Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?

[Hope]

Why not, Gordon?

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

So, are you asking that someone ought to lose their life at least every generation in order to provide first-hand, eye-witness accounts for each generation? How often do people accept without question the accounts of historical events which may only have a single report, often written by the victor, often decades, even centuries after the events?

[Outrider]

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'.

They are called laws because not only are they theoretically testable, they are practically testable, and have been repeatedly tested and validated over time. That still doesn't make them 'proven', but it makes them valid in a broad and consistent enough set of circumstances that we can, in most situations, treat them as though they had been proven.

Historical eye-witness testimony with little corroboration, by contrast, is highly questionable. That doesn't definitively disprove it, but it's not sufficient evidence to justify extreme claims. That said, those claims are accepted by those that do not because they've reasoned their way to them, but as articles of faith.

O.

[floo]

Eye witness accounts are NOT always reliable as has been pointed out many times, that is definitely the case when claiming something supernatural has happened!

[jeremyp]

Why not, Gordon?

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

So, are you asking that someone ought to lose their life at least every generation in order to provide first-hand, eye-witness accounts for each generation?

No.  Please read the thread to understand the context.

This is about a method for determining the truth of supernaturals events.  Spud suggested that being able to put your hand in a spear wound (presumably of Jesus) ought to be evidence.  I'm just pointing out that the method is worthless if we can't apply it. 

How often do people accept without question the accounts of historical events which may only have a single report, often written by the victor, often decades, even centuries after the events?

Too often.

[Gordon]

So, are you asking that someone ought to lose their life at least every generation in order to provide first-hand, eye-witness accounts for each generation?

Now you are being silly.

How often do people accept without question the accounts of historical events which may only have a single report, often written by the victor, often decades, even centuries after the events?

I'd say any reports that meet this scenario would require additional corroboration, especially if what they claimed was highly unusual and the report is anecdotal, Uncorroborated anecdotal reports should be approached with extreme caution, and with a realisation that the more unusual the claim is then the greater the is need for corroboration and explanation given the risks of mistakes/lies.

[floo]

So, are you asking that someone ought to lose their life at least every generation in order to provide first-hand, eye-witness accounts for each generation?

Now you are being silly.

How often do people accept without question the accounts of historical events which may only have a single report, often written by the victor, often decades, even centuries after the events?

I'd say any reports that meet this scenario would require additional corroboration, especially if what they claimed was highly unusual and the report is anecdotal, Uncorroborated anecdotal reports should be approached with extreme caution, and with a realisation that the more unusual the claim is then the greater the is need for corroboration and explanation given the risks of mistakes/lies.

Spot on!

[Alien]

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     

Another OED definition. "Anecdotal" is "(Of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research." That sounds to me like relying on my mate down the pub whose aunt heard at the launderette that someone had heard... If so, then your description of the NT accounts as anecdotal is incorrect or, at least, ambiguous. Luke, for starters, claimed to have researched his sources "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down (παραδίδωμι) to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,..." (first verses of his gospel). Paul too, as well his own personal experience, checked things out with witnesses of Jesus life, death and resurrection (Galatians 1:18, 19 which says he met with Peter and Jesus' formerly unbelieving half-brother, James. He was also in Jerusalem with the apostles and others on other occasions). The early church, much nearer in time and geography to the time and and location of what went on, understood Matthew's gospel to have been authored by Matthew the apostle, Mark's by Mark basing it on what Peter had told him and John's gospel to be by the apostle and eye-witness. You say it is of "imprecise provenance". Surely those nearer in time and geography would, other things being equal, be better placed to know where those documents came from. Do you have any good reason to doubt the sincerity and ability of the early church to get that correct?

You speak of things "that haven't been shown to be undisputed historical facts". Anyone can dispute anything, but so what? Disputed by whom? You? JeremyP?  As for them being claims, I am saying that it seems reasonable to accept that Jesus did die, was buried in a known tomb, that the tomb was empty a couple of days later and that on a dozen or so occasions individuals and groups were convinced that they met, spoke and sometimes ate with Jesus. For me, the best explanation of those generally accepted facts is that Jesus really was alive.

