Well, there's two answers to that. There's the amazing generous answer, from my previous challenge, and I'll just be repeating myself, but OK, I'll try once more.

"Telling the truth" means saying what they believed happened. You are imbuing them with not just complete and utter honesty but infalibility to not be mistaken, or fooled, to misenterpret, to oversimplify, to be confused, for memories to get distorted... or just plain not understand what's going on and filling in the gaps. There is a world of difference between what someone believes about an event, and the truth of the event. And given the unbelievably extraordinary nature of the claim, it will always be staggeringly more likely that they fell foul of one of the hundreds of ways a human can err rather than it actually happened just as they wrote. In fact, actual ressurection itself is not a given. The last part of Mark is highly suspected of being a forgery, meaning even he did not actually know Jesus had risen. It's suspected to have ended at 16:8 with just some guy telling them to spread the rumour he had risen. A story was probably later added to try and cement it as fact rather than a rumour. As you hopefully know, Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily from Mark so this is really just the one account and it's not what people would like it to be. And this is all giving them the massive benefit of the doubt that they weren't just making things up. John is another story. Literally

Source: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

Not so generous answer: They got some things right, sure. It's not hard. If you're living at that time, you could write things down that were true. They can also make up a story based very loosely on a real character, and pepper it with actual true stuff to make it more convincing. There may have been a real "Jesus" at the heart of it, but that doesn't mean people can't make stuff up about him. It's not true that they had to either be telling the whole truth or just lies. Surely you can see that? You're still insisting on the false dichotomy that the gospels are either completely true in every detail or totally false. This is simply not true. In fact, the disciples making up the story fits the facts a whole lot better than the story really happening. Far better. It requires no greater assumption than people are willing to make up stories to get what they want, which we know is true. All this "they died for this and that" is also in the bible, so could be written to make it look like they really believed it. We're relying on the bible being true to validate the bible, instead of being sceptical. You simply cannot validate a whole book by matching up a certain amount as historically accurate. Be honest. If I showed a different holy book to be full of 99% historically accurate facts, you would not agree to just believe the remaining 1% supernatural accounts if it contradicted your religion.

At the end of the day, it's just a book of stories. How much of it is really true is unknown, but to just assume events happened without being able to verify them requires a huge innate bias. And as I've said before, even if Jesus came back from the dead, that proves nothing about his divine nature or about God. It just means someone came back from the dead.

As for the courtroom, I've repeatedly taken your examples and shown you that you wouldn't accept your own criteria which you expect me to believe. You only like the courtroom when people are saying what you want them to say, otherwise you find reasons to be sceptical. Please go back and re read some of my posts on this, and see if you can answer my objections more fully. Explain how you're not just making a special case for me to believe one story over another.

I would be really interested in hearing your other reasons why you believe though, because I highly suspect they mean more to you than these rationalisations. It's pretty clear, because as soon as I pin you down on what you've set up, but with a different claim being made, you throw the whole scenario out. So there's something else keeping your belief going.

(May 24, 2015 at 8:40 am)Randy Carson Wrote:

(May 23, 2015 at 10:34 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Who was with Jesus and Satan when they were in the wilderness?  

Did anyone see Jesus pray in Gethsemane (Matthew 26:36)?

(May 23, 2015 at 10:45 pm)Jenny A Wrote: And how could anyone but Mary possibly have known she was a virgin?

How difficult would it have been for Jesus to have told the disciples about his experience in the desert?

And the disciples were with Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, so they knew he was in prayer. I would agree that there was no time for discussion after his arrest, but after his resurrection, Jesus was with the disciples for 40 days, and THE BIBLE SAYS:

Quote:3 After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. 

I think it's pretty reasonable that they might ask, "Dude, what were praying about in the Garden? You were sweating blood!"

Ye olde "it could have been like this" apologetics.  Do you realize how unpersuasive such speculations are?

(May 24, 2015 at 9:41 am)robvalue Wrote: Well, there's two answers to that. There's the amazing generous answer, from my previous challenge, and I'll just be repeating myself.

