A simple---but serious---question

[Athetotheist]

There are numerous god-men who died and rose from death in stories predating the time of Jesus. Considering the notable differences between the gospel accounts, and particularly the differences between the accounts of Jesus's supposed resurrection, here's a question for gospel apologists to think seriously about:

There are four resurrection accounts about Jesus in the Christian gospels. If the exact same accounts, with the exact same differences, were written about Osiris, Tammuz, Attis or any such god-man other than Jesus, would Christian apologists find all of those accounts believable?

And if they wouldn't find all of them believable, would they find any of them believable?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Wootah in post #120

I think, as a Westerner, that I just use the evidence and deduce what is reasonable in each case. The denial of the evidence for Jesus resurrection seems to me to be emotional and people not liking what it means for their lives.

The denial of what evidence for Jesus' resurrection?

[David the apologist]

[Replying to Wootah in post #120

I think, as a Westerner, that I just use the evidence and deduce what is reasonable in each case. The denial of the evidence for Jesus resurrection seems to me to be emotional and people not liking what it means for their lives.

The denial of what evidence for Jesus' resurrection?

The four biographies of the man, and the dozen or so genuine letters by his (in one case, formerly reluctant) followers, spring to mind.

[brunumb]

The denial of the evidence for Jesus resurrection seems to me to be emotional and people not liking what it means for their lives.

Whatever mind-reading apparatus you used to help you reach that conclusion needs to be serviced. As far as I am concerned the alleged evidence presented in support of the resurrection event is flimsy at best, flawed and does not warrant acceptance. Either way it would mean nothing for my life. Perhaps your device has its wires crossed. The acceptance of the resurrection story seems to be based on a deep emotional need for a promised life after death.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Wootah in post #120

I think, as a Westerner, that I just use the evidence and deduce what is reasonable in each case. The denial of the evidence for Jesus resurrection seems to me to be emotional and people not liking what it means for their lives.

The denial of what evidence for Jesus' resurrection?

The four biographies of the man, and the dozen or so genuine letters by his (in one case, formerly reluctant) followers, spring to mind.

Then perhaps you'd care to take up Dan Barker's Easter Challenge and produce a complete narrative harmonizing all of the accounts (though not an atheist myself, I think Barker presents a reasonable challenge).

[David the apologist]

[Replying to Wootah in post #120

I think, as a Westerner, that I just use the evidence and deduce what is reasonable in each case. The denial of the evidence for Jesus resurrection seems to me to be emotional and people not liking what it means for their lives.

The denial of what evidence for Jesus' resurrection?

The four biographies of the man, and the dozen or so genuine letters by his (in one case, formerly reluctant) followers, spring to mind.

Then perhaps you'd care to take up Dan Barker's Easter Challenge and produce a complete narrative harmonizing all of the accounts (though not an atheist myself, I think Barker presents a reasonable challenge).

I'll do it once you either a) do the same kind of harmonization of the accounts of Julius Caesar's assassination I presented a page or two ago, or b) decide to declare that the evidence that he was assassinated is unconvincing.

These kinds of discrepancies are precisely what we would expect from independent eyewitness accounts. We don't need a harmonization.

[benchwarmer]

These kinds of discrepancies are precisely what we would expect from independent eyewitness accounts.

Believing these to be independent eyewitness accounts is probably part of the problem.

First, none of the gospels claim to be eyewitness accounts. They are also anonymously written and are only attributed to names later on.

Second, they are clearly NOT independent. What we expect from independent accounts are some differences (as you point out, though outright contradictions should be a red flag), but we don't expect word for word copying (plagiarism):

The Synoptic Gospels
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/The_Q_Doc ... ic_Gospels

Side by side comparison of some of Matthew and Luke in Greek:
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/The_Q_Doc ... r-word.png

When one takes into account all the likely copying and fiddling to control the narrative, the number of actual original witnesses starts to shrink. If I retell a fish story, I don't add an independent account, I add an edit/retelling.

So, we really don't have much in the way of evidence for Jesus's resurrection. I count exactly ONE witness that names themselves and he didn't even actually see the real flesh and blood Jesus (Paul/Saul). So, kind of ZERO witnesses if we rule out visions. Everything else is hearsay upon previous hearsay. That's how it looks to me anyways.

