Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?

[Nearly Sane]

There were 'eye witnesses' who saw the Angel of Mons!

'The Bowmen' was a work of fiction, and its author, Arthur Machen, responded to readers who thought it was true by saying it was completely imaginary.

Miracle of the Sun

[Hope]

And once again, any evidence that either the authorities knew this or thought in the sense of treating them as modern eye witnesses? That is of course leaving aside the modern view of the unreliability of eyewitnesses.

NS, remember that it was the Jewish authorities who wanted to get rid of Jesus in the first place.  What he was teaching seriously threatened their status and position.  If they were leaders with any leadership nous, they would have kept a close eye on the blasphemer's disciples and investigate anything that they said following the death of their leader.

Its worth noticing that as soon as the disciples did start spreading the news of Jesus' resurrection, the authorities did exactly what one would have expected them to do if they had been keeping a close eye on them - clamped down on them.

[ippy]

And once again, any evidence that either the authorities knew this or thought in the sense of treating them as modern eye witnesses? That is of course leaving aside the modern view of the unreliability of eyewitnesses.

NS, remember that it was the Jewish authorities who wanted to get rid of Jesus in the first place.  What he was teaching seriously threatened their status and position.  If they were leaders with any leadership nous, they would have kept a close eye on the blasphemer's disciples and investigate anything that they said following the death of their leader.

Its worth noticing that as soon as the disciples did start spreading the news of Jesus' resurrection, the authorities did exactly what one would have expected them to do if they had been keeping a close eye on them - clamped down on them.

I'm sure I saw a story like that in an episode of Star Trek.

ippy

[Hope]

Except that by the time the stories were written down any alleged witnesses would most likely have been dead.

The average life expectancy for men at the time was 29, according to several internet sources I've looked at.  Taking into account the number of infant and youth deaths, those who reached adulthood probably lived to 35 or 40.  By the way, this explains why young girls would have been married off far younger than they are now, and why Mary is described as a young girl.

If these people, and the events they were alleged to have witnessed, were invented decades after the fact at a time when the majority of people had a life expectancy of perhaps forty-five years, who would have been around to question?

Do you have any evidence to show that 'these people, and the events they were alleged to have witnessed, were invented decades after the fact'.  Remember that Paul had already been preaching for some time before he wrote his first letter (Galatians - believed by the majority of academics to have been written between 43 and 53 AD - 10 to 20 yerars after the events).  Furthermore, the apostles had been preaching the message since a month after the death and resurrection events recorded in the documents.

Assuming, of course, that the written accounts came to light in the same area as the people lived, given that as well as living shorter lives people rarely travelled any distance.

In fact, this is a good argument for the validity of the 'stories' because those who were allegedly present at the events would have been able to be questioned by the authorites, by the followers of the apostles, etc.  The locals would also have been able to inform the questioners if such and such a person had never existed.

Given a credulous general populace exposed to any number of tales of supernatural goings-on, why would they particularly question another tall tale in that environment?

How many 'tales of supernatural goings-on' would they have been exposed to?  Do you have access to any such tales that would have been doing the rounds at the time?

[Hope]

I'm sure I saw a story like that in an episode of Star Trek.

Anecdote, ippy - not evidence.  Furthermore, was Star Trek written before or after the stories surrounding the death and resurrection appearances of Christ.  If the latter, then the existence of such a storyline has no impact on the validity or otherwise of the death and resurrection appearance stories.            

[ippy]

I'm sure I saw a story like that in an episode of Star Trek.

Anecdote, ippy - not evidence.  Furthermore, was Star Trek written before or after the stories surrounding the death and resurrection appearances of Christ.  If the latter, then the existence of such a storyline has no impact on the validity or otherwise of the death and resurrection appearance stories.            

Are you sure, Star Trek is fiction.

ippy

[Outrider]

Do you have any evidence to show that 'these people, and the events they were alleged to have witnessed, were invented decades after the fact'.  Remember that Paul had already been preaching for some time before he wrote his first letter (Galatians - believed by the majority of academics to have been written between 43 and 53 AD - 10 to 20 yerars after the events).  Furthermore, the apostles had been preaching the message since a month after the death and resurrection events recorded in the documents.

Galations is typically dated 50-60AD, although that's supposition given that the earliest actual fragments are from around 200AD. Paul may or may not have been preaching before that, given that the only accounts we have of that fact are within the contentious documents. Regardless, the events referred to aren't in Galatians, they are in the Gospels, the earliest of which date from some time around 70AD.

In fact, this is a good argument for the validity of the 'stories' because those who were allegedly present at the events would have been able to be questioned by the authorites, by the followers of the apostles, etc.  The locals would also have been able to inform the questioners if such and such a person had never existed.

If any local authorities had any conducted any investigation you'd expect there to be records of it in their histories - there aren't. As with the claims of Exodus, the lack of corroboration from the regional authorities of the time is suggestive.

How many 'tales of supernatural goings-on' would they have been exposed to?  Do you have access to any such tales that would have been doing the rounds at the time?

