Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?

[BeRational]

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?   

What difference would that make?

[Nearly Sane]

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?   

Not only that but an eternal blow job as well.

[jjohnjil]

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?   

What difference would that make?

Because that's what the whole thing is all about!  It's the best way they think they'll avoid death! 

A futile aim but if it helps them get through life, who are we to disappoint them!

[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.

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!

The witnesses are the proof and the many who know Christ today. If you have nothing useful to say, isn't best to remain silent...

[Spud]

Because that's what the whole thing is all about!  It's the best way they think they'll avoid death! 

The second death, ITYM

[floo]

Because that's what the whole thing is all about!  It's the best way they think they'll avoid death! 

The second death, ITYM

You can only die once!

[Leonard James]

The witnesses are the proof and the many who know Christ today. If you have nothing useful to say, isn't best to remain silent...

In other words, no reliable evidence, which is exactly what Flu said.

[jeremyp]

The witnesses are the proof

Eye witness evidence is notoriously unreliable.

and the many who know Christ today.

How do we know you know Christ?  What if it is a delusion, or Satan pretending?

If you have nothing useful to say, isn't best to remain silent...

You should follow your own advice.

[jakswan]

The Gospels most likely don't contain any eye witness testimony.

[Leonard James]

Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?

Much more advisable NOT to read any of the Bible and leave your mind uncontaminated by outdated superstitions.

[Dicky Underpants]

Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?

Much more advisable NOT to read any of the Bible and leave your mind uncontaminated by outdated superstitions.

Don't agree with that, Len. I suppose some people are always likely to be susceptible to the lure of the supernatural, but I can't think it's good policy to suggest people avoid reading Homer's Odyssey in case they end up believing in the gods of ancient Greece, or avoid studying Egyptian hieroglyphics and the tomb of Tutenkhamun in case they end up believing in Ra and Horus (if they're into that sort of thing).
I suppose the situation is different in that Christianity is still an active force in the world in its supernatural aspect, and as such is likely to attract rather more converts than Isis and Osiris but, reading the bible in the light of history and objective criticism can be instructive. And some of its moral precepts are still worthwhile.....

[Leonard James]

Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?

Much more advisable NOT to read any of the Bible and leave your mind uncontaminated by outdated superstitions.

Don't agree with that, Len. I suppose some people are always likely to be susceptible to the lure of the supernatural, but I can't think it's good policy to suggest people avoid reading Homer's Odyssey in case they end up believing in the gods of ancient Greece, or avoid studying Egyptian hieroglyphics and the tomb of Tutenkhamun in case they end up believing in Ra and Horus (if they're into that sort of thing).
I suppose the situation is different in that Christianity is still an active force in the world in its supernatural aspect, and as such is likely to attract rather more converts than Isis and Osiris but, reading the bible in the light of history and objective criticism can be instructive. And some of its moral precepts are still worthwhile.....

I agree, but I referred to outdated "superstitions", meaning spirits, miracles, voices from the sky, gods and demons etc. There were quite enough of those daft beliefs in circulation at the time, without adding to them. The moral advice in the Bible is for the most part good.

However, my comment was more tongue in cheek using the same words as the thread title. I should have added a smiley ... sorry!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

. I should have added a smiley ... sorry!

Only ONE smiley Len? Are you feeling OK?

[Hope]

I agree, but I referred to outdated "superstitions", meaning spirits, miracles, voices from the sky, gods and demons etc.

Are they outdated, Len?  Just because you don't experience any of the above, it doesn't mean that others don't.  From a purely psychological perspective, I understand that there are no fewer reports of such things today than there were in the past.  Are they all simply cases of mential ill-health?

[BeRational]

I agree, but I referred to outdated "superstitions", meaning spirits, miracles, voices from the sky, gods and demons etc.

Are they outdated, Len?  Just because you don't experience any of the above, it doesn't mean that others don't.  From a purely psychological perspective, I understand that there are no fewer reports of such things today than there were in the past.  Are they all simply cases of mential ill-health?

