More on the gospels.

[Spud]

Eye witness evidence is the worst evidence you can have .

Do you believe the eye witness testimonies for Sathya sai baba?

If not why not as you could speak to these eye witnesses today.

No, because from what I've read about them they are either healings that are not miracles in the supernatural sense (eg back pain being cured in a few seconds which happens sometimes) or gold rings appearing in his hand and being given away, which most magicians can do, especially magicians worth 5 billion.

[jeremyp]

No, because you don't actually see the person being sawn in half. John and the women saw Jesus being crucified, then saw him alive and touched him a few days later.

Nobody saw Jesus get resurrected.

[Gordon]

No, because you don't actually see the person being sawn in half. John and the women saw Jesus being crucified, then saw him alive and touched him a few days later.

So the story goes, Spud: do you think there is any possibility that this is propaganda for Jesus?

People tell lies and get things wrong you know, so would you agree that anyone accepting the details of the Jesus resurrection story, and who seeks to convince others or contend that the story is true, rather than keeping their views on it private, should consider it important to assess these risks?

[BeRational]

No, because from what I've read about them they are either healings that are not miracles in the supernatural sense (eg back pain being cured in a few seconds which happens sometimes) or gold rings appearing in his hand and being given away, which most magicians can do, especially magicians worth 5 billion.

So why do the eye witnesses not think like you do.

You have no idea about the claimed miracles performed by Jesus, as they are just claims. There are no eye witnesses, and they could have been just as deceived.

Why do you only believe the claims that match your bias?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

No, because you don't actually see the person being sawn in half. John and the women saw Jesus being crucified, then saw him alive and touched him a few days later.

But I did see the woman sawn in half – honest injun! She was right there in front of me, then she was put in a box and sawn in two, then – and get this! – the chap behind her actually wheeled the boxes apart! Next thing I knew, the boxes were pushed together and out she jumped! See? I saw it with my own eyes so there you go then – a genuine, 24 carat miracle right?

Assume for now that I’m 100% honest. Can you see the problem here? No matter how honest I am, the explanatory story I told myself about what I’d seen was very different from what I’d actually seen – or, more accurately, to what I’d not been allowed to see.

Have you noticed that when conjurors do tricks there’s often an elaborate set-up, then just for a bit a curtain is pulled around them, then the curtain’s dropped, et voilŕ – the big reveal as miraculously they're out of the box!

Now have a think about the resurrection “miracle”. Someone bedraggled and covered in blood who appeared to be Jesus was crucified and appeared to be dead. Then he disappeared for three days (that’s the curtain bit), after which someone who appeared to be Jesus was seen walking around again. It’s the classic model for a conjuror – the big set-up, the hiding from the audience, the big reveal. Add a (completely honest) witness who’s account was (much later) written down and it’s job done. 

Now just for fun, let’s say that I was a real man/god and I wanted to show that I could be dead for a bit then alive again. Easy right – just have, say, my head chopped off then handed to me then I’d re-attach it. Not much room for error or deception there right? Or, if I wanted to be a bit less showy-offy about it maybe just have a leg chopped off then grow it back in front of people’s eyes. Shouldn’t be hard for someone who could do the “dead then alive again” number right?

But no, that’s not what he did at all. What he actually seems to have done was the classic conjuror’s trope – “watch this, watch this, watch this”/disappear for a bit/”ta-daaaa!” – and there it was. Seems a strange modus operandi don’t you think for someone who wanted to persuade the non-credulous as well as the credulous of his bona fides?           

[Roses]

Seeing isn't always believing, as I know for a fact from my own strange experiences.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Floo,

Seeing isn't always believing, as I know for a fact from my own strange experiences.

Actually seeing often is believing, and that's the problem because what people believe they see and what they actually see can be very different. That's why for example police identity parades are so unreliable.

[Roses]

Floo,

Actually seeing often is believing, and that's the problem because what people believe they see and what they actually see can be very different. That's why for example police identity parades are so unreliable.

I agree that many people don't question what they see. I have had some very weird experiences since I came into this world. As a child I accepted them, but as a mature adult I question the things I have seen looking for a natural, rather than a supernatural explanation.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Floo,

I agree that many people don't question what they see. I have had some very weird experiences since I came into this world. As a child I accepted them, but as a mature adult I question the things I have seen looking for a natural, rather than a supernatural explanation.

How many jumps do the girls wearing green make?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiEzf3J4iFk

[Roses]

Floo,

How many jumps do the girls wearing green make?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiEzf3J4iFk

I zoned out very quickly as there was so much going on.

