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?

[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.

I would think they didn't see it that way

They presumably didn't. They probably never expected all of their accounts to be compiled into a single volume where the discrepancies between them could be easily found.

[Don McIntosh]

]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.

The current discussion concerns the degree to which the resurrection accounts disagree with one another. None of the red herrings above, with the possible exception of the last, even suggests an answer to that question.

But since your last objection at least rhetorically touches on the issue, let's address that. Suppose indeed that some witnesses said that the resurrected victim told them he would meet them in a nearby national park days later while others said that he told them to meet him at their apartment in town the same day he rose from the dead. Most importantly, they agree on the essential claim of the resurrection, that a certain man who been killed appeared to them following his death. But additionally, the "national park" account and the "apartment complex" account are not clearly in disagreement, because they describe separate events taking place at different times.

Consider that following the Battle of Waterloo, which took place on June 18, 1815, various eyewitness accounts described seeing Wellington: standing on a balcony in Waterloo village watching his troops below; riding alone on his horse; riding alongside other officers; directing traffic in the interior of a square of infantry during a French attack on his center; surveying the battle near an Elm tree at the crest of a hill; riding along his entire front to the cheers of his troops; visiting his rifle companies near La Haye Saint; meeting with Blucher at (or very near) La Belle Alliance; and finally, asleep on a mattress on the floor at his headquarters. These widely varied events occurred sometimes miles apart. There are admittedly two ways to read all this. One is to assume that Wellington simply could not or would not have done all these things in one day, and conclude that the accounts are contradictory. The other is to consider that Wellington was probably unusually busy that day. It was the Battle of Waterloo, after all.

What would a detective have made of that?

Off the top of my head: J. Warner Wallace is a seasoned cold case detective who concluded from the evidence that Jesus almost certainly rose from the dead. Lee Strobel is an investigative journalist (a detective of sorts) who also examined the evidence and concluded that Jesus almost certainly rose from the dead. I'm guessing there are others besides them.

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.

There's much wrong with this. First, it makes no sense for the disciples to willingly concoct a fiction that they knew would lead to persecution of themselves and their friends and families. Second, the gospel message was circulating within weeks of the crucifixion, not a generation later, and written documents were likely also in circulation much earlier than the Gospels (see Luke 1:1-3). To say that the message itself must have originated with the publication of the Gospels is a bit like saying the American Civil War must not have occurred until the twentieth century, because that's when Bruce Catton wrote Mr. Lincoln's Army. Third, the Romans, not just the Jews, had every motivation to silence the Christians about the resurrection. Yet they could not manage to find or identify the body, despite complete indifference to Mishnah Yevamot 16:3. Fourth, Jesus' body would have been rather easy to identify had it been found, as it would have been the only one not only bearing the distinct marks of scourging and crucifixion, but with a spear wound in one side and no broken bones.

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.

Again, this is a separate argument altogether. But for me it's not unreasonable to think that a man who claimed to be the Son of God, who was widely reported performing miracles and exorcisms, who repeatedly predicted not only his own crucifixion but his resurrection, and who was subsequently crucified, would then rise from the dead – especially if his tomb was discovered missing three days later and his body never found. It's an unacceptably extraordinary claim only if no God exists, which cannot be established without begging the question.

At the same time, for me it's downright irrational to accept certain naturalistic propositions, for example that life could emerge from nonliving matter completely unaided (or indeed that matter could emerge from nothing whatsoever in the first place) – yet lots of people take such claims at face value. What constitutes an "extraordinary claim" evidently differs from one person to the next.

[Athetotheist]

But additionally, the "national park" account and the "apartment complex" account are not clearly in disagreement, because they describe separate events taking place at different times.

It's fairly clear that they're in disagreement because two of the witnesses, named Luke and John, said that he appeared to them at their apartment complex on the day he died and clearly showed them that it was him while another witness, named Matthew, said that he told them to go to the national park to see him and that when they saw him there, some of them doubted that it was him. And it hardly seems coincidental that in the statements given by Luke and John, the instruction to go to the national park was not given. So their witness didn't agree.

J. Warner Wallace is a seasoned cold case detective who concluded from the evidence that Jesus almost certainly rose from the dead. Lee Strobel is an investigative journalist (a detective of sorts) who also examined the evidence and concluded that Jesus almost certainly rose from the dead. I'm guessing there are others besides them.

