Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?

[Shaker]

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

It's famous so you probably know the quote, JP, but J.B.S. Haldane said much the same thing - if you have entities you can't define doing things you can't explain by means you don't understand, the world is a chaotic, incoherent and capricious mess and science is impossible.

[Outrider]

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.

I'm suggesting that it's a possibility, and that given that we have other instances of well-witnessed events of seemingly impossible things being perpetrated, that it's a more likely explanation than an actual resurrection.

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.

You don't know it's possible to resurrect yourself after incarnating yourself in a sacrificial avatar, but you accept it as the best explanation... Essentially, all deceptions of this kind require a set-up to make you think you know what's going to happen, a distraction where the deception is either out of sight or out of your line of attention, and then a reveal.

Help me here.

You'd need to talk to professional magicians to get inside secrets like that, but I don't need to demonstrate exactly how - it's conceivable, easily, and it's a more likely explanation than actual resurrection.

That's before we get to the possibility that the entire story is apocryphal in the first place - that's probably less likely than people of the time genuinely thinking they saw it, but more likely than someone coming back to life after two days of being actually dead.

O.

[Outrider]

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?

I linked it to the crucifixion specifically, as an example that people paying full attention and focussing on particular elements can miss pertinent details.

Witnesses concerned about how Jesus was doing could have been watching his face, his demeanour and not noticed someone doing something else, something deceptive.

Even if we presume the physical events of the crucifixion happened as they're described by people who genuinely believe those were the events, that doesn't mean that's what actually happened.

People are not reliable witnesses at the best of times, in emotional times like a crucifixion, even less so. That's not a judgment on the purported integrity of the eye-witnesses, it's a well-validated finding about human perception and memory.

O.

[Spud]

quote jeremyp: John's resurrection account doesn't match Luke's   /quote
Both tell us that Jesus appeared to the eleven at the house they had assembled at on the Sunday evening. John also tells us about a meeting in Galilee, thus corroborating Matthew and Mark.

[Spud]

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

Having finally understood who you mean by David Copperfield, I can now answer this!
You ask for a method that can establish that the supernatural happened. What about being invited by someone to put your hand into a spear wound or where nails were? In as far as methods involve touching things, does this not qualify as a method.?

[BashfulAnthony]

If all the stories were falsehoods, the obvious question, then, is why?  What was to be gained by such deception?  All that happened was that they put themselves in mortal danger from the Jewish Authorities, and the Romans also;  and to acute persecution from the Romans for years to come.  Doesn't make sense.

[jeremyp]

You ask for a method that can establish that the supernatural happened. What about being invited by someone to put your hand into a spear wound or where nails were? In as far as methods involve touching things, does this not qualify as a method.?

And whose spear wound shall I put my hand in?

[jeremyp]

quote jeremyp: John's resurrection account doesn't match Luke's   /quote
Both tell us that Jesus appeared to the eleven at the house they had assembled at on the Sunday evening. John also tells us about a meeting in Galilee, thus corroborating Matthew and Mark.

In Luke's account, Jesus meets the disciples and then goes out to Bethany and ascends to heaven.  In John's account, he doesn't do this.  In fact he returns the next week and then appears in Galilee later. 

Matthew's account of what happened in Galilee is totally different to John's. 

These re not accounts of the same events just because they happened in the same places.

[Gordon]

Having finally understood who you mean by David Copperfield, I can now answer this!
You ask for a method that can establish that the supernatural happened. What about being invited by someone to put your hand into a spear wound or where nails were? In as far as methods involve touching things, does this not qualify as a method.?

No

[Spud]

Why not, Gordon?

[Gordon]

Why not, Gordon?

For the fairly obvious reason that sticking you hand into a wound would be insufficient as evidence for supernatural intervention since, as I recall, in the case of Jesus the wound was caused by a person wielding a spear, and of course doctors and nurses (with suitably gloved hands) touch wounds on a daily basis.

You need a method to demonstrate that the same body (with wounds) that was clinically dead for 2/3 days was no longer dead, and in doing this your method needs to be robust enough to address the risk that the post-death claims of Jesus being alive again are no more than propaganda.

[Spud]

quote jeremyp: John's resurrection account doesn't match Luke's   /quote
Both tell us that Jesus appeared to the eleven at the house they had assembled at on the Sunday evening. John also tells us about a meeting in Galilee, thus corroborating Matthew and Mark.

In Luke's account, Jesus meets the disciples and then goes out to Bethany and ascends to heaven.  In John's account, he doesn't do this.  In fact he returns the next week and then appears in Galilee later. 

Matthew's account of what happened in Galilee is totally different to John's. 

These re not accounts of the same events just because they happened in the same places.

Luke says in Acts 1 that there were 40 days between the resurrection and the ascension, and that Jesus appeared many other times during that period.  So Luke has telescoped events in ch.24

Yes, John differs in terms of the event he relates in Galilee, but he still confirms that that Jesus was there.

[floo]

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

Having finally understood who you mean by David Copperfield, I can now answer this!
You ask for a method that can establish that the supernatural happened. What about being invited by someone to put your hand into a spear wound or where nails were? In as far as methods involve touching things, does this not qualify as a method.?

Definitely not!

[Hope]

Definitely not!

Why not (though I'm not sure that it is a method if used on its own)?

[floo]

Definitely not!

Why not (though I'm not sure that it is a method if used on its own)?

Just because something is quoted in the Gospels doesn't give it any credibility, if there is no evidence to back it up, which there isn't for any of the fanciful stories.

