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]

Extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence is a logical principle.

Is this statement an opinion or one backed by truth? If it's truth, what is the source?

However, no matter what the reality of it is, there are several flaws with proposing that this statement applies to our debate! For instance: Who decides if a claim is extraordinary or not, as related to the topic of biblical truths? Since, extraordinary claims (in this case) are arbitrary or something that is chosen at random instead of following a consistent rule or lawIt surely can't be from the skeptics or unbelievers! This could obviously be called biasIt can't be from real science, because it has taken a hands-off position on these types of topics. So, for something to be considered extraordinary (in the truest sense), the belief or action would need to be limited in scope and duration. This is not the case for the resurrection of the Christ! The scope or the range of awareness, thoughts and actions, related to the Christ's resurrection has been accepted in the minds of hundreds of millions and has had a duration of almost 2000 years.

So, the resurrection of the Christ is not considered an extraordinary claimBecause, claims that are merely novel or those which violate human consensus are not properly characterized as extraordinary. Also, extraordinary evidence is not a separate category or type of evidence--it is an extraordinarily large number of observations (Philosophia (Dec. 2016) Volume 44, Issue 4, pp 1319-1331).

"Argumentum ad Ignorantium" (argument from ignorance) is fallacious; I don't have to prove that something extraordinary didn't happen.

Then, why are you trying to do so? Isn't this a contradiction to what you have been presenting?

Neither do I have to "reject the notion of the supernatural" to question the claim that Jesus rose from the dead.

So, are you claiming that "the supernatural" does exist? Also, the idea that you are only questioning and not rejecting, doesn't seem to fit with your OP and the many responses which followedThis is obvious, because you haven't openly accepted any of the many responses given to your questions. Where, it seems that you have only rejected them (excluding the ones that agree with your position).

[Athetotheist]

Extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence is a logical principle.

Is this statement an opinion or one backed by truth? If it's truth, what is the source?

It's a statement of *fact*. If we don't apply it, we're stuck with accepting whatever extraordinary claim is made.

The scope or the range of awareness, thoughts and actions, related to the Christ's resurrection has been accepted in the minds of hundreds of millions and has had a duration of almost 2000 years.

This is just a fancy way of saying that people have been talked into believing it for almost 2,000 years.

So, the resurrection of the Christ is not considered an extraordinary claimBecause, claims that are merely novel or those which violate human consensus are not properly characterized as extraordinary. Also, extraordinary evidence is not a separate category or type of evidence--it is an extraordinarily large number of observations (Philosophia (Dec. 2016) Volume 44, Issue 4, pp 1319-1331).

An extraordinary claim isn't just something which violates human consensus. It's something which violates known principles. People don't come out of their graves after three days dead, just like people don't dig up gold tablets with writing from ancient civilizations in upstate New York all the time. Do you accept such a claim because it's "novel"? And "an extraordinarily large number of observations" just means that in order for something to qualify as scientific, you have to be able to reproduce it.

"Argumentum ad Ignorantium" (argument from ignorance) is fallacious; I don't have to prove that something extraordinary didn't happen.

Then, why are you trying to do so? Isn't this a contradiction to what you have been presenting?

This seems like a desperate attempt to shift the burden of proof. What extraordinary event am I proclaiming??

Neither do I have to "reject the notion of the supernatural" to question the claim that Jesus rose from the dead.

So, are you claiming that "the supernatural" does exist?

Wow.....Surprise!!! It's actually possible to have a spiritual belief without believing that someone rose from the dead!!

Also, the idea that you are only questioning and not rejecting, doesn't seem to fit with your OP and the many responses which followedThis is obvious, because you haven't openly accepted any of the many responses given to your questions. Where, it seems that you have only rejected them (excluding the ones that agree with your position).

This just means that I haven't found your arguments convincing and have continued to offer rebuttals.

[Don McIntosh]

"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?

Great question.

I think the answer has to do with the relevance of the disagreements. Presumably the Sanhedrin had to reject the testimony because the central accusation was inconsistent. Let's say that one witness alleged that Jesus routinely was heard calling upon the power of Satan to work his miracles, while another alleged that Jesus brought a stone sculpture of Ashtoreth into the Temple and urged the people to worship it. In such a scenario there would lack a second corroborating witness for either charge.