"Telling the truth" means saying what they bekieved happened.

No, telling the truth means telling the truth. Someone can believe something that is not true, but what I have said is that the authors appear to have been careful in their research, accurate in their details and thoughtful in their presentations.

Quote:You are imbuing them with not just complete and utter honesty but infalibility to not be mistaken, or fooled, to misenterpret, to oversimplify, to be confused, for memories to get distorted... or just plain not understand what's going on and filling in the gaps. There is a world of difference between what someone believes about an event, and the truth of the event. And given the unbelievably extraordinary nature of the claim, it will always be staggeringly more likely that they fell foul of one of the hundreds of ways a human can err rather than it actually happened just as they wrote.

Given that the community of believers would quickly correct any errors that appeared in a written account, I'm not at all inclined to believe that errors made it into print. (And you should take note of the fact that I am NOT appealing to the promise of the Holy Spirit whom Jesus said would remind the apostles of all that He had said to them them NOR am I relying on the infallibility of the Catholic Church which has settled this matter long ago.) These books were not written in a vacuum or simply churned out and published one day..."Hey, everybody....look what I wrote!" The authors were part of a community, and novelties would not have been received well. Contrary to the claims of Ehrman and his disciples in this forum, the Church was not interested in embellishing a legend. It was interested in preserving the truth.

Quote:In fact, actual ressurection itself is not a given. The last part of Mark is highly suspected of being a forgery, meaning even he did not actually know Jesus had risen. It's suspected to have ended at 16:8 with just some guy telling them to spread the rumour he had risen. A story was probably later added to try and cement it as fact rather than a rumour. As you hopefully know, Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily from Mark so this is really just the one account and it's not what people would like it to be.

What a mish-mash of ideas! Mark was the travelling companion of Peter and Paul. He wrote his gospel based upon the teachings of Peter. And you want to say that Mark was unaware of the resurrection? Rob, seriously, you need to read some scripture...not as a believer but just so you can avoid this kind of fuzzy thinking.

Quote:Not so generous answer: They got some things right, sure. It's not hard. If you're living at that time, you could write things down that were true. They can also make up a story based very loosely on a real character, and pepper it with actual true stuff to make it more convincing.

How would that story fly given that living eyewitnesses to Jesus' crucifixion were still alive? And if the account of feeding the five thousand was pure fiction, wouldn't more than a few people have said, "Hey, I have relatives living up that way...they never heard of any of this"?

And if you want to claim that the whole kit and kaboodle is pure fiction, then you have to explain the extra-biblical sources which point to the existence of the historical Jesus. It's one thing for forum members to be dismissive...but it's another thing to actually justify dismissing the pagan and Jewish references to Jesus and/or the Church. I have not doubt there are scholars who are willing to do just that, but I think I'm on pretty safe ground when I say that most scholars - even the skeptical ones - acknowledge that there are some 10-15 universally accepted facts about Jesus which lead us to believe that He - one man - did exist.

Quote:You're still insisting on the false dichotomy that the gospels are either completely true I'm every detail or totally false. This is simply not true, if anything. In fact, the disciples making up the story fits the facts a whole lot better than the story really happening. Far better. It requires no greater assumption than people are willing to make up stories to get what they want, which we know is true. All this "they died for this and that" is also in the bible, so could be written to make it look like they really believed it.

Would Bobby Henderson be willing to die for the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Nobody dies for something they know to be a lie.

The apostles did not believe because they heard. They knew because they saw. And they have told us what they knew and saw accurately.

Whether you believe depends on God's grace and your will.

Quote:A pretty remarkable picture into the mindset of a first century Jewish Christian proselytizer who was very influential in the founding and maintaining of the earliest churches ... have you even read any of Paul's epistles? Lol.

The author's mindset, sure...but I think we ought to establish that there was a Paul before we go claiming that we have insight into his mind, don't you? We've both agreed that we are removing the ignorant and un-serious from "Paul", yes?

