Their witness does not agree

[Athetotheist]

"Now the chief priests and all the council sought testimony against Jesus to put him to death, but found none. For many bore false witness against him, but their testimonies did not agree." (Mark 14:55-56)

If the testimony of those witnesses was to be rejected because it didn't agree, how can anyone be blamed for rejecting the resurrection accounts in the gospels for the same reason?

[FWI]

How do you know he was resurrected if those who wrote of it weren't divinely inspired to inerrancy?

Are you suggesting that for something to be true, it must be divinely inspired?

How does having four members of the same sect write that someone had risen from the dead years before constitute irrefutable proof?

How would the disbelief in such claims prove that it didn't happened? Also, are you suggesting that irrefutable proofs are possible within groups of individuals that reject the notion of the supernatural?

Have you any idea how many tombs have been found empty over the centuries?

What relevance does this have with the topic being discussed? Yet, how many of these "many tombs" were found empty within a period of 24 hours and had a detachment of "many" guards present, who were assigned to prevent any tampering with the tomb? Do you have any idea of the consequences for failing to so?

Were their former occupants resurrected from the dead if four people decide to write that they were?

Are you claiming that the bible states that only the Christ was resurrected? And, are you also suggesting that the laws of God state that 4-witnesses are required to prove a situation? When, the N.T. states that: a minimum of 5 disciples and a large detachment of Roman and temple guards were eyewitnesses to the Christ's empty tomb…

The burden of proof is still on the one making an unusual claim and not on the one questioning it.

Is this a law? And, if so, where can it be found? Because, in most societies the burden of proof is upon the accusers or those questioning the truth of something, not the other way around or wrong, until proven correct! This scenario would allow the small percentage of disbelievers to produce unwarranted claims and request irrefutable proof for something, while refusing to accept any reasonable proof given, especially related to the supernatural. Which, seems to be a common practice and shows that irrefutable proofs are only a fallacy, when interacting with certain human beings…Because, many will claim that (besides mathematics) there is no such thing as irrefutable proofs, in the physical! This reality is supported by the term: uncertainty.

[Athetotheist]

"Now the chief priests and all the council sought testimony against Jesus to put him to death, but found none. For many bore false witness against him, but their testimonies did not agree." (Mark 14:55-56)

If the testimony of those witnesses was to be rejected because it didn't agree, how can anyone be blamed for rejecting the resurrection accounts in the gospels for the same reason?

Interesting question, because truly the Resurrection accounts within the 4 different gospels are different.. period.. Some apologists claim they are all objective and consistent together, though i put question in their metaphysical values... Can they all 4 be true somehow? Surely if a God exists, all powerful, parallel universes can exist as well (as an example)... In fact, leave God out, science hypothesizes about parallel universes. Some say it was the big bang, when universes hit each other... An interesting question, none the less... I suppose, if they were objectively false you could reject them... Though if i were you, I would question your ability to come to such conclusions.

I'm wide open to the idea of parallel universes, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to invoke them to try to harmonize four inconsistent accounts in the same universe.

Well you assume this is the same universe. You assume the past wasnt created yesterday as an explanation of the present. You assume that the metaphysical value of such stories should add up to some kind of idea you have for their objective value. You assume that the witnesses (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) arent universes in themselves. And i suppose you assume an all powerful God couldnt have done all 4 at the same time, becuase your limited knowledge cant comprehended how such a thing could have happened.. And i suppose you assume your brain is not in the matrix, and everything you touch and feel isnt a false reality already.

You seem to assume whatever is necessary----or whatever you can think up----to try to make four inconsistent accounts harmonious. This is the logical fallacy of "grasping at straws". You also assume----incorrectly----that I have a problem accepting the idea of anything I can't comprehend. I enthusiastically speculate on many things beyond my comprehension, but I recognize them as speculations; I don't assert them as dogmas.

[Athetotheist]

How do you know he was resurrected if those who wrote of it weren't divinely inspired to inerrancy?

Are you suggesting that for something to be true, it must be divinely inspired?

How does having four members of the same sect write that someone had risen from the dead years before constitute irrefutable proof?

