'Cold-Case Christianity'

[Nearly Sane]

It is plain English, what don't you understand?

The logic. 'Green ideas sleep furiously' is plain English but doesn't have any actual meaning.

[Jack Knave]

Vlad,

No-one does think that science has all the answers to anything - that's just your (oft repeated) straw man.

That wasn't Vlad's point.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

OFFS! It was merely used as an example of how "science" - especially contemporary science such as it was - could have been fooled.

I think they would have been much more familiar with violent death though* and able to identify a dead'un.              *That's according to Stephen Pinker.

I think the probability of a misdiagnosis small and that should be important to someone like theeself who often argues from a position of probability.

In other words now you are banking on a mistake. At least though you are at a place where Jesus is diagnosed.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think they would have been much more familiar with violent death though* and able to identify a dead'un.              *That's according to Stephen Pinker.

“They” may have been, but absent technology of any kind shock and blood loss-induced coma is certainly one possibility, albeit only one.

I think the probability of a misdiagnosis small and that should be important to someone like theeself who often argues from a position of probability.

No, because your “I think” is just your unqualified opinion on the matter (how would you know that many crucifixion victims weren’t actually alive after they were taken down?), and because in any case probability is only relevant when you have a different probability with which to compare it. How would you calculate an honest to goodness resurrection being less improbable that a different explanation for it? 1,000/1 odds are good when the alternative is 1,000,000/1. 

In other words now you are banking on a mistake. At least though you are at a place where Jesus is diagnosed.

I’m “banking” on no such thing. I’m merely pointing out that there are many real world possible explanations, and only one religious faith one whose relative probability you have no means to calculate and that fails to cohere with anything we know about how the universe works.

[bluehillside Retd.]

JK,

That wasn't Vlad's point.

Then he shouldn't have made it.

[Hope]

Vlad,

“They” may have been, but absent technology of any kind shock and blood loss-induced coma is certainly one possibility, albeit only one.

But can you explain the 'blood and water' scenario, without allowing Jesus to have died?

I’m “banking” on no such thing. I’m merely pointing out that there are many real world possible explanations, and only one religious faith one whose relative probability you have no means to calculate and that fails to cohere with anything we know about how the universe works.

Yet when one takes the different descriptions of the death into account, it is very difficult to see how one of these 'real world' alternatives actually works, blue.  For one of them to work, one or more of the various symptoms described would have had to have been invented by someone who wouldn't have had the modern medical knowledge required to know to invent it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

But can you explain the 'blood and water' scenario, without allowing Jesus to have died?

No. How does that help you?

Yet when one takes the different descriptions of the death into account, it is very difficult to see how one of these 'real world' alternatives actually works, blue.

Not really, especially if they were all drawn from one source. Either way though, how would you calculate the probability of "it is very difficult to see" against that of a bona fide miracle?   

For one of them to work, one or more of the various symptoms described would have had to have been invented by someone who wouldn't have had the modern medical knowledge required to know to invent it.

Of course not. The person who decided he was dead might have been wrong about that, there may have been a switcheroo of the bodies, it could have been a conjuring trick, the story could have been heavily exaggerated in later re-telling etc etc. I have no idea how (im)probable these real world options are, but they do have the advantage of consistency with the way the universe observably works. How then would you calculate the odds of an explanation that contradicts the way the universe observably works for comparison purposes?

[Gordon]

How would you calculate an honest to goodness resurrection being less improbable that a different explanation for it? 1,000/1 odds are good when the alternative is 1,000,000/1. 

People tell lies all the time: such as in the police statements involving the Hillsborough disaster,. etc etc etc ad infinitum. Given this would you not think that people telling lies about a resurrection is more likely than an 'honest to goodness' resurrection?

If so, on what basis have you discounted the possibility of lies in respect of the NT resurrection anecdotes? 

[Hope]

People tell lies all the time: such as in the police statements involving the Hillsborough disaster,. etc etc etc ad infinitum. Given this would you not think that people telling lies about a resurrection is more likely than an 'honest to goodness' resurrection?

If so, on what basis have you discounted the possibility of lies in respect of the NT resurrection anecdotes?

Sorry, Gordon, but that thing about probabilities was something I'd inadvertantly left in from blue's response to Vlad.  You'll need to redirect the question above to one or other of them.

[Gordon]

Sorry, Gordon, but that thing about probabilities was something I'd inadvertantly left in from blue's response to Vlad.  You'll need to redirect the question above to one or other of them.

As far as I can see Blue was asking this question of you: all I've done is use the risk of lies as the alternative possibility and asking if you think that lies claiming a resurrection is more likely than an actual resurrection, which seems like a reasonable question. 

[Hope]

As far as I can see Blue was asking this question of you: all I've done is use the risk of lies as the alternative possibility and asking if you think that lies claiming a resurrection is more likely than an actual resurrection, which seems like a reasonable question.