[ProfessorDavey]

Floo,

How many jumps do the girls wearing green make?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiEzf3J4iFk

I like this one - really nails the challenge to seeing everything that's going on.

What I find frustrating is the view, often espoused, that in the days before written records, people using oral traditions for passing on information were somehow better at seeing things in the first place. In this example that back in biblical times people would have noticed not only the chicken, but the wall colour and the rope-holder switch 'cos they did oral tradition'. I think that is complete non-sense - there is no reason to suspect that simply because you pass on information in a different manner that your ability to notice and process information in the first place is enhanced.

It simply means that whatever info you do ascquire will be passed on in a different manner - so in biblical times the video watcher (if that was possible) would have told others about the number of jumps, and perhaps the chicken. Maybe they'd have made up a song or poem about it, rather than write it down. But they'd have still missed the wall and the rope-holders.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

I like this one - really nails the challenge to seeing everything that's going on.

What I find frustrating is the view, often espoused, that in the days before written records, people using oral traditions for passing on information were somehow better at seeing things in the first place. In this example that back in biblical times people would have noticed not only the chicken, but the wall colour and the rope-holder switch 'cos they did oral tradition'. I think that is complete non-sense - there is no reason to suspect that simply because you pass on information in a different manner that your ability to notice and process information in the first place is enhanced.

It simply means that whatever info you do ascquire will be passed on in a different manner - so in biblical times the video watcher (if that was possible) would have told others about the number of jumps, and perhaps the chicken. Maybe they'd have made up a song or poem about it, rather than write it down. But they'd have still missed the wall and the rope-holders.

Quite so. It's worse than that though. In, say, a street scene where a crime is committed it's hard enough to remember everything. In a conjuring trick though the conjuror deliberately misdirects his audience to look in the wrong place - "here, here - look over here" etc while the real deal goes on either out of sight or (as with the chicken) hidden in plain sight.

This is not to say by the way that the resurrection story was necessarily a trick but it is to say that it was constructed as a trick would have been, and moreover that a trick is just one of several plausible (but non-miraculous) explanations. And that for a rationalist sceptic is all that's necessary to conclude that there's not a good reason to accept the miracle story.         

[jeremyp]

I like this one - really nails the challenge to seeing everything that's going on.

What I find frustrating is the view, often espoused, that in the days before written records, people using oral traditions for passing on information were somehow better at seeing things in the first place. In this example that back in biblical times people would have noticed not only the chicken, but the wall colour and the rope-holder switch 'cos they did oral tradition'. I think that is complete non-sense - there is no reason to suspect that simply because you pass on information in a different manner that your ability to notice and process information in the first place is enhanced.

It simply means that whatever info you do ascquire will be passed on in a different manner - so in biblical times the video watcher (if that was possible) would have told others about the number of jumps, and perhaps the chicken. Maybe they'd have made up a song or poem about it, rather than write it down. But they'd have still missed the wall and the rope-holders.

What I found interesting about the video is not that I missed the chicken even though I was pretty sure they were going to pull a trick like that, but when the two girls in black started skipping (the ones who had previously been holding the rope), I knew there was something wrong. My brain was telling me "this is not right, these people have come from nowhere", but I couldn't put my finger on the issue.

As regards oral tradition, we absolutely know it is not as wonderful as Christians would have us believe. The Epic of Sundiata was transmitted orally for hundreds of years and there are several versions extant today as a result of its "evolution".  We also have the example of the gospels themselves. Why is John's gospel so different from the synoptics if the oral tradition that led up to them is so reliable?

The other problem of oral tradition, even if it could be demonstrated to be reliable is that people often make changes deliberately. No amount of accuracy is going to help if one person in the chain deliberately embellishes the story for effect. Look at the gospels. How many people meet the women at the tomb? Is it one man, two men, an angel or two angels? Answer: it's all of these depending on which gospel you read. You can't argue that the early Christians were careful not to fall foul of the Chinese whispers effect because they obviously did. The evidence is right there in the gospels.

[ProfessorDavey]

What I found interesting about the video is not that I missed the chicken even though I was pretty sure they were going to pull a trick like that, but when the two girls in black started skipping (the ones who had previously been holding the rope), I knew there was something wrong. My brain was telling me "this is not right, these people have come from nowhere", but I couldn't put my finger on the issue.

