Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?

[Alien]

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?

As explained before because we have independent reports of about a dozen people, both individuals and groups, were convinced they saw Jesus after his death by flogging and crucifixion and the tomb was empty. There has been no explanation put forward by your side which explains all the evidence better, in my opinion, than that God exists and raised Jesus from the dead.

Why do you think they are untrustworthy (apart from perhaps not wanting God being in charge of your life)?

[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?

As explained before because we have independent reports of about a dozen people, both individuals and groups, were convinced they saw Jesus after his death by flogging and crucifixion and the tomb was empty. There has been no explanation put forward by your side which explains all the evidence better, in my opinion, than that God exists and raised Jesus from the dead.

Why do you think they are untrustworthy (apart from perhaps not wanting God being in charge of your life)?

For a start you don't have an explanation: you have claims in anecdotal reports that 'about a dozen people' saw Jesus post-resurrection and there was an 'empty tomb' - these are claims of uncertain provenance and are not historical facts, so how do you know they are the truth?

Why on earth you keep asking for an explanation from 'my side' beats me, since you presume that these claims are facts that are explainable when there is a clear risk that they are fictitious. A better and more parsimonious explanation, and one that fits known human behaviour and effortlessly covers all these claims, is that the whole story is a combination of ancient religious credulity and propaganda.

P.S. Mrs G is in charge of my life, and she says she isn't God (to be sure I just asked her).
 

[Outrider]

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?

160 years later, James' biographer says that he spoke with 'Fred', 'Harry' and 'Mary' and they told him these things, but he can't actually present any footage or writings of the three of them to vouch for that... now how confident are we that James is a good athlete?

O.

[Gordon]

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?

You seem to be implicitly conflating anecdotal claims about prowess at school sports with anecdotal claims about supernatural agency on the basis, I suspect, that if we can say that James was a good athlete based on the claims of his associates we should assume Jesus was resurrected on the basis of what his associates said - only the highly credulous would be daft enough to fall for this.

This is desperate stuff, Alan.   

[jeremyp]

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

And your point is?

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),

Let's make it a bit easier for you then.  Please choose any resurrection story that you can substantiate and then substantiate it.

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.

That's an extraordinary claim.  You'll need extraordinary evidence.

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?

I don't know.  Was he a real person?  Assuming he was, are you seriously trying to claim that being a good school athlete requires the same quality of evidence as rising from the dead to substantiate it?

[Gordon]

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

And your point is?

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),

Let's make it a bit easier for you then.  Please choose any resurrection story that you can substantiate and then substantiate it.

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.

That's an extraordinary claim.  You'll need extraordinary evidence.

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?

I don't know.  Was he a real person?  Assuming he was, are you seriously trying to claim that being a good school athlete requires the same quality of evidence as rising from the dead to substantiate it?

I think that with this school sports day analogy Alan has set the evidence bar so low that the biggest worry is actually tripping over it!

[Hope]

Let's make it a bit easier for you then.  Please choose any resurrection story that you can substantiate and then substantiate it.

There is written evidence in documents such as the Gospels, jeremy. 

[jeremyp]

Let's make it a bit easier for you then.  Please choose any resurrection story that you can substantiate and then substantiate it.

There is written evidence in documents such as the Gospels, jeremy.

You can't substantiate the gospel stories by quoting the gospels, dear boy.

[Nearly Sane]

Let's make it a bit easier for you then.  Please choose any resurrection story that you can substantiate and then substantiate it.

There is written evidence in documents such as the Gospels, jeremy.

And evidence being a methodologically naturalistic concept, the above statement is entirely specious till you come up with a supernatural methodology. Despite being asked for one many many many times, still nothing.

[Hope]

Let's make it a bit easier for you then.  Please choose any resurrection story that you can substantiate and then substantiate it.

There is written evidence in documents such as the Gospels, jeremy.

And evidence being a methodologically naturalistic concept, the above statement is entirely specious till you come up with a supernatural methodology. Despite being asked for one many many many times, still nothing.

Sorry, NS, substantiating something is "Provid(ing) evidence to support or prove the truth of" something.  Jeremy asked "Please choose any resurrection story that you can substantiate and then substantiate it."  The documentary evidence substantiates the claim.

Whether the claim in and of itself is true is a different matter;  as I and others have pointed out, you are restricting yourself to a naturalistic method of evidence, a level of evidence that several of us believe to be a limited one.  As you and others have said plenty of times, your level of evidence doesn't admit what you call supernatural evidence.  I, for one, do not believe that that low level of evidence is reflective of real life.

[jeremyp]

Let's make it a bit easier for you then.  Please choose any resurrection story that you can substantiate and then substantiate it.

There is written evidence in documents such as the Gospels, jeremy.

And evidence being a methodologically naturalistic concept, the above statement is entirely specious till you come up with a supernatural methodology. Despite being asked for one many many many times, still nothing.

Sorry, NS, substantiating something is "Provid(ing) evidence to support or prove the truth of" something.  Jeremy asked "Please choose any resurrection story that you can substantiate and then substantiate it."  The documentary evidence substantiates the claim.

Sorry Hope but you came into this half way through.  I was asking Alan to substantiate the stories that appear in the gospels.  You can't substantiate a document with itself.

