More on the gospels.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just to note that there were no witnesses to a miracle by the way. There were (perhaps) witnesses to someone who appeared to be Jesus appearing to be dead, and there were (perhaps) witnesses to someone who appeared to be Jesus walking around fresh as a daisy three days later. The miracle part though - ie, stopping being dead - would have been in the tomb with a big rock in front of it. So far as I know there was no-one else in there to do any witnessing.

So, at best, what we have is people witnessing the setup and people witnessing the reveal, some of whom then reasoned that there must have been a miracle in between, only no-one saw that bit. And this, oddly, if precisely how a magician works - lots of attention on the setup, quick hiding behind the curtain, clap like fury at the reveal and leave the audience to decide that some magic must have happened behind that inconveniently placed roc - er - curtain.   

Funny that.     

Jesus as David Blaine theory.


Tell me Blue where I can find The Church of Paul Daniels.


And verily Paul said unto those who had recieveth the magic set at Christmas and putteth it not out with the rubbish on Boxing Day

You might like this .......not a lot......

[jeremyp]

No he doesn't razed is when you level something....the opposite of being raised in this case from the dead.

Jesus was executed and then buried horizontally (or "levelled") in an unmarked grave probably. "razed" seems good to me.

[ProfessorDavey]

The original point was that a person generally wouldn't die for something that he consciously knew to be untrue. This was to answer the point that the disciples made up their story. If Islamic suicide bombers didn't believe their faith was the true faith, they wouldn't do what they do. So they can't be compared with early Christian martyrs.

Of course they can be compared - both implicitly believe their faith is true (regardless of whether it actually is true) and their faith has such fervour that they are prepared to die for it.

Happens all the time for all sorts of ideologies, and not just religious beliefs - also political and nationalistic as examples.

[jeremyp]

The original point was that a person generally wouldn't die for something that he consciously knew to be untrue. This was to answer the point that the disciples made up their story. If Islamic suicide bombers didn't believe their faith was the true faith, they wouldn't do what they do. So they can't be compared with early Christian martyrs.

That makes no sense.

Islamic suicide bombers refute your original point. They show that all that is needed is belief that the cause is true, not knowledge that the cause is true.

[ProfessorDavey]

None of the gospels have a description of the actual raising from the dead. Furthermore, if you read what each gospel says about the post resurrection appearances of Jesus, you'll find that all three accounts are different. Mark doesn't have any post resurrection appearances (the original is cut off at 16:8 ) and the other three all disagree about what happened next. In my opinion, all three of Matthew, Luke and John were working from Mark's account and when they got to 16:8 they thought "what? it can't just end there", so they each made up post resurrection stories. Later, some scribe of the New Testament was copying out Mark and thought "what? it can't just end there", so he made up a new ending by précising the other three gospels and tacking it on.

Kind of like a 1950s B movie where the ending was a bit rubbish so the studio insists on the ending being rewritten to sex it up a bit.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Jesus was executed and then buried horizontally (or "levelled") in an unmarked grave probably. "razed" seems good to me.

The ending ''Good to me'' duly noted.
 It's not what I was talking about though.

Supposing a forum atheist type witnessed a resurrection and told his forum bosom buddies.


He and some others might conclude it was true but an extremely improbable event.

OR that he'd been hoaxed.

OR that he was pulling their leg.

and some might conclude it was God and open up negotiations

and some might feel that there world view had been betrayed by this individual.

[jeremyp]

Kind of like a 1950s B movie where the ending was a bit rubbish so the studio insists on the ending being rewritten to sex it up a bit.

Yes, except three different crews filmed new endings and then an editor cut them all together to put in the original film.

[jeremyp]

The ending ''Good to me'' duly noted.
 It's not what I was talking about though.

So?

Supposing a forum atheist type witnessed a resurrection and told his forum bosom buddies.


He and some others might conclude it was true but an extremely improbable event.

OR that he'd been hoaxed.

OR that he was pulling their leg.

and some might conclude it was God and open up negotiations

and some might feel that there world view had been betrayed by this individual.