You keep repeating that we have no method "that can be used to confirm supernatural agency", but that is incorrect. If Jesus had been killed and was indeed alive again a couple of days later, right as ninepence, then feel free to propose a naturalistic method for that happening. No-one will here. Jesus is recorded as predicting his death and resurrection and the witnesses were convinced Jesus was indeed alive again. As it is, it seems obvious to me (first as a science student but not, I would say, in thrall to science as the answer to everything and still thinking the same 36 years later), that the best explanation was that proposed by the bloke who was dead and then was alive, i.e. that God raised him from the dead.

You speak of the NT possibly being propaganda yet refuse to give any sensible motive for the production of such propaganda. Please, would you give such a motive. A means would also be interesting.

Cheers,

Alan

[Alien]

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?

That's actually irrelevant here. Gordon made a claim so the burden of proof is on him for that claim (and that claim alone).

[Alien]

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.

And your post is a human claim. Yes, there is evidence that a god has truly revealed himself. You may be of the opinion that it is insufficient evidence to convince a reasonable person, but let's stop this errant nonsense* that there is no evidence.

* a phrase I heard a while back. Thought you might like it for use in future sound bites.

[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?

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

If I found 99,999 people who said they saw the sun dance about in the sky, I would think, "Hang on, something happened here. What was it?"

What about you?

[jeremyp]

Another OED definition. "Anecdotal" is "(Of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research." That sounds to me like relying on my mate down the pub whose aunt heard at the launderette that someone had heard... If so, then your description of the NT accounts as anecdotal is incorrect or, at least, ambiguous.

But there is no reason that any of the rest of us need to accept your straw man definition of "anecdote". 

Luke, for starters, claimed to have researched his sources "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down (παραδίδωμι) to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,..." (first verses of his gospel).

But his resurrection accounts are still just anecdotes.  He tells us he has researched things, but he doesn't tell us who his sources are.  The problem is not necessarily that they are anecdotes, but that they are anecdotes about extraordinary events.

The early church, much nearer in time and geography to the time and and location of what went on, understood Matthew's gospel to have been authored by Matthew the apostle

Would you care to elaborate on the reasoning that led them to that conclusion?

Mark's by Mark basing it on what Peter had told him and John's gospel to be by the apostle and eye-witness.

As above.

You say it is of "imprecise provenance". Surely those nearer in time and geography would, other things being equal, be better placed to know where those documents came from. Do you have any good reason to doubt the sincerity and ability of the early church to get that correct?

Yes I do doubt the sincerity and ability of the early church to get those facts right (we are talking mid to late second century here).  I am pretty sure that, when you write down the reasoning for the attributions as I requested, it will be fairly obvious that it is really guesswork.

I am saying that it seems reasonable to accept that Jesus did die, was buried in a known tomb, that the tomb was empty a couple of days later

It's reasonable, but is it true given that executed criminals weren't usually afforded personal tombs.

and that on a dozen or so occasions individuals and groups were convinced that they met, spoke and sometimes ate with Jesus.

Them being convinced is not unreasonable, but that it happened would be quite extraordinary and you therefore need much better evidence than you have.

You speak of the NT possibly being propaganda yet refuse to give any sensible motive for the production of such propaganda.

A religious cult that actively proselytises?  What more motive do you want?

[BashfulAnthony]

Eye witness accounts are NOT always reliable as has been pointed out many times, that is definitely the case when claiming something supernatural has happened!

The fact that there are eye-witness accounts is the critical point.

[Shaker]

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

If I found 99,999 people who said they saw the sun dance about in the sky, I would think, "Hang on, something happened here. What was it?"

What about you?

I would be thinking "Since a body so colossal that it contains 99.8% of the mass of the solar system can't actually do the funky chicken without destroying the solar system and us included, the explanation has to lie at the point of reception, i.e. humans and their faulty perception."

What about you?

[Andy]

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

If I found 99,999 people who said they saw the sun dance about in the sky, I would think, "Hang on, something happened here. What was it?"

What about you?