Quote:I wouldn't say the character of Saul/Paul in Acts is unimportant. What's your basis for that claim? The whole point is to establish his credibility as a legitimate prophet.

Do you get the feeling, from the narrative, that anything about Paul, as a man, is important?   Seems to me the message is the focus, and stands either way.   Legitimate prophet, lol? More on that in a minute I suppose...

Quote:What narrative? The Pauline epistles predate any narratives.

-and it's never occurred to you that they -are- a narrative?  That they are not factual accounts? Ever read the Screwtape Letters, lol?

Quote:They make it pretty clear that Paul was a convert to a movement that already existed in some infantile stage. The writing of at least seven of the epistles is the distinctive work of a single individual, who offers biographical details about his life, his obstacles in spreading his newfound theological perspective, and mentions dozens of personal acquaintances in the churches unknown anywhere else...  But most importantly he calls himself Paul. So what motive would there be to create a "Paul" when no one in the church at that time was revered under any heading even remotely approaching "sainthood" with perhaps the exception of Jesus' inner circle, which Paul wasn't manifestly a part of as he almost has to plead with his audience and remind them of the literal pains he has endured following his mystical experience, in hopes of establishing his inclusion among the rank of apostleship?

Didn't you seek to demonstrate yourself..earlier, that Paul was both a name, and a name that carried authority in a certain subset?  Does there need to be anything more than this?  Is there any Paul now.....are people referring to Pauls authority regardless?  I don't know why there would have to be a Paul then...if there doesn;t have to be a Paul now - and still those things are true. Why would there need to be a motive -at all-....I'm not sure I understand the question..?  I thought we both agreed that neither of us sees a conspiracy here?

You and I don't really differ -that- much on the issue of Paul, btw, I can already tell. You conceive of Paul as a man who wrote letters regarding doctrine. I thinks it's awfully convenient that he gets those opportunities, that's all. Particularly in that it is those ignorant and un-serious claims made about "Paul" which forms the basis of his authority to speak to begin with (ah yes, "prophethood"). I doubt that there was a singular man being solicited to respond, via letter, to these churches. I think that the response to churches is a narrative device...a reason for the narrator to tell the story, a solicitation for correction where none seems to be incoming.

Are trying to establish that the Epistles had an author...or do you think that I would dispute that claim? We can both agree to skip that, entirely un-serious debate...eh? :wink:

Lets get back to extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

A book with people saying we "saw/heard this" is not the proof we are looking for, especially when the same book is in fact the claim.

The thing that really blows the whole thing out of the water, at least for me, is the fact that this "universal truth" was only known to a small group of people in a geographically limited area.

The people of South America and the Australias had to be told about these things and made to believe, often at sword point they had different incompatible beliefs.

Christianity wasn't even that popular in the Roman world until it became the religion of the state.

If yahweh was the only godthen all the people of the world would have heard about it prior to western contact and would all have known of christ, moses and all the rest. The fact they didn't shows it for the man made fairy tales that they so obviously are.

(May 24, 2015 at 8:27 am)Randy Carson Wrote:

(May 23, 2015 at 10:10 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Willingness to die for a belief is proof the belief is strongly felt, but not that it is accurate.

The apostles did not accept death rather than deny a belief. People do that every day...just watch the news.

The apostles died rather than deny something they knew to be true. IOW, if the gospel is a lie, then why lose your life over something that started off as a fraternity prank?

If captured by ISIS, do you think Bobby Henderson would be willing to die for his beliefs concerning the Flying Spaghetti Monster which he created in 2005? Or is it more likely that knowing the FSM to be fictitious, he would admit the charade to save his skin?

Yes people do die for their beliefs.  Right now most of those people are not Christian and their beliefs are different and opposed to yours.  They are Muslims.  Does that mean Islam is true and Christianity is not?  No, it has no bearing on whether either set of beliefs is true, only how strongly they are held and what the believer thinks the consequences of denying that belief are.  

