Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?

[Alien]

...

Historical eye-witness testimony with little corroboration, by contrast, is highly questionable. ...

O.

Just the 11 corroborations of the first claim that Jesus had been met alive after his death. How many do you want?

No, we have one claim, which claims those corroborations.

To have actual corroboration, we'd need multiple sources.

O.

As in

* Mark
* Matthew
* Luke
* John
* Paul?

[BeRational]

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.

If he was dead he remained dead.

In any event he is dead now.

This is the default sane position, any other positions needs overwhelming evidence.
This evidence cannot be anecdotal or words in a book as that simply is not up to the job.

[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.

That's okay thanks, I have my own spear, cross and nails, and I managed it easily.

Also, I had 22 witnesses to the event, so that's Christianity debunked I guess?

Excellent. Who are these witnesses, please?

[Alien]

Incorrect. It is not necessary to have extraordinary evidence to demonstrate that it happened (as is sometimes claimed). What is needed is that the probability of it happening (on the background evidence) is higher than the probability of us having the evidence if the resurrection did not happen (as I think you and I agreed on another thread).

No.

Just....no.

Actually, yes. I was speaking to JeremyP, who, if I remember correctly agreed with how the probability is calculated, though who disagrees with the figures used.

An extraordinary claim needs extraordinary support for us to consider it viable.

No. The probability of the evidence existing without the event happening is higher than the probability of the event on the background evidence then the probability of the event on the background evidence and the specific evidence is greater than 50%. See http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10415.msg533156#msg533156 for fuller details (#77). See also #91 there for JeremyP's follow up comment, including the difficulty of assigning values.

We cannot have evidence of an event that did not happen

Well, yes. And?

- the onus is on those making the claim to support their case.

Yes, no-one is arguing otherwise.

In this instance we don't need to 'prove' that someone lied, or some deception occurred, or stories were made up after the fact - we don't need to provide alternatives until we've been given sufficient reason to think your suggestion might be true in the first place.

You're suggesting a resurrection took place, against a backdrop assumption that no resurrection took place. If you don't provide enough evidence to support the contention that a resurrection took place we don't need to provide any alternative explanation, we just don't accept yours and return to the default idea that resurrections don't happen.

O.

See the above posts, etc.

[jeremyp]

To have actual corroboration, we'd need multiple sources.

O.

As in

* Mark
* Matthew
* Luke
* John
* Paul?

How many times do we need to go through this before you understand that multiple "sources" are not worth a damn unless we can show they are independent?

[Spud]

To have actual corroboration, we'd need multiple sources.

O.

As in

* Mark
* Matthew
* Luke
* John
* Paul?

How many times do we need to go through this before you understand that multiple "sources" are not worth a damn unless we can show they are independent?

They are independent to an extent, though. Mark, Luke and John add to Matthew details supplied by other eyewitnesses, so there isn't a problem with their use of Matthew in their frameworks. For example, Luke records the healing of a crippled woman who couldn't straighten up (Lk 13). This isn't mentioned in any other gospel.

[floo]

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.

If he was dead he remained dead.

In any event he is dead now.

This is the default sane position, any other positions needs overwhelming evidence.
This evidence cannot be anecdotal or words in a book as that simply is not up to the job.

There is no evidence Jesus is alive that is for sure.

[jakswan]

No. The probability of the evidence existing without the event happening is higher than the probability of the event on the background evidence then the probability of the event on the background evidence and the specific evidence is greater than 50%. See http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10415.msg533156#msg533156 for fuller details (#77).

You seem to be saying no but yes?

Also the post you refer to was wrong.

[BashfulAnthony]

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.

If he was dead he remained dead.

In any event he is dead now.

This is the default sane position, any other positions needs overwhelming evidence.
This evidence cannot be anecdotal or words in a book as that simply is not up to the job.

There is no evidence Jesus is alive that is for sure.

Don't you ever get tired of the same old sentence, daily, ad nauseam?   I am sick to the teeth of your boring lack of originality.

[BeRational]

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.

If he was dead he remained dead.

In any event he is dead now.

This is the default sane position, any other positions needs overwhelming evidence.
This evidence cannot be anecdotal or words in a book as that simply is not up to the job.

There is no evidence Jesus is alive that is for sure.

Don't you ever get tired of the same old sentence, daily, ad nauseam?   I am sick to the teeth of your boring lack of originality.

Repetition does not mean it is not true though.

All you have to do to stop the question, is provide evidence that Jesus is alive.

Until you do, the simple rebuttal that he is obviously dead applies.

