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?

[Don McIntosh]

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.

Okay, but again your original argument depends on the testimony of witnesses in the court of the High Priest being inconsistent. Recall that the argument from the OP appeals to the truth of a conditional – "If the testimony of those witnesses [against Jesus, to the High Priest] was to be rejected because it didn't agree" – to draw the conclusion that the testimony to the resurrection should be likewise rejected.

For any argument of that form to work, the conditional premise has to be true. In this case the testimony of the witnesses against Jesus to the Sanhedrin has to be inconsistent (so blatantly inconsistent, in fact, that the Sanhedrin, though clearly seeking grounds to execute Jesus, feels compelled to throw it out). But now you're saying that the inconsistency is "missing," because we don't actually have the recorded testimony of the witnesses. That's true, of course; but then, by your own reasoning, the conclusion that the testimony to the resurrection should be rejected is not logically justified.

I personally think you should abandon the argument from the OP as a nonstarter. We don't have the testimony of the witnesses against Jesus, so we don’t know the severity of the disagreements. And the severity of the disagreements clearly matters. The self-evident bias of the Sanhedrin against Jesus suggests that the testimonies against him must have been essentially irreconcilable to be rejected. By contrast, the witnesses to the resurrection agree on all the essential elements: crucifixion, burial in a tomb, the tomb later discovered to be empty, and then all twelve of the disciples suddenly, somehow convinced that Jesus had appeared to them.

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.

Remember, the truth of the first "if" was originally your premise, not mine. And from what I can tell you don't really dispute the truth of the second "if." That is, we agree that "simple details" about the resurrection are at odds. We only disagree about what that means for the story's credibility (and what it means for a claim to be "fantastic," a different argument altogether).

For my part, I positively expect the details of various witnesses of credible accounts to vary. For all the witnesses to agree on all the details would be evidence of collusion, not credibility. As the famed cold-case detective J. Warner Wallace says, "I’ve never had a case where two witnesses have ever agreed completely on the details of the crime."
https://coldcasechristianity.com/writin ... -of-jesus/

At the same time I expect description of the central event, or the essential, defining elements of that event, to remain consistent. In the case of the resurrection, then, we have precisely what we should expect of a credible historical account: variances in the details, and consistency in the central event.

[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.

Okay, but again your original argument depends on the testimony of witnesses in the court of the High Priest being inconsistent. Recall that the argument from the OP appeals to the truth of a conditional – "If the testimony of those witnesses [against Jesus, to the High Priest] was to be rejected because it didn't agree" – to draw the conclusion that the testimony to the resurrection should be likewise rejected.

Right. The same principle has to be applied to both sets of claims.

For any argument of that form to work, the conditional premise has to be true. In this case the testimony of the witnesses against Jesus to the Sanhedrin has to be inconsistent (so blatantly inconsistent, in fact, that the Sanhedrin, though clearly seeking grounds to execute Jesus, feels compelled to throw it out). But now you're saying that the inconsistency is "missing," because we don't actually have the recorded testimony of the witnesses. That's true, of course; but then, by your own reasoning, the conclusion that the testimony to the resurrection should be rejected is not logically justified.

I personally think you should abandon the argument from the OP as a nonstarter. We don't have the testimony of the witnesses against Jesus, so we don’t know the severity of the disagreements. And the severity of the disagreements clearly matters. The self-evident bias of the Sanhedrin against Jesus suggests that the testimonies against him must have been essentially irreconcilable to be rejected. By contrast, the witnesses to the resurrection agree on all the essential elements: crucifixion, burial in a tomb, the tomb later discovered to be empty, and then all twelve of the disciples suddenly, somehow convinced that Jesus had appeared to them.

Rejection of the resurrection accounts is logically justified. If the testimony of the other witnesses is objectionable because it didn't agree, we then have to apply the same principle to the resurrection accounts, which leads the rejection of the other witnesses' testimony to a dead end. Even if their testimony didn't agree, it doesn't logically follow from it that Jesus must have risen from the dead.

Remember, the truth of the first "if" was originally your premise, not mine. And from what I can tell you don't really dispute the truth of the second "if." That is, we agree that "simple details" about the resurrection are at odds. We only disagree about what that means for the story's credibility (and what it means for a claim to be "fantastic," a different argument altogether).