(May 24, 2015 at 8:27 am)Randy Carson Wrote:

(May 23, 2015 at 10:10 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Sufficient to be remotely persuasive.  Are you sure you meant "coercive."  I have this silly picture running through my mind of a stack of Bibles holding someone hostage at gun point.

Once again, rational people don't believe UFO abduction reports based on eyewitness testimony for precisely the same reasons.   Other religions allege other miracles based on eyewitness testimony.  You believe in the Golden Tablets of Joseph Smith, the accuracy of the Prophet at Dephi, that Hindu priests can turn water into wine?  The evidence for those is the same as for the resurrection.  Claiming more for the Bible is just special pleading.

Have faith in it if you like, but it isn't proof.

Do aliens exist? I have no idea. I'm agnostic when it comes to aliens.

I have not nor can I investigate every claim of UFO sightings and alien abductions, but even if I could, would the lack of evidence be sufficient for me to conclude that aliens do not exist anywhere in the universe? Nope. Therefore, I must be agnostic about alien life.

I can evaluate the claims of Joseph Smith (and Mormonism is in trouble because, thanks to the Interweb, more people are doing just that) and the other phenomenon you list to make reasonable determinations about them.

But how will you determine that no god exists? There is no science whose methods, when used properly, show God does not exist. Therefore, an atheist must use principles in philosophy in order not only to refute theism but to prove atheism as well.

I haven't proven that any god doesn't exist.  It is not possible to prove a negative.  You can't prove I don't have an invisible magical purple dragon in my crawlspace either. That is why I wait to accept a claim not UFOs until such thing is proven.  God (a rather undefined idea anyway) remains unproven.  Therefore, I don't believe in your god, or alien abductions.  Given the scarcity and unreliability of the evidence, compared to the claim of an all powerful being who interjects itself into the affairs of humans, I'd say the chances of such a being existing are miniscule at best.  The chances of alien abduction are a little better, but not much.  However, should evidence present itself, I'd reevaluate.

The Bible is not such evidence.  The fact that Mormonism, a very strongly held belief by it's followers, can be shown to be false now, is a perfect demonstration of why it is that eyewitness testimony from the past is not persuasive evidence of supernatural events.  People are easily fooled then and now.  It's just easier to find the flaws now.  

(May 24, 2015 at 10:04 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Ye olde "it could have been like this" apologetics.  Do you realize how unpersuasive such speculations are?

Oh, I see how it is.

When an atheist wants to propose that Jesus was buried in a shallow grave and dogs dug up and ate his body, that's okay, because it's plausible.

But when a Christian offers an equally plausible explanation for how something may have occurred, that's an just "unpersuasive speculation".

Okay. I got it, jorm.

Thanks for clarifying the double-standard that is operative here.

---

(May 24, 2015 at 10:21 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: The thing that really blows the whole thing out of the water, at least for me, is the fact that this "universal truth" was only known to a small group of people in a geographically limited area.

The people of South America and the Australias had to be told about these things and made to believe, often at sword point they had different incompatible beliefs.

Christianity wasn't even that popular in the Roman world until it became the religion of the state.

If yahweh was the only godthen all the people of the world would have heard about it prior to western contact and would all have known of christ, moses and all the rest. The fact they didn't shows it for the man made fairy tales that they so obviously are.

This is a non sequitur.

God does not have to reveal something to every race, tongue and tribe simultaneously for it to be universally true. The fact that different groups have different understandings of God at any one time doesn't disprove His existence any more than the fact that there are some people on this planet who do not know that DNA or irrational numbers exist.

If that's really what "blows the whole thing out of the water" for you, then I guess your remaining days as an atheist are few in number.

(May 24, 2015 at 10:28 am)Randy Carson Wrote:

(May 24, 2015 at 10:04 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Ye olde "it could have been like this" apologetics.  Do you realize how unpersuasive such speculations are?

Oh, I see how it is.

When an atheist wants to propose that Jesus was buried in a shallow grave and dogs dug up and ate his body, that's okay, because it's plausible.

But when a Christian offers an equally plausible explanation for how something may have occurred, that's an just "unpersuasive speculation".