If that is the case, why does blue's post#178 (or is that 179) start 'Vlad' and go on to quote passages from a post of Vlad's.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

If that is the case, why does blue's post#178 (or is that 179) start 'Vlad' and go on to quote passages from a post of Vlad's.

I'm happy to add "maybe people just lied about it" to the list of possible explanations addressed to you Hopester.

[Gordon]

If that is the case, why does blue's post#178 (or is that 179) start 'Vlad' and go on to quote passages from a post of Vlad's.

You're right - my apologies. I was perhaps confused by this mistakenly appearing in one of your own posts, now corrected.

Even so, my question stands and is one I have asked of you previously.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

People tell lies all the time: such as in the police statements involving the Hillsborough disaster,. etc etc etc ad infinitum. Given this would you not think that people telling lies about a resurrection is more likely than an 'honest to goodness' resurrection?

If so, on what basis have you discounted the possibility of lies in respect of the NT resurrection anecdotes?

Then you take us back into conspiracy theory again Gordon. 500 witnesses are offered in Paul's pastoral epistles.

Also I think pre resurrection Christianity had ended with the crucifixion hadn't it.
It had shuffled off its mortal coil and had ceased to be. Why revive it?

Can you quote another occasion when this happened in any recognisable historical context and wasn't merely a copy of this? It seems there was a huge incentive to massage the truth at Hillsborough.

Also I don't recall the witnesses at the Hillsborough enquiry being threatened with crucifixion or Roman spears.

[Gordon]

Then you take us back into conspiracy theory again Gordon. 500 witnesses are offered in Paul's pastoral epistles.

So the story goes: how do you know this claim is actually true?

Also I think pre resurrection Christianity had ended with the crucifixion hadn't it.
It had shuffled off its mortal coil and had ceased to be. Why revive it?

People do get very attached to their chosen causes.

Can you quote another occasion when this happened in any recognisable historical context and wasn't merely a copy of this? It seems there was a huge incentive to massage the truth at Hillsborough.

Perhaps his followers wanted to promote the profile of Jesus. Propaganda does happen,  so I'd have though it would be important for Christians to exclude this risk before taking the NT claims as being historical fact: to date though it seems they haven't.

Also I don't recall the witnesses at the Hillsborough enquiry being threatened with crucifixion or Roman spears.

The issue here isn't that early Christian weren't sincere even in the face of persecution but whether what they were sincere about was actually true. Bearing in mind we are dealing with post-hoc anecdotal accounts of uncertain provenance where the sources could be biased it could be that some elements (say the empty tomb bit) might be fictional propaganda.

That this story is accepted by some/all Christians without them being able to exclude the risks of mistakes or lies just because it features in their preferred holy book smacks of being a fallacious argument from authority. 

[NicholasMarks]

So the story goes: how do you know this claim is actually true?

People do get very attached to their chosen causes.

Perhaps his followers wanted to promote the profile of Jesus. Propaganda does happen,  so I'd have though it would be important for Christians to exclude this risk before taking the NT claims as being historical fact: to date though it seems they haven't.

The issue here isn't that early Christian weren't sincere even in the face of persecution but whether what they were sincere about was actually true. Bearing in mind we are dealing with post-hoc anecdotal accounts of uncertain provenance where the sources could be biased it could be that some elements (say the empty tomb bit) might be fictional propaganda.

That this story is accepted by some/all Christians without them being able to exclude the risks of mistakes or lies just because it features in their preferred holy book smacks of being a fallacious argument from authority.

The problem is, Gordon, as expressed by your post, that none of it affects you personally...but, I'm afraid it does.

What Jesus was showing you is that there are mechanics, beyond our understanding, that can resurrect each and eveyone of us...and these same mechanics, because Jesus' word can never be altered, also contain the knowledge of everlasting life. By default, that also means he is teaching us a repair process all built around righteousness...or, correct spiritual behaviour.

If we don't believe Jesus...who told us before it happened what would happen, then we have no faith and the alternative to having no faith is to be trapped in the same ether that Jesus snatched the keys to....Oh, I could go on, but I'm afraid I would probably need sign-language.

 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sparky,

The problem is, Gordon, as expressed by your post, that none of it affects you personally...but, I'm afraid it does.

What Jesus was showing you is that there are mechanics, beyond our understanding, that can resurrect each and eveyone of us...and these same mechanics, because Jesus' word can never be altered, also contain the knowledge of everlasting life. By default, that also means he is teaching us a repair process all built around righteousness...or, correct spiritual behaviour.

If we don't believe Jesus...who told us before it happened what would happen, then we have no faith and the alternative to having no faith is to be trapped in the same ether that Jesus snatched the keys to....Oh, I could go on, but I'm afraid I would probably need sign-language.