I haven't read Wallace's books, but I've seen a couple of his videos and it seems to me that he doesn't talk about the subject like a detective. He talks about it more like a lawyer, focusing on what he considers Christianity's strong points [the dating of the texts, the language used etc.] and ignoring its weaknesses, such as the gospel authors' misquoting/mistranslating of Hebrew scripture. There is cause to find his reasoning and his research questionable. For example, he says in his "Five Reasons You Should Trust Your Bible" video that the gospels were written early and didn't change over time, but it's common knowledge that twelve verses were added to the last chapter of the book of Mark during the second century. Words and phrases appear in some texts and not in others. Depending on the manuscript, the story of the adulteress is sometimes in the book of John and sometimes not. It seems like there was a lot of editing going on.

As for Strobel, here's another look at him:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.altern ... story/amp/

There have also been Christian ministers who have come to doubt the Christian story. Are we to ignore what they have to say?

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.

There's much wrong with this. First, it makes no sense for the disciples to willingly concoct a fiction that they knew would lead to persecution of themselves and their friends and families.

When they re-invented the narrative for their followers, they may well have re-invented it for themselves as well. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful force in those who want to believe something badly enough.

https://people.com/crime/waco-david-kor ... teachings/

Second, the gospel message was circulating within weeks of the crucifixion, not a generation later, and written documents were likely also in circulation much earlier than the Gospels (see Luke 1:1-3). To say that the message itself must have originated with the publication of the Gospels is a bit like saying the American Civil War must not have occurred until the twentieth century, because that's when Bruce Catton wrote Mr. Lincoln's Army.

The message didn't have to originate with the gospels, but might well have died without them since the followers of Jesus evidently expected his return within their lifetimes. If they hadn't, the gospels could have been written right after Jesus's death instead of decades later. They were apparently written to pass the hope of the second coming on to another generation. By such means, cognitive dissonance can be contagious.

Third, the Romans, not just the Jews, had every motivation to silence the Christians about the resurrection. Yet they could not manage to find or identify the body, despite complete indifference to Mishnah Yevamot 16:3. Fourth, Jesus' body would have been rather easy to identify had it been found, as it would have been the only one not only bearing the distinct marks of scourging and crucifixion, but with a spear wound in one side and no broken bones.

The spear wound in the side and no broken bones are features included by gospel writers as clear attempts to link Jesus's death to Hebrew scripture. In the case of the former, the author of John has to misquote the book of Zechariah to get it there:

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/ar ... ariah-1210

If the latter [ no broken bones] is supposed to identify Jesus as the passover lamb, one has to wonder why he wouldn't have to fulfill other sacrificial requirements just as literally, like having his blood poured over the altar.

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.

Again, this is a separate argument altogether. But for me it's not unreasonable to think that a man who claimed to be the Son of God, who was widely reported performing miracles and exorcisms, who repeatedly predicted not only his own crucifixion but his resurrection, and who was subsequently crucified, would then rise from the dead – especially if his tomb was discovered missing three days later and his body never found. It's an unacceptably extraordinary claim only if no God exists, which cannot be established without begging the question.

We have only the word of Christian apologists [one of them a fairly obvious forger penning as Josephus] that he made those statements or performed those miracles.

At the same time, for me it's downright irrational to accept certain naturalistic propositions, for example that life could emerge from nonliving matter completely unaided (or indeed that matter could emerge from nothing whatsoever in the first place) – yet lots of people take such claims at face value. What constitutes an "extraordinary claim" evidently differs from one person to the next.

Now it seems to be your turn to toss out a red herring----or whack at a straw man. I don't take either of those propositions at face value; in fact, I don't accept the second one at all. Again, you don't have to believe that someone rose from the dead to have a spiritual belief.

[FWI]

You allude to the three Laws of Existence, but logic is more detailed than that.

No, I do not! The laws of logic, relate to thoughts. Where, the laws of existence, relate to life. Hence, life can exist, but certain types of life do not have thoughts…Therefore, since you're making the positive claim that there are three laws of existence, it is your duty to prove this true beyond any reasonable doubt or your claim is untenable or false…

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.

