Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?

[jeremyp]

Sorry, I haven't the time right now:  there's a Twenty20 match to follow.

You need to be more subtle with your evasion.  for the moment we'll just note that, when asked to show eye witness accounts of the resurrection in the Bible, you were unable to do so.

[BashfulAnthony]

Sorry, I haven't the time right now:  there's a Twenty20 match to follow.

You need to be more subtle with your evasion.  for the moment we'll just note that, when asked to show eye witness accounts of the resurrection in the Bible, you were unable to do so.

Of course there are no eye-witness accounts of the actual Resurrection, as though it was some sort of Houdini magic act:  "And now, ladies and gentlemen, before your very eyes..."  There are eye-witness accounts of seeing the Resurrected Christ, which is where I'm coming from.  I do not evade the issue when it comes to defending my belief in the Resurrection of Our Lord

[jeremyp]

There are eye-witness accounts of seeing the Resurrected Christ,

Chapter and verse please.

[BashfulAnthony]

There are eye-witness accounts of seeing the Resurrected Christ,

Chapter and verse please.

You mean you don't know them?  I thought you had a smattering of New Testament knowledge!


Mary Magdalene saw Him on the Sunday morning following the Crucifixion (Mark 16:9; John 20:14-18).
Several other women saw Him a short while later (Matt. 28:9-10).
On the same Sunday, He appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor. 15:5).
Two disciples on the road to Emmaus saw Him late Sunday afternoon (Mark 16:12-13; Luke 24:13-32).
In the evening of the same day, He came to the eleven remaining disciples (excepting Thomas) as they met in the Upper Room (Mark 16:14; Luke 24:36-48; John 20:19-23; 1 Cor. 15:5).
He came again to the Eleven eight days later葉hat is, on the next Sunday (John 20:26-30).
After His disciples returned to Galilee, seven of them met Him on the shore of the Sea (John 21:1-22).
He appeared in Galilee to a gathering of more than five hundred followers (Matt. 28:16-17; 1 Cor. 15:6).
Sometime in the next few weeks, He revealed Himself to His brother James (1 Cor. 15:7).
Six weeks after the Resurrection, at the time of His ascension to heaven, He was seen by approximately 120 people, including the Eleven. He met them in Jerusalem and led them out along the road to Bethany until, as they were crossing the Mount of Olives, they came within sight of the town. Then, after admonishing them to evangelize the whole world, He rose into the clouds (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-19; Luke 24:49-53; Acts 1:4-15; 1 Cor. 15:7).
In summary, more than five hundred people saw Jesus after His dead body had been deposited in a sealed tomb. The eyewitnesses included several who left written testimony to the Resurrection, among them Matthew (Matt. 28:16-20), Mark (Mark 16:9-19), John (John 20:19-21:22), Peter (1 Pet. 1:3), and Paul (1 Cor. 15:


Hope that helps you.  If you need any more help, do let me know.

[Hope]

You mean you don't know them?  I thought you had a smattering of New Testament knowledge!

Unfortunately, BA, jeremy and others will only accept, at best, Paul's account of hhis own experience, on the grounds that all the other examples are reported examples.  The fact that one or more of them may be a written account of a first hand/eye-witness account is neither here nor there to them. 

Some have already asked "where is 'my' own personal eye-witness experience" - as if they want God to allow his only-begotten son to die on numerous occasions over a period of numerous centuries just to provide eyewitness evidence to evey human being who has lived since the once-for-all event , lives today and will live in the future. 

They seem not to understand the concept of 'once for all'.

[BashfulAnthony]

You mean you don't know them?  I thought you had a smattering of New Testament knowledge!

Unfortunately, BA, jeremy and others will only accept, at best, Paul's account of hhis own experience, on the grounds that all the other examples are reported examples.  The fact that one or more of them may be a written account of a first hand/eye-witness account is neither here nor there to them. 

Some have already asked "where is 'my' own personal eye-witness experience" - as if they want God to allow his only-begotten son to die on numerous occasions over a period of numerous centuries just to provide eyewitness evidence to evey human being who has lived since the once-for-all event , lives today and will live in the future. 