I would be thinking "Since a body so colossal that it contains 99.8% of the mass of the solar system can't actually do the funky chicken without destroying the solar system and us included, the explanation has to lie at the point of reception, i.e. humans and their faulty perception."

What about you?

Ah, but if God, why not?

[Alien]

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.

It wasn't to me. That was why I was asking. I wasn't mucking you around (intentionally, at least).

The resolution of the synoptic problem is that, in all probability, Matthew and Luke copied Mark.

Agreed.

  However, Mark's gospel ends at the point where the women leave the garden i.e. it has no resurrection accounts in it.

As in no resurrection sightings, yes, but it does have the angel telling the women that the reason there was no body in the tomb was because Jesus had risen from the dead.

  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.

OK.

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.

So if they spoke about the same sightings they would be seen as not independent and thus not trustworthy, but if they don't speak about the same sightings we shouldn't trust them because they don't corroborate each other. Is that what you mean?

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.

Fine, but you are wrong in asserting that no-one knows who the authors of the gospels are. You are of the opinion that we don't know; I am of the opinion that we do.

Etc.

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?

Why do you think the examples are comparable in any sensible manner?

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.

Then let me clarify. I do not need to show that God exists to demonstrate that Jesus rose from the dead. What I try to do is show that Jesus did die, was buried in a known tomb, that tomb was empty a couple of days later and that individuals and groups were convinced they met, spoke and sometimes ate with him afterwards. The best explanation of that is that he was indeed dead on the Friday and alive the Sunday onwards. What is the best explanation for that? That he was raised by God, as he had predicted. In order to be raised by God, God has to exist.

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.

Why?

[Alien]

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?

As has been pointed out before many, many times people do not willing die for what they know to be a lie and, unless there is good reason, they don't willingly suffer for what they know to be a lie either.

Remind me what the motive would be for NT-writers to have lied? How would they have got away with it in?

[Shaker]

Ah, but if God, why not?

You are a very naughty boy.

[Shaker]

As has been pointed out before many, many times people do not willing die for what they know to be a lie and, unless there is good reason, they don't willingly suffer for what they know to be a lie either.

Do you think you could explain why it is that, whenever this point arises (which it does often), you immediately leap to lie (i.e. conscious and deliberate deception) rather than sincerely believed misconception, which is to say, people genuinely believe something about which they are mistaken? It's always lie to which you have immediate recourse and not misapprehension. Why is that, exactly?

[jeremyp]

Eye witness accounts are NOT always reliable as has been pointed out many times, that is definitely the case when claiming something supernatural has happened!

The fact that there are eye-witness accounts is the critical point.

Are there?  Where?

[jjohnjil]

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     

Another OED definition. "Anecdotal" is "(Of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research." That sounds to me like relying on my mate down the pub whose aunt heard at the launderette that someone had heard... If so, then your description of the NT accounts as anecdotal is incorrect or, at least, ambiguous. Luke, for starters, claimed to have researched his sources "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down (παραδίδωμι) to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,..." (first verses of his gospel). Paul too, as well his own personal experience, checked things out with witnesses of Jesus life, death and resurrection (Galatians 1:18, 19 which says he met with Peter and Jesus' formerly unbelieving half-brother, James. He was also in Jerusalem with the apostles and others on other occasions). The early church, much nearer in time and geography to the time and and location of what went on, understood Matthew's gospel to have been authored by Matthew the apostle, Mark's by Mark basing it on what Peter had told him and John's gospel to be by the apostle and eye-witness. You say it is of "imprecise provenance". Surely those nearer in time and geography would, other things being equal, be better placed to know where those documents came from. Do you have any good reason to doubt the sincerity and ability of the early church to get that correct?

You speak of things "that haven't been shown to be undisputed historical facts". Anyone can dispute anything, but so what? Disputed by whom? You? JeremyP?  As for them being claims, I am saying that it seems reasonable to accept that Jesus did die, was buried in a known tomb, that the tomb was empty a couple of days later and that on a dozen or so occasions individuals and groups were convinced that they met, spoke and sometimes ate with Jesus. For me, the best explanation of those generally accepted facts is that Jesus really was alive.

