Quoting Jesus

[floo]

The post was primarily an answer to the allegations of lies by the gospel authors. If you aren't happy with the answer, do say. If the answer is a statement of the obvious, why the continued allegations of lies then?
As for them being mistaken, do you think Solomon was right to assume that the first woman knew which was her baby?
Likewise, do you really think those present in AD 33 were mistaken in thinking Jesus was dead? And that he had appeared to them three days later? I smell a rat.

Either Jesus didn't die when he was crucified, which is unlikely, or he didn't come back to life again.

[Gordon]

The post was primarily an answer to the allegations of lies by the gospel authors. If you aren't happy with the answer, do say. If the answer is a statement of the obvious, why the continued allegations of lies then?
As for them being mistaken, do you think Solomon was right to assume that the first woman knew which was her baby?
Likewise, do you really think those present in AD 33 were mistaken in thinking Jesus was dead? And that he had appeared to them three days later? I smell a rat.

I smell the possibility of lies.

[Nearly Sane]

Either Jesus didn't die when he was crucified, which is unlikely, or he didn't come back to life again.

what if he was an alien with sufficiently advanced technology to allow him to do so?

[Rhiannon]

what if he was an alien with sufficiently advanced technology to allow him to do so?

Like Prince Charles is one of the lizard people you mean?

[Shaker]

The post was primarily an answer to the allegations of lies by the gospel authors. If you aren't happy with the answer, do say. If the answer is a statement of the obvious, why the allegations of lies in this thread?

An allegation is quite another thing than being unable to eliminate the possibility.

And nobody has eliminated it.

Likewise, do you really think those present in AD 33 were mistaken in thinking Jesus was dead? And that he had appeared to them three days later? I smell a rat.

I smell the argument from (in)credulity emanating from ancient people in a pre-scientific culture who didn't have the slightest means of distinguishing a death-mimicking state (of which there are many and various) from actual death.

[Nearly Sane]

Like Prince Charles is one of the lizard people you mean?

No, more the Arthur C Clarke idea that any sufficiently advanced alien species would appear to be using magic. Floo's post was one of those that Vlad would immediately say is a positive assertion and needs to be proved. Jesus could in theory have been deaded as many times as Kenny and still returned, fresh as yellow snow, every Sunday for the last 2000 years. It's not that we rule out such things it is that we have no reason to believe them.

[Nearly Sane]

Like Prince Charles is one of the lizard people you mean?

The Leavitt stuff is just bizarre. I can't see any point or benefit to saying it.

[Spud]

I smell the possibility of lies.

How do you account for the frequent admissions of the biblical authors' failings and weaknesses within their own writings; also Paul's statement that he persecuted Christians? You said earlier that that must have been how they wanted to portray themselves in the story. If you are correct, why did they not renounce their story when tortured?
The only other explanation I can think of is that they were insane. But I would expect an insane person to fight to prevent arrest.
As the earthworm said, "the problem is, there is no problem"!

[floo]

what if he was an alien with sufficiently advanced technology to allow him to do so?

Hmmmmmmmmm, unlikely and then some.

[Nearly Sane]

Hmmmmmmmmm, unlikely and then some.

Indeed but then many hugely unlikely things happen every second. The point is that if you state something did not happen then you take the burden of proof. I cannot rule out the possibility that Jesus didn't come back from the dead by whatever means I just have no reason to think that it did happen and that burden of proof remains with those making the claim.

[Nearly Sane]

How do you account for the frequent admissions of the biblical authors' failings and weaknesses within their own writings; also Paul's statement that he persecuted Christians? You said earlier that that must have been how they wanted to portray themselves in the story. If you are correct, why did they not renounce their story when tortured?
The only other explanation I can think of is that they were insane. But I would expect an insane person to fight to prevent arrest.
As the earthworm said, "the problem is, there is no problem"!

Just as a quick point, can you run me through your expertise on insanity and why your 'expectation' of what someone you have deemed insane is of worth?

[floo]

Indeed but then many hugely unlikely things happen every second. The point is that if you state something did not happen then you take the burden of proof. I cannot rule out the possibility that Jesus didn't come back from the dead by whatever means I just have no reason to think that it did happen and that burden of proof remains with those making the claim.

I suppose anything is possible, however unlikely. But unless there is positive proof the resurrection of Jesus of actually took place, the default position is disbelief, imo.