They seem not to understand the concept of 'once for all'.

That's because in his closed-minded state, he will not accept anything.  Really, there is little point in arguing the case, he and the other atheists on here, are not open to discussion, only to denunciation.

[Hope]

That's because in his closed-minded state, he will not accept anything.  Really, there is little point in arguing the case, he and the other atheists on here, are not open to discussion, only to denunciation.

No, I'd disagree.  The reason there is little or no point discussing such things with the atheists here is that they start at a completely different starting point to the theists.  These two starting points are so far apart, perhaps even on different intellectual planes, that it is very unlikely that 'he and thee' will ever manage to meet anywhere.

[BashfulAnthony]

That's because in his closed-minded state, he will not accept anything.  Really, there is little point in arguing the case, he and the other atheists on here, are not open to discussion, only to denunciation.

No, I'd disagree.  The reason there is little or no point discussing such things with the atheists here is that they start at a completely different starting point to the theists.  These two starting points are so far apart, perhaps even on different intellectual planes, that it is very unlikely that 'he and thee' will ever manage to meet anywhere.

Which, essentially, is what I'm saying.

[jeremyp]

Mary Magdalene saw Him on the Sunday morning following the Crucifixion (Mark 16:9; John 20:14-18).
Several other women saw Him a short while later (Matt. 28:9-10).
On the same Sunday, He appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor. 15:5).
Two disciples on the road to Emmaus saw Him late Sunday afternoon (Mark 16:12-13; Luke 24:13-32).
In the evening of the same day, He came to the eleven remaining disciples (excepting Thomas) as they met in the Upper Room (Mark 16:14; Luke 24:36-48; John 20:19-23; 1 Cor. 15:5).
He came again to the Eleven eight days later葉hat is, on the next Sunday (John 20:26-30).
After His disciples returned to Galilee, seven of them met Him on the shore of the Sea (John 21:1-22).
He appeared in Galilee to a gathering of more than five hundred followers (Matt. 28:16-17; 1 Cor. 15:6).
Sometime in the next few weeks, He revealed Himself to His brother James (1 Cor. 15:7).
Six weeks after the Resurrection, at the time of His ascension to heaven, He was seen by approximately 120 people, including the Eleven. He met them in Jerusalem and led them out along the road to Bethany until, as they were crossing the Mount of Olives, they came within sight of the town. Then, after admonishing them to evangelize the whole world, He rose into the clouds (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-19; Luke 24:49-53; Acts 1:4-15; 1 Cor. 15:7).
In summary, more than five hundred people saw Jesus after His dead body had been deposited in a sealed tomb. The eyewitnesses included several who left written testimony to the Resurrection, among them Matthew (Matt. 28:16-20), Mark (Mark 16:9-19), John (John 20:19-21:22), Peter (1 Pet. 1:3), and Paul (1 Cor. 15:


Hope that helps you.  If you need any more help, do let me know.

An eye witness account is one by an eye witness.  You haven't listed any except Paul's own account which was jut "I saw him".

[jeremyp]

Unfortunately, BA, jeremy and others will only accept, at best, Paul's account of hhis own experience, on the grounds that all the other examples are reported examples. 

Bingo!

The technical term for an account by somebody allegedly reporting a different person's experiences is "hearsay". 

The fact that one or more of them may be a written account of a first hand/eye-witness account is neither here nor there to them. 

It's the word "may" that causes the problems."May" is not the same as "is".