How would the disbelief in such claims prove that it didn't happened? Also, are you suggesting that irrefutable proofs are possible within groups of individuals that reject the notion of the supernatural?

Have you any idea how many tombs have been found empty over the centuries?

What relevance does this have with the topic being discussed? Yet, how many of these "many tombs" were found empty within a period of 24 hours and had a detachment of "many" guards present, who were assigned to prevent any tampering with the tomb? Do you have any idea of the consequences for failing to so?

Were their former occupants resurrected from the dead if four people decide to write that they were?

Are you claiming that the bible states that only the Christ was resurrected? And, are you also suggesting that the laws of God state that 4-witnesses are required to prove a situation? When, the N.T. states that: a minimum of 5 disciples and a large detachment of Roman and temple guards were eyewitnesses to the Christ's empty tomb…

The burden of proof is still on the one making an unusual claim and not on the one questioning it.

Is this a law? And, if so, where can it be found? Because, in most societies the burden of proof is upon the accusers or those questioning the truth of something, not the other way around or wrong, until proven correct! This scenario would allow the small percentage of disbelievers to produce unwarranted claims and request irrefutable proof for something, while refusing to accept any reasonable proof given, especially related to the supernatural. Which, seems to be a common practice and shows that irrefutable proofs are only a fallacy, when interacting with certain human beings…Because, many will claim that (besides mathematics) there is no such thing as irrefutable proofs, in the physical! This reality is supported by the term: uncertainty.

Extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence is a logical principle. "Argumentum ad Ignorantium" (argument from ignorance) is fallacious; I don't have to prove that something extraordinary didn't happen. Neither do I have to "reject the notion of the supernatural" to question the claim that Jesus rose from the dead.

If I have to prove that a minimum of five witnesses didn't see proof of Jesus having risen from the dead, then you have to prove that a total of eleven witnesses didn't see plates of gold on which the Book of Mormon was written. You have to prove that no one has ever encountered a UFO operated by beings from another planet. And if those claims aren't divinely inspired, so what? You yourself have suggested that a claim doesn't have to be divinely inspired to be true. Of all the extraordinary claims ever made, why should only the ones you favor be above scrutiny?

[William]

[Replying to post 113 by]

Athetotheist: Extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence is a logical principle. "Argumentum ad Ignorantium" (argument from ignorance) is fallacious; I don't have to prove that something extraordinary didn't happen. Neither do I have to "reject the notion of the supernatural" to question the claim that Jesus rose from the dead.

If I have to prove that a minimum of five witnesses didn't see proof of Jesus having risen from the dead, then you have to prove that a total of eleven witnesses didn't see plates of gold on which the Book of Mormon was written. You have to prove that no one has ever encountered a UFO operated by beings from another planet. And if those claims aren't divinely inspired, so what? You yourself have suggested that a claim doesn't have to be divinely inspired to be true. Of all the extraordinary claims ever made, why should only the ones you favor be above scrutiny?

William: I am wondering if "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a logical principle, when related to past events for which no claim, extraordinary or otherwise can logically be verified as happening or not.

[Zzyzx]

.

I am wondering if "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a logical principle, when related to past events for which no claim, extraordinary or otherwise can logically be verified as happening or not.

If ancient (or modern) claims cannot be verified, does one just believe them? Or some of them? Just select ones? How can anyone decide?

For instance, ancient claims are made regarding magic flying carpets and winged horses. It would take 'extraordinary evidence' to verify that the claims and stories are true. Just believe them since they are from long ago and can't be verified?

Other instances: virgin birth, resurrections of long-dead bodies, levitating into the sky, etc.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 1 by Athetotheist]

Because all four accounts testify that Jesus died and was subsequently resurrected. On that there is no disagreement.


JW

-RESPONSE I'm afraid not. Three other accounts copied from an single non-witnessed account are not proof of the fact.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Athetotheist]

Because all four accounts testify that Jesus died and was subsequently resurrected. On that there is no disagreement.


JW

-RESPONSE I'm afraid not. Three other accounts copied from an single non-witnessed account are not proof of the fact.