Apart from the tales of the Greek and Roman deities, stories of the heroes of myth and the like, you mean? Well, most tellingly, the myths of the Old Testament.

O.

[jeremyp]

We have the names of the women, the twelve disciples and other people (parents, spouses, Jewish Sanhedrin members, people cured of disease, Simon of Cyrene etc)- maybe not their addresses (unless you count the places they are identified as coming from).

Where are all these people's eye witness statements of seeing the resurrected Jesus?

Presumably if these people were made up, the gospels would have been exposed as fabrications.

How?  The gospels were written probably after these people were all dead, if they existed at all. 

It seems safe to say there were eyewitnesses.

No it doesn't.

[jeremyp]

I forgot to mention Cleopas, who is named as an eyewitness to the resurrection.

You'll be able to show us his eye witness account then.

Thought not.

[jeremyp]

NS, remember that it was the Jewish authorities who wanted to get rid of Jesus in the first place.  What he was teaching seriously threatened their status and position.  If they were leaders with any leadership nous, they would have kept a close eye on the blasphemer's disciples and investigate anything that they said following the death of their leader.

And perhaps, in reality, they all scattered so the authorities deemed them no longer a threat and they only later regrouped and invented the resurrection story. 

Its worth noticing that as soon as the disciples did start spreading the news of Jesus' resurrection, the authorities did exactly what one would have expected them to do if they had been keeping a close eye on them - clamped down on them.

According to stories written by Christians decades after the events.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

NS, remember that it was the Jewish authorities who wanted to get rid of Jesus in the first place.  What he was teaching seriously threatened their status and position.  If they were leaders with any leadership nous, they would have kept a close eye on the blasphemer's disciples and investigate anything that they said following the death of their leader.

And perhaps, in reality, they all scattered so the authorities deemed them no longer a threat and they only later regrouped and invented the resurrection story. 

Its worth noticing that as soon as the disciples did start spreading the news of Jesus' resurrection, the authorities did exactly what one would have expected them to do if they had been keeping a close eye on them - clamped down on them.

According to stories written by Christians decades after the events.

Only a couple and they seem to point to a number of already established orthodox Christian communities.

[jakswan]

How many 'tales of supernatural goings-on' would they have been exposed to?  Do you have access to any such tales that would have been doing the rounds at the time?

Yep loads, can't believe you are that ignorant of that time period.

[Spud]

There were 'eye witnesses' who saw the Angel of Mons!

'The Bowmen' was a work of fiction, and its author, Arthur Machen, responded to readers who thought it was true by saying it was completely imaginary.

Miracle of the Sun

Probably a normal astronomical event. Also, nobody ever reported finding Mary's tomb empty.

[jakswan]

I forgot to mention Cleopas, who is named as an eyewitness to the resurrection. Bartimaeus and Lazarus are in there as witnesses to miracles.

I can name all sorts of eye witnesses to all sorts of magical events, what is valued is first hand eye witness testimony.

It seems that we have perfectly reasonable accounts which if they were not relating supernatural events would be acceptable to you. I doubt you would believe first hand testimony either (that is, direct from the witness to you)

Wrong on both counts, I can find an eye witness to give you first hand testimony of alien abduction, ghosts, other faiths which would often refute your faith. Yet these will likely to be rejected by you even though the evidence is superior.

[Spud]

Do you have any evidence to show that 'these people, and the events they were alleged to have witnessed, were invented decades after the fact'.  Remember that Paul had already been preaching for some time before he wrote his first letter (Galatians - believed by the majority of academics to have been written between 43 and 53 AD - 10 to 20 yerars after the events).  Furthermore, the apostles had been preaching the message since a month after the death and resurrection events recorded in the documents.

Galations is typically dated 50-60AD, although that's supposition given that the earliest actual fragments are from around 200AD. Paul may or may not have been preaching before that, given that the only accounts we have of that fact are within the contentious documents.

Acts 9 tells us of Paul's conversion, and Galations 1 tells us that after three years he went to Jerusalem and met with Peter and James, the two whom he mentions in 1 Cor 15:5-7 as those to whom Jesus appeared; in 1 Cor 15 he tells us that he received details of Jesus' death and resurrection which he passed on to the Corinthians. He must have received these details from Peter and James themselves during that visit to Jerusalem. Possibly 40-41AD?

[Outrider]

Do you have any evidence to show that 'these people, and the events they were alleged to have witnessed, were invented decades after the fact'.  Remember that Paul had already been preaching for some time before he wrote his first letter (Galatians - believed by the majority of academics to have been written between 43 and 53 AD - 10 to 20 yerars after the events).  Furthermore, the apostles had been preaching the message since a month after the death and resurrection events recorded in the documents.

Galations is typically dated 50-60AD, although that's supposition given that the earliest actual fragments are from around 200AD. Paul may or may not have been preaching before that, given that the only accounts we have of that fact are within the contentious documents.

