We can be certain of NO resurrection - A Response

[Cato]

Oh, there IS evidence, alright...lots of it. But not coercive evidence that FORCES you to believe.

Translation: Randy's a carbon based blob of confirmation bias.

[Randy Carson]

Or, in the alternative:

1. Jesus existed and was executed by Rome for claiming to be a Jewish messiah (and thus anti-Roman "rebel leader").
2. The followers of this man who claimed to be the arrival of the Messiah, the leader of the Jewish freedom movement, could not accept that God would send the Messiah only to let him die, so they claim he's coming back soon. This story gets embellished as retold and repeated.
3. The very first things written about him were 15 years later, at a minimum (Pauline epistles).
4. The gospels weren't written for twenty years (or more) after his death.
5. There was plenty of time within the first year after his death, let alone the 14-19 years after that, to come up with a few stories about the Messiah being actually more than a failed "mere human", in which time the ministry of Jesus stories became slowly embellished by the small group of disciples (and Paul) as they spread the word, and by the time they were written down (probably by others), a semi-coherent whole had coagulated (helped by later editing, and the excising  of the less-coherent versions, by the early orthodox church bishops) that expressed a version of the teachings of those "eyewitnesses" that in only the barest details matched what had actually happened, two decades before.
6. Later Christians would not only accept the coagulated version as a factual narrative of what actually happened, but would use those gospels-that-survived-the-Council-of-Nicea versions' similarities to one another to "prove" that eyewitnesses (who just couldn't be  later believers writing down the coagulated story as they recall it being retold and reshaped and retold by aged disciples who actually were eyewitnesses, once upon a time, before they started embellishing the "he is returning 'soon' to lead the Jews to freedom" story until he became God Incarnate!) wrote down the story accurately.
7. The versions kept being retold-and-coagulated into cohesive but highly-altered forms so much that, by the time we pass the Jewish Revolt and get to books like the gospel of John and Revelation, the tone has changed significantly (compared to the Synoptics) but not so significantly that the average Christian even notices the striking difference between Mark and John, clearly showing an evolving story/fable.

IOW, it does not follow that one's opinion of the gospels must be "I think these guys may have been telling the truth" for any of the reasons that are commonly stated, and the whole thing about the empty grave is static that assumes a great deal that can neither be assumed logically, nor can other plausible alternatives be excluded. It's wishful thinking and suppositionalism at its finest.

The gospels were written early...Mark around AD 50 give or take. Luke a bit later...but note that Luke says the "many had undertaken to give an account" which suggests that numerous other written records were in existence before he wrote. This would include Q, for example.

More importantly, 1 Cor. 15:1-8 is an early proto-creed of the Church learned by Paul from the mouths of the Apostles as early as AD 35.

That's within five years of Jesus crucifixion, rocket, and as Paul points out, many of the witnesses to the appearances of Jesus were still alive at the time Paul was writing to the Corinthians. That's not a lot of time for the necessary embellishment, is it? And anyone who attempted to alter the account would have had living witnesses to contend with.

Now, let's take a look at the famous "Telephone Game" argument

Debunking the Telephone Game Analogy

What do you suppose happened to the stories [about Jesus] over the years, as they were told and retold, not as disinterested news stories reported by eyewitnesses but as propaganda meant to convert people to faith, told by people who had themselves heard them fifth- or sixth- or nineteenth-hand? Did you or your kids ever play the telephone game at a birthday party? (Bart Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted, pp. 146-147)

Many non-Christians object to the reliability of the New Testament, and they often reference the children’s party activity known as the “Telephone Game” as an example of how oral transmission of a message can become distorted. But is this really the principle at work in the writing of the gospels? Let’s examine the rules of the game to see how closely the game may compare with the composing of the scriptures.

Rules of the Telephone Game:

1. To play Telephone, you'll need a group of players. More is better.  

2. Choose a phrase for the team to use or let them select one themselves. Phrases should be complicated, with plenty of detail and unfamiliar words -- for instance, try using a phrase such as "Mahogany tables don't look good painted fuchsia." The phrase should never be a familiar expression; these are too easy to remember.

