Evidence: The Gathering

[Randy Carson]

Randy....randy....randy.... your evidence is coming from ignorance that isn't based in reality. christianity (never going to give capitalize the C)

Christianity is a proper noun. If you have been educated in the rules of grammar, then you know that it should be capitalized, and your unwillingness to exposes the bias that prevents you from examining the claims objectively and from being taken seriously by me.

is a religion made around ignorance.

Ignorance of what exactly? Some Christians may be ignorant of some science, and some atheists may be ignorant of some aspects of the Christian faith. It would be helpful if you could expand on this accusation.

The idea of sin is bullshit and sin doesn't exist.

Can you explain how you know this to be true?

christianity's flaw is sin and the fact that you have do god right over something you have done or will do is stupid.

The sentence above is a bit garbled, but let me say that it would be more correct to say that HUMANITY'S flaw is sin.

Sin itself is a abstract thought it cannot exist and it is bullshit. There is no black and white good and evil in the world.

Ah. Moral relativism.

jesus he never existed get over it the guy never existed to begin with the historical evidence doesn't add up to the favor of your religion.

Is that what atheist scholars who have studied the evidence have concluded?

That being said if he had existed his sacrifice was nulled the second he came back to life.

Why?

[pocaracas]

The account goes as
- women go to the tomb
- The tomb is empty
- Some guy is inside and that guy is reported to say "he has risen", Don't forget to tell his disciples about it... he's going that way.
- And the women told no one.

And there ends the story.

Yes, that's where the original ending leaves it.

With the clear message that HE HAS RISEN.

Now, based on that, can you agree that Mark MUST have known of the resurrection? Otherwise, he would have simply had the young man say, "He is not here." and left it at that.

To rise....
A person can be risen and, yet, remain lying down...


Are we to exclude other interpretations of the word?
This is why we have second century accounts of jews saying that someone may have stolen the body... rose it and took it... but only the rising part got committed to writing.

Maybe Mark was going for a second volume and wanted to keep the audience in suspense, huh?

No, Mark was the traveling companion of Peter, and he was fully aware of the full gospel message that was being PREACHED. He wrote a brief account of what Peter was teaching, and Matthew, Luke and John filled in some of the blanks later. But the audience was not "kept is suspense" because they heard the oral teaching from the apostles.

Was the oral teaching really about a resurrection?
Or about the life and how to correctly interpret the OT?

If the women told no one, how did anyone come to know about that exchange in order to write it down?
Either they did tell someone and the account is true, but not the last bit (the most believable bit)

Or they told no one, and this account can only be fictitious!

I think it is reasonable to think that the woman did not say anything to anyone IMMEDIATELY - not that they never said a word EVER for the next 20-30 years before dying and taking the secret of what happened that morning to their graves.

Since Jesus later appeared to the apostles (and the women) in the upper room in Jerusalem, the "secret" was let out of the bag eventually. It seems reasonable to assume that SOMEONE would have asked the ladies what happened that morning.

More likely, however, is that Mark was simply trying to wrap up his gospel (maybe he was running out of papyrus! I'm kidding.) without having to continue the story. It had to end somewhere...otherwise, he would have continued writing his own book of Acts. But that was left to Luke.

If there was a resurrection, and people saw it, and Mark, as a companion to Peter, would know about it, then why did he not write about it?
Was it not as important as the rest which he did write?

He didn't have to write a book of acts... just that last bit about a walking-talking Christ.
I know this is going in the direction of "absence of evidence", but it's a shocking absence!
So shocking that proto-orthodox christians had to put something in there to end the tale properly.

That's how circumstantial evidence works, or am I doing it wrong?

I think the way it works is that investigators consider ALL of the eyewitness accounts and piece together what actually happened from testimony that may actually be in disagreement on some points.

Like how the survivors of the Titanic disagreed over whether the ship broke in two. Or like how the witnesses in Ferguson, MO disagreed over whether Michael Brown was running toward or away from Officer Darren Wilson.

A disagreement about the appearance of a walking-talking Jesus a few days after his rather gruesome crucifixion?
Actually, this isn't about a disagreement... it's about a missing account of such appearance where one is to be expected, given the supernatural attestation it would bring.

What could have been the earliest account of the resurrected Jesus just isn't there.
And do note that even this "earlier" account was about 30 years after the alleged fact. Mark should know about it enough to write something more down. But didn't! ARGGHHHH!
"ARGHHHH" for catholics!
This is hinting straight to a lack of a resurrected Jesus... hinting that all tales of the resurrected Jesus are phony...
And if those are phony... then what is catholicism?

