Tomb of Jesus being opened.

[Hope]

Which presumes that these aspects of the NT story are historical facts: perhaps then you can answer the question that I've asked the likes of Hope numerous times with nary a reply: how have you assessed the risks of mistakes or lies in the NT accounts you seem to be presenting as historical fact?

'nary a reply' suggests that you have ignored those replies - not only from me but from 'the likes of me', Gordon.  I know that Jim as posted several very staright-forward responses to such challenges over the years, I have done so too.  I think, put simply, one has to consider the likelihood of some of the other possibilities - such as the suggestion that the disciples took the guards on the tomb by surprise and spirited the body away - and decide whether they are any more credible than the story it replaces. 

In this particular case, is it likely that a small group of odinary people - as the disciples were - would have been able to overcome a group of Roman soldiers who would have been given instructions to guard against this very possibility (remember that, because he had been crucified, Jesus and his followers would have been deemed a serious threat for some time after the crucifixion).  Not only would they have had to overcome the guards, but they would have had to do so in such a way as to ensure that not a single one was in a position to stop them opening the tomb.  My experience of trained military suggests that such an event would have been pretty well nil.

Next, the suggestion that Jesus only swooned and revived in the cool of the tomb.  The very fact that there was a spear thrust that gave evidence that the blood had already begun to separate would seem to suggest that this, too, was highly unlikely.

What about the 3rd alternative often posed - that Jesus lived and had a family.  This would require one or both of the the above to have been true and, as I've already pointed out, the probability for either is so small as to make this option even smaller.

[Nearly Sane]

Dearie me, Hope, begging the question at this time in the morning by assuming a number of facts that you are being asked to justify.  The fallacy bingo started already

[Hope]

The answer is so simple that even Vlad and Hope, if they had the elevated levels of intelligence that they claim, they would be able to see this, but as both you and I and millions and millions of others well know - there are none so blind s those who will not see.

And they will remain blind as they are determined not to see,

And exactly the same 'charge' could be laid at your feet, Owl.  The fact that you (and jeremyp in another part of the debate) can't see that, points to a flawed critical judgement.  As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, several Christians here have, over the years, laid out rational and logical arguments for their faith.  Rarel, if ever, has anyone on your side of the debate been able to counter those arguments in any rational or logical way; instead they have relied on cheap jibes such as your 'elevated levels of intelligence that they claim' comment above (I doubt anyone here claims to have any level of intelligence 'elevated' above those of other posters).

[Hope]

Dearie me, Hop, begging the question at this time in the morning bupy assduming a number of facts that you are being asked to justify.  The fallacy bingo started already

Pardon NS?  What 'number of facts' am I assuming?  All I have done is take 3 of the more common alternatives to the Gospel explanations and pointed out the level of unlikelihood of their being valid.  Am I not allowed to assume that they are 3 of the more common alternatives?

[Nearly Sane]

And exactly the same 'charge' could be laid at your feet, Owl.  The fact that you (and jeremyp in another part of the debate) can't see that, points to a flawed critical judgement.  As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, several Christians here have, over the years, laid out rational and logical arguments for their faith.  Rarel, if ever, has anyone on your side of the debate been able to counter those arguments in any rational or logical way; instead they have relied on cheap jibes such as your 'elevated levels of intelligence that they claim' comment above (I doubt anyone here claims to have any level of intelligence 'elevated' above those of other posters).

So given owlswing's reply was to me pointing out Vlad was lying about me being a philosophical materialist, are you happy to agree that in the case of Vlad lying, is not one of these rational arguments you are stating have not been countered?

[Nearly Sane]

Pardon NS?  What 'number of facts' am I assuming?  All I have done is take 3 of the more common alternatives to the Gospel explanations and pointed out the level of unlikelihood of their being valid.  Am I not allowed to assume that they are 3 of the more common alternatives?

You are assuming Jesus existed, was crucified, was seen as a series threat (by the way were the bodies of the robbers also guarded?), that he was stabbed by a sword, that the blood had started to separate.

