Eyewitness reliability examined in a real-life setting

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gordon,

Or that the whole story is no more that fictitious propaganda for Jesus that was contrived by his credulous fans living in credulous times: something that the Spuds of this world seem congenitally unable to even countenance.

Yep, there are various possible explanations that have no supernatural content at all. Something that always strikes me too is how precisely aligned the story is to a conjuring trick. A standard trope of stage magic is that the event is briefly hidden – the curtain on a hoop is briefly pulled up around the performer, then dropped again for the “miracle” to be revealed. Same goes for the “resurrection”: Jesus (or some poor bedraggled individual at least) is seen to be crucified, but then is hidden from view for three days before the big reveal. Ta-daaa!!!   

Why though? Why not for example have Jesus crucified and left there (with all the evident signs of death) and then (say) three days later, suddenly have him perk up, the nails fly out and yer man/god leap down as fresh as a daisy? Seems to me that if I was “god” and I wanted to persuade people that there had been a real resurrection I’d have taken care not to incorporate a basic trope of stage magic in the middle of the event. Oh well.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Isn't the point rather that you apply different standards to your preferred supernatural story than you apply to all the other supernatural stories from different faith traditions?

No that is the point you want. I have never held the position you are applying to here.

With most miracles you can have use the comment ''so what'', even if they happened. In my opinion more so in other faith traditions. It is the theology and one's own experience which I think is crucial. In other words you misrepresent me.

Your objections can be summarised as the exercise of philosophical naturalism overlaid by some hurt inflicted in a religious setting and/or some the taking out of some hangup one has on other people.

I would also like to disagree that History is a subset of science. That is a positive assertion which nobody has apparently justified.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gordon,

Yep, there are various possible explanations that have no supernatural content at all. Something that always strikes me too is how precisely aligned the story is to a conjuring trick. A standard trope of stage magic is that the event is briefly hidden – the curtain on a hoop is briefly pulled up around the performer, then dropped again for the “miracle” to be revealed. Same goes for the “resurrection”: Jesus (or some poor bedraggled individual at least) is seen to be crucified, but then is hidden from view for three days before the big reveal. Ta-daaa!!!   

Why though? Why not for example have Jesus crucified and left there (with all the evident signs of death) and then (say) three days later, suddenly have him perk up, the nails fly out and yer man/god leap down as fresh as a daisy? Seems to me that if I was “god” and I wanted to persuade people that there had been a real resurrection I’d have taken care not to incorporate a basic trope of stage magic in the middle of the event. Oh well.

A one part of the Lewis trilemma. Jesus was BAD.

Magic does seek to reconstruct the supernatural. It is a good job Pontius Pilate, The Jewish authorities The sundry centurions, A huge flash mob crowd available to call for his execution were in on the act and a false stomach made of suet filled with fig juice were available and fitted to Jesus in the middle of a group execution....... 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No that is the point you want. I have never held the position you are applying to here.

Yes it is the point. You think a resurrection actually happened as described, and you do so on the basis of an evidential bar you don’t accept when set just as low by other faith traditions.

QED

With most miracles you can have use the comment ''so what'', even if they happened. In my opinion more so in other faith traditions. It is the theology and one's own experience which I think is crucial. In other words you misrepresent me.

In other words, you just tried an argumentum ad consequentiam (again). The “theology and one’s own experience” adds nothing to the credibility or otherwise of the story. Either it happened or it didn’t – how you’d feel about it if it did tells you nothing at all about that.

Your objections can be summarised as the exercise of philosophical naturalism overlaid by some hurt inflicted in a religious setting and/or some the taking out of some hangup one has on other people.

No, they can be characterised as having a better grasp of argument than you do. By all means try again though with some reasoning of your own that isn’t hopeless if you have any.

I would also like to disagree that History is a subset of science. That is a positive assertion which nobody has apparently justified.

Or said. What has been said though is that the tests of historicity rely on various principles and rules. They have to if any or every document or claim isn’t to be accepted as historically accurate just at face value.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Magic does seek to reconstruct the supernatural. It is a good job Pontius Pilate, The Jewish authorities The sundry centurions, A huge flash mob crowd available to call for his execution were in on the act and a false stomach made of suet filled with fig juice were available and fitted to Jesus in the middle of a group execution.......

It’s a good job there was a box, a saw, a comely young woman prepared to be sawn in two for a bit, stage lighting etc for the magician to do his thing too then right?