By contrast, the central facts of Jesus' resurrection are consistent. All four Evangelists agree that Jesus was crucified, was buried in a tomb, and then appeared alive to his disciples sometime after his tomb was discovered to be empty. They agree further that Jesus had claimed to be the Son of God, had foretold his death and resurrection beforehand, and had promised to re-commune with his disciples once he had risen (though the Synoptics are more explicit than John on the last two points).

[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?

Great question.

I think the answer has to do with the relevance of the disagreements. Presumably the Sanhedrin had to reject the testimony because the central accusation was inconsistent. Let's say that one witness alleged that Jesus routinely was heard calling upon the power of Satan to work his miracles, while another alleged that Jesus brought a stone sculpture of Ashtoreth into the Temple and urged the people to worship it. In such a scenario there would lack a second corroborating witness for either charge.

Your entire scenario here is hypothetical. Hypothetical testimony doesn't replace missing testimony.

By contrast, the central facts of Jesus' resurrection are consistent. All four Evangelists agree that Jesus was crucified, was buried in a tomb, and then appeared alive to his disciples sometime after his tomb was discovered to be empty. They agree further that Jesus had claimed to be the Son of God, had foretold his death and resurrection beforehand, and had promised to re-commune with his disciples once he had risen (though the Synoptics are more explicit than John on the last two points).

Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
A: Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

And calling something a fact doesn't make it a fact. The "central facts" you refer to are the central *claims* made by the four gospel writers. I'm sure that a Latter Day Saint such as yourself can see that.

(I logically assume that you are LDS since eleven people testified to having seen plates of gold in the possession of Joseph Smith, and you must surely be convinced by the consistency of that "central fact".)

[wiploc]

Extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence is a logical principle.

Is this statement an opinion or one backed by truth? If it's truth, what is the source?

The alternatives are that we either accept all claims as true, or reject all claims as false.

[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

If someone says that John Doe drove from Denver to Las Vegas in a pickup truck and someone else says he made the same trip on a motorcycle, are they in complete agreement because they both say he drove from Denver to Las Vegas?

Irrelevant.

All four gospels are in complete agreement about the method and location and time of death and resurrection.

None say Jesus was drowned or died in a skiing accident.

JW

RESPONSE: How long after the "resurrection" were these gospels written? (Answer: 40-65 years), lots of time for stories to be developed and circulated)

Any possibility that newer stories were copied from older stories? Mark, written first, has no Ascension account. It was added in the second century.

And John claims the crucifixion occurred the day before the other three writers. (Mathew (particularly) and Luke copied from Mark.)

[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

If someone says that John Doe drove from Denver to Las Vegas in a pickup truck and someone else says he made the same trip on a motorcycle, are they in complete agreement because they both say he drove from Denver to Las Vegas?

Irrelevant.

All four gospels are in complete agreement about the method and location and time of death and resurrection.

None say Jesus was drowned or died in a skiing accident.

JW

RESPONSE: How long after the "resurrection" were these gospels written? (Answer: 40-65 years), lots of time for stories to be developed and circulated)

Any possibility that newer stories were copied from older stories? Mark, written first, has no Ascension account. It was added in the second century.

And John claims the crucifixion occurred the day before the other three writers. (Mathew (particularly) and Luke copied from Mark.

[Zzyzx]

.
If four preachers tell the same tale, it MUST be true

Four Muslim preachers
Four Hindu preachers
Four Buddhist preachers
Four Shinto preachers
Four Aztec preachers
Four Mormon preachers
Four Eastern Orthodox preachers
Four Catholic preachers
Four Protestant preachers
Four Jewish preachers

Any four promoting any religion -- and their promotional tale / sales pitch must be true. Right?

[Don McIntosh]

"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?

Great question.

I think the answer has to do with the relevance of the disagreements. Presumably the Sanhedrin had to reject the testimony because the central accusation was inconsistent. Let's say that one witness alleged that Jesus routinely was heard calling upon the power of Satan to work his miracles, while another alleged that Jesus brought a stone sculpture of Ashtoreth into the Temple and urged the people to worship it. In such a scenario there would lack a second corroborating witness for either charge.

