My Kingdom is Not of This World

[Shaker]

What would be the motivation for lying for those who witnessed the miracle of the sun in 1917?
Do you believe that event actually happened as described by the witnesses in the crowd of 30,000?

And if it did, why nobody elsewhere (including the world's astronomers etc.) notice it?

[Nearly Sane]

And if it did, why nobody elsewhere (including the world's astronomers etc.) notice it?

Presumably magic. It was a special sun performance for those there with a god moving it for them but no one else and nullifying the whole gravity thing, because it could.

[floo]

And if it did, why nobody elsewhere (including the world's astronomers etc.) notice it?

Very strange indeed.

[jeremyp]

Yes it COULD be as you say although the probability decreases with each.
I believe that the people on the ground did a bit of checking up.

What evidence do you have for substantiating that belief?

Of the 500 we don't know who were disciples and who, at the end of everything did not convert but who could not lie about their experience.

The 500 was a number that St Paul very likely pulled out of his arse.

There has to be more behind it though and that is the encounter with the risen and ascended Christ which would confirm to disciples the truth of their experience and for those of us without participation in the historical resurrection we find we cannot finally dismiss this as just sincere belief so we can join with the easter proclamation 'He is Risen, He is risen indeed'.

The big problem is that dead people don't come alive again. You need more than stories and unsubstantiated assertions that people in the stories wouldn't lie.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What evidence do you have for substantiating that belief?The 500 was a number that St Paul very likely pulled out of his arse.
The big problem is that dead people don't come alive again.

Really, then it's a blooming miracle. You either believe it or you don't I suppose.
I believe it because it is consistent with my experience and because the idea of telling God what he can and can do has become, for me, slightly amusing.

[Shaker]

You either believe it or you don't I suppose.

It took ten pages to get to that?

I believe it because it is consistent with my experience

What is your experience of/with reanimated corpses?

[Spud]

I see your 'Millions of people can't be wrong' and raise you a 'the global homeopathy market in 2016 was estimated to be over $2 billion'.

As a health and safety professional I can attest to the rule 'Always count on human stupidity'.

O.

I'll stick on my 'thousands (fify- I'm talking about the people who witnessed Jesus's miracles) of people can't be wrong' and I think that might beat homeopathy market stats, although you never know.

[Spud]

What would be the motivation for lying for those who witnessed the miracle of the sun in 1917?
Do you believe that event actually happened as described by the witnesses in the crowd of 30,000?

What was the motivation for moving the sun anyway? What would be the point?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It took ten pages to get to that?What is your experience of/with reanimated corpses?

Several years of critiquing antitheist Zombie arguments.

[Sebastian Toe]

What was the motivation for moving the sun anyway? What would be the point?

I dunno. Do you?

[Gordon]

I'll stick on my 'thousands (fify- I'm talking about the people who witnessed Jesus's miracles) of people can't be wrong'

That may be what the stories say, Spud, but how have you excluded the risk that these are nothing more than tales made-up by Jesus fans way back then in order to promote his reputation (as someone divine) for consumption by the highly credulous.

In short: there is a risk that many claims about Jesus, and especially the outlandish ones, are propaganda - but it seems you guys don't want to even consider that possibility.

[Gordon]

What was the motivation for moving the sun anyway? What would be the point?

To induce mass hysteria among the credulous faithful?

Oh wait - the Sun doesn't have to actually move for a hysterical crowd of the credulous faithful gathered at the site of a claimed miraculous appearance of 'Mary' in the expectation of another miracle would happen, as predicted by the children who claimed to have seen 'Mary, to convince themselves the Sun 'danced'. 

[floo]

I'll stick on my 'thousands (fify- I'm talking about the people who witnessed Jesus's miracles) of people can't be wrong' and I think that might beat homeopathy market stats, although you never know.

Of course people can be wrong, people can be extremely gullible. Some people claim the so called 'healings' performed by that shyster Benny Hinn are genuine. I believe even an amputated leg was supposed to have grown back, like as if!

[Outrider]

I'll stick on my 'thousands (fify- I'm talking about the people who witnessed Jesus's miracles) of people can't be wrong' and I think that might beat homeopathy market stats, although you never know.

Except that:
a) we know that eye-witness accounts not only can be wrong, but very often are;
b) very few, if any, of the accounts we have are directly from eye-witnesses, they are at least second hand, if not further removed;
c) those accounts were all written a considerable period after the alleged events, when time has also had a deleterious effect on the accuracy of memory; and
d) those accounts have subsequently been deliberately edited and selectively interpreted through multiple languages into cultural realms without the underlying concepts of the original.

So we have no way to know if those thousands of people are right or wrong, or even existed.

O.

