Quoting Jesus

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So Jesus, as portrayed in the first century by those behind the NT, would seem very different from the conventions of the time: could be a good/unique selling point don't you think?

In a background of strict monolithic monotheism, God having a son who was incarnated as a person, how would it have been a good selling point?

[Gordon]

In a background of strict monolithic monotheism, God having a son who was incarnated as a person, how would it have been a good selling point?

By being so very different from the convention, so much so he got killed for his trouble - but guess what he failed to stay dead!

I reckon this would make a good 'based on a true story' movie - where a dash of added fantasy might appeal to those impressed by that sort of thing. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Been away for a while.

Can someone tell me please whether Vlad ever got around to addressing his central problem of asserting as fact a resurrection on the basis of reportage from people who had no means of validating such a thing?

Thanks.

[Shaker]

Been away for a while.

Can someone tell me please whether Vlad ever got around to addressing his central problem of asserting as fact a resurrection on the basis of reportage from people who had no means of validating such a thing?

Thanks.

OK.

Sitting comfortably?

Cuppa and HobNob?

Right, I'll begin:

No.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Shakes,

OK.

Sitting comfortably?

Cuppa and HobNob?

Right, I'll begin:

No.

Dagnabbit!

Oh well, the tea and Hobnob was nice anyway so thanks for that.

I see too that he went badly off the rails on his materialism schtick again, presumably as yet another diversionary tactic. Oh well indeed eh? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Been away for a while.

Can someone tell me please whether Vlad ever got around to addressing his central problem of asserting as fact a resurrection on the basis of reportage from people who had no means of validating such a thing?

Thanks.

Two things here they would have had far more knowledge of death more widely distributed in the community today.
Apparently death is still misdiagnosed on occasion even now so in an absolute sense even we have no foolproof way of establishing death but as you're always saying, it's probably probabilistic.

Still, you have made a positive assertion here so I look forward to your justification.

[ProfessorDavey]

Apparently death is still misdiagnosed on occasion even now ...

And would have been much more commonly misdiagnosed 2,000 years ago given the much more limited medical knowledge.

Apply Occam's razor.

[Gordon]

Two things here they would have had far more knowledge of death more widely distributed in the community today.

More familiarity perhaps, but less knowledge.

Apparently death is still misdiagnosed on occasion even now so in an absolute sense even we have no foolproof way of establishing death but as you're always saying, it's probably probabilistic.

Errors today are unlikely: it would lead to medics being investigated, but when a corpse has been dead for three days there are unequivocal signs (e.g postmortem lividity).

Still, you have made a positive assertion here so I look forward to your justification.

I see you're still evading.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Two things here they would have had far more knowledge of death more widely distributed in the community today.

Experience of, but not knowledge about. Unless that is you think they had access to technology to assess vital signs like brain stem activity?

Apparently death is still misdiagnosed on occasion even now so in an absolute sense even we have no foolproof way of establishing death but as you're always saying, it's probably probabilistic.

Whether death is occasionally misdiagnosed today has no relevance to the significantly higher probability of it being misdiagnosed 2,000 years ago. 

Still, you have made a positive assertion here so I look forward to your justification.

No, you have – ie, that a resurrection happened. The burden of proof for that statement is all yours. All I have to do is to show that, for example, apparently fatal wounds are not always lethal – a trivially simple thing to do.

You never have understood how the burden of proof thing works though have you.

Anyways, how do you propose to show that such reportage as there is hasn’t come from people who were honestly mistaken given the limited data available to them? 

[floo]

More familiarity perhaps, but less knowledge.

Errors today are unlikely: it would lead to medics being investigated, but when a corpse has been dead for three days there are unequivocal signs (e.g postmortem lividity).

I see you're still evading.

Good point. My sister viewed my mother three days after her death; the post-mortem lividity was well advanced. She suggested that it was best if the relatives who were going over for the funeral, didn't view her body as it would have been an unpleasant shock. 2000 years ago I suspect preparation of corpses for burial, especially a crucified one, wouldn't have been as advanced as it is today.