Your entire scenario here is hypothetical. Hypothetical testimony doesn't replace missing testimony.

True. But your argument was not that the testimony was missing, but that it was inconsistent, and therefore any inconsistent testimony should be similarly rejected. Not all disagreements are created equal.

If some witnesses to the Sanhedrin disagree about what transgression Jesus actually committed to deserve condemnation, their testimonies should be rejected because they are fundamentally at odds, that is, not over incidental details but over the main question facing the court.

However, if some other witnesses agree that Jesus rose from the dead but disagree only on incidentals (such as how many women arrived at the tomb), disagreement among the witnesses about the resurrection itself would obviously not be a strong reason for rejecting the resurrection accounts out of hand. In other words, it's possible that the Sanhedrin was correct to dismiss the testimony about Jesus' transgressions and that the early church was correct to receive the testimony about his resurrection.

By contrast, the central facts of Jesus' resurrection are consistent. All four Evangelists agree that Jesus was crucified, was buried in a tomb, and then appeared alive to his disciples sometime after his tomb was discovered to be empty. They agree further that Jesus had claimed to be the Son of God, had foretold his death and resurrection beforehand, and had promised to re-commune with his disciples once he had risen (though the Synoptics are more explicit than John on the last two points).

Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
A: Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

And calling something a fact doesn't make it a fact. The "central facts" you refer to are the central *claims* made by the four gospel writers.

That's a fair point, I guess. I could change "central facts" to "central claims" and it wouldn't affect my argument much " given that the argument here is about the consistency of testimony in the first place.

Even then, there is no lack of historians who would maintain that the crucifixion, burial in a tomb, and even appearance of Jesus to the disciples (even if by hallucination) sometime afterward are actually facts in evidence.

[Athetotheist]

True. But your argument was not that the testimony was missing, but that it was inconsistent, and therefore any inconsistent testimony should be similarly rejected. Not all disagreements are created equal.

The "inconsistency" of the witnesses is what's missing. The inconsistencies between the resurrection accounts are numerous and obvious.

If some witnesses to the Sanhedrin disagree about what transgression Jesus actually committed to deserve condemnation, their testimonies should be rejected because they are fundamentally at odds, that is, not over incidental details but over the main question facing the court.

However, if some other witnesses agree that Jesus rose from the dead but disagree only on incidentals (such as how many women arrived at the tomb), disagreement among the witnesses about the resurrection itself would obviously not be a strong reason for rejecting the resurrection accounts out of hand. In other words, it's possible that the Sanhedrin was correct to dismiss the testimony about Jesus' transgressions and that the early church was correct to receive the testimony about his resurrection.

Two big "if"s. How is anyone obligated to accept a fantastic claim about someone rising from the dead made by people who can't make simple details of the story agree? Those disagreements speak directly to the story's overall lack of credibility. Again, we're presented with many examples of inconsistency between the resurrection accounts, and NO example of inconsistency between the other witnesses.

By contrast, the central facts of Jesus' resurrection are consistent. All four Evangelists agree that Jesus was crucified, was buried in a tomb, and then appeared alive to his disciples sometime after his tomb was discovered to be empty. They agree further that Jesus had claimed to be the Son of God, had foretold his death and resurrection beforehand, and had promised to re-commune with his disciples once he had risen (though the Synoptics are more explicit than John on the last two points).

Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
A: Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

And calling something a fact doesn't make it a fact. The "central facts" you refer to are the central *claims* made by the four gospel writers.

That's a fair point, I guess. I could change "central facts" to "central claims" and it wouldn't affect my argument much " given that the argument here is about the consistency of testimony in the first place.

Even then, there is no lack of historians who would maintain that the crucifixion, burial in a tomb, and even appearance of Jesus to the disciples (even if by hallucination) sometime afterward are actually facts in evidence.

There's a wide gulf between being crucified and buried and being resurrected, especially if the last part is by hallucination----just like there's a wide gulf between eleven witnesses *consistently* saying that they saw Joseph Smith's plates of gold and *actually* seeing them, wouldn't you say?