[dyresand]

[downbeatplumb]

When finally get out of bed on a Saturday my says "he has risen" all sarcastic like. This could just mean he woke up.

[Randy Carson]

Are we to exclude other interpretations of the word?
This is why we have second century accounts of jews saying that someone may have stolen the body... rose it and took it... but only the rising part got committed to writing.

Yes, we KNOW that the Jews claimed that the body was stolen...they had to have SOMETHING to say BECAUSE THE TOMB WAS EMPTY.

If this were not so, then all that the Jews had to do would have been to open the tomb and produce the corpse. But they could not produce a body, because it was no longer in the tomb...just as Mark recounted.

Who stole the body, poca? And for what purpose?

If you assert that it was the disciples, then you are advocating the Conspiracy Theory which can be refuted relatively easily. I have provided this in another thread.

If you suggest that is was some third party, then explain the motive for a Jew to defile himself by going into a tomb and touching a dead body. Then, explain how and why this person would remain silent about this for the rest of his or her life. I don't think this is going to fly.

Or was it a Roman? What would it benefit the Roman Empire to have someone claiming to be a king rise from the dead???

If the Jewish leaders were willing to pay Judas Iscariot 30 pieces of silver for information concerning the whereabouts of Jesus when he was still alive, how much more would they have been willing to pay for information concerning the whereabouts of his body after the Church had begun to grow?

I suspect that the equivalent of WANTED: Dead or Alive posters were plastered from one end of Galilee to the other. No reward was ever claimed.

poca, the Jews claims provide enemy attestation that the tomb WAS EMPTY.

No, Mark was the traveling companion of Peter, and he was fully aware of the full gospel message that was being PREACHED. He wrote a brief account of what Peter was teaching, and Matthew, Luke and John filled in some of the blanks later. But the audience was not "kept is suspense" because they heard the oral teaching from the apostles.

Was the oral teaching really about a resurrection? Or about the life and how to correctly interpret the OT?

1 Corinthians 1:22-24
22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

I think it is reasonable to think that the woman did not say anything to anyone IMMEDIATELY - not that they never said a word EVER for the next 20-30 years before dying and taking the secret of what happened that morning to their graves.

Since Jesus later appeared to the apostles (and the women) in the upper room in Jerusalem, the "secret" was let out of the bag eventually. It seems reasonable to assume that SOMEONE would have asked the ladies what happened that morning.

More likely, however, is that Mark was simply trying to wrap up his gospel (maybe he was running out of papyrus! I'm kidding.) without having to continue the story. It had to end somewhere...otherwise, he would have continued writing his own book of Acts. But that was left to Luke.

If there was a resurrection, and people saw it, and Mark, as a companion to Peter, would know about it, then why did he not write about it?
Was it not as important as the rest which he did write?

He didn't have to write a book of acts... just that last bit about a walking-talking Christ.

I know this is going in the direction of "absence of evidence", but it's a shocking absence!
So shocking that proto-orthodox christians had to put something in there to end the tale properly.

Shocking is YOUR interpretation...not necessarily the feeling of the Early Church which saw Peter and Mark with their own eyes and heard the preaching with their own ears. They simply added a longer ending later based on what they had HEARD from Peter during his travels.

Mark's gospel is brief...and not necessarily in the proper order...it has the appearance of a document written in some haste...not in 15 minutes, of course, but quickly as if time were of the essence.

Peter was constantly on the move...hunted by Jews and Romans alike. He was arrested more than once. And there is the fact that the early Church believed initially that Jesus would return during their lifetimes. So, he wrote a Reader's Digest version of events. Remember, this was supplemental to the oral teaching and preaching of the Church...it wasn't intended as an exhaustive treatise.

I think the way it works is that investigators consider ALL of the eyewitness accounts and piece together what actually happened from testimony that may actually be in disagreement on some points.

Like how the survivors of the Titanic disagreed over whether the ship broke in two. Or like how the witnesses in Ferguson, MO disagreed over whether Michael Brown was running toward or away from Officer Darren Wilson.

A disagreement about the appearance of a walking-talking Jesus a few days after his rather gruesome crucifixion?
Actually, this isn't about a disagreement... it's about a missing account of such appearance where one is to be expected, given the supernatural attestation it would bring.

No, there was no disagreement about the fact that Jesus was "risen". All four gospels make this point as does Paul in his letters.