[Spud]

Vlad,

Experience of, but not knowledge about. Unless that is you think they had access to technology to assess vital signs like brain stem activity?

Whether death is occasionally misdiagnosed today has no relevance to the significantly higher probability of it being misdiagnosed 2,000 years ago. 

No, you have – ie, that a resurrection happened. The burden of proof for that statement is all yours.

Solomon had a way to find out if someone was lying. See 1 Kings 3:16 onwards. We might be able to do the same with the Christians of the NT. We would expect a degree of self elevation of the disciples in the gospels or the epistle writers, on the contrary they speak of themselves as servants of the word (Luke 1:2)

All I have to do is to show that, for example, apparently fatal wounds are not always lethal – a trivially simple thing to do.
You never have understood how the burden of proof thing works though have you.

Anyways, how do you propose to show that such reportage as there is hasn’t come from people who were honestly mistaken given the limited data available to them?

Like you, Pilate expressed doubts that Jesus was really dead (Mark 15:45). Mark says Jesus' death was verified for Pilate by a Roman centurion.
Unlike the other gospels, Mark describes the body that was taken down as a corpse (Mark 15:43,45)
John reports a sudden flow of blood and water when side pierced by spear(John 19:34)

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

Solomon had a way to find out if someone was lying. See 1 Kings 3:16 onwards. We might be able to do the same with the Christians of the NT. We would expect a degree of self elevation of the disciples in the gospels or the epistle writers, on the contrary they speak of themselves as servants of the word (Luke 1:2)

So?

Like you, Pilate expressed doubts that Jesus was really dead (Mark 15:45). Mark says Jesus' death was verified for Pilate by a Roman centurion.
Unlike the other gospels, Mark describes the body that was taken down as a corpse (Mark 15:43,45)
John reports a sudden flow of blood and water when side pierced by spear(John 19:34)

Yes, but what makes you sure that they weren’t just sincerely mistaken about that, especially as we know now that death can be mistaken for deep coma for example?

[Gordon]

Solomon had a way to find out if someone was lying. See 1 Kings 3:16 onwards. We might be able to do the same with the Christians of the NT.

Not possible: they've all been dead these last 2,000 odd years.

We would expect a degree of self elevation of the disciples in the gospels or the epistle writers, on the contrary they speak of themselves as servants of the word (Luke 1:2)

Perhaps this is how they wanted to portray themselves - who can say since they've all been dead these last 2,000 odd years.

Like you, Pilate expressed doubts that Jesus was really dead (Mark 15:45). Mark says Jesus' death was verified for Pilate by a Roman centurion.

How do you know Mark wasn't wrong or was lying?

Unlike the other gospels, Mark describes the body that was taken down as a corpse (Mark 15:43,45)
John reports a sudden flow of blood and water when side pierced by spear(John 19:34)

How do you know Mark or John weren't wrong or were lying?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

More familiarity perhaps, but less knowledge.

Errors today are unlikely: it would lead to medics being investigated, but when a corpse has been dead for three days there are unequivocal signs (e.g postmortem lividity).

I see you're still evading.

Asking for positive assertion to be proved by the sounds called self styled "Evidence Guys" isn't evasion.
Everything that  can be said in support is out there Gordon. The objectors like your self etc are still only at the argument from in reducing special pleading and genetic fallacy  stage.

You are the evaders and since this is history you have  no entitlement to default.

By the wayear your assertion that they had no knowledge of death is a positive assertion. ........get cracking on  it.

[Gordon]

Asking for positive assertion to be proved by the sounds called self styled "Evidence Guys" isn't evasion.
Everything that  can be said in support is out there Gordon. The objectors like your self etc are still only at the argument from in reducing special pleading and genetic fallacy  stage.

Nonsense: I haven't made an assertion nor asked you to make one. I've just asked how you've assessed known risks associated with anecdotal accounts. Any chance of an answer?