Okay. I got it, jorm.

Thanks for clarifying the double-standard that is operative here.

I have never heard anyone ever make that claim but I'll play.

If you heard someone had been pronounced dead and later got up and moved around, do you suspect immediately that they are the son of god or would a part of you think that the person pronouncing them dead in the first place made a mistake.

I would think that most reasonable people would go for the second option and at least try to rule it out before moving to the stupid one.

But remember we know nothing of the person who announced jesus as expired, could have been incompetent , drunk, having a bad day or lying we just don't know as the salient facts are missing, it is just presumed that people will suck it in and believe. I am not so gullible

And that's just one little problem another is that people are pronounced dead in error ALL THE TIME google it, there are loads.

So what you have is an unsubstantiated and unlikely event reported in isolation by a small group without any contemporary records or physical evidence backing it up and you are surprised when we are unconvinced and accuse us of playing by double standards.

(May 24, 2015 at 10:53 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(May 24, 2015 at 10:28 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Oh, I see how it is.

When an atheist wants to propose that Jesus was buried in a shallow grave and dogs dug up and ate his body, that's okay, because it's plausible.

But when a Christian offers an equally plausible explanation for how something may have occurred, that's an just "unpersuasive speculation".

Okay. I got it, jorm.

Thanks for clarifying the double-standard that is operative here.

I have never heard anyone ever make that claim but I'll play.

If you heard someone had been pronounced dead and later got up and moved around, do you suspect immediately that they are the son of god or would a part of you think that the person pronouncing them dead in the first place made a mistake.

I would think that most reasonable people would go for the second option and at least try to rule it out before moving to the stupid one.

But remember we know nothing of the person who announced jesus as expired, could have been incompetent , drunk, having a bad day or lying we just don't know as the salient facts are missing, it is just presumed that people will suck it in and believe. I am not so gullible

And that's just one little problem another is that people are pronounced dead in error ALL THE TIME google it, there are loads.

So what you have is an unsubstantiated and unlikely event reported in isolation by a small group without any contemporary records or physical evidence backing it up and you are surprised when we are unconvinced and accuse us of playing by double standards.

Just Google "John Dominic Crossan" or "Jesus eaten by dogs" to learn how some rocket-scientists are attempting to explain away the resurrection.

The double-standard is that atheists are allowed to play "what if" games but Christians are not, apparently.

Randy,

I think you need to think about what the word plausible means. For example, how would you rate these events on a scale of one to ten, least to most plausible:

1) I had a cup of coffee this morning.

2) I saw a turkey walking down our suburban street yesterday.

3) I won the lottery several years ago, but I gambled the money away.

4) One of my children is a mathematical genius.

5) I own a cat that can open doors.

6) Someone dug up a grave in the cemetery down the street.

7) I raise flamingos for a living.

8) A duck billed platypus wandered in to my Oregon dining room.

9) I've met Big Foot.

10) My husband died of gun shot wounds three days ago.  Today he visited alive and well and I touched the wounds.


I've placed them in my order.  The first is very plausible.  The second not so much, but far from impossible as I live near a small woods and turkeys do live here.  Someone always wins the lottery and many people do piss the money away. Mathematical geniuses do exist and it is possible that I might have given birth to one.  Cats do some pretty amazing things.  People do dig up graves.  Flamingos exist, but it would be hard to explain how I made a living raising them, though it's within the realm of possibility.  Duck bill platypuses exist, but they are rare and they don't live in Oregon.  Big foot sighting have been revealed as hoaxes so often without anyone actually producing one, that I find the idea that I met one highly implausible. The last is the least plausible of all as it describes an event ordinarily considered impossible.

On that scale  the proposition that Jesus was buried in a shallow grave and dug up by dogs is about a 2 or 3 given that that is what often happened to people who were crucified.  That he was buried in a tomb is about 5 to 7, since the Romans did not ordinarily allow relatives or anyone else to give executed persons a decent burial. That he rose from the dead is a ten.