[Nearly Sane]

Why not, Gordon?

While I'm not Gordon I would agree it isn't. How you go about investigating a specific claim is not a method - so for example if I am trying to determine the acidity of someting using litmus paper is not the method. The method there in terms of science would be continued experimentation looking at repeatable effects and based on the assumption of naturalistic cause and effect.

Trying to find out an explanation for something and enduing up with an I don't know does not allow the jump to it has to be non natural. As a method, your suggestion isn't even wrong.

[Spud]

Why not, Gordon?

For the fairly obvious reason that sticking you hand into a wound would be insufficient as evidence for supernatural intervention since, as I recall, in the case of Jesus the wound was caused by a person wielding a spear, and of course doctors and nurses touch (with suitably gloved hands) touch wounds on a daily basis.

You need a method to demonstrate that the same body (with wounds) that was clinically dead for 2/3 days was no longer dead, and in doing this your method needs to be robust enough to address the risk that the post-death claims of Jesus being alive again are no more than propaganda.

The account implies the wounds had healed, and Jesus was fit and healthy. So what I think you might be saying is that this would be evidence against it being Jesus, since after 2 days these wounds would be too painful to touch.
Maybe the person who appeared in the upper room was someone who looked and spoke like Jesus but had survived the same execution method months or even years earlier?
Again, I'm no addressing the propaganda issue, just whether the proofs detailed would be sufficient to convince rational people that Jesus was alive. So actually, the presence of wounds in the right places is not conclusive evidence in itself.
So we need more evidence. Enter John, once more. Chapter 21, and yes, this man can do miracles - he knows where the fish are. Same guy then,QED then?

[floo]

Spud you want to believe the things attributed to Jesus are true, and if it floats your boat, fine. However it is reasonable for others to be sceptical as there is no evidence the gospel accounts are anymore than fanciful stories.

[Gordon]

The account implies the wounds had healed, and Jesus was fit and healthy. So what I think you might be saying is that this would be evidence against it being Jesus, since after 2 days these wounds would be too painful to touch.
Maybe the person who appeared in the upper room was someone who looked and spoke like Jesus but had survived the same execution method months or even years earlier?
Again, I'm no addressing the propaganda issue, just whether the proofs detailed would be sufficient to convince rational people that Jesus was alive. So actually, the presence of wounds in the right places is not conclusive evidence in itself.
So we need more evidence. Enter John, once more. Chapter 21, and yes, this man can do miracles - he knows where the fish are. Same guy then,QED then?

I'm not saying that at all regarding wounds, or whether or not other people who survived attempted execution were in the vicinity - this seems like pointless speculation. To get evidence, Spud, you need a method that allows you to identify and describe what you are presenting as items of evidence, demonstrate that this evidence is unequivocal (as opposed to being either unsupported claims or stuff that you'd personally like to be true), and set these within a hypothesis that anyone could test.

What isn't evidence is yet more anecdotal NT claims, such as the John 21 you mention, since as things stand this (and the other NT resurrection accounts) is indistinguishable from fiction, so whatever method you use should be robust enough to counter the risks of mistakes/lies - and without this your QED is premature.

You seem to be assuming that these NT accounts of Jesus being dead and then resurrected are necessarily true - you may think that on a personal basis, but you can't as yet claim it as being historical fact.

[Spud]

You seem to be assuming that these NT accounts of Jesus being dead and then resurrected are necessarily true

Yes, I'm assuming that for the sake of argument. All you have said in your post (and Floo too) is about how a non-eyewitness can be sure it is true, but I am assuming that I (or you) am in the place of an eyewitness and I saw what they describe, and is it enough for me to be sure, if I was in their place.

[Gordon]

You seem to be assuming that these NT accounts of Jesus being dead and then resurrected are necessarily true

Yes, I'm assuming that for the sake of argument. All you have said in your post (and Floo too) is about how a non-eyewitness can be sure it is true, but I am assuming that I (or you) am in the place of an eyewitness and I saw what they describe, and is it enough for me to be sure, if I was in their place.

Then, Spud, I'd say that you are far too easily pleased.

[floo]

You seem to be assuming that these NT accounts of Jesus being dead and then resurrected are necessarily true

Yes, I'm assuming that for the sake of argument. All you have said in your post (and Floo too) is about how a non-eyewitness can be sure it is true, but I am assuming that I (or you) am in the place of an eyewitness and I saw what they describe, and is it enough for me to be sure, if I was in their place.

Eye witnesses are not reliable when it comes to fanciful claims. What about those who claimed to have witnessed the Angel of Mons? 

[jeremyp]

Why not, Gordon?

Whose spear wound can I put my hand in as evidence of a supernatural event?

[jeremyp]

Luke says in Acts 1 that there were 40 days between the resurrection and the ascension, and that Jesus appeared many other times during that period.  So Luke has telescoped events in ch.24

You mean Luke changed his story between writing the two books.

Yes, John differs in terms of the event he relates in Galilee, but he still confirms that that Jesus was there.

And yet Luke's gospel claims he wasn't. 

[Hope]

Eye witnesses are not reliable when it comes to fanciful claims. What about those who claimed to have witnessed the Angel of Mons?

And who decides what is a fanciful claim and what is not?  Is there a legal defintion of the term?  I suppose that people could equally say that scientific evidence that is so beloved by some here is not reliable when it comes to the theories and assumptions that much science is geared around.  For instance, just about every scientific idea is a theory that is undergoing continual testing, yet in schools many of them are referred to in the same terms as the more consolidated 'Laws'.