[Gordon]

'nary a reply' suggests that you have ignored those replies - not only from me but from 'the likes of me', Gordon.

You have studiously avoided replying: so feel free to do so now.

I know that Jim as posted several very staright-forward responses to such challenges over the years, I have done so too.

I've noted you citing Jim as support but I think I'll await a response from Jim confirming he has made the arguments you claim for him: I'm not convinced you aren't taking Jim's name in vain. You haven't posted anything of the sort - your answers are, you've often said, conveniently held somewhere else so perhaps you could rectify that and post them here. 

I think, put simply, one has to consider the likelihood of some of the other possibilities - such as the suggestion that the disciples took the guards on the tomb by surprise and spirited the body away - and decide whether they are any more credible than the story it replaces. 

In this particular case, is it likely that a small group of odinary people - as the disciples were - would have been able to overcome a group of Roman soldiers who would have been given instructions to guard against this very possibility (remember that, because he had been crucified, Jesus and his followers would have been deemed a serious threat for some time after the crucifixion).  Not only would they have had to overcome the guards, but they would have had to do so in such a way as to ensure that not a single one was in a position to stop them opening the tomb.  My experience of trained military suggests that such an event would have been pretty well nil.

Next, the suggestion that Jesus only swooned and revived in the cool of the tomb.  The very fact that there was a spear thrust that gave evidence that the blood had already begun to separate would seem to suggest that this, too, was highly unlikely.

What about the 3rd alternative often posed - that Jesus lived and had a family.  This would require one or both of the the above to have been true and, as I've already pointed out, the probability for either is so small as to make this option even smaller.

These are claims in anecdotal accounts, Hope yet you are naively treating them as historical facts since you haven't said on what basis you've eliminated the risk of mistake or lies, since unless you have then the claims in the accounts you cite are indistinguishable from fiction.

[Hope]

So given owlswing's reply was to me pointing out Vlad was lying about me being a philosophical materialist, are you happy to agree that in the case of Vlad lying, is not one of these rational arguments you are stating have not been countered?

Yet Owl widens the point beyond merely Vlad; he said 'As Christians they do not see it as lying! They cannot see that their "truth" is anything but "truth" - it a matter of faith not fact. Otherwise why would it be called the Christian faith, why do they espose Christian belief?', which indicates that he was referring to every argument that Christians put forward.

The fact that faith can often be shown to be truth seems to pass him by.  I catch the train to Cardiff most week days and aim to catch the 07:10 or 07:25 train; those are the timetabled timings).  If I leave home a tad late I have faith that either will be a minute or two late because my experience over the last 7 months is that 95% of the time, they are.  In fact, I have only known the 07:10 to be on time once in that time (and I can hear it from home even if I'm not trying to catch it), and the 07:25 has only been on time 3 or 4 times.

Note, I'm not using the rail operators' definition of 'on time' here - within a couple of minutes of the advertised time!!

[Hope]

You have studiously avoided replying: so feel free to do so now.

I won't state a categorical number of times, but I have used the examples I gave in the post several times before.  Perhaps you hadn't noticed those posts?

[Nearly Sane]

Yet Owl widens the point beyond merely Vlad; he said 'As Christians they do not see it as lying! They cannot see that their "truth" is anything but "truth" - it a matter of faith not fact. Otherwise why would it be called the Christian faith, why do they espose Christian belief?', which indicates that he was referring to every argument that Christians put forward.

The fact that faith can often be shown to be truth seems to pass him by.  I catch the train to Cardiff most week days and aim to catch the 07:10 or 07:25 train; those are the timetabled timings).  If I leave home a tad late I have faith that either will be a minute or two late because my experience over the last 7 months is that 95% of the time, they are.  In fact, I have only known the 07:10 to be on time once in that time (and I can hear it from home even if I'm not trying to catch it), and the 07:25 has only been on time 3 or 4 times.

Note, I'm not using the rail operators' definition of 'on time' here - within a couple of minutes of the advertised time!!

I asked a specific question, could you answer it

are you happy to agree that in the case of Vlad lying, is not one of these rational arguments you are stating have not been countered?