I think the second or third options are the most likely. Why do you discount them in the case of Christians?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That makes no sense.

Islamic suicide bombers refute your original point. They show that all that is needed is belief that the cause is true, not knowledge that the cause is true.

Islamic suicide bombers not like Christian martyrs who did not achieve Martyrdom by taking others with them. Honestly there is a shockingly poor understanding of NT times and a lot of Guff spouted about it by New atheists.

[ProfessorDavey]

The ending ''Good to me'' duly noted.
 It's not what I was talking about though.

Supposing a forum atheist type witnessed a resurrection and told his forum bosom buddies.


He and some others might conclude it was true but an extremely improbable event.

OR that he'd been hoaxed.

OR that he was pulling their leg.

and some might conclude it was God and open up negotiations

and some might feel that there world view had been betrayed by this individual.

But if 500 people in a small tightly knit community were all telling their friends and families the same thing the story would spread like wildfire.

The hubris and hyperbole of the claims are the ultimate downfall of their credibility.

[jeremyp]

Islamic suicide bombers not like Christian martyrs who did not achieve Martyrdom by taking others with them.

So what?

Islamic suicide bombers deliberately blow themselves and other up and they wouldn't do it if they did not believe in the cause. Either you think that Islam must therefore be true or you think it is possible to believe in something that is actually false. If you think the latter, you are being dishonest with yourself if you dismiss the possibility that it applies to Christians dying for their faith.

Honestly there is a shockingly poor understanding of NT times and a lot of Guff spouted about it by New atheists.

Most of the guff on this thread is coming from the Christians.

[Spud]

Of course they can be compared - both implicitly believe their faith is true (regardless of whether it actually is true) and their faith has such fervour that they are prepared to die for it.

Happens all the time for all sorts of ideologies, and not just religious beliefs - also political and nationalistic as examples.

I think there is a difference: the disciples claimed they had witnessed miracles; the Islamic suicide bomber is not claiming an experience that would tell him that his is the true faith.
Still, if you disagree, fine.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

I think there is a difference: the disciples claimed they had witnessed miracles; the Islamic suicide bomber is not claiming an experience that would tell him that his is the true faith.
Still, if you disagree, fine.

Again, no-one claims to have seen a miracle. What they claim to have seen is the before and after - the miracle bit in between wasn't seen by anyone; it's just the explanation they came up with to make sense of the parts they did see. 

[ProfessorDavey]

I think there is a difference: the disciples claimed they had witnessed miracles; the Islamic suicide bomber is not claiming an experience that would tell him that his is the true faith.
Still, if you disagree, fine.

I disagree - both may, or may not, claim to have witnessed miracles. Remember that martyrhood, in a christian context isn't confined to disciples. There are numerous examples of christian martyrs over the centuries who never came close to being around at the time and place when Jesus was around. Their faith still lead them to die for it - just as islamic suicide bombers may do, or cult members, or extreme advocates of political ideologies, or even (indeed) people prepared to die for their country.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So?I think the second or third options are the most likely. Why do you discount them in the case of Christians?

So you too would disagree with Davey and accept that the most likely response to these reports are to dismiss them? I think many would even in NT times.

Because I have encountered God in Christ and see that the resurrection and ascension are in line and consistent with the God I encountered. I find that my chief influence. The epistles if you like are the minutes and memos of the early church and these events are reported in there.

Because dismissal means ignoring the problems of induction. I tend to examine my ridicule, disbelief and discomfort with to find where it is coming from. I'm afraid if it boils down to chronological snobbery or scientism there is a good case to ''discount'' as you put it.

Is being an actual eyewitness to a historical event essential for belief in Christ......no.

[Spud]

I disagree - both may, or may not, claim to have witnessed miracles. Remember that martyrhood, in a christian context isn't confined to disciples. There are numerous examples of christian martyrs over the centuries who never came close to being around at the time and place when Jesus was around. Their faith still lead them to die for it - just as islamic suicide bombers may do, or cult members, or extreme advocates of political ideologies, or even (indeed) people prepared to die for their country.