You can have all the elements of the resurrection story you like and still have pulled (say) a body switcheroo – indeed those elements add to it, just as the whole audience seeing the girl sawn in two would add to that story.

Big fail old son.   

[ProfessorDavey]

Same goes for the “resurrection”: Jesus (or some poor bedraggled individual at least) is seen to be crucified, but then is hidden from view for three days before the big reveal. Ta-daaa!!!

Except that the claims of witnesses to the purported resurrected Jesus seem be be late additions to the whole story. Don't forget that the gospel considered to have been written first (Mark), in its original ending had no resurrection appearances whatsoever. Merely an empty tomb.

Now of all the explanations (and there are many) for finding a previously filled grave suddenly empty, resurrection is just about the least plausible.

So going back to the shooting analogy. It would be the equivalent of the earliest witness testimonies perhaps confirming that there was a man with a knife, but later testimony adds some additional 'colour' for effect - for example that he was juggling with three knives before throwing each one, inch perfectly to down three policemen. The earliest claims from the gospel are deeply unimpressive as evidence for a resurrection, hence the likely need to 'sex them up' a tad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes it is the point. You think a resurrection actually happened as described, and you do so on the basis of an evidential bar you don’t accept when set just as low by other faith traditions.

QED

In other words, you just tried an argumentum ad consequentiam (again). The “theology and one’s own experience” adds nothing to the credibility or otherwise of the story. Either it happened or it didn’t – how you’d feel about it if it did tells you nothing at all about that.

No, they can be characterised as having a better grasp of argument than you do. By all means try again though with some reasoning of your own that isn’t hopeless if you have any.

Or said. What has been said though is that the tests of historicity rely on various principles and rules. They have to if any or every document or claim isn’t to be accepted as historically accurate just at face value.

Waffle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

It’s a good job there was a box, a saw, a comely young woman prepared to be sawn in two for a bit, stage lighting etc for the magician to do his thing too then right?

You can have all the elements of the resurrection story you like and still have pulled (say) a body switcheroo – indeed those elements add to it, just as the whole audience seeing the girl sawn in two would add to that story.

Big fail old son.   

More Waffle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Waffle.

Avoidance noted.

More Waffle.

Ditto.

Which parts of the perfectly clear and succinct arguments that undid you are you running away from especially here?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Avoidance noted.

Ditto.

Which parts of the perfectly clear and succinct arguments that undid you are you running away from especially here?

Bonus waffle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Bonus waffle.

Still no argument of your own then. Probably just as well given the corner into which you've painted yourself again.

Oh well. If ever you do feel like at least trying a rebuttal though by all mean give it a try. 

[Spud]

Except that the claims of witnesses to the purported resurrected Jesus seem be be late additions to the whole story. Don't forget that the gospel considered to have been written first (Mark), in its original ending had no resurrection appearances whatsoever. Merely an empty tomb.

Now of all the explanations (and there are many) for finding a previously filled grave suddenly empty, resurrection is just about the least plausible.

So going back to the shooting analogy. It would be the equivalent of the earliest witness testimonies perhaps confirming that there was a man with a knife, but later testimony adds some additional 'colour' for effect - for example that he was juggling with three knives before throwing each one, inch perfectly to down three policemen. The earliest claims from the gospel are deeply unimpressive as evidence for a resurrection, hence the likely need to 'sex them up' a tad.

The resurrection appearances in Matthew are interesting because the one to the women interrupts the flow of the narrative and is likely a later insertion (it has detail similar to John's account, viz the women held on to him). However the appearance in Galilee fulfills the prediction of Jesus at the last supper and of the angel at the tomb, so is likely part of the original narrative.

Matthew appears to have been edited in parts, with many additions, some of which are duplication of existing text that does not fit very well into its secondary context. Perhaps this leads to the idea that the unedited core of narrative is based on Mark, the shortest gospel.

We've discussed the subject of who copied who, but if we accept that Matthew wrote first we have an early resurrection appearance so the sexed up theory can be dismissed.

[ProfessorDavey]

However the appearance in Galilee fulfills the prediction of Jesus at the last supper and of the angel at the tomb, so is likely part of the original narrative.

Which tells us nothing about whether this claim is based on an eye witness account, nor about the provenance or veracity of any potential eye witness account. Realistically all it tells us is that the narrative aligns with a theological imperative rather than that the narrative aligns with reality.