A logical fallacy is an argument that appears valid, but is based on faulty reasoning or inaccurate facts leading to false or misleading conclusions. Since, the skeptics claim that the Christ didn't rise from the dead and this is an argument, which could be based on faulty reasoning, there is no other option, but to require the burden of proof upon the skeptic…Or, accept the skeptic's belief in the theory of materialism or physicalism, which is an argument in itself and requires the burden of proof as well.

Yet, you are required to acknowledge that "argument from ignorance" is a two-way understanding! It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true, because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false, because it has not yet been proven true…However, my belief system has no such requirements, only yours seems to!

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.

These open-ended remarks have nothing to do with what happened thousands of years ago. There are records of eyewitnesses and circumstantial support for the resurrections of the dead. Thus, the skeptics can't just use their own rules of engagement and require others to follow suit and accept their reasoning. So, the introduction of materialism has attempted and for the most part succeeded to alter the definition of the burden of proof. However, it is important to note that the same critics agree that we can never be certain of anything. So, value must be assign to any claim based on the available evidence, where to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is classified as fallacious reasoning…

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.

No, the fallacy in these comments is that you seem to be trying to require me to accept what you believe! This would require yourself to completely convince me that you are right, which you haven't. Yet, I haven't taken such a position: I'm not trying to convert you, I don't care if you believe or if you don’t'! I am just giving rebuttals to your unsupported claims. Hence, the usage of logical fallacy this and logical fallacy that is just a waste of words.

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.

These requests are rejected…Because, the resurrection of the Christ is the only point that is relevant to this discussion! Therefore, what different religious belief systems proclaim or don't are not my concern, at this time. However, if I decided to address such issues in the future, I will do so related to my belief system, not the beliefs of others.

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?

Let no one deceive himself…If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He catches the wise in their own craftiness and again, the Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile. Therefore, let no one boast in men (1Cor. 3:18-21).

Now, a case in point:
There is another issue that should help in determining the validity of a premise or a proposition on which an argument is based and is used to support or question the premise: So, if it can be claimed that an apparent contradiction exists between one source (O.T.) and another (N.T.) and this apparent contradiction is cause to doubt the writings, then it would also hold true that the agreement between the same two sources would help to validate a different premise…This occurs between the O.T. and the N.T. concerning the resurrection of the dead…Hence, one can't support the apparent contradiction and then reject the agreement, without being questioned about motives and that the credibility of certain comments.

[Zzyzx]

.

Since, the skeptics claim that the Christ didn't rise from the dead and this is an argument, which could be based on faulty reasoning, there is no other option, but to require the burden of proof upon the skeptic

Christians tend to claim that Jesus came back to life. This 'skeptic' (Non-Theist) does not believe the tales. “I do not believe your back-to-life tales� is NOT a claim that it did not occur.

In reasoned discourse, burden of proof is upon those who make the claim. Kindly provide verifiable evidence.

[Zzyzx]

.

There are records of eyewitnesses

Kindly provide a reference to any records BY eyewitnesses.

Who, exactly, witnessed a 'resurrection'? Even according to the tales, there were no witnesses to a body coming back to life – let alone any accounts by actual witnesses.

Someone saying 'there were witnesses' is just rumor or hearsay – and part of the tale making the claim.

and circumstantial support for the resurrections of the dead.

WHAT circumstantial support'?

Does an unverifiable tale claiming an empty tomb qualify as 'circumstantial support'? If so, thousands of empty tombs are indication of multiple 'resurrections'. Right?

Are unverifiable tales of angels, soldiers, young men (or whatever imagined) 'circumstantial support'?

Does a tale of a rock sealing a tomb add support? If so, a rock placed by humans could also be removed by humans.

[Athetotheist]

You allude to the three Laws of Existence, but logic is more detailed than that.

No, I do not! The laws of logic, relate to thoughts. Where, the laws of existence, relate to life. Hence, life can exist, but certain types of life do not have thoughts…Therefore, since you're making the positive claim that there are three laws of existence, it is your duty to prove this true beyond any reasonable doubt or your claim is untenable or false…

The laws of *existence* pertain to how something is to *exist*:
1. A thing cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect.
2. A thing either is or is not.
3. A thing is what it is.

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.