3. Only one player should know what the phrase is.

4. The player who created or received the phrase starts the game by whispering it into the ear of another player.

5. She cannot repeat the phrase, so the second player needs to listen carefully. The second player then whispers the phrase to the third player, who whispers it to the fourth, and so on until the last player.

6. Once all players have spoken, the last player repeats the phrase. Unless everyone on the team is a very clear speaker and a very attentive listener, the phrase will have changed.

7. What began as "Mahogany tables don't look good painted fuchsia" might end up as "Behold, any stables look good waiting on blue sand." If you have time, go back through the players, asking each one what the original phrase was and pinpointing where the various changes occurred.

Why the Telephone Game Analogy Fails:

1. The rules of the game recommend that a group of players is needed. The reason for this is that in order for the game to be entertaining, deviation from the original phrase is desirable. In contrast, the gospel writers were not playing a game nor were they the last in a long chain of children; they were either eyewitnesses or they relied on the testimony of eyewitnesses who were still alive.

2. The rules of the game suggest that the phrases should be complicated and contain unfamiliar words. In contrast, the gospel writers conveyed Jesus’ words in plain, simple language using names, places, prophetic writings and history that were familiar to their readers.

3. The rules suggest that only one player should know the original phrase. In contrast, the gospel writers had access to many eyewitnesses who could corroborate the written accounts.

4. The game begins with a single whisper. In contrast, the proclamation of the gospel began with Peter preaching openly to thousands on the day of Pentecost.

5. The game limits each player to hearing and repeating the phrase once and from one source only. In contrast, the gospel of Luke states that “many have undertaken to draw up an account” of the events he also recorded in his gospel. Additionally, many eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus were still alive and both Luke and Paul make reference to this fact in their writings. Thus, the gospel writers were recording history that both they and their audiences knew well.

6. The rules assume that not all players will speak clearly or listen attentively. In contrast, the gospel writers took great pains to reproduce what they had seen and heard faithfully and with great clarity.

7. The rules of the game suggest that it would be fun to go back to see exactly where all the changes took place. In contrast, if the gospel writers had changed or added to the accounts of Jesus’ life or to His parables that were known by oral tradition, the living witnesses would have objected strenuously to such novelties as mere fabrications.

In conclusion, the gospel writers were not children being entertained by a party game. They saw themselves as passing on the very words of God just as they had received them, and the presence of many living witnesses would ensure that each author was held accountable for reproducing the facts accurately.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

---

Or, in the alternative:

1. Jesus existed and was executed by Rome for claiming to be a Jewish messiah (and thus anti-Roman "rebel leader").
2. The followers of this man who claimed to be the arrival of the Messiah, the leader of the Jewish freedom movement, could not accept that God would send the Messiah only to let him die, so they claim he's coming back soon. This story gets embellished as retold and repeated.
3. The very first things written about him were 15 years later, at a minimum (Pauline epistles).
4. The gospels weren't written for twenty years (or more) after his death.
5. There was plenty of time within the first year after his death, let alone the 14-19 years after that, to come up with a few stories about the Messiah being actually more than a failed "mere human", in which time the ministry of Jesus stories became slowly embellished by the small group of disciples (and Paul) as they spread the word, and by the time they were written down (probably by others), a semi-coherent whole had coagulated (helped by later editing, and the excising  of the less-coherent versions, by the early orthodox church bishops) that expressed a version of the teachings of those "eyewitnesses" that in only the barest details matched what had actually happened, two decades before.
6. Later Christians would not only accept the coagulated version as a factual narrative of what actually happened, but would use those gospels-that-survived-the-Council-of-Nicea versions' similarities to one another to "prove" that eyewitnesses (who just couldn't be  later believers writing down the coagulated story as they recall it being retold and reshaped and retold by aged disciples who actually were eyewitnesses, once upon a time, before they started embellishing the "he is returning 'soon' to lead the Jews to freedom" story until he became God Incarnate!) wrote down the story accurately.
7. The versions kept being retold-and-coagulated into cohesive but highly-altered forms so much that, by the time we pass the Jewish Revolt and get to books like the gospel of John and Revelation, the tone has changed significantly (compared to the Synoptics) but not so significantly that the average Christian even notices the striking difference between Mark and John, clearly showing an evolving story/fable.