You are the evaders and since this is history you have  no entitlement to default.

Wrong: the claim may be history, but the event being claimed isn't - find me an academic historian (not a theologian) who says Jesus being resurrected is a historical fact.

By the wayear your assertion that they had no knowledge of death is a positive assertion. ........get cracking on  it.

Straw-man: I observed that they had less knowledge than medical science today: do you dispute that?

[ProfessorDavey]

John reports a sudden flow of blood and water when side pierced by spear(John 19:34)

Which is rather puzzling and not consistent with postmortem injury.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy of the Non-fallacy Boy,

Asking for positive assertion to be proved by the sounds called self styled "Evidence Guys" isn't evasion.

What “positive assertion”? The only positive assertion here is yours – ie, that a resurrection occurred. All that’s happening in response is that some of us are asking for evidence to support that assertion given that various alternative explanations are possible.

Your evasion is in your relentless refusal to provide any, coupled with your diversionary tactics of irrelevance, false accusation, fallacious thinking etc.

The resurrection is your claim – the burden of proof is therefore yours.   

Everything that  can be said in support is out there Gordon.

Out where? If “everything that can be said in support” (of a resurrection presumably) has been said by you already, then it’s desperately thin stuff on which to rest your certainty.

The objectors like your self etc are still only at the argument from in reducing special pleading and genetic fallacy  stage.

Neither of which you understand. The objectors merely ask only how you would propose to eliminate the real world but less thrilling explanations that could have been. 

You are the evaders and since this is history you have  no entitlement to default.

Of course it isn’t history. Claims of a resurrection fall hugely short of the standards required for historicity. The default of a naturalistic explanation applies for the same reason it always applies – it’s the one most congruent with the way the universe observably works. Brainwashing stork theory for example isn’t necessarily wrong, but the “default” is that that’s not how babies arrive because the naturalistic alternative much better fits everything else we know about the universe.

By the wayear your assertion that they had no knowledge of death is a positive assertion. ........get cracking on  it.

Why do you think your lying again is helpful or acceptable? No-one said that they “had no knowledge of death” at all. What was actually said was that they had much less knowledge of diagnosing death because the methods and tools they had were very crude compared with those available today.

If you really want to claim certainty for your speculation then you have all your work ahead of you still to explain how you’d eliminate even the possibility of, for example, deep coma that would have been undiagnosable at the time.

Good luck with it though. 

[Dicky Underpants]

If it isn't him then he has a double.

Well, Sassy has also encountered Jesus, and known him since childhood - yet her Jesus and beliefs are considerably different from yours. Funny that.
Some time back on this forum and the Beeb there was a bloke called Freeminer who also insisted that he had met and known Jesus, and that moreover he was one of the "Elect". Since he was a rabid fundamentalist, I'm sure his Jesus was very different from yours. Funny that.
The same could be said of the beliefs of multitudes of people claiming to have "met Jesus", yet cannot agree on what his teaching meant or the significance of "salvation".

The problem goes back to the sources, and though the matter has been raised many times, there is no evidence that you have even begun to grasp the nettle in question.
The Jesus of the Synoptics is different from that of John. The Jesus of Paul differs from all of these. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews has a different theology from that of Paul or the gospels. The Epistle of James (who according to Paul was Jesus' brother, so certainly ought to have known him) preaches salvation by works, not faith, which is the essence of Paul's teaching. The Pastoral Epistles were written at a much later date than any of the foregoing, so their veracity into the nature of Christ's teaching is very suspect, especially in their attitude to women in some instances.
Then there is the fire-breathing monster of the Book of Revelation - is this perhaps the Jesus you claim to have met, and whom you suspect 'has no double'?

So I certainly am very suspicious of your claims to have met "the real Jesus", and your patent ignorance of the historical method or what constitutes historical evidence do not suggest that you can reliably back up your claims. Let alone your woeful lack of phenomenological understanding. I don't doubt your religious conversion healed some psychological alienation in your younger sceptical self, but there are probably better explanations for that than the one you cling to.