Probably, yes.

Until good evidence comes in, then that is the assumed default.

[Leonard James]

Are they outdated, Len?  Just because you don't experience any of the above, it doesn't mean that others don't.  From a purely psychological perspective, I understand that there are no fewer reports of such things today than there were in the past.  Are they all simply cases of mential ill-health?

Straw man again! I have never suggested nor implied that it is a case of mental ill-health.

If not induced by medication or stress, I think it is nothing more than auto-suggestion.

[ippy]

"Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order"?

I couldn't help noticing that this thread is still plodding on, seriously when it's so obvious that this old manual of mythical superstitions and magic twaddle is man made what does it really matter about the cast in order of appearance?

This thread is about as relevant as what happened to Sherlock Holms at the Richenbach falls, except perhaps Sherlock Holmes adventures are a bit more interesting.

ippy

[Alien]

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?

"Independent" doesn't mean talking about different sightings, it means having different original sources.  What you want is two or more people talking about the same event but either being eye witnesses or sourcing the material ultimately from different eye witnesses.

Agreed.

Fine, but you are wrong in asserting that no-one knows who the authors of the gospels are.

No I am correct.

OK, demonstrate it, please. I see no good reason to doubt the early church's belief that the gospel authors were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. You are saying they were wrong, are you not?

You are of the opinion that we don't know; I am of the opinion that we do.

But you having an opinion does not mean you know who the authors are.

And you having an opinion that we do not know does not mean we do not know. 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?

They both talk about fantastical events that violate the known laws of nature.

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.

But you fail to show that the events are as you claim.  You show that we have stories describing some events, but you fail to show that the events they describe were real. 

We have evidence (the gospels, Paul and so on) that there were people (individuals and groups) who sincerely believed they met with Jesus after his death by flogging and crucifixion and that the tomb was empty. Are you saying those people did not sincerely believe that or that Jesus being resurrected is not the best explanation, please?

Furthermore, your assessment that Jesus rising from the dead is the best explanation for those stories rests entirely on the assumption that God exists.  Without God and with the known laws of the Universe, the probability that Jesus rose from the dead is vanishingly small.

Nope. It rests on the possibility that God exists. His resurrection demonstrates that God, the Christian God, exists.

Even furthermore, once you assume God exists and interferes with the World, all arguments based on probability (which is to say all arguments about the real Word) are rendered null and void.

Why? The Christian idea of God is that of a God with a mind who does stuff for reasons (reasons we don't always fully understand, I grant you), but not a random event generator.

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?

Perhaps an example would help.  If I toss a fair coin ten times, what is the probability that it will come up heads each time?  It's 1/1024.

Now suppose that I have a telekinetic ability so that I can nudge the coin imperceptibly as it is spinning in the air and make it land on whichever side I please.  What is the probability of it coming up heads each time?  Can you even answer the question?

No, I can't give you a probability, but the God that Christians argue exists is not some random thing doing stuff on a whim, but has a purpose to what he does.

[Alien]

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

I don't have that assumption.

Yes you do.  When I point out that dead people do not come alive again, you say "they could if God".

You spoke about an assumption that God could make anything happen at any time. I don't have that assumption.

[Alien]

...

Science isn't, implicitly, beyond comprehension. Gods are.

O.

Why do you think that God is beyond comprehension?

[Alien]

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.

Try replacing "entities" with "the laws of physics" and see whether you agree with the sentence. With all the laws of physics, if you go deep enough we run out of understanding, yet no-one claims that means the world is chaotic, incoherent and capricious mess and science is impossible. Doing that shows Haldane was incorrect in making that claim.

Is all this quibbling your way of telling me that you can't answer the question I posed?   How do you assess the likelihood of an event if you have the assumption that God could make anything happen at any time?

I've told you twice that I don't have that assumption.

[jeremyp]

OK, demonstrate it, please. I see no good reason to doubt the early church's belief that the gospel authors were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. You are saying they were wrong, are you not?