What could have been the earliest account of the resurrected Jesus just isn't there.
And do note that even this "earlier" account was about 30 years after the alleged fact. Mark should know about it enough to write something more down. But didn't! ARGGHHHH!
"ARGHHHH" for catholics!
This is hinting straight to a lack of a resurrected Jesus... hinting that all tales of the resurrected Jesus are phony...
And if those are phony... then what is catholicism?

Nice try, but this fails.

Mark wrote in the mid 40's. The Church had been preaching the resurrection of Jesus for more than a decade by the time Mark picked up his quill. So, Mark wrote a brief account in order to capture some of Peter's words before the latter was martyred in Rome ca. AD 64. And Mark was not alone. Luke points out that "many" had written accounts of Jesus before he decided to do a full investigation himself.

But for 15-20 years prior to that moment of inspiration, the Church had been hearing about the resurrection of Jesus from those who were eyewitnesses of His appearances including the enemy of the Church, Paul, and the skeptical brother of Jesus, James, who were converted by seeing the risen Lord.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

[Shining_Finger]

[pocaracas]

[Randy Carson]

[Jenny A]

Yes, we KNOW that the Jews claimed that the body was stolen...they had to have SOMETHING to say BECAUSE THE TOMB WAS EMPTY.

If this were not so, then all that the Jews had to do would have been to open the tomb and produce the corpse. But they could not produce a body, because it was no longer in the tomb...just as Mark recounted.

Who stole the body, poca? And for what purpose?

If you assert that it was the disciples, then you are advocating the Conspiracy Theory which can be refuted relatively easily. I have provided this in another thread.

If you suggest that is was some third party, then explain the motive for a Jew to defile himself by going into a tomb and touching a dead body. Then, explain how and why this person would remain silent about this for the rest of his or her life. I don't think this is going to fly.

Or was it a Roman? What would it benefit the Roman Empire to have someone claiming to be a king rise from the dead???

If the Jewish leaders were willing to pay Judas Iscariot 30 pieces of silver for information concerning the whereabouts of Jesus when he was still alive, how much more would they have been willing to pay for information concerning the whereabouts of his body after the Church had begun to grow?

I suspect that the equivalent of WANTED: Dead or Alive posters were plastered from one end of Galilee to the other. No reward was ever claimed.

poca, the Jews claims provide enemy attestation that the tomb WAS EMPTY.

This is where the difference between direct and indirect evidence becomes important.  Even eye witnesses (I'll assume eye witnesses for the moment, but I don't by any means concede their existence for any other purpose) testimony that the tomb was empty is not direct evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.  Why not?  Because more reasoning and information is needed.  It's merely circumstantial evidence dependent on determining what an empty tomb means by further reasoning.

Now, lets detour a moment and take a look at how circumstantial evidence works.  Suppose you wake up and flick on a light switch and nothing happens.  That's direct evidence your light isn't working but circumstantial evidence of numerous other things:  the light bulb is out; the light fixture is broken; the circuit breaker has tripped; you have a short circuit; the main breaker has tripped; the power company turned off your power; the power to your house is out; the power to your neighborhood is out; your whole power grid is down.   Then there are more remote possibilities:  aliens have shut down your power; you're are hallucinating; you suddenly went blind; god is punishing you; it ghosts; it's your neighbor using his psychic powers.

With more evidence, you might eliminate a few.  If you look outside you might see lights in other people's windows.  You might check the breaker box, change the light bulb, or call the power company.

But just the light not working proves none of them, though perhaps we can agree that ghosts, godly punishment, your psychic neighbor, you went blind, or you are hallucinating are more remote.  And even among the more common possibilities your light bulb being out or a relatively local outage are more likely. 

If I told you the reason was ghosts and you most prove one other possibility or accept it's ghosts, you'd think I was crazy.  But, given that it's happening real time you might find the real problem and prove ghosts wrong.

That's the rub.  The possibilities for an empty tomb are: theft (with benign or malignant intent for honest or fraudulent reasons), waking up from what wasn't really death; failure to actually inter the body (again for benign or malignant reasons); the witnesses lied; dogs, people, or other animals ate the body; or rising from the dead like Lazarus is said to have done; or even more improbably waking to eternal life.  The first five are reasonably probable.  The later two impossibly improbable.  It is not for those arguing that it might of been one of the first five to show that it was a particular one of the five, but he who argues for the impossible to show that the first five are really and truly impossible.  Otherwise the empty tomb is proof of nothing like resurrection.  It is circumstantial evidence of nothing in particular, just possibilities, much like the light that doesn't come on.