[Hope]

These are claims in anecdotal accounts, ...

Are they?  Do you have any evidence for that claim?  After all, they have been proposed often enough by posters on this board without any come-back from the likes of your good self.

[Nearly Sane]

Are they?  Do you have any evidence for that claim?  After all, they have been proposed often enough by posters on this board without any come-back from the likes of your good self.

shifting the burden of proof - house!

[Gordon]

I won't state a categorical number of times, but I have used the examples I gave in the post several times before.  Perhaps you hadn't noticed those posts?

Unlikely Hope, since for other reasons I've been paying close attention to what goes on here for quite some time now.

You could easily resolve this constant thorn in all our sides by posting a summary of the arguments you say you've regularly used in a separate thread: that would surely resolve the issue.

[Walter]

The fact that faith can often be shown to be truth seems to pass him by.  I catch the train to Cardiff most week days and aim to catch the 07:10 or 07:25 train; those are the timetabled timings).  If I leave home a tad late I have faith that either will be a minute or two late because my experience over the last 7 months is that 95% of the time, they are.  In fact, I have only known the 07:10 to be on time once in that time (and I can hear it from home even if I'm not trying to catch it), and the 07:25 has only been on time 3 or 4 times.

Note, I'm not using the rail operators' definition of 'on time' here - within a couple of minutes of the advertised time!!

[Walter]

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING, SURELY

[jjohnjil]

'nary a reply' suggests that you have ignored those replies - not only from me but from 'the likes of me', Gordon.  I know that Jim as posted several very staright-forward responses to such challenges over the years, I have done so too.  I think, put simply, one has to consider the likelihood of some of the other possibilities - such as the suggestion that the disciples took the guards on the tomb by surprise and spirited the body away - and decide whether they are any more credible than the story it replaces. 

In this particular case, is it likely that a small group of odinary people - as the disciples were - would have been able to overcome a group of Roman soldiers who would have been given instructions to guard against this very possibility (remember that, because he had been crucified, Jesus and his followers would have been deemed a serious threat for some time after the crucifixion).  Not only would they have had to overcome the guards, but they would have had to do so in such a way as to ensure that not a single one was in a position to stop them opening the tomb.  My experience of trained military suggests that such an event would have been pretty well nil.

Next, the suggestion that Jesus only swooned and revived in the cool of the tomb.  The very fact that there was a spear thrust that gave evidence that the blood had already begun to separate would seem to suggest that this, too, was highly unlikely.

What about the 3rd alternative often posed - that Jesus lived and had a family.  This would require one or both of the the above to have been true and, as I've already pointed out, the probability for either is so small as to make this option even smaller.

Even for you, Hope, this post is a screamer!

Why were there a 'group of Roman soldiers' guarding a tomb of one minor dead rebel?  Even if there were two, soldiers - which is unlikely for a job like that - they could easily have dozed off, gone for a cuppa, played cards.  And yet you think that a band of disciples couldn't possibly have outsmarted them ... and a much more likely scenario is that a dead man came back to life!  Get real, please Hope!

Your experience of trained military personnel is a lot different from mine!

[Aruntraveller]

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING, SURELY

No - I'll think you find he isn't.

The probability of catching a train based on experience of it's lateness or otherwise is a perfectly reasonable argument in favour of proving faith in a deity. Obviously.

[Walter]

The probability of catching a train based on experience of it's lateness or otherwise is a perfectly reasonable argument in favour of proving faith in a deity. Obviously.

why did I not see that? doh!

btw Trent do you live on the river?

[Gordon]

Are they?  Do you have any evidence for that claim?  After all, they have been proposed often enough by posters on this board without any come-back from the likes of your good self.

Good heavens Hope, leaving aside your shifting the burden tactics, they are post-hoc accounts of uncertain provenance dating from antiquity and I'd say I've raised this regularly: in fact, if you read through my posts I think you'll find I've repeatedly asked you how you've assessed the risks of mistake and lies in the NT accounts and noted that without such an assessment these accounts, that you portray as historical fact, are indistinguishable from fiction.