For my part, I positively expect the details of various witnesses of credible accounts to vary. For all the witnesses to agree on all the details would be evidence of collusion, not credibility. As the famed cold-case detective J. Warner Wallace says, "I’ve never had a case where two witnesses have ever agreed completely on the details of the crime."
https://coldcasechristianity.com/writin ... -of-jesus/

I take it from your argument that if the testimony of the witnesses against Jesus had been consistent, you would have suspected them of being in collusion. This renders the rejection of their testimony on the basis of inconsistency meaningless. And the invention of a resurrection story is a lot more readily acceptable as a "credible account" than is an actual resurrection.

At the same time I expect description of the central event, or the essential, defining elements of that event, to remain consistent. In the case of the resurrection, then, we have precisely what we should expect of a credible historical account: variances in the details, and consistency in the central event.

Then you also have precisely what you should expect in the "credible historical account" of those eleven witnesses who said that they saw Joseph Smith's gold plates.

[FWI]

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

Sorry, but many (myself included) disagree that: Extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence is a logical principle! The three principles or laws of logic are: identity, non-contradiction and the excluded middle. The problem with such a claim is that one's skepticism is not factual, until proven! Which, it seems, you feel is not required. Also, a fact can be defined as a concept that is uninfluenced by emotion, surmise or personal opinion. Thus, the lack of conclusive evidence makes this claim an emotional and personal opinion.

As far as, the statement: we're stuck with accepting whatever extraordinary claim is made. This also is not true, because no one is required or forced to accept an extraordinary claim…However, just because certain individuals or groups declare something to be extraordinary, doesn't make it so. There's much more to it than that.

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

Consider this option: From a logical perspective, they have an infinite or "without limits" idea. Yet, infinite ideas cannot be produced by finite beings or those with boundaries. Therefore, their infinite idea must come from an infinite source or God! Hence, since the universe is run by God, they can't be permanently deceived. So, no global "skeptical scenario" is possible…

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.

Yes, it is true that people do not come out of the graves after being dead for three days…But, it is considered "a miracle" for the one who did and for those who were resurrected before and after him! So, it seems that the skeptics will reject this statement, because of a belief system, which suggests that a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature. However, miracles are supernatural events, where the laws of nature can be manipulated…So, there are times when God allows the suspension of the usual natural order of things to occur. This happens when God is requesting our attention, related to an important situation. Therefore, in this case, the reality of the Christ's resurrection is paramount to understanding mankind's future.

This seems like a desperate attempt to shift the burden of proof.

No, this is not the case…The burden of proof has always been upon the skeptics! But, it seems that they avoid this reality, because they can't prove that the resurrection of the Christ didn't happen, but they still want to be involved in the debate…Yet, if they could produce proof, they surely would. Isn't this what you are attempting?

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

That would depend on the spiritual belief. However, if one believed in the supernatural, they would be required to acknowledge that there are powers beyond the natural and accept the probability that miracles do occur. Where, the resurrection of the dead would be one of them…

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

Well, it's obvious that I feel the same way about your arguments. But, that's the nature of the debate we are engaged in...

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 133 by FWI]

The burden of proof has always been upon the skeptics! But, it seems that they avoid this reality, because they can't prove that the resurrection of the Christ didn't happen, but they still want to be involved in the debate.

That is patently false. The burden of proof is with the one making the positive claim. The default position is that the resurrection of Jesus did not happen until those making the claim can demonstrate irrefutably that it did. The desperate attempt to shift it onto those who do not accept the event as having occurred is simply because those making the claim are unable to verify it. All they have is a belief based on unjustified faith.

[Athetotheist]

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

Sorry, but many (myself included) disagree that: Extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence is a logical principle! The three principles or laws of logic are: identity, non-contradiction and the excluded middle. The problem with such a claim is that one's skepticism is not factual, until proven! Which, it seems, you feel is not required. Also, a fact can be defined as a concept that is uninfluenced by emotion, surmise or personal opinion. Thus, the lack of conclusive evidence makes this claim an emotional and personal opinion.

You allude to the three Laws of Existence, but logic is more detailed than that. Your assertion that "one's skepticism is not factual, until proven" is Argumentum ad Ignorantium (argument from ignorance), which is recognized as a logical fallacy. And the Christian's emotional investment in believing that Jesus rose from the dead arguably leads to surmise and personal opinion.