A logical fallacy is an argument that appears valid, but is based on faulty reasoning or inaccurate facts leading to false or misleading conclusions. Since, the skeptics claim that the Christ didn't rise from the dead and this is an argument, which could be based on faulty reasoning, there is no other option, but to require the burden of proof upon the skeptic…Or, accept the skeptic's belief in the theory of materialism or physicalism, which is an argument in itself and requires the burden of proof as well.

Yet, you are required to acknowledge that "argument from ignorance" is a two-way understanding! It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true, because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false, because it has not yet been proven true…However, my belief system has no such requirements, only yours seems to!

Taking the position that something didn't happen is a positive statement only if it is stated as fact. Merely saying, "I don't believe that it happened" does not place one under a burden of proof. However, one can cite any available evidence showing that various claims about the same thing are mutually exclusive and, therefore, cannot all be factual.

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.

These open-ended remarks have nothing to do with what happened thousands of years ago. There are records of eyewitnesses and circumstantial support for the resurrections of the dead. Thus, the skeptics can't just use their own rules of engagement and require others to follow suit and accept their reasoning. So, the introduction of materialism has attempted and for the most part succeeded to alter the definition of the burden of proof. However, it is important to note that the same critics agree that we can never be certain of anything. So, value must be assign to any claim based on the available evidence, where to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is classified as fallacious reasoning…

(1.) I am not introducing "materialism" here; I'm simply pointing out obvious inconsistencies between certain written accounts.( 2.) You are proceeding on what you *assume* happened thousands of years ago. Nothing similar happens today to suggest that it has ever happened. (3.) If two accounts of the same thing are incompatible, we *can* know for certain that they cannot both be true.

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.

No, the fallacy in these comments is that you seem to be trying to require me to accept what you believe! This would require yourself to completely convince me that you are right, which you haven't. Yet, I haven't taken such a position: I'm not trying to convert you, I don't care if you believe or if you don’t'! I am just giving rebuttals to your unsupported claims. Hence, the usage of logical fallacy this and logical fallacy that is just a waste of words.

Not to toot my own horn, but I think I've made my arguments fairly well. Whereas, as far as I can tell, the closest you've come to establishing that Jesus rose from the dead has been to state that some people wrote that he did and no one can "prove" that he didn't.

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.

These requests are rejected…Because, the resurrection of the Christ is the only point that is relevant to this discussion! Therefore, what different religious belief systems proclaim or don't are not my concern, at this time. However, if I decided to address such issues in the future, I will do so related to my belief system, not the beliefs of others.

Do you mean by this that you would address such issues by assuming that your belief is right and that everyone else's is wrong? Since you take the position of a "skeptic" regarding those other propositions and can't disprove any of them, they are *all* relevant to this discussion.

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?

Let no one deceive himself…If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He catches the wise in their own craftiness and again, the Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile. Therefore, let no one boast in men (1Cor. 3:18-21).

Are you sure you're not trying to convert me?

Now, a case in point:
There is another issue that should help in determining the validity of a premise or a proposition on which an argument is based and is used to support or question the premise: So, if it can be claimed that an apparent contradiction exists between one source (O.T.) and another (N.T.) and this apparent contradiction is cause to doubt the writings, then it would also hold true that the agreement between the same two sources would help to validate a different premise…This occurs between the O.T. and the N.T. concerning the resurrection of the dead…Hence, one can't support the apparent contradiction and then reject the agreement, without being questioned about motives and that the credibility of certain comments.

Here's another case in point:

Let's say that there are two men and both of them say that they were together one day in Madagascar and saw a UFO fly overhead. It turns out that at the exact time they say this happened, one of the men was in Australia and the other was in Alaska. Does the fact that they make the same claim mean that they must be giving an accurate account? I'm sorry, but a "case in point" like that doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[FWI]

The laws of *existence* pertain to how something is to *exist*:
1. A thing cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect.
2. A thing either is or is not.
3. A thing is what it is.

It seems to appear that you may be drifting away from the subject matter, which was: "Extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence is a logical principle (post # 113)." This I disagreed with…It also seems that you have shifted from discussing the "logic" of your claim to discussing "existence" and suggesting that they both are connected, as related to our disagreement. Where, your explanation of existence as a thing is out of place and has no bearing on the initial subject matter. Have you now come to the conclusion that your claim really isn't valid?