[Gordon]

How do you account for the frequent admissions of the biblical authors' failings and weaknesses within their own writings; also Paul's statement that he persecuted Christians? You said earlier that that must have been how they wanted to portray themselves in the story. If you are correct, why did they not renounce their story when tortured?
The only other explanation I can think of is that they were insane. But I would expect an insane person to fight to prevent arrest.
As the earthworm said, "the problem is, there is no problem"!

Spud

You are supporting anecdotal reports made by those with a vested interest that claim a miracle: given the culture of the time people were more credulous regarding religious superstitions and miracle claims. Therefore, there is a risk of propaganda: 'spin', if you will, and no doubt those persecuted may have genuinely believed in the divinity of Jesus.

I don't think they were insane: I suspect they were at best misguided and at worst misled. In any event 'insanity' implies mental illness, which I doubt you are qualified to diagnose (especially in relation to people who have been dead for around 2,000 years).

I think the risks of mistakes or lies regarding in the anecdotes about Jesus are such that the key element (he died and was resurrected) isn't a serious proposition.

[Spud]

Credulity among those converted can be dismissed. They included doctors, religious leaders, Roman officials and tax officers, ie people with brains.

[Rhiannon]

Do you mean 'credulity', Spud?

[floo]

Incredulity among those converted can be dismissed. They included doctors, religious leaders, Roman officials and tax officers, ie people with brains.

I agree, intelligent people will call into question the credibility of much of the Bible.

[Gordon]

Credulity among those converted can be dismissed. They included doctors, religious leaders, Roman officials and tax officers, ie people with brains.

So, Spud, do clever people never make mistakes or tell lies?

[Spud]

Do you mean 'credulity', Spud?

Yes, thanks...that can be my word for the day.

[Shaker]

Credulity among those converted can be dismissed. They included doctors, religious leaders, Roman officials and tax officers, ie people with brains.

A thinly-veiled form of the argument from authority - Kurt Gödel had more brains than a very large number of people put together yet starved himself to death because he (wrongly) believed that people were trying to poison him.*

And using religious leaders as an attempt to rebut the charge of credulity is about as delicious an example of clueless irony as I've seen in a long time.

* Not an example of the argument from authority, for the unwary, since Gödel's "authority" - his brilliance in mathematical logic - isn't being used to shore up an assertion.

[Gordon]

Yes, thanks...that can be my word for the day.

Brilliant irony there, Spud (even if unintentional).

[Spud]

So, Spud, do clever people never make mistakes or tell lies?

Fair point.
So on the credulity issue, we can still say that if the authors were credulous, then their sources were either dishonest, mistaken or insane. You have been given evidence based on human nature why each of these can be dismissed. As John says, blessed is he who has not seen but has believed. There is enough evidence from the disciples' testimony for someone to believe.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

So on the credulity issue, we can still say that if the authors were credulous, then their sources were either dishonest, mistaken or insane. You have been given evidence based on human nature why each of these can be dismissed. As John says, blessed is he who has not seen but has believed. There is enough evidence from the disciples' testimony for someone to believe.

Misdiagnosing clinical death would have had nothing to do with "human nature" and everything to do with the comparatively crude techniques and tools available at the time.

What reasoning or evidence do you have unequivocally to discount that possibility?

[Shaker]

Fair point.
So on the credulity issue, we can still say that if the authors were credulous, then their sources were either dishonest, mistaken or insane. You have been given evidence based on human nature why each of these can be dismissed.

What evidence where?

As John says, blessed is he who has not seen but has believed. There is enough evidence from the disciples' testimony for someone to believe.

If I didn't know any better I'd think that that was using the Bible to prove the Bible, i.e. the original circular argument.

You do realise that that's a no-no and a boo-boo, right?

Don't you?

[Gordon]

Fair point.
So on the credulity issue, we can still say that if the authors were credulous, then their sources were either dishonest, mistaken or insane.

Nope: their credulity could be due to their own misunderstanding, possibly due to the knowledge limitations of the times they lived in.

You have been given evidence based on human nature why each of these can be dismissed. As John says, blessed is he who has not seen but has believed. There is enough evidence from the disciples' testimony for someone to believe.

So there is, since you are an example: but assertions aren't evidence and both they and the sources influencing them could be wrong, incomplete or fictitious (in all or part) so that their belief is unjustified. John seems to have conveniently skipped these risks.

[floo]

Fair point.
So on the credulity issue, we can still say that if the authors were credulous, then their sources were either dishonest, mistaken or insane. You have been given evidence based on human nature why each of these can be dismissed. As John says, blessed is he who has not seen but has believed. There is enough evidence from the disciples' testimony for someone to believe.

You said it.