Acts 9 tells us of Paul's conversion, and 1 Cor 15 tells us that he received details of Jesus' death and resurrection which he passed on to the Corinthians. But he must have received them soon after he was converted, in around 37 AD.

Except that Acts was written significantly later, and could have been constructed or adjusted to attempt to justify the claims of the earlier works.

At the end of the day, the New Testament chronology has as much validity as the Qu'Ranic chronology, yet you presumably fail to accept that account? It's not because it has any less supporting evidence - if anything it has slightly more - it's because you're already pre-disposed to accept Christianity.

Post hoc rationalisations don't change the fact that it's an inherently unreliable story, and is accepted out of faith rather than logic.

O.

[Spud]

Outrider, please see my edited post. Acts and Paul's letters show that the resurrection was being preached in the decade after Jesus' death.

[Outrider]

Outrider, please see my edited post. Acts and Paul's letters show that the resurrection was being preached in the decade after Jesus' death.

No, Acts and Paul's letters claim that the resurrection was being preached in the decade after Jesus' death, but we don't know that 'Paul' is real, and we don't know that the 'Paul' of the letters is the same 'Paul' from Acts even if he is real.

None of which changes the fact that you don't accept other, marginally less implausible superstitions - this isn't about reason, it's about belief regardless of the evidence which you selectively interpret after the fact to try to justify the belief you already have.

O.

[Spud]

Wrong on both counts, I can find an eye witness to give you first hand testimony of alien abduction, ghosts, other faiths which would often refute your faith. Yet these will likely to be rejected by you even though the evidence is superior.

A ghost story is of no importance to me. Why would I accept or reject it?

[Outrider]

Wrong on both counts, I can find an eye witness to give you first hand testimony of alien abduction, ghosts, other faiths which would often refute your faith. Yet these will likely to be rejected by you even though the evidence is superior.

A ghost story is of no importance to me. Why would I accept or reject it?

The irony...

O.

[jakswan]

Wrong on both counts, I can find an eye witness to give you first hand testimony of alien abduction, ghosts, other faiths which would often refute your faith. Yet these will likely to be rejected by you even though the evidence is superior.

A ghost story is of no importance to me. Why would I accept or reject it?

So its not about the quality of the evidence but if its important to you, I thought as much.

[floo]

Wrong on both counts, I can find an eye witness to give you first hand testimony of alien abduction, ghosts, other faiths which would often refute your faith. Yet these will likely to be rejected by you even though the evidence is superior.

A ghost story is of no importance to me. Why would I accept or reject it?

But many 'eye witnesses' have seen 'ghosts', throughout the ages, including myself! Yet you are more than happy to accept resurrection as FACT, which seems daft to me.

[Sassy]

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.

Where does Luke's gospel claim Jesus didn't go to Galilee after his resurrection, please?

Acts says:-

King James Bible
To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

Just as people make the same mistakes comparing the gospels over events of healing etc they do the same with the appearances of Christ.

King James Bible
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.


People assume that each gospel and the person writing them are speaking and relating to the very same incident. Whilst in fact they could all be speaking about different individual cases where the facts are not related identically.

Each witness is writing an account but they are not writing a full account or collaborated account; just including all the things Christ did.

We know Christ raised the dead and that two accounts are clear Lazarus and the young girl. We know that Tabitha was raised from the dead and we Elijah raised a boy from the dead. All done by the power of God. We need to remember in those 3 years Christ changed history for ever by showing us what God wants for mankind. Restoration and healing. It is pointless to argue as if all the accounts are about the same incident. We see Christ did these things over and over and again.

[floo]

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.

Where does Luke's gospel claim Jesus didn't go to Galilee after his resurrection, please?

Acts says:-

King James Bible
To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

Just as people make the same mistakes comparing the gospels over events of healing etc they do the same with the appearances of Christ.

King James Bible
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.


People assume that each gospel and the person writing them are speaking and relating to the very same incident. Whilst in fact they could all be speaking about different individual cases where the facts are not related identically.

Each witness is writing an account but they are not writing a full account or collaborated account; just including all the things Christ did.

We know Christ raised the dead and that two accounts are clear Lazarus and the young girl. We know that Tabitha was raised from the dead and we Elijah raised a boy from the dead. All done by the power of God. We need to remember in those 3 years Christ changed history for ever by showing us what God wants for mankind. Restoration and healing. It is pointless to argue as if all the accounts are about the same incident. We see Christ did these things over and over and again.

We know nothing of the sort. There is no verifiable evidence anyone, including Jesus, has ever come back to life if they were actually dead!

[Spud]

Wrong on both counts, I can find an eye witness to give you first hand testimony of alien abduction, ghosts, other faiths which would often refute your faith. Yet these will likely to be rejected by you even though the evidence is superior.

A ghost story is of no importance to me. Why would I accept or reject it?

But many 'eye witnesses' have seen 'ghosts', throughout the ages, including myself! Yet you are more than happy to accept resurrection as FACT, which seems daft to me.

Did the ghost you saw offer you eternal life?