Matthew appears to have been edited in parts, with many additions, some of which are duplication of existing text that does not fit very well into its secondary context. Perhaps this leads to the idea that the unedited core of narrative is based on Mark, the shortest gospel.

We've discussed the subject of who copied who, but if we accept that Matthew wrote first we have an early resurrection appearance so the sexed up theory can be dismissed.

But we don't accept the notion that Matthew wrote first and nor do most credible historians who all think that Mark was first. But you've also inferred that the extant copies of Matthew we have, from perhaps 150-200 years after the purported events, contain evidence of alterations. That being the case how can we have any confidence that what we see in 150-250AD bears resemblance to what might have been originally written, perhaps in 90AD - let alone how that might relate to the testimony of any actual witnesses from decades earlier.

[Spud]

Which tells us nothing about whether this claim is based on an eye witness account, nor about the provenance or veracity of any potential eye witness account. Realistically all it tells us is that the narrative aligns with a theological imperative rather than that the narrative aligns with reality.
But we don't accept the notion that Matthew wrote first and nor do most credible historians who all think that Mark was first. But you've also inferred that the extant copies of Matthew we have, from perhaps 150-200 years after the purported events, contain evidence of alterations. That being the case how can we have any confidence that what we see in 150-250AD bears resemblance to what might have been originally written, perhaps in 90AD - let alone how that might relate to the testimony of any actual witnesses from decades earlier.

I'm sorry, I've made a mistake: in the book I'm reading it says that Mt 28:16-20 is likely also an editorial addition, as well as the guards' report. If the appearance to the women is too, that would mean that the original ending would have been, like in Mark, with the women at the tomb.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm sorry, I've made a mistake: in the book I'm reading it says that Mt 28:16-20 is likely also an editorial addition, as well as the guards' report. If the appearance to the women is too, that would mean that the original ending would have been, like in Mark, with the women at the tomb.

So Spud - just for one moment park your faith position.

Were you to hear a news story which involved a grave being found empty which had previously been occupied by a corpse, would your first and most obvious explanation be that the corpse had come back to life. Or would there be numerous other explanations, likely involving the corpse being removed, that are are far more plausible. Without your faith position would you perhaps accept that resurrection was the least likely and most implausible (indeed probably impossible) explanation for a previously occupied grave being found empty.

So not sure whether you followed this news story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/4762481.stm

But if your did and when there were the first reports of the grave being found empty, was your first thought - blimey, another resurrection.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So Spud - just for one moment park your faith position.

Were you to hear a news story which involved a grave being found empty which had previously been occupied by a corpse, would your first and most obvious explanation be that the corpse had come back to life. Or would there be numerous other explanations, likely involving the corpse being removed, that are are far more plausible. Without your faith position would you perhaps accept that resurrection was the least likely and most implausible (indeed probably impossible) explanation for a previously occupied grave being found empty.

So not sure whether you followed this news story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/4762481.stm

But if your did and when there were the first reports of the grave being found empty, was your first thought - blimey, another resurrection.

The trouble with this is this if it is being presented as conversion, christian conviction, repentance and faith then it is a bit thin and pale. The new testament goes on to speak of post resurrection encounters which you seem not to have factored in.

Belief that someone could have been resurrected in Staffordshire is unlikely to inspire a world religion.

Why do you think the Gospel has had a different effect?   

[Spud]

So Spud - just for one moment park your faith position.

Were you to hear a news story which involved a grave being found empty which had previously been occupied by a corpse, would your first and most obvious explanation be that the corpse had come back to life. Or would there be numerous other explanations, likely involving the corpse being removed, that are are far more plausible. Without your faith position would you perhaps accept that resurrection was the least likely and most implausible (indeed probably impossible) explanation for a previously occupied grave being found empty.

So not sure whether you followed this news story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/4762481.stm

But if your did and when there were the first reports of the grave being found empty, was your first thought - blimey, another resurrection.

It's a bit different when an angel says someone has risen. I'd be a bit like the men on the road to Emmaus, not really believing it but wondering if I should given the reports of angels.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Just some more corrections for you that no doubt you'll hand wave away too.

The trouble with this is this if it is being presented as conversion, christian conviction, repentance and faith then it is a bit thin and pale.

These are all meanings that have been layered on to the basic story post facto. They tell you nothing about whether the story itself is true though.

The new testament goes on to speak of post resurrection encounters which you seem not to have factored in.

With a switched body in the trick "post resurrection encounters" would be essential. How else would you show that the supposed resurrection had happened?