As far as, the statement: we're stuck with accepting whatever extraordinary claim is made. This also is not true, because no one is required or forced to accept an extraordinary claim…However, just because certain individuals or groups declare something to be extraordinary, doesn't make it so. There's much more to it than that.

People don't rise after three days in the grave, and every known physiological principle indicates that they can't. That makes rising from the dead extraordinary.

Consider this option: From a logical perspective, they have an infinite or "without limits" idea. Yet, infinite ideas cannot be produced by finite beings or those with boundaries. Therefore, their infinite idea must come from an infinite source or God! Hence, since the universe is run by God, they can't be permanently deceived. So, no global "skeptical scenario" is possible…

Hindus, Pagans, Muslims, Deists....all of these and many others have "without limits" ideas, so arguing from there that your own "without limits" idea has to be the One True Faith doesn't work.

Yes, it is true that people do not come out of the graves after being dead for three days…But, it is considered "a miracle" for the one who did and for those who were resurrected before and after him! So, it seems that the skeptics will reject this statement, because of a belief system, which suggests that a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature. However, miracles are supernatural events, where the laws of nature can be manipulated…So, there are times when God allows the suspension of the usual natural order of things to occur. This happens when God is requesting our attention, related to an important situation. Therefore, in this case, the reality of the Christ's resurrection is paramount to understanding mankind's future.

This is a circular argument, another logical fallacy. You begin with the assumption that a particular nature-violating miracle occurred in order to justify your belief in that particular nature-violating miracle.

[quote="FWI]

This seems like a desperate attempt to shift the burden of proof.

No, this is not the case…The burden of proof has always been upon the skeptics! But, it seems that they avoid this reality, because they can't prove that the resurrection of the Christ didn't happen, but they still want to be involved in the debate…Yet, if they could produce proof, they surely would. Isn't this what you are attempting?

Then produce proof that eleven witnesses *didn't* see gold plates dug up by Joseph Smith. Prove that the angel Gabriel *didn't* dictate the Quran to Muhammed. Prove that Zeus *doesn't* reside, invisible and untouchable, atop Mt. Olympus. If your argument works for Christianity, it works for everything.

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

That would depend on the spiritual belief. However, if one believed in the supernatural, they would be required to acknowledge that there are powers beyond the natural and accept the probability that miracles do occur. Where, the resurrection of the dead would be one of them…

Correction: it *might* be one of them----theoretically, but not necessarily, just like gold plates bearing record of an ancient civilization.

As Einstein put it, "There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle." If you hold that existence itself is miraculous, what need is there for all kinds of "supernatural" miracles which have to violate the miracle of nature itself?

[Don McIntosh]

I personally think you should abandon the argument from the OP as a nonstarter. We don't have the testimony of the witnesses against Jesus, so we don’t know the severity of the disagreements. And the severity of the disagreements clearly matters. The self-evident bias of the Sanhedrin against Jesus suggests that the testimonies against him must have been essentially irreconcilable to be rejected. By contrast, the witnesses to the resurrection agree on all the essential elements: crucifixion, burial in a tomb, the tomb later discovered to be empty, and then all twelve of the disciples suddenly, somehow convinced that Jesus had appeared to them.

Rejection of the resurrection accounts is logically justified.

That's certainly a possibility, but it's not logically justified on the basis of your argument. Your argument depends on the truth of a conditional which presumes inconsistency in the testimony to the Sandhedrin sufficient for them to temporarily throw out their own case against Jesus. Yet by your own admission the truth of that conditional cannot be demonstrated because the testimony is missing.

If the testimony of the other witnesses is objectionable because it didn't agree, we then have to apply the same principle to the resurrection accounts, which leads the rejection of the other witnesses' testimony to a dead end.

It looks like we're beginning to talk past one another. But I will try again to convey an important point that so far you have yet to acknowledge (let alone concede): that there is a qualitative distinction to be made between essential and non-essential disagreements.

