Why bother ringing 911?

[floo]

No, what no-one has ever said is that the writers weren't eye-witnesses of the events - what they have said is that they weren't the disciples Matthew and John; or Mark, who the early Church understood to be the lad who was following Jesus and the disciples when Jesus was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane - Mark 14: 51-2
Unfortunately, there is no evience that there is no such evidence, Owl.  Yes, I realise that that may sound a tad tortuous, but with the earliest extant document or fragment dating from about 150 years after the death and resurrection events, t is actually very difficult to know when the materials were originally penned.  If, as suggested by some, Mark was the lad who followed Jesus and the disciples to Gethsemane, the fact that the commonly held date for his Gospel - the early 60s AD - is 30-odd years after the events is largely irrelevant, as he would have been an eye-witness.  The added suggestion, that he acted a scribe for Peter's recollections also point to the possibility of eye-witness accounts.  Human memory is not as fallible as you like to make out when momentous events occur.
In which case, most of the histories of the First and Second World Wars, most major world events of the last 3000 years, etc. are invalid.
OK, evidence for these three claims please.  Remember, too, that hiding them 'in the Vatican archives' smacks more of wanting to preserve that destroy them.

OK Hope, now it is up to you to prove there are no fairies at the bottom of my garden. They are as credible as some of the stuff you believe to be true, but cannot produce the evidence to support your claim.   

[Gordon]

No, what no-one has ever said is that the writers weren't eye-witnesses of the events

It isn't known that they were eye-witnesses though: isn't that the case?

-  - what they have said is that they weren't the disciples Matthew and John; or Mark, who the early Church understood to be the lad who was following Jesus and the disciples when Jesus was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane - Mark 14: 51-2

What the early church 'understood' isn't necessarily compelling - how do you know they didn't misunderstand, bearing in mind the uncertain provenance of at least some of the NT?

Unfortunately, there is no evience that there is no such evidence, Owl.

Seems like a version of the negative proof fallacy.

Yes, I realise that that may sound a tad tortuous, but with the earliest extant document or fragment dating from about 150 years after the death and resurrection events, t is actually very difficult to know when the materials were originally penned.  If, as suggested by some, Mark was the lad who followed Jesus and the disciples to Gethsemane, the fact that the commonly held date for his Gospel - the early 60s AD - is 30-odd years after the events is largely irrelevant, as he would have been an eye-witness.  The added suggestion, that he acted a scribe for Peter's recollections also point to the possibility of eye-witness accounts.  Human memory is not as fallible as you like to make out when momentous events occur.

Gloriously imprecise, and in view of the provenance uncertainties all this stuff comes with too many risks to be regarded as reliable.

In which case, most of the histories of the First and Second World Wars, most major world events of the last 3000 years, etc. are invalid.

This is tu quoque, and of course the provenance of these more recent accounts (WW1 and WW2) is much easier to check - even then mistakes and lies are risks as is the overt use of propaganda. 

Your dependence on the NT looks like special pleading, since it seems you won't address the risks of mistakes or lies, which leads to an argument from authority, which is yet another fallacy.

[Spud]

On what basis have you been able to exclude the risk of mistakes or lies in these accounts?

Hi Gordon,
Supposing we could exclude this risk. For example, we can say that collectively, the gospels are a "statement against interest", since first century Christians were persecuted by Jews (as reported by multiple sources). It is quite certain that the authors believed what they said to be true. So that's the risk of lies excluded.
We also know that numerous documents corroborate the central claim that Jesus worked miracles and was raised from the dead. Letters by the church fathers, for example. Thus it is certain that what the four evangelists report cannot be described easily as "mistakes", since it is evident that many people believed they witnessed the events described.
So really the only credible argument left for the unbeliever is that Jesus himself was the most skillful magician ever, and tricked people into thinking he had healed people and himself been raised.
Yet if this was true, then he would also be deceitful in the extreme, and we would not expect to find the things we read about his character and morality, and that of his followers.
So believing the gospels does not seem unreasonable.

[Owlswing]

Hi Gordon,
Supposing we could exclude this risk. For example, we can say that collectively, the gospels are a "statement against interest", since first century Christians were persecuted by Jews (as reported by multiple sources). It is quite certain that the authors believed what they said to be true. So that's the risk of lies excluded.

How is it "quite certain"? There is no evidence to give your statement certainty!

We also know that numerous documents corroborate the central claim that Jesus worked miracles and was raised from the dead. Letters by the church fathers, for example. Thus it is certain that what the four evangelists report cannot be described easily as "mistakes", since it is evident that many people believed they witnessed the events described.