[Shaker]

... as I and others have pointed out, you are restricting yourself to a naturalistic method of evidence, a level of evidence that several of us believe to be a limited one.

.. except that since you are unable to provide a methodology of your own, the concept of "limited" doesn't apply. Something can only be defined as having a certain limit by comparison with something that exceeds it, and you cannot demonstrate that anything 'exceeds' a purely naturalistic, materialistic paradigm.

As you and others have said plenty of times, your level of evidence doesn't admit what you call supernatural evidence.  I, for one, do not believe that that low level of evidence is reflective of real life.

Same goes for "low."

[jeremyp]

Same goes for "low."

At the triumphant success of the R&E Board assault on Everest we all stood on the summit and somebody said:  "actually, you can't see all the kingdoms of the World from here" (Matthew 4:8).  Then Hope piped up and said "I do not believe that these low mountains are all there is to World topography.  Your geological mountains are somewhat limited."  When pressed on the locations of any of his supergeological mountains, Hope claimed he had posted their coordinates on R&E many times   but as yet, nobody has found any trace of those posts.

[Shaker]

A superb analogy beautifully expressed. Top banana

[Rhiannon]

I rather like the idea of us all trudging up Everest. Or one of those hills in the Peak District at any rate. Then we could find a nice pub on the way back down.

[wigginhall]

Same goes for "low."

At the triumphant success of the R&E Board assault on Everest we all stood on the summit and somebody said:  "actually, you can't see all the kingdoms of the World from here" (Matthew 4:.  Then Hope piped up and said "I do not believe that these low mountains are all there is to World topography.  Your geological mountains are somewhat limited."  When pressed on the locations of any of his supergeological mountains, Hope claimed he had posted their coordinates on R&E many times   but as yet, nobody has found any trace of those posts.

That's some post.  Well done.

[jeremyp]

Same goes for "low."

At the triumphant success of the R&E Board assault on Everest we all stood on the summit and somebody said:  "actually, you can't see all the kingdoms of the World from here" (Matthew 4:8).  Then Hope piped up and said "I do not believe that these low mountains are all there is to World topography.  Your geological mountains are somewhat limited."  When pressed on the locations of any of his supergeological mountains, Hope claimed he had posted their coordinates on R&E many times   but as yet, nobody has found any trace of those posts.

That's some post.  Well done.

He's also being somewhat evasive on his methodology for measuring the height of his super geological mountains.

[Gordon]

Same goes for "low."

At the triumphant success of the R&E Board assault on Everest we all stood on the summit and somebody said:  "actually, you can't see all the kingdoms of the World from here" (Matthew 4:.  Then Hope piped up and said "I do not believe that these low mountains are all there is to World topography.  Your geological mountains are somewhat limited."  When pressed on the locations of any of his supergeological mountains, Hope claimed he had posted their coordinates on R&E many times   but as yet, nobody has found any trace of those posts.

That's some post.  Well done.

He's also being somewhat evasive on his methodology for measuring the height of his super geological mountains.

I'm sure he'll say he has a divine ruler.

[Rhiannon]

That's a shocker, G. 

[Alien]

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.

Still hoping here for an atheist to demonstrate to us how they can be flogged and crucified, convince professional executioners that they are dead, get stabbed with a spear, get laid in a known tomb then 2 days later appear right as ninepence and start meeting up with people on a dozen or so occasions both as individuals and groups, sometimes eating with them.

I've still got a spear, cross and nails ready for anyone wishing to debunk Christianity after 2000 years.

If you did, in the same manner, then your victim would probably die, and having died remain dead - as would have been the case with Jesus (assuming he was actually crucified).

The problem here is your continued assumption that these tales of post-death interaction are actually true: how have you addressed the risk of propaganda?

Propaganda as in "people deliberately telling lies"?

[Alien]

..
Still punting claims as facts in your normal lying manner.

Why is it that you lie like this continually?

Why do you accuse me of lying, please? Do you know what "lying" means?

[Alien]

I've still got a spear, cross and nails ready for anyone wishing to debunk Christianity after 2000 years.

And I've still got a vat of poison and some snakes for you to drink and get bitten by. Once you've done that, you can nail me to as many crosses as you like.

Eh? What has a vat of poison and some snake got to do with whether Jesus was dead, buried and rose again?

[Alien]

I've still got a spear, cross and nails ready for anyone wishing to debunk Christianity after 2000 years.

How about you volunteer yourself and we'll see if you die and come back to life?

No thanks. I'm not the Son of God. How about you. I gather you and your friends are claiming that he wasn't really dead.

[Alien]

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

According to Luke's gospel, the ascension happens pretty much the same day as the resurrection.  Try reading it without your preconceptions about what happened.

Please see #1123.

[jeremyp]

I've still got a spear, cross and nails ready for anyone wishing to debunk Christianity after 2000 years.

And I've still got a vat of poison and some snakes for you to drink and get bitten by. Once you've done that, you can nail me to as many crosses as you like.

Eh? What has a vat of poison and some snake got to do with whether Jesus was dead, buried and rose again?

I think it's a comment on your credulity.

And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them