So do you think soldiers in the world wars died to defend their country or to defend their faith?

[ProfessorDavey]

So you too would disagree with Davey and accept that the most likely response to these reports are to dismiss them? I think many would even in NT times.

My point was to try to explain why there is no evidence that this purported 500 people being witness at the same time to a dead man being alive again raises even a ripple.

Had it been one person, sure easy to dismiss it. But if your neighbour, your cousin a street away, your friend who you meet when washing your clothes all say exactly the same thing not so easy to dismiss.

Hard to argue pulling your leg, as everyone would need to be in on a coordinated joke.

Possibly a hoax (but that doesn't help the christian cause) and would still have created a ripple if so many people were being fooled

The three options:
1. He and some others might conclude it was true but an extremely improbable event
2. some might conclude it was God and open up negotiations
3. and some might feel that there world view had been betrayed by this individual

Would all have created a major ripple in the communities that would undoubtedly have come to the attention of the authorities and wider populate.

Yet they didn't.

Drop in Occam's razor and of course you realise that you are missing the most likely explanation for this lack of effect - that it never happened and was added to the gospel's decades later to make them (supposedly) more plausible but actually makes them far less plausible.

[Spud]

Or, Davy, how about a Muslim who has raped someone, and is told that he will atone for his sins and go to heaven if he becomes a martyr.

On the one hand, what he was told is untrue. But on the other, he knows what he did. If he hadn't actually committed a rape then he wouldn't bother being a martyr. I'm saying that a person generally does witness something - it could be oppression of Muslims, as another example - in order to be motivated to give up his life.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Most of the guff on this thread is coming from the Christians.

That is because you disagree with it philosophically and cosmologically.

New atheist guff is the materially inaccurate and vague nonsense which purports to be an understanding of theology and the history of christianity and other religions.

[ProfessorDavey]

Or, Davy, how about a Muslim who has raped someone, and is told that he will atone for his sins and go to heaven if he becomes a martyr.

On the one hand, what he was told is untrue. But on the other, he knows what he did. If he hadn't actually committed a rape then he wouldn't bother being a martyr. I'm saying that a person generally does witness something - it could be oppression of Muslims, as another example - in order to be motivated to give up his life.

There are plenty of examples of martyrs (christian, muslim and otherwise) who are witnesses to nothing like you describe. They simply believe fervently (and often have been brought up to believe) and are prepared to die for that belief.

You are, of course, correct that politically ideologies (whether religious or not) feed off creating narratives of oppression to go along with their belief that they are right in their beliefs. It helps prevent believers from leaving as it support an us/them, right/wrong mindset. But that isn't necessary for individuals to be prepared to die for their beliefs.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My point was to try to explain why there is no evidence that this purported 500 people being witness at the same time to a dead man being alive again raises even a ripple.

Had it been one person, sure easy to dismiss it. But if your neighbour, your cousin a street away, your friend who you meet when washing your clothes all say exactly the same thing not so easy to dismiss.

Hard to argue pulling your leg, as everyone would need to be in on a coordinated joke.

Possibly a hoax (but that doesn't help the christian cause) and would still have created a ripple if so many people were being fooled

The three options:
1. He and some others might conclude it was true but an extremely improbable event
2. some might conclude it was God and open up negotiations
3. and some might feel that there world view had been betrayed by this individual

Would all have created a major ripple in the communities that would undoubtedly have come to the attention of the authorities and wider populate.

Yet they didn't.

Drop in Occam's razor and of course you realise that you are missing the most likely explanation for this lack of effect - that it never happened and was added to the gospel's decades later to make them (supposedly) more plausible but actually makes them far less plausible.

So Davey, was there or was there not a Jewish christian community?

Were there not Jewish communities throughout the Roman Empire?To what extent did they become christian communities?

Why was the resurrection in the Epistles which were earlier than the Gospels?

Are you at anytime going to reveal a true intent as a Jesus as Mythicist?