I demonstrate it by pointing out that nobody has a credible chain of evidence that leads from any gospel back to the purported author.  Note that the fact that you are take the views of the late second century church on faith does not count as a credible chain of evidence.

And you having an opinion that we do not know does not mean we do not know. Etc.

Indeed it doesn't, but my opinion is supported by the facts and most credible scholars of the New Testament.  Yours is a combination of second century guesswork and your own wishful thinking.

We have evidence (the gospels, Paul and so on) that there were people (individuals and groups) who sincerely believed they met with Jesus after his death by flogging and crucifixion and that the tomb was empty.

The gospels are certainly not reliable for reasons we have already discussed.

Paul never mentions the empty tomb, even in situations where he might be expected to do so.  Nor, if I recall correctly, does he mention any flogging or anybody meeting Jesus.  If you were to assess the evidence of Paul's letters honestly, you would come to the conclusion that he did not know the empty tomb story or any of the stories about Jesus meetin and eating with people after the resurrection.  This is in spite of the fact that he spent two weeks with Cephas (Peter). 

Are you saying those people did not sincerely believe that or that Jesus being resurrected is not the best explanation, please?

I'm sure many of them sincerely believed Jesus was resurrected.  I'm also pretty sure that the resurrection they believed was not of the type that gained currency in the gospels. 

Nope. It rests on the possibility that God exists. His resurrection demonstrates that God, the Christian God, exists.

Like I said, the assumption that God exists.

The Christian idea of God is that of a God with a mind who does stuff for reasons (reasons we don't always fully understand, I grant you), but not a random event generator.

Imagine we are both sitting at a table.  I have a six sided dice which I proceed to throw a number of times.  You keep a record of the number that comes up on each throw and you find that each of the numbers from one to six comes up roughly the same number of times. 

If I say to you, what is the probability of me throwing a six next time, I guess you'd be happy with the answer of 1/6. 

Then I then reveal that I have an electromagnet concealed in the table and a metal plate concealed in the dice such that, by turning on the electromagnet, my accomplice hidden in the next room can ensure that the dice will come up six.

Are you still happy to assign a 1/6 probability of a six coming up on the next throw?  Are you happy to assign any probability to a six coming up on the next throw.

As soon as we concede the possibility of a god that interferes with the natural world, all of our reasoning fails because God can subvert it on a whim.

If you are going to insist on a supernatural entity behind the scenes loading the metaphorical dice, we might as well give up.  You should just say "I have faith in God" and leave it at that. 

No, I can't give you a probability

Precisely.  And that means all of our tools for reasoning about the World fail.  What you are doing is not history, it is just a pretence of history.

[jeremyp]

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

I don't have that assumption.

Yes you do.  When I point out that dead people do not come alive again, you say "they could if God".

You spoke about an assumption that God could make anything happen at any time. I don't have that assumption.

Yes you do.

[jeremyp]

I've told you twice that I don't have that assumption.

And you are now wrong about it on three occasions.

[Alien]

Your point about hearsay is incorrect.

Wrong.

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

I gave you the OED definition of "hearsay" and have now included it in my signature.

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.

I don't need to. I am not trying to demonstrate that every part of the gospels is correct (though I do believe that), but that the gospels are reliable enough to come to certain conclusions, e.g. that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died and was raised to life. Consider the following:

Fred: Do you remember James Cross at school?
Harry: Yes, great athlete wasn't he.
Fred: Yes, he won the 100m in year 7.
Harry: Yes, I remember that.
Mary: He won the 200m that year too.
Fred: Did he? I don't remember that.
Harry: Yes, that's right. He beat me!
Fred: He won the 400m too.

So would it be reasonable to say that James Cross was a good athlete? Fred and Harry remember him winning the 100m in Year 7, but Mary says nothing about this. Mary and Harry remember that James won the 200m too, but Fred does not remember it. Fred remembers James winning the 400m, but we have no substantiation of that.

Was James a good athlete at school?