No need. Just try finally to make an argument to explain why you think any of this to be true.

[NicholasMarks]

Sparky,

No need. Just try finally to make an argument to explain why you think any of this to be true.

Jesus Christ made the argument, I'm just supporting his teaching....Most of which is contained in my topic...The Electric/Spiritual Universe of Jesus Christ...but you don't like that either.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sparky,

Jesus Christ made the argument, I'm just supporting his teaching....Most of which is contained in my topic...The Electric/Spiritual Universe of Jesus Christ...but you don't like that either.

You do know that you are not Jesus Christ right? I ask only because, whenever you're asked why you hold the opinions you hold about Jesus/God/the Bible etc you scurry back to your defence of accusing people of disagreeing with Jesus/God/the Bible. Your opinions and conjectures are not though the same thing. 

[Spud]

So the story goes: how do you know this claim is actually true?

People do get very attached to their chosen causes.

Perhaps his followers wanted to promote the profile of Jesus. Propaganda does happen,  so I'd have though it would be important for Christians to exclude this risk before taking the NT claims as being historical fact: to date though it seems they haven't.

The issue here isn't that early Christian weren't sincere even in the face of persecution but whether what they were sincere about was actually true. Bearing in mind we are dealing with post-hoc anecdotal accounts of uncertain provenance where the sources could be biased it could be that some elements (say the empty tomb bit) might be fictional propaganda.

That this story is accepted by some/all Christians without them being able to exclude the risks of mistakes or lies just because it features in their preferred holy book smacks of being a fallacious argument from authority.

If it had been propaganda, the first thing Jesus'opponents would have done to disprove it would be to locate the body. The best they could come up with was a report to say the disciples had stolen the body from a sealed tomb under the noses of a company of Roman soldiers. This is very unlikely. Why were they so keen to make up a story? Perhaps Jesus had indeed been a well-known healer and miracle worker whose prominence was a threat to them?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So the story goes: how do you know this claim is actually true?

People do get very attached to their chosen causes.

Perhaps his followers wanted to promote the profile of Jesus. Propaganda does happen,  so I'd have though it would be important for Christians to exclude this risk before taking the NT claims as being historical fact: to date though it seems they haven't.

The issue here isn't that early Christian weren't sincere even in the face of persecution but whether what they were sincere about was actually true. Bearing in mind we are dealing with post-hoc anecdotal accounts of uncertain provenance where the sources could be biased it could be that some elements (say the empty tomb bit) might be fictional propaganda.

That this story is accepted by some/all Christians without them being able to exclude the risks of mistakes or lies just because it features in their preferred holy book smacks of being a fallacious argument from authority.

Sorry Gordon I took your suggestion that the witnesses to the resurrection were lying as the witness to the resurrection were lying.......how silly of me.

It doesn't quite fit with the obvious moral revolution brought in by Christianity after the ministry of Jesus though Gordon and the experience of post resurrection Christians fits with the resurrection experience that is why it has persisted with converts ever since.

[Nearly Sane]

Sorry Gordon I took your suggestion that the witnesses to the resurrection were lying as the witness to the resurrection were lying.......how silly of me.

It doesn't quite fit with the obvious moral revolution brought in by Christianity after the ministry of Jesus though Gordon and the experience of post resurrection Christians fits with the resurrection experience that is why it has persisted with converts ever since.

saying something is 'obvious' is worthless. Demonstrate the claim.

 And I note the begging the question contained in assumption of eye witness and resurrection

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Sorry Gordon I took your suggestion that the witnesses to the resurrection were lying as the witness to the resurrection were lying.......how silly of me.

All that would be necessary would be for the one person who said there 500 witnesses to by lying - or forgetting, or mis-remembering, or exaggerating, or assuming, or...

[Gordon]

If it had been propaganda, the first thing Jesus'opponents would have done to disprove it would be to locate the body. The best they could come up with was a report to say the disciples had stolen the body from a sealed tomb under the noses of a company of Roman soldiers. This is very unlikely. Why were they so keen to make up a story? Perhaps Jesus had indeed been a well-known healer and miracle worker whose prominence was a threat to them?

Were it not for the fact that if the resurrection story is indeed propaganda then its recording in what is now the NT occurred decades later. At the time the character referred to as Jesus was reported as having been executed it would have been a routine for the authorities who were involved since they would have been unaware that him not staying dead would become a claim.

If someone wanted to fabricate a resurrection tale to promote Jesus they'd presumably written something along the lines of the one in the NT: so in what way are the features in the NT tale distinguishable from fiction?

[Spud]

But the evidence from Matthew's account suggests that the authorities were aware even the day after the crucifixion that the disciples would claim he had risen.
Luke may have written decades after the eventts but he refers to accounts that had already been written.