Rubbish! There are no firsthand accounts of anything that is claimed for Christ that were written at the time and the human memory is fallible engendering all kinds of incorrect memories = mistakes.

So really the only credible argument left for the unbeliever is that Jesus himself was the most skillful magician ever, and tricked people into thinking he had healed people and himself been raised.
Yet if this was true, then he would also be deceitful in the extreme (just like his father!), and we would not expect to find the things we read about his character and morality, and that of his followers.
So believing the gospels does not seem unreasonable.

Again this comment is rubbish as there are NO first hand reports that were written at the time.

Believing the gospels are true is the result of your childhood brainwashing amd a serious sign of a dangerously closed mind!

[Gordon]

Hi Gordon,
Supposing we could exclude this risk.

But you haven't as yet, so it still stands.

For example, we can say that collectively, the gospels are a "statement against interest", since first century Christians were persecuted by Jews (as reported by multiple sources). It is quite certain that the authors believed what they said to be true. So that's the risk of lies excluded.

Don't be silly, Spud - what they authors believed, or said they believed, isn't an indication of truth: they could be mistaken or telling lies: so these risks remain.
 

We also know that numerous documents corroborate the central claim that Jesus worked miracles and was raised from the dead.

You have anecdotal reports of uncertain provenance making remarkable claims, and you're still ignoring the risks of mistakes or lies.

Letters by the church fathers, for example. Thus it is certain that what the four evangelists report cannot be described easily as "mistakes", since it is evident that many people believed they witnessed the events described.

This is special pleading, Spud, and you're still trying hard to avoid dealing with the risks. Lots of people believed the recent propaganda surrounding Brexit but it wasn't all true.
 

So really the only credible argument left for the unbeliever is that Jesus himself was the most skillful magician ever, and tricked people into thinking he had healed people and himself been raised.

Even more silly, Spud - a more credible argument is that since these anecdotal claims of the divine are indistinguishable from fiction, emanate from a time and place where people were more credulous regarding religious claims and were written by supporters of Jesus then theses NT stories are best seen as being essentially ancient (and possibly biased) religious superstition.
   

Yet if this was true, then he would also be deceitful in the extreme, and we would not expect to find the things we read about his character and morality, and that of his followers.
So believing the gospels does not seem unreasonable.

Nope - believing in the gospels seems both unreasonable and very naive. Don't believe every thing you read Spud, and especially where the provenance is unknown, the claims are highly unusual and where the accounts are written by supporters of the cause. You seem determined to avoid considering that the risks that apply to all human accounts also apply to the NT, where to deliberately ring-fence the NT claims as being immune from reasonable doubt is special pleading.

[jeremyp]

Hi Gordon,
Supposing we could exclude this risk. For example, we can say that collectively, the gospels are a "statement against interest", since first century Christians were persecuted by Jews (as reported by multiple sources).

Which sources? I'll give you Paul and Acts as a starter.

It is quite certain that the authors believed what they said to be true. So that's the risk of lies excluded.

Nope. Even if the authors believed what they said to be true, it does not mean that their sources didn't lie.

We also know that numerous documents corroborate the central claim that Jesus worked miracles and was raised from the dead.

No we don't.

Letters by the church fathers, for example.

Oh please. Corroboration requires an independent source. The church fathers merely believed what they were told. You need independent contemporary material for corroboration.

Thus it is certain that what the four evangelists report cannot be described easily as "mistakes", since it is evident that many people believed they witnessed the events described.

No. Paul makes up a figure of 500 but we don't know if these people existed. The gospels tell us that very few people witnessed the crucifixion and the resurrection and they can't agree on what happened after the resurrection at all.

So really the only credible argument left for the unbeliever is that Jesus himself was the most skillful magician ever, and tricked people into thinking he had healed people and himself been raised.

Or his followers did.

Yet if this was true, then he would also be deceitful in the extreme, and we would not expect to find the things we read about his character and morality, and that of his followers.

Incredible, you posit that somebody who was deceitful in the extreme would be unable to pretend to be sincere and highly moral.

So believing the gospels does not seem unreasonable.

They have a dead man coming alive in them. They are not credible.

[floo]

As I have said before, if Jesus did resurrect why on earth didn't he appear to people who had clout at that time instead of leaving it to a few followers to pass on the glad tidings?

[Owlswing]

As I have said before, if Jesus did resurrect why on earth didn't he appear to people who had clout at that time instead of leaving it to a few followers to pass on the glad tidings?

Because IT DID NOT HAPPEN!

[floo]

Because IT DID NOT HAPPEN!

Exactly, otherwise I am sure they would have been first on his list.

[jeremyp]

Because IT DID NOT HAPPEN!