[BashfulAnthony]

Mary Magdalene saw Him on the Sunday morning following the Crucifixion (Mark 16:9; John 20:14-18).
Several other women saw Him a short while later (Matt. 28:9-10).
On the same Sunday, He appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor. 15:5).
Two disciples on the road to Emmaus saw Him late Sunday afternoon (Mark 16:12-13; Luke 24:13-32).
In the evening of the same day, He came to the eleven remaining disciples (excepting Thomas) as they met in the Upper Room (Mark 16:14; Luke 24:36-48; John 20:19-23; 1 Cor. 15:5).
He came again to the Eleven eight days later葉hat is, on the next Sunday (John 20:26-30).
After His disciples returned to Galilee, seven of them met Him on the shore of the Sea (John 21:1-22).
He appeared in Galilee to a gathering of more than five hundred followers (Matt. 28:16-17; 1 Cor. 15:6).
Sometime in the next few weeks, He revealed Himself to His brother James (1 Cor. 15:7).
Six weeks after the Resurrection, at the time of His ascension to heaven, He was seen by approximately 120 people, including the Eleven. He met them in Jerusalem and led them out along the road to Bethany until, as they were crossing the Mount of Olives, they came within sight of the town. Then, after admonishing them to evangelize the whole world, He rose into the clouds (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-19; Luke 24:49-53; Acts 1:4-15; 1 Cor. 15:7).
In summary, more than five hundred people saw Jesus after His dead body had been deposited in a sealed tomb. The eyewitnesses included several who left written testimony to the Resurrection, among them Matthew (Matt. 28:16-20), Mark (Mark 16:9-19), John (John 20:19-21:22), Peter (1 Pet. 1:3), and Paul (1 Cor. 15:


Hope that helps you.  If you need any more help, do let me know.

An eye witness account is one by an eye witness.  You haven't listed any except Paul's own account which was jut "I saw him".

Are you sure?  I think you've haven't read the verses I posted above.  But then Hope predicted your response in 529

[Alien]

Unfortunately, BA, jeremy and others will only accept, at best, Paul's account of hhis own experience, on the grounds that all the other examples are reported examples. 

Bingo!

The technical term for an account by somebody allegedly reporting a different person's experiences is "hearsay". 

The fact that one or more of them may be a written account of a first hand/eye-witness account is neither here nor there to them. 

It's the word "may" that causes the problems."May" is not the same as "is".

Your point about hearsay is incorrect. OED defines "hearsay" as, "Information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour:" There are plenty of places in the NT where one author substantiates another, e.g.  the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem (Mt and Lk), some of the teaching and actions of Jesus and, most importantly, the death and resurrection of Jesus.

[jakswan]

Your point about hearsay is incorrect. OED defines "hearsay" as, "Information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour:" There are plenty of places in the NT where one author substantiates another, e.g.  the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem (Mt and Lk), some of the teaching and actions of Jesus and, most importantly, the death and resurrection of Jesus.

You don't substantiate hearsay with more hearsay.

[jeremyp]

Your point about hearsay is incorrect.

Wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay

OED defines "hearsay" as, "Information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour:"

Let's see you substantiate the story of the road to Emmaus then.

[Gordon]

There are plenty of places in the NT where one author substantiates another, e.g.  the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem (Mt and Lk), some of the teaching and actions of Jesus and, most importantly, the death and resurrection of Jesus.

On what basis do you know that these reports are trustworthy?

[Hope]

The technical term for an account by somebody allegedly reporting a different person's experiences is "hearsay".

Regardless of the wikipedia definition you quote in a later post, this is untrue.  A document that is dictated to a scribe by an eyewitness is not regarded as hearsay.   From that same wikipedia article -

Note, however, that if the attorney asking the same question is trying to prove not the truth of the assertion about Tom being in town but the fact that Susan said the specific words, it may be acceptable.

[Gordon]

The technical term for an account by somebody allegedly reporting a different person's experiences is "hearsay".

Regardless of the wikipedia definition you quote in a later post, this is untrue.  A document that is dictated to a scribe by an eyewitness is not regarded as hearsay.   From that same wikipedia article -

Note, however, that if the attorney asking the same question is trying to prove not the truth of the assertion about Tom being in town but the fact that Susan said the specific words, it may be acceptable.

So, is it known with any certainty which bits of the NT were dictated by an eye-witness to a scribe?

Even if this were known with certainty, which I doubt, this still doesn't imply that what the eye-witness says (as recorded by a scribe) is the actual truth since people, which includes early Christians, can make mistakes or tell lies. There is then the possibility of transcription errors creeping in since scribes are involved.