[Spud]

Not possible: they've all been dead these last 2,000 odd years.

Perhaps this is how they wanted to portray themselves - who can say since they've all been dead these last 2,000 odd years.

How do you know Mark wasn't wrong or was lying?

How do you know Mark or John weren't wrong or were lying?

Try this:

"In general, the frequent admissions of biblical authors' failings and weaknesses within their own writings assert the characteristics of honesty, humility, and repentance.

...

Were there motives on the part of the authors to lie; in particular, those who were witnesses to Jesus' resurrection?

It is unlikely in the extreme that multiple persons, isolated from one another, would each suffer torture and death for maintaining the same story if they were not completely convinced of its truth."

http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Verac/C-0301.htm

[Shaker]

Grateful as we no doubt are for the statement of the obvious, I do hope that you're not conflating conviction of the truth of X with X actually being true.

Because that would be an incredibly silly mistake to make.

[floo]

Try this:

"In general, the frequent admissions of biblical authors' failings and weaknesses within their own writings assert the characteristics of honesty, humility, and repentance.

...

Were there motives on the part of the authors to lie; in particular, those who were witnesses to Jesus' resurrection?

It is unlikely in the extreme that multiple persons, isolated from one another, would each suffer torture and death for maintaining the same story if they were not completely convinced of its truth."

http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Verac/C-0301.htm

Like Islamic suicide bombers, for instance?

[ProfessorDavey]

Try this:

"In general, the frequent admissions of biblical authors' failings and weaknesses within their own writings assert the characteristics of honesty, humility, and repentance.

...

Were there motives on the part of the authors to lie; in particular, those who were witnesses to Jesus' resurrection?

It is unlikely in the extreme that multiple persons, isolated from one another, would each suffer torture and death for maintaining the same story if they were not completely convinced of its truth."

http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Verac/C-0301.htm

People believing something is true, however passionately, does not mean it actually is true.

You do understand that, don't you.

[Gordon]

Try this:

"In general, the frequent admissions of biblical authors' failings and weaknesses within their own writings assert the characteristics of honesty, humility, and repentance.

...

Were there motives on the part of the authors to lie; in particular, those who were witnesses to Jesus' resurrection?

It is unlikely in the extreme that multiple persons, isolated from one another, would each suffer torture and death for maintaining the same story if they were not completely convinced of its truth."

http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Verac/C-0301.htm

Spud

Do you ever read other than Christian apologetics, of which your link is another example of? The headings of section involve the fallacy of reification, before becoming a fallacy-fest.

'3.1 Introduction.
3.2 The nature of God's Word.
3.3 The authority of God's Word.
3.4 The eternality of God's Word.' 

The above introduction indicates that we can easily dismiss this site as being reliable history.

It is relatively easy to believe that an omnipotent Creator God can possess authority over whatever or whomever he desires. It is another matter to conclude that some printed material found in a church, bookstore, or the internet conveys that same Creator's authority. That, however, is exactly how Scripture presents itself to be received.

The books and letters of the Bible have been handed down to us in substantially the identical form as spoken by God to and through his prophets. So the relevant questions at this point are

Are those writings really characteristic of their originator,
Do they include commands that God expects to be followed, and
Do they still apply to us today?

Basically, if they look like God, sound like God, are endorsed by God, and have not been revoked by God, then we positively are to live under their authority. We will see that this is exactly the case as we sequentially examine: the nature of God's words, the authority of God's words, and the eternality of God's words.

As for some Christians suffering for their faith, we've knocked this on the head before - that they did may say something about them but it says nothing about the truth of their beliefs.

[floo]

People believing something is true, however passionately, does not mean it actually is true.

You do understand that, don't you.

Sadly a lot of people don't get that.

[Spud]

Grateful as we no doubt are for the statement of the obvious, I do hope that you're not conflating conviction of the truth of X with X actually being true.

Because that would be an incredibly silly mistake to make.

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?
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.