Taking the position that something didn't happen is a positive statement only if it is stated as fact. Merely saying, "I don't believe that it happened" does not place one under a burden of proof.

So, it seems that you have succumbed to the reality that the resurrection of the Christ could have happened…Even, though you don't believe it did. Correct?

I am not introducing "materialism" here; I'm simply pointing out obvious inconsistencies between certain written accounts.

Yet, it seems that you have taken the position, where these minor differences (in the gospels) nullify all the other clear agreements and external support that relates to the topic…So, what is materialism? Simply put: it is a preoccupation with or emphasis on material objects and considerations, with a disinterest in or rejection of the spiritual/supernatural. Unfortunately, reading your posts suggests that this appears to be the position you have taken. Is this a reasonable position for me to take?

You are proceeding on what you *assume* happened thousands of years ago. Nothing similar happens today to suggest that it has ever happened.

No, I am not assuming anything. I have enough evidence to prove to myself that the resurrection of the Christ is a fact. However, because resurrections don't seem to happen today, isn't evidence that they didn't happen in the past and that such events won't occur in the future.

If two accounts of the same thing are incompatible, we *can* know for certain that they cannot both be true.

The problem with this comment is that the gospels are compatible, with the topic of the Christ's resurrection. Yet, they are not exact copies, nor should we expect them to be! Because, if they were, many would critique that occurrence. This again, point to the beliefs of some that no spiritual or supernatural events ever happened. Which, brings us "again" to materialism…

Not to toot my own horn, but I think I've made my arguments fairly well.

It's obvious that I disagree with this assessment. Thus, the few minor differences, which you have presented don't outweigh the recorded history and prophesied future of the events beings discussed. The only objection that could hold any point of interest is that the resurrection of the dead doesn't occur (today) after humans have been dead for three days. Yet, they aren't supposed to happen again, until the end times…The next such event will occur during the time of the two witnesses and is recorded in Rev. 11:3-12. So, the few recorded events of resurrections in history are only examples of what will happen in the future and the possibility for most of the dead to have life again, through a resurrection!

Do you mean by this that you would address such issues by assuming that your belief is right and that everyone else's is wrong?

Yes, I am stating that my position is the right one and for those who disagree they are incorrect (because, if I didn't believe that my system of beliefs are correct, they wouldn't be much good to me, now would they!)…However, for those who accept the resurrection of the Christ, there is no disagreement that the Christ lived, he died, he was buried, he rose from the dead and walked (physically) among his brethren for about 40 days. This is my belief and the belief of those who accept the Christ, as spiritually alive today.

Are you sure you're not trying to convert me?

I'm positive…The bible is clear that no one can come to the Christ, unless the Father draws them. They must also hear (mentally) and learn the ways of God, from God, not man (Isaiah 54:13 & John 6:43-45).

Also a "case in point" is a specific example used to show that something that has been written or said is true. Hence, if I know that the O.T. states that people living during that time period believed that there would be a time when the dead would be resurrected and the N.T. states the same thing, thus supporting the O.T. Then, this is a case in point…Now, others may not accept this, but that doesn't make the writings not true.

Yet, your example is only a hypothetical. Which, can't be considered or believed to be true, because of the way it is presented. Where, a hypothesis is only a proposal and can't be true until tested to be true…

[Athetotheist]

It seems to appear that you may be drifting away from the subject matter, which was: "Extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence is a logical principle (post # 113)." This I disagreed with…It also seems that you have shifted from discussing the "logic" of your claim to discussing "existence" and suggesting that they both are connected, as related to our disagreement. Where, your explanation of existence as a thing is out of place and has no bearing on the initial subject matter. Have you now come to the conclusion that your claim really isn't valid?

Stories which contradict each other cannot coexist as factual.

Taking the position that something didn't happen is a positive statement only if it is stated as fact. Merely saying, "I don't believe that it happened" does not place one under a burden of proof.

So, it seems that you have succumbed to the reality that the resurrection of the Christ could have happened…Even, though you don't believe it did. Correct?

So, it seems that you have succumbed to the reality that Joseph Smith finding plates of gold or the angel Gabriel dictating the Quran to Muhammed could have happened...even though you don't believe they did. Correct?

I am not introducing "materialism" here; I'm simply pointing out obvious inconsistencies between certain written accounts.