[jakswan]

A former work colleague saw a ghost, weird how some Christians believe in magic but don't seem that interested in other types of mumbo jumbo.

[Hope]

So, is it known with any certainty which bits of the NT were dictated by an eye-witness to a scribe?

Mark has traditionally been deemed to have been dictated to Mark by Peter, as there are elements within the material that would only have been known to Peter.  So I'm not sure that anything can be definitively stated, but the evidence would point towards that.

Then there are some of Paul's epistles (not the ones regarded as using his name as a pseudonyms) where the material actually tells us that Paul is dictating it to someone else - usually Luke.

Even if this were known with certainty, which I doubt, this still doesn't imply that what the eye-witness says (as recorded by a scribe) is the actual truth since people, which includes early Christians, can make mistakes or tell lies. There is then the possibility of transcription errors creeping in since scribes are involved.

So, the goalpost-changing argument.  Wondered when you'd use it.

[Hope]

A former work colleague saw a ghost, weird how some Christians believe in magic but don't seem that interested in other types of mumbo jumbo.

Well, what was the evidence that what they saw was a ghost rather than a mirage, or some psychological vision?  That is the point; the early Christians didn't claim to see a ghost; they claimed to have met a tangible being; someone they could touch and hold a conversation with.

[BashfulAnthony]

A former work colleague saw a ghost, weird how some Christians believe in magic but don't seem that interested in other types of mumbo jumbo.

Why single out Christians?  There will be plenty of other religionists, and atheists, who believe all manner of things, and see ghosts.

[Gordon]

So, is it known with any certainty which bits of the NT were dictated by an eye-witness to a scribe?

Mark has traditionally been deemed to have been dictated to Mark by Peter, as there are elements within the material that would only have been known to Peter.  So I'm not sure that anything can be definitively stated, but the evidence would point towards that.

Then there are some of Paul's epistles (not the ones regarded as using his name as a pseudonyms) where the material actually tells us that Paul is dictating it to someone else - usually Luke.

Even if this were known with certainty, which I doubt, this still doesn't imply that what the eye-witness says (as recorded by a scribe) is the actual truth since people, which includes early Christians, can make mistakes or tell lies. There is then the possibility of transcription errors creeping in since scribes are involved.

So, the goalpost-changing argument.  Wondered when you'd use it.

I see you use the term ' traditionally': very telling.

Not moving goalposts at all since I'm repeating what I've often said before, if you read my previous posts: which is that even if leaving aside the supernatural stuff it is quite reasonable to point out that the provenance of the NT accounts is unknown and that early Christians weren't immune from mistakes and lies.

Given these risks I'd say that to claim that the NT accounts are in any sense robust, especially in relation to the supernatural stuff, or that the motivations of early Christians were as pure as the driven snow to the extent that we implicitly  trust what we read in the NT - is naive special pleading pure and simple. 

[jakswan]

A former work colleague saw a ghost, weird how some Christians believe in magic but don't seem that interested in other types of mumbo jumbo.

Well, what was the evidence that what they saw was a ghost rather than a mirage, or some psychological vision?  That is the point; the early Christians didn't claim to see a ghost; they claimed to have met a tangible being; someone they could touch and hold a conversation with.

Wow like its super-magic so it must be definitely certainly 110% all the way true then?

Your confirmation bias is showing so much its embarassing.

[Gordon]

That is the point; the early Christians didn't claim to see a ghost; they claimed to have met a tangible being; someone they could touch and hold a conversation with.

So they claim - that doesn't mean their claim is true though.

[BashfulAnthony]

A former work colleague saw a ghost, weird how some Christians believe in magic but don't seem that interested in other types of mumbo jumbo.

Well, what was the evidence that what they saw was a ghost rather than a mirage, or some psychological vision?  That is the point; the early Christians didn't claim to see a ghost; they claimed to have met a tangible being; someone they could touch and hold a conversation with.

Wow like its super-magic so it must be definitely certainly 110% all the way true then?

Your confirmation bias is showing so much its embarassing.

You can only have 100%!