As regards oral tradition, we absolutely know it is not as wonderful as Christians would have us believe. The Epic of Sundiata was transmitted orally for hundreds of years and there are several versions extant today as a result of its "evolution".  We also have the example of the gospels themselves. Why is John's gospel so different from the synoptics if the oral tradition that led up to them is so reliable?

The other problem of oral tradition, even if it could be demonstrated to be reliable is that people often make changes deliberately. No amount of accuracy is going to help if one person in the chain deliberately embellishes the story for effect. Look at the gospels. How many people meet the women at the tomb? Is it one man, two men, an angel or two angels? Answer: it's all of these depending on which gospel you read. You can't argue that the early Christians were careful not to fall foul of the Chinese whispers effect because they obviously did. The evidence is right there in the gospels.

Oral transmission of information is inherently less reliable than, for example, in writing where you know what is read is what was written. That isn't going to change how every much christian theists wish it to be so.

What is probably the case is that people in oral tradition cultures were more accurate in their oral transmission than people in non-oral cultures when also using oral transmission. They will have tricks and traditions, such as song, story telling etc that we don't have so much. But none of that means that the accuracy of transmission via an oral tradition over decades and centuries, compared to the original source, is anything other than pants.

[jeremyp]

They will have tricks and traditions, such as song, story telling etc that we don't have so much. But none of that means that the accuracy of transmission via an oral tradition over decades and centuries, compared to the original source, is anything other than pants.

Yes and also, if one story teller in the chain decides that the story needs spicing up with a giant or some gods or a resurrection, none of these tricks will stop that from happening.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes and also, if one story teller in the chain decides that the story needs spicing up with a giant or some gods or a resurrection, none of these tricks will stop that from happening.

Exactly and you can never see the embellishment - unlike on written transmission where a quick bit of version checking will establish the additions.

[Spud]

Exactly and you can never see the embellishment - unlike on written transmission where a quick bit of version checking will establish the additions.

The gospels are written with apostolic authority and are full of miracles. They are followed by letters from the next generation of Christians, who wrote about miracles too. The point is the miracles are not embellishments, they were in the originals.

[Nearly Sane]

The gospels are written with apostolic authority and are full of miracles. They are followed by letters from the next generation of Christians, who wrote about miracles too. The point is the miracles are not embellishments, they were in the originals.

Gibberish

[Spud]

Spud,

But I did see the woman sawn in half – honest injun! She was right there in front of me, then she was put in a box and sawn in two, then – and get this! – the chap behind her actually wheeled the boxes apart! Next thing I knew, the boxes were pushed together and out she jumped! See? I saw it with my own eyes so there you go then – a genuine, 24 carat miracle right?

Assume for now that I’m 100% honest. Can you see the problem here? No matter how honest I am, the explanatory story I told myself about what I’d seen was very different from what I’d actually seen – or, more accurately, to what I’d not been allowed to see.

Have you noticed that when conjurors do tricks there’s often an elaborate set-up, then just for a bit a curtain is pulled around them, then the curtain’s dropped, et voilŕ – the big reveal as miraculously they're out of the box!

Now have a think about the resurrection “miracle”. Someone bedraggled and covered in blood who appeared to be Jesus was crucified and appeared to be dead. Then he disappeared for three days (that’s the curtain bit), after which someone who appeared to be Jesus was seen walking around again. It’s the classic model for a conjuror – the big set-up, the hiding from the audience, the big reveal. Add a (completely honest) witness who’s account was (much later) written down and it’s job done. 

Now just for fun, let’s say that I was a real man/god and I wanted to show that I could be dead for a bit then alive again. Easy right – just have, say, my head chopped off then handed to me then I’d re-attach it. Not much room for error or deception there right? Or, if I wanted to be a bit less showy-offy about it maybe just have a leg chopped off then grow it back in front of people’s eyes. Shouldn’t be hard for someone who could do the “dead then alive again” number right?

But no, that’s not what he did at all. What he actually seems to have done was the classic conjuror’s trope – “watch this, watch this, watch this”/disappear for a bit/”ta-daaaa!” – and there it was. Seems a strange modus operandi don’t you think for someone who wanted to persuade the non-credulous as well as the credulous of his bona fides?         

Regarding your first point, the woman in the box is not visible. You don't see her die, nor do you see blood pouring out. That's the difference.
Re your follow up point, imagine instead you're in the front line of the Somme and your buddy who you've spent the last six weeks getting to know is shot dead next to you. You then know that firstly he is dead and secondly you know his identity. That's more like what we find in the gospels than a Jesus look-alike being killed.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

The gospels are written with apostolic authority and are full of miracles. They are followed by letters from the next generation of Christians, who wrote about miracles too. The point is the miracles are not embellishments, they were in the originals.