Yet, it seems that you have taken the position, where these minor differences (in the gospels) nullify all the other clear agreements and external support that relates to the topic…So, what is materialism? Simply put: it is a preoccupation with or emphasis on material objects and considerations, with a disinterest in or rejection of the spiritual/supernatural. Unfortunately, reading your posts suggests that this appears to be the position you have taken. Is this a reasonable position for me to take?

No, it's not. Nowhere have I stated a disinterest in or rejection of the spiritual/ supernatural; I've merely been pointing out that the glaring differences in the gospels cast serious doubt on the agreements.

You are proceeding on what you *assume* happened thousands of years ago. Nothing similar happens today to suggest that it has ever happened.

No, I am not assuming anything. I have enough evidence to prove to myself that the resurrection of the Christ is a fact. However, because resurrections don't seem to happen today, isn't evidence that they didn't happen in the past and that such events won't occur in the future.

This, again, is a "can't-prove-it-didn't-happen" argument from ignorance. Having enough evidence to prove it to yourself isn't enough to prove it to anyone else, so no one else is obligated to accept that claim of evidence.

If two accounts of the same thing are incompatible, we *can* know for certain that they cannot both be true.

The problem with this comment is that the gospels are compatible, with the topic of the Christ's resurrection. Yet, they are not exact copies, nor should we expect them to be! Because, if they were, many would critique that occurrence. This again, point to the beliefs of some that no spiritual or supernatural events ever happened. Which, brings us "again" to materialism…

Wrong again. It doesn't bring us to materialism, but neither does it bring us to the resurrection of Jesus.

Not to toot my own horn, but I think I've made my arguments fairly well.

It's obvious that I disagree with this assessment. Thus, the few minor differences, which you have presented don't outweigh the recorded history and prophesied future of the events beings discussed. The only objection that could hold any point of interest is that the resurrection of the dead doesn't occur (today) after humans have been dead for three days. Yet, they aren't supposed to happen again, until the end times…The next such event will occur during the time of the two witnesses and is recorded in Rev. 11:3-12. So, the few recorded events of resurrections in history are only examples of what will happen in the future and the possibility for most of the dead to have life again, through a resurrection!

This is an appeal to the presumed authority of the Bible.

Do you mean by this that you would address such issues by assuming that your belief is right and that everyone else's is wrong?

Yes, I am stating that my position is the right one and for those who disagree they are incorrect (because, if I didn't believe that my system of beliefs are correct, they wouldn't be much good to me, now would they!)…However, for those who accept the resurrection of the Christ, there is no disagreement that the Christ lived, he died, he was buried, he rose from the dead and walked (physically) among his brethren for about 40 days. This is my belief and the belief of those who accept the Christ, as spiritually alive today.

Those who "accept" the resurrection may not accept the disagreements, but that doesn't mean the disagreements aren't there.

Are you sure you're not trying to convert me?

I'm positive…The bible is clear that no one can come to the Christ, unless the Father draws them. They must also hear (mentally) and learn the ways of God, from God, not man (Isaiah 54:13 & John 6:43-45).

How can you say for certain that a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Muslim or a Pagan hasn't learned the ways of God from God?

Also a "case in point" is a specific example used to show that something that has been written or said is true. Hence, if I know that the O.T. states that people living during that time period believed that there would be a time when the dead would be resurrected and the N.T. states the same thing, thus supporting the O.T. Then, this is a case in point…Now, others may not accept this, but that doesn't make the writings not true.

Yet, your example is only a hypothetical. Which, can't be considered or believed to be true, because of the way it is presented. Where, a hypothesis is only a proposal and can't be true until tested to be true…

Don't think of my example as a "hypothetical"; think of it as a parable: a story told to illustrate a principle.

According to the Book of Mormon, there was a time when eleven witnesses saw plates of gold dug up by Joseph Smith, and their church says the same thing today. Do you think that's enough to make the claim believable?

There are numerous dying-and-rising gods in written records: Mithra, Attis, Osiris, Tammuz etc. If the exact same resurrection accounts written about Jesus had been written about any of those gods instead, would you find them consistent enough to be believed? Whose resurrection would you be proclaiming?

[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: However, Matthew, Mark, and Luke have Jesus being crucified a day later than John does. Day of Preparation verses Passover.