Without the resurrection. How and on what points of doctrine would christianity have built it's reputation and spread.


Here are my comments on these points


1: Yes there was a christian community

2: I think there were jewish communities in the empire some of which would have a christian component or Jewish convert component

3: The resurrection is in the epistles. That seems to be missing from your theses.

[Dicky Underpants]

A prophet who has been raised from the dead.

 Easy not to get that, particularly when you have been online for an hour on the topic of resurrection.

I thought part of your argument in the past was that the idea of resurrection in Judaism was something practically unheard of, and therefore the apparent resurrection of Jesus was not something at all in the Jewish purview, and all the more memorable for being so unexpected.
In fact there aren't many instances of 'raising the dead' in the OT. One supposedly performed by Elijah, and the 'raising of Samuel' by a necromancer, on the instruction of Saul (Isaiah among other prophets specifically condemns necromancy as something demonic, so the latter would have probably been regarded as a contrived illusion)
The idea of any kind of truly conscious afterlife only developed late (see Book of Daniel), and of course the matter was still a matter of controversy between the Saducees  and Pharisees of Jesus' time. But in these matters, the contention is about life after death in another world, not about corpses being reanimated in this one.
This brings us to the crux of the matter in Christian theology  - what on earth do Christians mean by the Resurrection? Especially when they talk about believers having 'met the risen Christ'. Christ we are told was God Incarnate - the second person of the Trinity - as such God was always there to be met (if you believe in him). So what on earth is one expected to believe about this Resurrection business? It sounds to me like wanting to have your cake and eat it ten times over. Jesus is dead, and yet later gets up and walks. He's still flesh and blood, supposedly, but can somehow walk through walls. He tells Mary Magdelene not to touch him (is he in fact half spirit at this point, and 'too hot to handle'?) Yet he specifically directs Doubting Thomas to touch him - indeed to stick his fingers in his wounds.
The whole thing is a farrago of contradictions, which is crowned with the biggest contradiction of all, in the words of St Paul:
"Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God".

[Dicky Underpants]

Why was the resurrection in the Epistles which were earlier than the Gospels?

As I've hinted above, the Resurrection written about by Paul is totally different from the resurrection accounts in the Gospels. The most we can tell from Paul's account is that he met some kind of 'being of light', whom he identified as Jesus. As he develops his ideas, we see that he thinks of meeting Christ as an entirely inward experience "Yet not I live, but Christ in me". This is totally different from a mutilated corpse getting up, wandering around and meeting his old friends. And remember that on the road to Emmaus, some of those old friends apparently didn't recognise him at all.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As I've hinted above, the Resurrection written about by Paul is totally different from the resurrection accounts in the Gospels. The most we can tell from Paul's account is that he met some kind of 'being of light', whom he identified as Jesus. As he develops his ideas, we see that he thinks of meeting Christ as an entirely inward experience "Yet not I live, but Christ in me". This is totally different from a mutilated corpse getting up, wandering around and meeting his old friends. And remember that on the road to Emmaus, some of those old friends apparently didn't recognise him at all.

Paul has a memorable encounter which seems to include empirical and sensual experience and then this gives way to a new experience. What do think the significance of that is. An analogy I find is that you meet your partner and the relationship develops.


Idea development is surely more the preserve of philosophers, academics and sitcom writers.

As far as Gospel encounters are concerned the resurrection may have been a process. What do you think the significance of that is?

[Gordon]

Paul has a memorable encounter which seems to include empirical and sensual experience and then this gives way to a new experience. What do think the significance of that is.

I think it is no more significant than my experience that riding fast motorcycles is fun.

An analogy I find is that you meet your partner and the relationship develops.

Super.

Idea development is surely more the preserve of philosophers, academics and sitcom writers.

I think we are in sitcom territory here: Carry on Crucifixion, perhaps.

As far as Gospel encounters are concerned the resurrection may have been a process. What do you think the significance of that is?

Not much, since all we have is a story - perhaps we are still in sitcom territory, so that taking the story seriously isn't required.