Imagine for a moment that there was a drive-by shooting near the corner of First and Main in some city. Eight witnesses at the scene reported: (1) there was a shooting near the corner of First and Main; (2) the shooter was wearing a green mask of some sort; (3) the shooter was in the front passenger seat of the vehicle; (3) the vehicle was a dark colored late-model muscle car of some sort; (4) at least four shots were fired from a handgun; (5) the driver also appeared to be wearing a mask. Based on these reports, police apprehended two suspects driving away from the direction of the scene fifteen minutes later, in a 2016 Metallic Grey Mustang in which was found two green ski masks, a .38 caliber semi-automatic pistol, and six spent .38 casings.

However, the eight witnesses disagreed about some other things: some said the vehicle was grey, while others said it was silver and others still said it was black. Some said it was a Mustang, but a few thought it might have been a Camaro or something else. One witness heard only four shots, while others heard five, seven or eight. Some said the shots began while the car was on First, before it turned onto Main; others insisted that the shots were all fired after the car made the turn. Yet most observers would agree that despite these testimonial discrepancies, the police had sufficient grounds to arrest the suspects. That's because the agreements were both numerous and substantial as evidence of the crime in question, while the disagreements were the kind of incidental variations that could be expected to crop up in any set of reports from witnesses.

Even if their testimony didn't agree, it doesn't logically follow from it that Jesus must have risen from the dead.

Well, at least we agree on something... LOL

For my part, I positively expect the details of various witnesses of credible accounts to vary. For all the witnesses to agree on all the details would be evidence of collusion, not credibility. As the famed cold-case detective J. Warner Wallace says, "I’ve never had a case where two witnesses have ever agreed completely on the details of the crime."
https://coldcasechristianity.com/writin ... -of-jesus/

I take it from your argument that if the testimony of the witnesses against Jesus had been consistent, you would have suspected them of being in collusion. This renders the rejection of their testimony on the basis of inconsistency meaningless.

Change "consistent" to "identical" and I would agree with you. Had someone made four versions of the Gospel of Matthew and called three of them Mark, Luke and John instead of Matthew, I would have to conclude that only one person wrote all four accounts, because they are exactly the same account.

Otherwise, critical thinking requires that we permit at least the metaphysical possibility of a set of accounts that both agree on the substantial, essential claims and disagree on various details – a happy meaningful medium between contradiction and collusion.

And the invention of a resurrection story is a lot more readily acceptable as a "credible account" than is an actual resurrection.

That's not a bad point on its face. In the case of the resurrection story of Jesus, though, the disciples had no reason to invent it, and lots of reasons not to invent it. Besides, much of the evidence extends beyond their testimony. We know, for instance, that the early church was birthed in Jerusalem (the very site of Jesus' crucifixion and burial), on the preaching of the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and in the face of violent threats of persecution. We have plenty of independent documented denials by the Jews and other skeptics that Jesus rose from the dead, but none of them disputes that his tomb turned up empty, or suggests where his body might have been expected to be discovered instead.

At the same time I expect description of the central event, or the essential, defining elements of that event, to remain consistent. In the case of the resurrection, then, we have precisely what we should expect of a credible historical account: variances in the details, and consistency in the central event.

Then you also have precisely what you should expect in the "credible historical account" of those eleven witnesses who said that they saw Joseph Smith's gold plates.

Are you suggesting that the reports of the gold plates should be rejected because they agree? If so, that principle would weigh against all testimony of multiple witnesses, which means that for your argument to hold, most of the findings of history, journalism, and courtroom jurisprudence would have to be evidentially worthless.

Note that I am not arguing that simple agreement in testimony is sufficient to warrant acceptance of a claim. I am arguing, against your argument in the OP, that not all disagreement in testimony is sufficient to warrant rejection of a claim.

[Athetotheist]

]Imagine for a moment that there was a drive-by shooting near the corner of First and Main in some city. Eight witnesses at the scene reported: (1) there was a shooting near the corner of First and Main; (2) the shooter was wearing a green mask of some sort; (3) the shooter was in the front passenger seat of the vehicle; (3) the vehicle was a dark colored late-model muscle car of some sort; (4) at least four shots were fired from a handgun; (5) the driver also appeared to be wearing a mask. Based on these reports, police apprehended two suspects driving away from the direction of the scene fifteen minutes later, in a 2016 Metallic Grey Mustang in which was found two green ski masks, a .38 caliber semi-automatic pistol, and six spent .38 casings.