IOW, it does not follow that one's opinion of the gospels must be "I think these guys may have been telling the truth" for any of the reasons that are commonly stated, and the whole thing about the empty grave is static that assumes a great deal that can neither be assumed logically, nor can other plausible alternatives be excluded. It's wishful thinking and suppositionalism at its finest.

---

The gospels were written early...Mark around AD 50 give or take. Luke a bit later...but note that Luke says the "many had undertaken to give an account" which suggests that numerous other written records were in existence before he wrote. This would include Q, for example.

More importantly, 1 Cor. 15:1-8 is an early proto-creed of the Church learned by Paul from the mouths of the Apostles as early as AD 35.

That's within five years of Jesus crucifixion, rocket, and as Paul points out, many of the witnesses to the appearances of Jesus were still alive at the time Paul was writing to the Corinthians. That's not a lot of time for the necessary embellishment, is it? And anyone who attempted to alter the account would have had living witnesses to contend with.

Now, let's take a look at the famous "Telephone Game" argument

Debunking the Telephone Game Analogy

What do you suppose happened to the stories [about Jesus] over the years, as they were told and retold, not as disinterested news stories reported by eyewitnesses but as propaganda meant to convert people to faith, told by people who had themselves heard them fifth- or sixth- or nineteenth-hand? Did you or your kids ever play the telephone game at a birthday party? (Bart Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted, pp. 146-147)

Many non-Christians object to the reliability of the New Testament, and they often reference the children’s party activity known as the “Telephone Game” as an example of how oral transmission of a message can become distorted. But is this really the principle at work in the writing of the gospels? Let’s examine the rules of the game to see how closely the game may compare with the composing of the scriptures.

Rules of the Telephone Game:

1. To play Telephone, you'll need a group of players. More is better.  

2. Choose a phrase for the team to use or let them select one themselves. Phrases should be complicated, with plenty of detail and unfamiliar words -- for instance, try using a phrase such as "Mahogany tables don't look good painted fuchsia." The phrase should never be a familiar expression; these are too easy to remember.

3. Only one player should know what the phrase is.

4. The player who created or received the phrase starts the game by whispering it into the ear of another player.

5. She cannot repeat the phrase, so the second player needs to listen carefully. The second player then whispers the phrase to the third player, who whispers it to the fourth, and so on until the last player.

6. Once all players have spoken, the last player repeats the phrase. Unless everyone on the team is a very clear speaker and a very attentive listener, the phrase will have changed.

7. What began as "Mahogany tables don't look good painted fuchsia" might end up as "Behold, any stables look good waiting on blue sand." If you have time, go back through the players, asking each one what the original phrase was and pinpointing where the various changes occurred.

Why the Telephone Game Analogy Fails:

1. The rules of the game recommend that a group of players is needed. The reason for this is that in order for the game to be entertaining, deviation from the original phrase is desirable. In contrast, the gospel writers were not playing a game nor were they the last in a long chain of children; they were either eyewitnesses or they relied on the testimony of eyewitnesses who were still alive.

2. The rules of the game suggest that the phrases should be complicated and contain unfamiliar words. In contrast, the gospel writers conveyed Jesus’ words in plain, simple language using names, places, prophetic writings and history that were familiar to their readers.

3. The rules suggest that only one player should know the original phrase. In contrast, the gospel writers had access to many eyewitnesses who could corroborate the written accounts.

4. The game begins with a single whisper. In contrast, the proclamation of the gospel began with Peter preaching openly to thousands on the day of Pentecost.

5. The game limits each player to hearing and repeating the phrase once and from one source only. In contrast, the gospel of Luke states that “many have undertaken to draw up an account” of the events he also recorded in his gospel. Additionally, many eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus were still alive and both Luke and Paul make reference to this fact in their writings. Thus, the gospel writers were recording history that both they and their audiences knew well.

6. The rules assume that not all players will speak clearly or listen attentively. In contrast, the gospel writers took great pains to reproduce what they had seen and heard faithfully and with great clarity.

