, you've even been finicky in your response when agreeing with me about it! - You see X as naturally impossible, but believe it happened, therefore a god.

By all means, if you want to claim that your starting point for assessing the likelihood of an event is filtered through theism, by my guest, but it makes your argument circular. Really, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in saying you start with naturalism, but perhaps I shouldn't.

You, as a philosophical naturalist are,

I don't know how many times I have to either make the point or say things in a manner that make it crystal that I am not a philosophical naturalist. Please, don't turn into Vlad, as it's probably a good thing that you're going to post less if you do.

those of us who have not assumed that the physical world is all there is may not be. I aren't.

As I've explained above, you are starting with it.

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 naturally possible.

Why do you make this claim?

I've added 'naturally' in again if that makes it clearer.

So to the Christian (or theist), not possible + happening = god... in a roundabout way.

Perhaps I am being finicky, but it should be "not naturally possible + happening = God". If it were "not possible", as you put it, it would not happen. That's what "not possible" entails.

Finicky? Yes and no. I was talking under the context of naturalism, so it's what I meant anyway, but there's no harm in you making it appear precise.

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.

OK, that's unfortunate for you then.

<shrugs> Don't see it myself, but if you feel it would be better for me to see meaning in it, then provide the method etc... ...you know the drill.

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.

Agreed so far.

Therefore, since Jesus stayed dead, there is a god." I don't think you disagree with that either.

I do disagree with your statement that Jesus stayed dead. He was seen by individuals and groups on a dozen or so occasions that we know of and spoke to those people, who were individuals and groups, and sometimes even ate with them.

I was drawing a parallel with your argument, that's all. I don't agree with either conclusion, as you yourself just said, "Therefore, since Jesus was raised from the dead, there is a god". I could've latched onto that myself, but it would be shifting away from the point. I know what you believe happened, I'm just making the point that if the opposite happened, then it doesn't mean a god doesn't exist, but also it can equally be used to conclude god exists. It's that I don't think you disagree with...

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

Er, yes, I do believe people could stay dead without God. Did you mean to ask that?

Yes, I meant it. You're just showing yourself up to being inconsistent and having tunnel vision for one argument you use for god by isolating it from the others you use. I'll ask again and expand:

Do you really believe that Jesus (or anybody for that matter) could stay dead without a god when you simultaneously believe that the laws of nature, that dictate people stay dead, were created (and sustained?) by a god?

[jeremyp]

...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.

No, we are not "all starting with naturalism as the background". You, as a philosophical naturalist are, but those of us who have not assumed that the physical world is all there is may not be. I aren't.

Tell us how to assess the likelihood of an event if you have the assumption that God could make anything happen at any time.