For instance, you recently said:

In this particular case, is it likely that a small group of odinary people - as the disciples were - would have been able to overcome a group of Roman soldiers who would have been given instructions to guard against this very possibility (remember that, because he had been crucified, Jesus and his followers would have been deemed a serious threat for some time after the crucifixion).  Not only would they have had to overcome the guards, but they would have had to do so in such a way as to ensure that not a single one was in a position to stop them opening the tomb.  My experience of trained military suggests that such an event would have been pretty well nil. 

So, it seems here your justification of the 'empty tomb' element of the story hangs on Jesus being executed representing an immediate 'serious threat' to the authorities at that time which you illustrate by saying it is unlikely that a group of civilians could overcome a bunch of armed Roman guards guarding a tomb. The problem is, in addition to assuming the 'serious threat' scenario, is that these claims appear in later accounts of uncertain provenance of those promoting the status of Jesus. So, and in line with accounts in general, it is important that the known risks of bias and propaganda are assessed - you seem to have avoided addressing this risk.

[Walter]

Good heavens Hope, leaving aside your shifting the burden tactics, they are post-hoc accounts of uncertain provenance
So, it seems here your justification of the 'empty tomb' element of the story hangs on Jesus being executed representing an immediate 'serious threat' to the authorities at that time which you illustrate by saying it is unlikely that a group of civilians could overcome a bunch of armed Roman guards guarding a tomb. The problem is, in addition to assuming the 'serious threat' scenario, is that these claims appear in later accounts of uncertain provenance of those promoting the status of Jesus. So, and in line with accounts in general, it is important that the known risks of bias and propaganda are assessed - you seem to have avoided addressing this risk.

Gordon
I think you are too generous in allowing this kind of detail to be discussed in the first place.
I requires proof that any of it happened at all .
That can be submitted on anther thread.

[floo]

'nary a reply' suggests that you have ignored those replies - not only from me but from 'the likes of me', Gordon.  I know that Jim as posted several very staright-forward responses to such challenges over the years, I have done so too.  I think, put simply, one has to consider the likelihood of some of the other possibilities - such as the suggestion that the disciples took the guards on the tomb by surprise and spirited the body away - and decide whether they are any more credible than the story it replaces. 

In this particular case, is it likely that a small group of odinary people - as the disciples were - would have been able to overcome a group of Roman soldiers who would have been given instructions to guard against this very possibility (remember that, because he had been crucified, Jesus and his followers would have been deemed a serious threat for some time after the crucifixion).  Not only would they have had to overcome the guards, but they would have had to do so in such a way as to ensure that not a single one was in a position to stop them opening the tomb.  My experience of trained military suggests that such an event would have been pretty well nil.

Next, the suggestion that Jesus only swooned and revived in the cool of the tomb.  The very fact that there was a spear thrust that gave evidence that the blood had already begun to separate would seem to suggest that this, too, was highly unlikely.

What about the 3rd alternative often posed - that Jesus lived and had a family.  This would require one or both of the the above to have been true and, as I've already pointed out, the probability for either is so small as to make this option even smaller.

The real story is much more likely Jesus didn't pop up alive three days later, and once dead stayed dead. The resurrection story is almost certainly a work of fiction. 

[Walter]

The real story is much more likely Jesus didn't pop up alive three days later, and once dead stayed dead. The resurrection story is almost certainly a work of fiction.

I would remove the word 'almost' from that sentence, Floo.

[Brownie]

Does it matter to you what others believe?  We're living in the 21stC and nobody in this country is going to force their beliefs on you or make you feel bad if you don't agree with them.  We are all free to choose what we believe.

[Aruntraveller]

why did I not see that? doh!

btw Trent do you live on the river?

I live in Nottingham - used to be able to see the river from my bedroom in the old house but we moved from there many moons ago - we are now on higher ground to avoid the oncoming deluge.

[Walter]

I live in Nottingham - used to be able to see the river from my bedroom in the old house but we moved from there many moons ago - we are now on higher ground to avoid the oncoming deluge.

and it will come, its already started.