Calm down, it's just a less formal version of reductio absurdum, which is a technique in maths to prove a hypothesis by assuming its negation is true and then proving a that would lead to a contradiction.

[Spud]

As I have said before, if Jesus did resurrect why on earth didn't he appear to people who had clout at that time instead of leaving it to a few followers to pass on the glad tidings?

Because those people didn't accept the kind of king he was to be. They had already asked him for a sign from heaven (Matthew 16) to prove his authority to be king. They were not expecting the Christ to be someone like Jesus, who was healing and miraculously feeding Gentiles, and saying that the ceremonial law no longer applied. Presumably they thought he would defeat the Romans if he was the Christ.

[Spud]

Which sources? I'll give you Paul and Acts as a starter.

According to Justin Martyr, "The Jews were behind all the persecutions of the Christians. They wandered through the country everywhere hating and undermining the Christian faith."

Nope. Even if the authors believed what they said to be true, it does not mean that their sources didn't lie.

What about multiple authors with multiple sources?

No we don't.

Oh please. Corroboration requires an independent source. The church fathers merely believed what they were told. You need independent contemporary material for corroboration.

What about the 27 independent books of the NT?

No. Paul makes up a figure of 500 but we don't know if these people existed. The gospels tell us that very few people witnessed the crucifixion and the resurrection and they can't agree on what happened after the resurrection at all.

Not just talking about the crucifixion and resurrection, but the miracles which were witnessed by crowds in the region. Nobody came forward and said that Jesus didn't do what is written in the gospels.

Or his followers did.

Yes, but why would they endure persecution and not just admit they'd made it up?

Incredible, you posit that somebody who was deceitful in the extreme would be unable to pretend to be sincere and highly moral.

Deceivers pretending to be moral don't endure poverty and torture etc.

They have a dead man coming alive in them. They are not credible.

To your mind, yes. Because you never saw a dead man coming alive again. But just because you haven't witnessed something doesn't mean it can't happen.
The gospels pass every test for authenticity, but miracles can't happen. Oh dear.

[Spud]

Which group of Christians do you know who believe that Jeremy?  God will judge us on what we know.

What does happen to the billions of people throughout history who never heard of Jesus then?

And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done

Revelation 20

[Gordon]

Not just talking about the crucifixion and resurrection, but the miracles which were witnessed by crowds in the region. Nobody came forward and said that Jesus didn't do what is written in the gospels.

So the story goes: and a post-hoc one at that, so not much different from the story that Gandalf made great fireworks. The latter is acknowledged fiction as could be the the former unless you've meaningfully excluded this risk - it seems you haven't.
 

Yes, but why would they endure persecution and not just admit they'd made it up?

Not again! They may well have honestly believed the Jesus myth and were killed for it: this doesn't mean the myth is true.

Deceivers pretending to be moral don't endure poverty and torture etc.

Except maybe they were the ones who were deceived.

To your mind, yes. Because you never saw a dead man coming alive again. But just because you haven't witnessed something doesn't mean it can't happen.

Some things can't happen, Spud: ask your local undertaker if death is invariably permanent: you'll find it is, with no exceptions.

The gospels pass every test for authenticity, but miracles can't happen. Oh dear.

The gospels are indistinguishable from fiction: oh dear!

[Sassy]

Like what, that people don't come back from the dead? What verifiable evidence is there that anyone who is truly dead has come back to life once more? You haven't any, only hearsay from documents which were written way back in time. If Jesus did resurrect why on earth didn't he appear to Herod, Pilate, the Roman soldiers who crucified him and everyone who had issues with him?

LOADS of documentation.... Look at Andrew Wommacks Son. He came back from the dead.
If you don't look (and you don't) then you will remain ignorant won't you.

[Brownie]

I'd never heard of Andrew Wommack but here is something in which he mentions his son, towards the end.
http://www.awmi.net/reading/teaching-articles/reality_faith/

[Owlswing]

Calm down, it's just a less formal version of reductio absurdum, which is a technique in maths to prove a hypothesis by assuming its negation is true and then proving a that would lead to a contradiction.

Oh I am calm. The capita;s were fort emphasis addressed to those of our number who, as yet, are unable to grasp that simple fact!

[Owlswing]

LOADS of documentation.... Look at Andrew Wommacks Son. He came back from the dead.
If you don't look (and you don't) then you will remain ignorant won't you.

I have checked "Andrew Wommack's son" and can find no reference to anyone EXCEPT Wommack himself who "witnessed" his son's resurrection.

The heading to the Wikipedia entry for  "Andrew Wommack's son" is quite telling:

This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. Please help improve it by replacing them with more appropriate citations to reliable, independent, third-party sources.