Belief that someone could have been resurrected in Staffordshire is unlikely to inspire a world religion.

Why does the location matter to the success or otherwise of the story?

Why do you think the Gospel has had a different effect?

And that's the survivorship bias fallacy to finish (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias). It's a basic failure in reasoning to assume that the idea that caught the wind must therefore have been more valid or more true than those that didn't. I've explained this bias to you several times before now so I don't know why you've just fallen into the same hole again.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

It's a bit different when an angel says someone has risen. I'd be a bit like the men on the road to Emmaus, not really believing it but wondering if I should given the reports of angels.

That's a bit like saying that Harry Potter must have been able to fly on broomsticks because it was the wizard Dumbledore who said it was so. Adding an extra fantastical claim to a story ("angel") doesn't thereby validate the prior fantastical claim (a resurrection).

[ProfessorDavey]

It's a bit different when an angel says someone has risen.

Unevidenced assertion and doubling implausible as there is no evidence whatsoever that angels exist.

[ProfessorDavey]

Belief that someone could have been resurrected in Staffordshire is unlikely to inspire a world religion.

Why not?

But actually christianity never took off where the purported resurrection was claimed to have taken place, so the claims didn't impress the people in the place and at the time.

[ProfessorDavey]

Why do you think the Gospel has had a different effect?

Because they were being promulgated at a time when people were culturally superstitious, believing in all sorts of supernatural claims that we understand now to be non-sense.

And also because it had some great salesmen, who having recognised that their message fell on deaf ears in Palestine took their snake oil stories further afield and hit lucky, particularly within the Roman empire, which was ripe for 'modernisation' and change. Had Constantine I not been persuaded to hook up with the biggest new thing in town, I suspect we'd not have heard much more about christianity after about 400AD. It would have withered on the vine like many other religious cults.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Just some more corrections for you that no doubt you'll hand wave away too.

These are all meanings that have been layered on to the basic story post facto. They tell you nothing about whether the story itself is true though.

With a switched body in the trick "post resurrection encounters" would be essential. How else would you show that the supposed resurrection had happened?

Why does the location matter to the success or otherwise of the story?

As I said the only way the crucifixion of Christ could be faked is with the full cooperation of the Roman and Jewish authorities

And that's the survivorship bias fallacy to finish (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias). It's a basic failure in reasoning to assume that the idea that caught the wind must therefore have been more valid or more true than those that didn't. I've explained this bias to you several times before now so I don't know why you've just fallen into the same hole again.

Or You could just be considering a resurrection without any context.
Therefore the person in Staffordshire I would imagine has no particularly religious context. The NT actually has three resurrections Lazarus, The boy who fell from the window who fell asleep during a meeting with Paul. So the NT, in your scheme gives us three potential religions. So either Jesus won because ''He survived because he survived'' Or he had a religious context in which it all makes sense. Something which does not fit a niche in religion is hardly going to fit a niche in religious thinking.
There is the obscure phenomenon of survivor bias but that is completely put in the shade by the principle of survival of the fittest so unless you can come up with an actual example of something either surviving or dying out for no reason.........

[ProfessorDavey]

The NT actually has three resurrections Lazarus, The boy who fell from the window who fell asleep during a meeting with Paul.

Not helping yourself - so you are implying that resurrections were ten a penny back in those days. And of course there are countless other claims of dead people coming back to life in antiquity.

So did resurrection suddenly go out of fashion or are we looking at the claims of superstitious societies that fill the gaps of their lack of knowledge with stuff which isn't true. Remember thunder is the gods fighting, earthquakes are the elephants on which the earth rests moving etc etc.

[ProfessorDavey]

There is the obscure phenomenon of survivor bias but that is completely put in the shade by the principle of survival of the fittest so unless you can come up with an actual example of something either surviving or dying out for no reason.........

Surviver bias isn't an obscure phenomenon - it is extremely well known. In the form you are alluding it is framed around the notion that someone, or something, that survives must be somehow special, better, more valid, more worthy etc when in fact it might just be lucky.

Christianity happened to come along at the right time and in the right place. And that time wasn't the 1stC and that place wasn't Palestine. Rather in was around 313AD and Rome. Christianity hit lucky in being the right religion at the right time to attract a modernising Constantine.

Another religion that found their stars aligning in the same way would also have become dominant. Similarly, had Christianity not hit lucky, it would likely have gained no more prominence than a minor sect or cult (or rather a series of minor sects or cults).