Did I refer to proof of a fact to my comment? I fail to see how your post relates to what I said.

[Clownboat]

What relevance does this have with the topic being discussed? Yet, how many of these "many tombs" were found empty within a period of 24 hours and had a detachment of "many" guards present, who were assigned to prevent any tampering with the tomb? Do you have any idea of the consequences for failing to so?

Dire I'm sure.

What makes the most sense is that the guards that were placed, were done so that come Sunday when the tomb could be inspected, the condition of the tomb from the placing of the guards to Sunday didn't change.

Come Sunday, the tomb was empty, meaning that the body was removed on Friday before the guard was set. A guard was set at an empty tomb as was confirmed on Sunday. No big deal.

Decades later, stories were told.
Embellishing happens though, resurrections don't.
Even evoking Allah doesn't help.

[Athetotheist]

What relevance does this have with the topic being discussed? Yet, how many of these "many tombs" were found empty within a period of 24 hours and had a detachment of "many" guards present, who were assigned to prevent any tampering with the tomb? Do you have any idea of the consequences for failing to so?

Dire I'm sure.

What makes the most sense is that the guards that were placed, were done so that come Sunday when the tomb could be inspected, the condition of the tomb from the placing of the guards to Sunday didn't change.

Come Sunday, the tomb was empty, meaning that the body was removed on Friday before the guard was set. A guard was set at an empty tomb as was confirmed on Sunday. No big deal.

Decades later, stories were told.
Embellishing happens though, resurrections don't.
Even evoking Allah doesn't help.

The author of Matthew admits that there was rumor of the disciples taking the body, so I think it's most likely that he simply invented the guards at the tomb to counter the story. Matthew is, after all, the only one who says they were there.

It would hardly have done any good for the authorities to present the body anyway since, conveniently, Jesus was supposed to have risen from the dead after three days, by which time according to Mishnah Yevamot 16:3 it was no longer possible to make positive facial identification of a body. Even if the authorities had brought the body out, his disciples could have said that it wasn't him.

[Tart]

"Now the chief priests and all the council sought testimony against Jesus to put him to death, but found none. For many bore false witness against him, but their testimonies did not agree." (Mark 14:55-56)

If the testimony of those witnesses was to be rejected because it didn't agree, how can anyone be blamed for rejecting the resurrection accounts in the gospels for the same reason?

Interesting question, because truly the Resurrection accounts within the 4 different gospels are different.. period.. Some apologists claim they are all objective and consistent together, though i put question in their metaphysical values... Can they all 4 be true somehow? Surely if a God exists, all powerful, parallel universes can exist as well (as an example)... In fact, leave God out, science hypothesizes about parallel universes. Some say it was the big bang, when universes hit each other... An interesting question, none the less... I suppose, if they were objectively false you could reject them... Though if i were you, I would question your ability to come to such conclusions.

I'm wide open to the idea of parallel universes, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to invoke them to try to harmonize four inconsistent accounts in the same universe.

Well you assume this is the same universe. You assume the past wasnt created yesterday as an explanation of the present. You assume that the metaphysical value of such stories should add up to some kind of idea you have for their objective value. You assume that the witnesses (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) arent universes in themselves. And i suppose you assume an all powerful God couldnt have done all 4 at the same time, becuase your limited knowledge cant comprehended how such a thing could have happened.. And i suppose you assume your brain is not in the matrix, and everything you touch and feel isnt a false reality already.

You seem to assume whatever is necessary----or whatever you can think up----to try to make four inconsistent accounts harmonious. This is the logical fallacy of "grasping at straws". You also assume----incorrectly----that I have a problem accepting the idea of anything I can't comprehend. I enthusiastically speculate on many things beyond my comprehension, but I recognize them as speculations; I don't assert them as dogmas.

Well, i speculate that they have metaphysical value, and that they may be true... how they are true.. i dont know... all i know is that of which i read in them... That is it. and i also believe the resurrection to be true for various reasons, though i speculate its realities...

All the assumptions i laid out, i question myself, whether or not about the gospels or science or anything.