[Brownie]

I'd never heard of Andrew Wommack but here is something in which he mentions his son, towards the end.
http://www.awmi.net/reading/teaching-articles/reality_faith/

I also found the youtube link below Owlswing but am not going to look at it now, maybe later after I've had a sleep.  There's quite a bit about him and his claims about his son on the 'net, I will look into his ministry which seems like a big business.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJQcuipwsBM

This is from the ex-wife of one of Wommack's sons:

https://disqus.com/by/disqus_1j9QhTWq26/

Even allowing for her bias, it makes harrowing reading.

There is more.

I find it very sad indeed that someone like him can enter people's houses via the television and exploit those who are sick, lonely and unhappy.  We don't have much of that sort of thing on TV here, thank goodness, though there are channels that people can pay for which broadcast the American evangelists.
The Word of Faith/Health and Prosperity gospels are based on a distortion of Biblical teaching but they reach out to people whose lives are sad, giving them false hope.  i could weep.

Off to bed now, sorry for poor grammar, I'm a bit tired.  Night night xxx

[Sassy]

I have checked "Andrew Wommack's son" and can find no reference to anyone EXCEPT Wommack himself who "witnessed" his son's resurrection.

The heading to the Wikipedia entry for  "Andrew Wommack's son" is quite telling:

This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. Please help improve it by replacing them with more appropriate citations to reliable, independent, third-party sources.

Wikipedia are you for real... That is not the way to research the truth about him raising his Son from the dead.
Look and read the real event. Andrews Son had been killed in a car accident he was in the morgue fridge when Andrew and his wife arrived after several hours of travelling.

So if you want to read the facts then go to his own site and the hospital witnesses.

[Gordon]

Wikipedia are you for real... That is not the way to research the truth about him raising his Son from the dead.
Look and read the real event. Andrews Son had been killed in a car accident he was in the morgue fridge when Andrew and his wife arrived after several hours of travelling.

So if you want to read the facts then go to his own site and the hospital witnesses.

Just out of interest, is there formal confirmation of clinical death that is wholly independent of Wommack?

I'd image the local coroner (or whatever the US title is) would be very interested in the circumstances and the competence of whoever certified the death: at the very least an investigation into the circumstances.

[floo]

Because those people didn't accept the kind of king he was to be. They had already asked him for a sign from heaven (Matthew 16) to prove his authority to be king. They were not expecting the Christ to be someone like Jesus, who was healing and miraculously feeding Gentiles, and saying that the ceremonial law no longer applied. Presumably they thought he would defeat the Romans if he was the Christ.

Yeh right!

[floo]

LOADS of documentation.... Look at Andrew Wommacks Son. He came back from the dead.
If you don't look (and you don't) then you will remain ignorant won't you.

No one who is truly dead comes back that is just NOT possible. Wommack's son obviously wasn't really dead!

[Brownie]

I've found everything I can, some I've already detailed above, but it is quite difficult to get hold of the actual data.  So much is vague and I wonder why.

This is what Wommack himself says about his son's 'death':

When my youngest son, Peter, died on March 4, 2001, my wife and I spoke our faith and said, “The first report is not the last report.” We spoke resurrection life back into Peter’s body, and then we headed into town. It was one hour and fifteen minutes from the time we got the call until we got to where Peter was. During that time, I was operating in faith. I remembered prophecies that had not yet come to pass in Peter’s life, and therefore, I knew it wasn’t time for Peter to die. I rejoiced by faith, seeing Peter alive and well.

My oldest son, Joshua, met me at the door and said, “Dad, five or ten minutes after I called you, Peter just sat up.” Thank You, Jesus! This is the point: I didn’t rejoice more once I saw Peter raised from the dead than I did while I was still driving. During the drive, I knew Peter was alive, and I was rejoicing with all my might. It was actually anticlimactic when I saw in the physical what I had already seen in the spiritual. Don’t get me wrong; I was blessed and I rejoiced to see my son raised up after being dead for five hours. But the physical reality wasn’t more real to me than the spiritual reality of faith.

It appears that the medics concerned are not prepared to talk about it.  Very strange.

There are also reports that Peter (full name Jonathan Peter) committed suicide at a later date, I don't know if that is true or not but surely there would be a report of it somewhere.  He is supposed to have served a prison sentence in El Paso for wife beating too.  Mind you, if true neither would be surprising if he is the product of parents who pretend he was raised from the dead, imagine living with that rope around your neck.  He must have been seriously disturbed.

Andrew Wommack seems to be an extremely powerful person.

[floo]

A relative once told us the dead were being raised in Africa. When we asked why it wasn't headline news, he claimed that they wanted to keep it under wraps as people might scoff, as if they would!