7. The rules of the game suggest that it would be fun to go back to see exactly where all the changes took place. In contrast, if the gospel writers had changed or added to the accounts of Jesus’ life or to His parables that were known by oral tradition, the living witnesses would have objected strenuously to such novelties as mere fabrications.

In conclusion, the gospel writers were not children being entertained by a party game. They saw themselves as passing on the very words of God just as they had received them, and the presence of many living witnesses would ensure that each author was held accountable for reproducing the facts accurately.

None of this "telephone game" (or, "we distort for fun") analogy has anything to do with what Ehrman or I are talking about, in which people do actually try to transmit a story accurately but fail. See what I had to say about "coagulation". 

I can only conclude that you are willfully being dishonest, at this point.

We know, we know, that distorted versions of all these stories were put out. We have all kinds of apocrypha. Why were people doing that?

There are literally hundreds of experiments that have been done that show human memory and "eyewitness testimony" is horribly inaccurate and skewed. Watch this two minute video:

[Randy Carson]

Edit to Add: I see Aractus did a good job of explaining why, even if we accept the earliest possible dates of the writings in question, they don't prove what you're claiming, Randy. Nice work, Aractus.

Second Editing: I see Randy still doesn't grasp that people writing "he is risen" doesn't mean that the stories told are eyewitness accounts that thereby imply the full "He was buried in the tomb of Joesph of Arimathea and when we came a few days later to look, he was no longer in the same tomb we saw him buried in and then he appeared and spoke to us and we watched him ascend into heaven, and none of this stuff I'm writing down 20+ years later is an embellishment from the retelling of the original basic version".

What does it mean for Jesus to have "risen", rocket?

What does it mean for people to have seen Jesus AFTER the resurrection?

But yes, Mark knew that Jesus was buried in a tomb belonging to JoA (cf Mark 15). He also knew that Jesus was risen since he wrote "he is risen" (cf. Mark 16:6)

And since 1 Cor 15:1-8 can be dated to about AD 35, then yeah, it does kinda mean that Mark heard Peter say the same things in AD 50 that Paul heard Peter say in AD 35.

That's the whole point.

[Neo-Scholastic]

While I accept the general accuracy of the Gospel accounts, I still think the prevelance of Gnostic ideas should not be casually dismissed. The Epistles appear to contain echoes of Gnosticism, I.e. "through a mirror darkly..." Etc. Otherwise I find the alternative theories of skeptics stained. Even as an atheist I always thought some people tried too hard to oppose the biblical accounts.

[Randy Carson]

Oh, there IS evidence, alright...lots of it. But not coercive evidence that FORCES you to believe.

Translation: Randy's a carbon based blob of confirmation bias.

How does that concept apply here at AF where you all accept and believe everything that a fellow atheist posts while automatically dismissing anything posted by a theist?

Doesn't this forum exist (in part) as a support group for non-believers?

[Randy Carson]

I can only conclude that you are willfully being dishonest, at this point.

I'm sorry that you feel that way. Our discussion has been so much better than that to this point.

[GrandizerII]

While I accept the general accuracy of the Gospel accounts, I still think the prevelance of Gnostic ideas should not be casually dismissed. The Epistles appear to contain echoes of Gnosticism, I.e. "through a mirror darkly..." Etc. Otherwise I find the alternative theories of skeptics stained. Even as an atheist I always thought some people tried too hard to oppose the biblical accounts.

Well, that's why you're not an atheist anymore.

[GrandizerII]

I can only conclude that you are willfully being dishonest, at this point.

He has to believe what he's arguing is true at all costs. Otherwise, his hopes would be shattered.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Translation: Randy's a carbon based blob of confirmation bias.

How does that concept apply here at AF where you all accept and believe everything that a fellow atheist posts while automatically dismissing anything posted by a theist?

Doesn't this forum exist (in part) as a support group for non-believers?

"Support group" makes it sound like we're alcoholics! Heh.

Yes, it's a community  for us. If you call this a "support group", then so are your church services and socials.

Please watch the "eyewitness experiment" video, and understand what we're actually talking about, here. Please?

---

Also, it's kind of stupid of you to say that we agree with each other; we fight over all kinds of issues, almost constantly.