However, the eight witnesses disagreed about some other things: some said the vehicle was grey, while others said it was silver and others still said it was black. Some said it was a Mustang, but a few thought it might have been a Camaro or something else. One witness heard only four shots, while others heard five, seven or eight. Some said the shots began while the car was on First, before it turned onto Main; others insisted that the shots were all fired after the car made the turn. Yet most observers would agree that despite these testimonial discrepancies, the police had sufficient grounds to arrest the suspects. That's because the agreements were both numerous and substantial as evidence of the crime in question, while the disagreements were the kind of incidental variations that could be expected to crop up in any set of reports from witnesses.

We would have to do some editing to bring this analogy up to the level of our current discussion. In addition to what the witnesses said, we would have to assume that the incident allegedly took place in an outlying neighborhood with no video surveillance, that it supposedly took place years before the witnesses wrote their accounts and that we are reading those accounts decades after they were written. We would further have to say that, according to the witnesses, the victim----who had obviously expired from his wounds----came back to life, stood up and rose into the sky. And some witnesses would have said that the resurrected victim told them that he would meet them days later in a nearby national park while other witnesses said that he met them at their apartment complex in town on the same day he rose from the dead. What would a detective have made of that?

In the case of the resurrection story of Jesus, though, the disciples had no reason to invent it, and lots of reasons not to invent it. Besides, much of the evidence extends beyond their testimony. We know, for instance, that the early church was birthed in Jerusalem (the very site of Jesus' crucifixion and burial), on the preaching of the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and in the face of violent threats of persecution. We have plenty of independent documented denials by the Jews and other skeptics that Jesus rose from the dead, but none of them disputes that his tomb turned up empty, or suggests where his body might have been expected to be discovered instead

The disciples would have had excellent reason to invent the story. Their hope that Jesus was the Messiah had been dashed by his execution. The only way to keep the sect going was to re-invent the narrative with a second coming. And they didn't have to do it overnight; the gospels don't start showing up until nearly a generation has passed since Jesus's death and second-generation followers are needed. And since Mishnah Yevamot 16:3 states that positive identification of a body wasn't possible after three days, it wouldn't matter where the body ended up; it couldn't have been identified anyway.

At the same time I expect description of the central event, or the essential, defining elements of that event, to remain consistent. In the case of the resurrection, then, we have precisely what we should expect of a credible historical account: variances in the details, and consistency in the central event.

Then you also have precisely what you should expect in the "credible historical account" of those eleven witnesses who said that they saw Joseph Smith's gold plates.

Are you suggesting that the reports of the gold plates should be rejected because they agree? If so, that principle would weigh against all testimony of multiple witnesses, which means that for your argument to hold, most of the findings of history, journalism, and courtroom jurisprudence would have to be evidentially worthless.

Wrong. History, journalism and courtroom jurisprudence never accept *extraordinary* claims, like that of people rising from the dead, at face value----nor are they obligated to, nor should they. So either you have to accept the "central" claim that eleven people saw gold plates dug up by Joseph Smith, and every similarly "witnessed" claim, or you must concede that you have no grounds on which to state that anyone should accept the resurrection accounts.

[Menotu]

"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?

The passage quoted doesn't say it was rejected because it didn't agree. Maybe that's listed in a following, non-quoted passage?
I get where you're going, but it's not totally supported by supplied passage; rather it's inferred.
At any rate, I've often thought about this. Why can't people be held accountable for things they honestly believed in (or not) because they trusted people who lied?
Happens all the time, but I'd expect more from a deity.

[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?

The passage quoted doesn't say it was rejected because it didn't agree. Maybe that's listed in a following, non-quoted passage?
I get where you're going, but it's not totally supported by supplied passage; rather it's inferred.

The inference is important. The gospel authors are trying to cast doubt on the case against Jesus, not realizing that they're casting the same doubt on their own story.

[Menotu]

"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?

The passage quoted doesn't say it was rejected because it didn't agree. Maybe that's listed in a following, non-quoted passage?
I get where you're going, but it's not totally supported by supplied passage; rather it's inferred.

The inference is important. The gospel authors are trying to cast doubt on the case against Jesus, not realizing that they're casting the same doubt on their own story.

I would think they didn't see it that way, assuming they even considered their words at all (and, assuming even more, they actually said that).
But who knows? The bible is ambiguous at many junctures. We shouldn't be surprised (unless we consider the bible errant, at which point you have issues lol)