What is boring, is that you just ASSERT he is alive (which only works for stupid gullible people). We don't care what you assert. You make the claim, then YOU have the burden of proof.

[BashfulAnthony]

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.

If he was dead he remained dead.

In any event he is dead now.

This is the default sane position, any other positions needs overwhelming evidence.
This evidence cannot be anecdotal or words in a book as that simply is not up to the job.

There is no evidence Jesus is alive that is for sure.

Don't you ever get tired of the same old sentence, daily, ad nauseam?   I am sick to the teeth of your boring lack of originality.

Repetition does not mean it is not true though.

All you have to do to stop the question, is provide evidence that Jesus is alive.

Until you do, the simple rebuttal that he is obviously dead applies.

What is boring, is that you just ASSERT he is alive (which only works for stupid gullible people). We don't care what you assert. You make the claim, then YOU have the burden of proof.

The only burden round here is your benighted presence.

[SqueakyVoice]

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

That's about the size of it.

Although it could also be a sign of Al's memory problems. Every time he dredges up his ridiculous 'get nailed to a cross challenge', I explain I'll be perfectly happy to do it as long as he does the snake and poison challenge first (which seems only fair to me) but he always refuses and then either he can't remember or pretends he can't remember it ever having come up before.

Still, Jesus didn't promise his followers would have really good memories I suppose...

[BeRational]

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.

If he was dead he remained dead.

In any event he is dead now.

This is the default sane position, any other positions needs overwhelming evidence.
This evidence cannot be anecdotal or words in a book as that simply is not up to the job.

There is no evidence Jesus is alive that is for sure.

Don't you ever get tired of the same old sentence, daily, ad nauseam?   I am sick to the teeth of your boring lack of originality.

Repetition does not mean it is not true though.

All you have to do to stop the question, is provide evidence that Jesus is alive.

Until you do, the simple rebuttal that he is obviously dead applies.

What is boring, is that you just ASSERT he is alive (which only works for stupid gullible people). We don't care what you assert. You make the claim, then YOU have the burden of proof.

The only burden round here is your benighted presence.

Can we assume you do not understand the burden of proof?

It seems clear that you do not understand, but better if you just admit it.

[BashfulAnthony]

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.

If he was dead he remained dead.

In any event he is dead now.

This is the default sane position, any other positions needs overwhelming evidence.
This evidence cannot be anecdotal or words in a book as that simply is not up to the job.

There is no evidence Jesus is alive that is for sure.

Don't you ever get tired of the same old sentence, daily, ad nauseam?   I am sick to the teeth of your boring lack of originality.

Repetition does not mean it is not true though.

All you have to do to stop the question, is provide evidence that Jesus is alive.

Until you do, the simple rebuttal that he is obviously dead applies.

What is boring, is that you just ASSERT he is alive (which only works for stupid gullible people). We don't care what you assert. You make the claim, then YOU have the burden of proof.

The only burden round here is your benighted presence.

Can we assume you do not understand the burden of proof?

It seems clear that you do not understand, but better if you just admit it.

The only thing I need to understand here is that you are a boring, repetitious, obsessive.

[Andy]

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 do you know? And why would you have to be? Does this god only bring people back to life if they're his son now? More circular, special pleading.

How about you. I gather you and your friends are claiming that he wasn't really dead.

My "friends"? Why do you aim to be divisive like this? And no, you don't gather.

[Alien]

To have actual corroboration, we'd need multiple sources.

O.

As in

* Mark
* Matthew
* Luke
* John
* Paul?

How many times do we need to go through this before you understand that multiple "sources" are not worth a damn unless we can show they are independent?

So you think that the resurrection appearances recorded in the above are not independent of each other? If so, why, please?

[Alien]

No. The probability of the evidence existing without the event happening is higher than the probability of the event on the background evidence then the probability of the event on the background evidence and the specific evidence is greater than 50%. See http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10415.msg533156#msg533156 for fuller details (#77).

You seem to be saying no but yes?

Also the post you refer to was wrong.

As in the wrong post or that the post was incorrect in what it says?

It is the correct post.

[Alien]

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

That's about the size of it.

Although it could also be a sign of Al's memory problems. Every time he dredges up his ridiculous 'get nailed to a cross challenge', I explain I'll be perfectly happy to do it as long as he does the snake and poison challenge first (which seems only fair to me) but he always refuses and then either he can't remember or pretends he can't remember it ever having come up before.

Still, Jesus didn't promise his followers would have really good memories I suppose...

Why are you quoting something which is not part of Mark's gospel? Have you forgotten that that part was not part of the original gospel? If you and I have discussed this before, as you claim above, I will certainly have mentioned that it is not original.