You keep repeating that we have no method "that can be used to confirm supernatural agency", but that is incorrect. If Jesus had been killed and was indeed alive again a couple of days later, right as ninepence, then feel free to propose a naturalistic method for that happening. No-one will here. Jesus is recorded as predicting his death and resurrection and the witnesses were convinced Jesus was indeed alive again. As it is, it seems obvious to me (first as a science student but not, I would say, in thrall to science as the answer to everything and still thinking the same 36 years later), that the best explanation was that proposed by the bloke who was dead and then was alive, i.e. that God raised him from the dead.

You speak of the NT possibly being propaganda yet refuse to give any sensible motive for the production of such propaganda. Please, would you give such a motive. A means would also be interesting.

Cheers,

Alan

If God resurrected Jesus in order to show that death need not be the end, wouldn't you think he - being so much wiser and cleverer than any human being - would have had witnesses who could truthfully say they saw JC actually come back to life before their very eyes?

But no, he has him put in a cave with a largish stone placed in front ... then shows him days or weeks later talking to people.

Didn't he realise that it would be disputed, either his death or mistaken identity, afterwards?

It makes God look like a clumsy fool who messed up Big Time, not the God who knows and sees everything!

[BashfulAnthony]

Eye witness accounts are NOT always reliable as has been pointed out many times, that is definitely the case when claiming something supernatural has happened!

The fact that there are eye-witness accounts is the critical point.

Are there?  Where?

In the Bible.

[Gordon]

I am saying that it seems reasonable to accept that Jesus did die, was buried in a known tomb, that the tomb was empty a couple of days later and that on a dozen or so occasions individuals and groups were convinced that they met, spoke and sometimes ate with Jesus. For me, the best explanation of those generally accepted facts is that Jesus really was alive.

But how have you excluded the possibility that individuals/groups weren't telling the truth? After all, people make mistakes or lie, or are you saying that these individuals/groups were immune from these risks in some way? You then say that these accounts are 'generally accepted' facts: I say you are misrepresenting the robustness of these anecdotal claims and the term 'fact'.

You keep repeating that we have no method "that can be used to confirm supernatural agency", but that is incorrect. If Jesus had been killed and was indeed alive again a couple of days later, right as ninepence, then feel free to propose a naturalistic method for that happening.

I'm not saying it happened: you are! I'm suggesting that it might not have happened at all since these anecdotal claims are insufficient as evidence of the supernatural.

You speak of the NT possibly being propaganda yet refuse to give any sensible motive for the production of such propaganda. Please, would you give such a motive. A means would also be interesting.

Easy - they wanted to keep their cause alive even if their main man was inconveniently dead. In that time and place a religious narrative would no doubt have more currency in a culture where religiosity was the norm.

[Gordon]

As has been pointed out before many, many times people do not willing die for what they know to be a lie and, unless there is good reason, they don't willingly suffer for what they know to be a lie either.

Remind me what the motive would be for NT-writers to have lied? How would they have got away with it in?

Not this old chesnut again - the whole point of propaganda is to convince the credulous and gullible, and no doubt many of these early Christians bought into the story (just as you do).

The NT writers may well have 'got away with it' since it seems that some of you still believe what they wrote, which is of course the type of thing they would write if they wanted to keep the Jesus myth going following his death.

[Nearly Sane]

I am submitting the following from Alien to FSTDT.

'As for them being claims, I am saying that it seems reasonable to accept that Jesus did die, was buried in a known tomb, that the tomb was empty a couple of days later and that on a dozen or so occasions individuals and groups were convinced that they met, spoke and sometimes ate with Jesus. For me, the best explanation of those generally accepted facts is that Jesus really was alive.'

[BashfulAnthony]

I am submitting the following from Alien to FSTDT.

'As for them being claims, I am saying that it seems reasonable to accept that Jesus did die, was buried in a known tomb, that the tomb was empty a couple of days later and that on a dozen or so occasions individuals and groups were convinced that they met, spoke and sometimes ate with Jesus. For me, the best explanation of those generally accepted facts is that Jesus really was alive.'

Nothing wrong with that quote, only with your lack of any understanding.