Of course they're full of miracles - lots of texts from lots of traditions are. Miracles were widely adduced to explain everything from rainbows to milk turning onto yoghurt. But you don't know though that the later versions were the same as the originals verbatim, and even if you did so what? You'd still be stuck with the problem of the first supposed witness recording what he actually saw rather than wheat he believed he saw. 

[ProfessorDavey]

The gospels are written with apostolic authority and are full of miracles.

That is an assumption based on faith, with no evidence to back it up. Anyone can claim their book is divinely inspired and therefore the fantastic claims therein must be true. But claiming as such doesn't make it so, Spud.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

Regarding your first point, the woman in the box is not visible. You don't see her die, nor do you see blood pouring out. That's the difference.

You’re missing the point still. I did “see her “die” every but as much as the bible witness saw Jesus die. Dying was the explanation each of us arrived at having seen what we saw (and in my case my magician could easily have had a fake blood capsule involved if he’d wanted to). Neither of us had the access or the means though to ascertain whether the person we thought we’d seen die actually was dead, and as he and she were whisked away pretty sharpish after the set-up that was the end of our involvement until the big reveal later on.   
 

Re your follow up point, imagine instead you're in the front line of the Somme and your buddy who you've spent the last six weeks getting to know is shot dead next to you. You then know that firstly he is dead and secondly you know his identity. That's more like what we find in the gospels than a Jesus look-alike being killed.

So now you’re claiming that not only was Jesus well-known enough to the anonymous witness to be certainly recognisable at a distance and covered in blood, but that this supposed witness also had the means to distinguish a limp body that was actually dead from one that appeared to be dead but may not have been?

You’re making some pretty big claims and guesses there old son. 

Oh, and does the fact of the whole episode being set up just as a conjuring trick would be – attention and misdirection on the event on stage, disappearing for a bit, big reveal – trouble you even one tiny little jot? Nothing?   

[ProfessorDavey]

Regarding your first point, the woman in the box is not visible. You don't see her die, nor do you see blood pouring out. That's the difference.
Re your follow up point, imagine instead you're in the front line of the Somme and your buddy who you've spent the last six weeks getting to know is shot dead next to you. You then know that firstly he is dead and secondly you know his identity. That's more like what we find in the gospels than a Jesus look-alike being killed.

But you don't know that any of this is true and actually happened - you are simply relying on non-neutral recounting of event that appeared decades later, without clear attribution nor corroboration. It is worth noting that it is generally considered that the earliest 'resurrection' accounts (the original Mark account) had nothing other than the finding of an empty tomb - no visions, no appearances of a resurrected Jesus. Now of course there are many perfectly plausible reasons why a tomb might be discovered to be empty - none involve a dead man coming back to life 3 days after his death.

But no doubt that account wasn't compelling enough for the intended audience so a little extra needed to be added, and a bit more and so on, until apparently he was appearing to 500 people at once. But the hyperbole betrays itself - if a dead man had really appeared to so many people do you really think the Romans and the Jewish authorities (assiduous record keeper both) would have not noted this whatsoever. Implausible in the extreme.

[jeremyp]

The gospels are written with apostolic authority and are full of miracles. They are followed by letters from the next generation of Christians, who wrote about miracles too. The point is the miracles are not embellishments, they were in the originals.

If that’s true, all it shows is that the Apostles were not beyond making things up.

It’s not true, of course, because your claim of Apostolic authority has no basis in fact.

[Spud]

I like this one - really nails the challenge to seeing everything that's going on.

What I find frustrating is the view, often espoused, that in the days before written records, people using oral traditions for passing on information were somehow better at seeing things in the first place. In this example that back in biblical times people would have noticed not only the chicken, but the wall colour and the rope-holder switch 'cos they did oral tradition'. I think that is complete non-sense - there is no reason to suspect that simply because you pass on information in a different manner that your ability to notice and process information in the first place is enhanced.

It simply means that whatever info you do ascquire will be passed on in a different manner - so in biblical times the video watcher (if that was possible) would have told others about the number of jumps, and perhaps the chicken. Maybe they'd have made up a song or poem about it, rather than write it down. But they'd have still missed the wall and the rope-holders.

People can pick out one or two details accurately, however much more they miss.
If there are multiple witnesses who notice different details you can build up a more composite picture, and that's what we get with the gospels.