So back to the question posed by Athetotheist "The denial of what evidence ... ". If visions, hearsay, and editted plagiarism are all we have, I don't find it too hard to deny its utility.

[Wootah]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #126]

Yes, but the original question is answered. There is no comparison in the quantity and type of evidence for the other gods being suggested. A simple but serious answer.

Are any of you on the debating Osiris website? What do they say over there?

[David the apologist]

These kinds of discrepancies are precisely what we would expect from independent eyewitness accounts.

Believing these to be independent eyewitness accounts is probably part of the problem.

First, none of the gospels claim to be eyewitness accounts. They are also anonymously written and are only attributed to names later on.

There's plenty of internal and external evidence that most of the Gospels were written by the person they were attributed to.

Mark is full of semitisms. If he was taking notes on Peter's sermons, as late first century and mid second century sources suggest, this is easily explained.

The "we" passages in Luke-Acts make it clear that the author both a) traveled alongside Paul, and b) was with Paul in Palestine long enough to have the opportunity to consult those who were eyewitnesses. This is consistent with the early Christian claim that the physician, Luke - an associate of Paul's - wrote the books in question.

Finally, the author of John shows an impressive knowledge of pre-AD-70 Jerusalem and Jewish custom. He also seems pretty interested in the sorts of things that would have stood out to a Palestinian Jew. A character called "The Beloved Disciple" is attributed with responsibility for writing the majority of the work. This is consistent with Johanine authorship.

Matthew is the odd duck, admittedly. But 1. the external evidence is strongest in the case of his gospel anyways, and 2. he provides a picture of Jesus that is broadly consistent with that from the other synoptics.

Second, they are clearly NOT independent. What we expect from independent accounts are some differences (as you point out, though outright contradictions should be a red flag), but we don't expect word for word copying (plagiarism)

Thing is, the "plagarism" breaks down for the Resurrection accounts, which appear to provide separate windows on the same event.

When one takes into account all the likely copying and fiddling to control the narrative, the number of actual original witnesses starts to shrink. If I retell a fish story, I don't add an independent account, I add an edit/retelling.

"Copying and fiddling to control the narrative."

Got any solid textual evidence of that happening?

So, we really don't have much in the way of evidence for Jesus's resurrection. I count exactly ONE witness that names themselves and he didn't even actually see the real flesh and blood Jesus (Paul/Saul).

Paul seems to have gotten a different impression from the experience, counting himself among the other, more traditional eyewitnesses to Christ's resurrection.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to David the apologist in post #125

I'll do it once you either a) do the same kind of harmonization of the accounts of Julius Caesar's assassination I presented a page or two ago, or b) decide to declare that the evidence that he was assassinated is unconvincing.

I haven't made any claim about accounts of the assassination of Julius Caesar, and they don't matter anyway since, as far as I know, no commentator has ever claimed to be writing under divine inspiration about the assassination of Julius. I'm perfectly willing to admit that if two accounts of his assassination conflict, they can't both be true. Are you willing to admit the same about the gospels?

[David the apologist]

[Replying to David the apologist in post #125

I'll do it once you either a) do the same kind of harmonization of the accounts of Julius Caesar's assassination I presented a page or two ago, or b) decide to declare that the evidence that he was assassinated is unconvincing.

I haven't made any claim about accounts of the assassination of Julius Caesar, and they don't matter anyway since, as far as I know, no commentator has ever claimed to be writing under divine inspiration about the assassination of Julius. I'm perfectly willing to admit that if two accounts of his assassination conflict, they can't both be true. Are you willing to admit the same about the gospels?

The question at issue isn't whether or not the Gospels are inspired. For the sake of argument, I'm willing to treat them as historical documents, and nothing more.

The question at issue is whether or not the kinds of discrepancies present in the Gospel accounts cast doubt on the broad outlines of the historical events they describe.

Now, if such "discrepancies" (if they even merit the name) do not cast doubt on the basic facts of Caesar's assassination (Casca struck first to the neck, there was a commotion, Brutus stabbed Caesar, Caesar suffered 23 wounds total), why should they cast doubt on the basic facts of the Resurrection?