Would you be so good as to link to one of the occasions where I "always refuse and then either can't remember or pretend I can't remember it ever having come up before." Cheers.

[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 do you know?

I asked my wife and she assures me that I am not the Son of God.

And why would you have to be? Does this god only bring people back to life if they're his son now? More circular, special pleading.

Why would I have to be? Because it vindicated what Jesus had claimed beforehand about who he was and what he would do, including being raised from the dead. So, no, not circular.

How about you. I gather you and your friends are claiming that he wasn't really dead.

My "friends"? Why do you aim to be divisive like this? And no, you don't gather.

Divisive? Why?

Would you please explain the position you hold on this if you don't think he wasn't really dead. You have probably done so before, but humour me.

[jakswan]

No. The probability of the evidence existing without the event happening is higher than the probability of the event on the background evidence then the probability of the event on the background evidence and the specific evidence is greater than 50%. See http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10415.msg533156#msg533156 for fuller details (#77).

You seem to be saying no but yes?

Also the post you refer to was wrong.

As in the wrong post or that the post was incorrect in what it says?

It is the correct post.

The latter.

[Andy]

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 do you know?

I asked my wife and she assures me that I am not the Son of God.

Perhaps you should start letting your wife answer some posts for you then. The rest of us might get a straight answer then.

And why would you have to be? Does this god only bring people back to life if they're his son now? More circular, special pleading.

Why would I have to be? Because it vindicated what Jesus had claimed beforehand about who he was and what he would do, including being raised from the dead. So, no, not circular.

What has this got to do with anything? Could this god raise you from the dead or not?
And the circularity comes from you claiming that for someone to come back to life it takes a god to do it, therefore god exists, but your only example of it happening is an invocation that it was the son of god it happened to.

My "friends"? Why do you aim to be divisive like this? And no, you don't gather.

Divisive? Why?

Like I've said before, you can come across as very "us and them". They're not "my friends" or "my lot". We're all trying to get along here, aren't we?

Would you please explain the position you hold on this if you don't think he wasn't really dead. You have probably done so before, but humour me.

I don't know and I couldn't care less. I simply don't believe the claims that someone died and came back to life.

[Alien]

No. The probability of the evidence existing without the event happening is higher than the probability of the event on the background evidence then the probability of the event on the background evidence and the specific evidence is greater than 50%. See http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10415.msg533156#msg533156 for fuller details (#77).

You seem to be saying no but yes?

Also the post you refer to was wrong.

As in the wrong post or that the post was incorrect in what it says?

It is the correct post.

The latter.

Why do you think it is wrong?

[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 do you know?

I asked my wife and she assures me that I am not the Son of God.

Perhaps you should start letting your wife answer some posts for you then. The rest of us might get a straight answer then.

And why would you have to be? Does this god only bring people back to life if they're his son now? More circular, special pleading.

Why would I have to be? Because it vindicated what Jesus had claimed beforehand about who he was and what he would do, including being raised from the dead. So, no, not circular.

What has this got to do with anything? Could this god raise you from the dead or not?

Yes. Whether he would is a separate question though.

And the circularity comes from you claiming that for someone to come back to life it takes a god to do it, therefore god exists, but your only example of it happening is an invocation that it was the son of god it happened to.

Since he came back to life, having been dead, it demonstrates that God exists. That is not circular. You may disagree with it as a conclusion, but it is not circular.

My "friends"? Why do you aim to be divisive like this? And no, you don't gather.

Divisive? Why?

Like I've said before, you can come across as very "us and them". They're not "my friends" or "my lot". We're all trying to get along here, aren't we?

Is "your fellow atheists" OK?

Would you please explain the position you hold on this if you don't think he wasn't really dead. You have probably done so before, but humour me.

I don't know and I couldn't care less. I simply don't believe the claims that someone died and came back to life.

Fair enough. You won't be taking part in the discussion any more then since you couldn't care less?

[jeremyp]

They are independent to an extent, though. Mark, Luke and John add to Matthew details supplied by other eyewitnesses

Firstly, Mark is the earliest gospel that the others copied.

Secondly, you do not know if the sources for any of the gospels were eye witnesses.

We have been over this so many times, you should really stop spouting your nonsense.

[jeremyp]

So you think that the resurrection appearances recorded in the above are not independent of each other? If so, why, please?

You have three narratives that are all different so they are obviously independent but since they are all different, they don't provide corroboration of each other.

Not only that, but you don't know who their sources were, or if they even had sources (i.e. the gospel authors made them up).