[Spud]

Except that:
a) we know that eye-witness accounts not only can be wrong, but very often are;

So we assume they were wrong then? Just to recap, we are talking about people who had known a blind beggar for years before his sight was restored, and other similar eyewitnesses of miracles.

b) very few, if any, of the accounts we have are directly from eye-witnesses, they are at least second hand, if not further removed;

Again, should we assume they were wrong because some of them (eg. Luke) hadn't met Jesus?

c) those accounts were all written a considerable period after the alleged events, when time has also had a deleterious effect on the accuracy of memory; and

Is that not an assumption based on the AD 70 prophecy?

d) those accounts have subsequently been deliberately edited and selectively interpreted through multiple languages into cultural realms without the underlying concepts of the original.

Which underlying concepts? The gospels were written for different cultures: some contain translations to assist the reader, for example; why would that be a problem?

So we have no way to know if those thousands of people are right or wrong, or even existed.

O.

You can put them to the test, and ask God to reveal himself.

[Shaker]

So we assume they were wrong then?

We recognise it as a distinct possibility, based on abundant evidence of the kind that Outsider and if memory serves Gordon have outlined.

Just to recap, we are talking about people who had known a blind beggar for years before his sight was restored, and other similar eyewitnesses of miracles.

Just to say that this is a splendid example of the begging the question fallacy - assuming the prior truth of something yet to be demonstrated. A logical no-no.

[Gordon]

So we assume they were wrong then?

No, but we have to address the risk that they could be wrong (or they could be lying) - have you done this?

Just to recap, we are talking about people who had known a blind beggar for years before his sight was restored, and other similar eyewitnesses of miracles.

How do you know this isn't just propaganda for Jesus (especially the miracle elements)? 

Again, should we assume they were wrong because some of them (eg. Luke) hadn't met Jesus? Is that not an assumption based on the AD 70 prophecy?

We don't assume they were wrong: at least I don't, but without some basis to assess the risks of mistakes and lies it would be foolish to assume these anecdotal accounts are correct.

The gospels were written for different cultures: some contain translations to assist the reader, for example; why would that be a problem?

Because human artifice is always a factor when it comes to people.

You can put them to the test, and ask God to reveal himself.

Just did - zilch was the result.

[floo]

So we assume they were wrong then? Just to recap, we are talking about people who had known a blind beggar for years before his sight was restored, and other similar eyewitnesses of miracles.Again, should we assume they were wrong because some of them (eg. Luke) hadn't met Jesus? Is that not an assumption based on the AD 70 prophecy?Which underlying concepts? The gospels were written for different cultures: some contain translations to assist the reader, for example; why would that be a problem?You can put them to the test, and ask God to reveal himself.

I did as a child when I needed it, but it didn't bother to give me any sign it exists, that says it all.

[jeremyp]

So we assume they were wrong then?

If we are talking about a dead man coming alive again, of course we do. If somebody came up to you and said he had lunch with Elvis Presley, you would certainly assume they were wrong. Why are you giving a free pass to people who say the saw Jesus resurrected?

Just to recap, we are talking about people who had known a blind beggar for years before his sight was restored, and other similar eyewitnesses of miracles.

No, we are talking about stories of people who had known a blind beggar for years before his sight was restored, and other similar eyewitnesses of miracles.

You can put them to the test, and ask God to reveal himself.

Did that. God was a no show. Conclusion, he doesn't exist.

[Spud]

If we are talking about a dead man coming alive again, of course we do.

Okay, so we assume they were wrong. But can we leave it there? The claim has been made - how have you addressed the possibility that they might have been right?

[jeremyp]

Okay, so we assume they were wrong. But can we leave it there? The claim has been made - how have you addressed the possibility that they might have been right?

By observing that dead people do not come alive again and therefore the evidence needs to be very strong.

By analysing the stories that we have and finding that they were written anonymously (except Paul), decades after the alleged fact.

By observing that, of the sources, the stories in Mark were added centuries later, the stories in Matthew, Luke and John are are all different and therefore cannot be used to support each other, and the story in Paul consists of nothing more than assertion that unnamed people saw Jesus, except Paul himself who seems to have had a hallucination.

The evidence is nowhere near good enough to seriously consider the possibility that Jesus really was resurrected.

[Sebastian Toe]

You can put them to the test, and ask God to reveal himself.

Done that. No show. Now what?

(WFCRAE)

[floo]

Done that. No show. Now what?

(WFCRAE)

We obviously didn't get god's e-mail address right.

[Gordon]

Okay, so we assume they were wrong. But can we leave it there? The claim has been made - how have you addressed the possibility that they might have been right?

Don't need to: the burden is theirs.

In the absence of any good reasons to think they may be correct, taking into account the nature of the claim and also considering that they seem to have done no due dligence in respect of the risks of mistakes or lies, then we can dismiss the resurrection of Jesus claim as being unfounded - since there are no good reasons to think it a serious proposition.

[Sebastian Toe]

What was the motivation for moving the sun anyway? What would be the point?

Okay, so we assume they were wrong. But can we leave it there? The claim has been made - how have you addressed the possibility that they might have been right?