Fine-Tuning Argument vs Argument From Miracles

[Koyaanisqatsi]

*sigh* . You're hanging your hat on the presumption that magic is "reasonable." That's simply unsupportable all on its own, so you've already self-defeated long before the gish gallop.

Silly Koy. You assess possibilities to determine the conclusions.
Remez knows to start with the conclusions. That way, possibilities that do not lead to the right conclusions can be eliminated, or even mocked as implausible. Much more efficient.

Hope springs eternal. It's Crosby who died young.

 

[atrib]

*sigh* . You're hanging your hat on the presumption that magic is "reasonable." That's simply unsupportable all on its own, so you've already self-defeated long before the gish gallop.

Silly Koy. You assess possibilities to determine the conclusions.
Remez knows to start with the conclusions. That way, possibilities that do not lead to the right conclusions can be eliminated, or even mocked as implausible. Much more efficient.

I suspect Remez has seen or read about some apologetic defense that starts with the presupposition that the resurrection story is true, and then attempts to place the burden on the skeptic to demonstrate that the people allegedly involved in the story were lying. At least, that is how Remez has been framing his argument in this thread. This is a fools errand that might work in Sunday school, but is unlikely to fool skeptics who have the ability to think rationally.

In my arguments with Remez, I have repeatedly pointed out that his presuppositions are not valid until they are supported by evidence. So far, Remez has not attempted to make a case to establish the historicity of the resurrection claim, but has kept repeating this single argument based on his presupposition that the claim is true. This is likely because he realizes that the evidence to corroborate these claims does not exist, or that modern historians are not aware of the existence of such corroborating evidence. Lacking evidence, he turns to bluster and the cockatoo defense, repeating his arguments over and over while ignoring the opposing arguments.

Remez has agreed that skepticism is or should be the rational response to claims that involve reanimated flying corpses. In order to argue that the specific Biblical claims regarding flying reanimated corpses, Remez needs to demonstrate why this skepticism should be waived or set aside. This is not an easy task, and instead of actually making the case for the historicity of the claim, Remez has chosen to take the easy way out. So he keeps asking us to speculate on the motives of the characters in the story, instead of providing evidence to demonstrate that the claim should be considered plausible, or even credible.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I suspect Remez has seen or read about some apologetic defense that starts with the presupposition that the resurrection story is true, and then attempts to place the burden on the skeptic to demonstrate that the people allegedly involved in the story were lying.

From what I can see, it seems to me like he assumes that the stories are true, and asks 'what other explanation could there be?'

When someone suggests 'it could be made up,' he reads that as 'The stories ARE made-up!'

Then demands that someone provide positive proof for the claim that they're lies.

Then opponents would have to spend a lot of time recovering the same ground, in restating what they actually did and did not claim... As usual.

I honestly could never be sure if he intentionally attacked strawmen, or just has some sort of reading disability preventing the following of anyone else's narrative.

 

[atrib]

I suspect Remez has seen or read about some apologetic defense that starts with the presupposition that the resurrection story is true, and then attempts to place the burden on the skeptic to demonstrate that the people allegedly involved in the story were lying.

From what I can see, it seems to me like he assumes that the stories are true, and asks 'what other explanation could there be?'

When someone suggests 'it could be made up,' he reads that as 'The stories ARE made-up!'

They probably are made up, but there is a possibility that the authors (Paul and Mark) sincerely believed what they wrote. But it makes no difference to the credibility of the claim because humans are easily fooled, and evidence of sincere belief in a claim says very little about the credibility of the claim.

The bottom line is this: As long as naturalistic explanations cannot be ruled out, you cannot reasonably consider supernatural explanations to be credible. That is a very high standard, and consistent with the extraordinary nature of the claim. Corpses don't reanimate themselves after days of being dead and fly up into the sky under their own power; such claims go against everything we know about reality. Apologists like Lumpy and Remez are unwilling to recognize the fact that extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence to support them.

Then demands that someone provide positive proof for the claim that they're lies.

That is because Remez is trying to shift the burden. After having agreed that claims regarding reanimated flying corpses should be treated with skepticism. Instead of trying to establish the foundational basis for the claims using evidence, he is trying to lure skeptics into a discussion of the motives of the characters in the story. After presupposing that the stories are factual.

As an example, if a Muslim apologist was trying to establish that Allah existed and that he sent an angel to Muhammad to tell him about himself, he might come up with something like this:
"Why would Muhammad lie about receiving revelations from an angel sent by Allah?", or
"Why would someone lie about Muhammad flying up to heaven on a winged horse?".
Its the same argument, but I am willing to bet that Christian apologists would not accept the claims of the Quran to be credible based on such arguments.

Then opponents would have to spend a lot of time recovering the same ground, in restating what they actually did and did not claim... As usual.

I don't need to know the precise details of who, when and why as to how the Jesus mythology came to exist to be skeptical of the supernatural claims made in the mythology. And Remez has agreed that my position is reasonable. He has nothing else to offer, so he makes a lot of noise and repeats the same nonsense that has been debunked over and over. What else can he do?

My opinion is that the story is a fabrication. It is the simplest naturalistic explanation, and consistent with the historical context of the time and place in which the Jesus mythology developed. Stories about personal savior dead-and-risen messiahs, or messiahs who had conquered death after undergoing a great passion are not uncommon in this historical context - one might be tempted to say they were quite the fad. It just so happens that the version of the Jesus mythology promoted by the author of Mark won out, and billions of people today believe this nonsense.

I honestly could never be sure if he intentionally attacked strawmen, or just has some sort of reading disability preventing the following of anyone else's narrative.

From his posts I would speculate that Remez is a native English speaker who has no problems understanding other people's posts.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Remez has agreed that skepticism is or should be the rational response to claims that involve reanimated flying corpses. In order to argue that the specific Biblical claims regarding flying reanimated corpses, Remez needs to demonstrate why this skepticism should be waived or set aside. This is not an easy task, and instead of actually making the case for the historicity of the claim, Remez has chosen to take the easy way out. So he keeps asking us to speculate on the motives of the characters in the story, instead of providing evidence to demonstrate that the claim should be considered plausible, or even credible.

That and he keeps bizarrely insisting that proximity of authorship somehow ensures that anecdotes are not reliable evidence of the thing itself. All an anecdote can tell us is that someone thought they saw or experienced a particular thing. It doesn't matter if that anecdote is told first person ten seconds after whatever they saw or experienced, it can't serve as evidence that the thing seen or experienced was in fact what the individual thought it was.

This is just a brute fact and people like Remez take for absolute granted in regard to just about any other claim, but when it comes to scientology mormonism astrology mithraism islam any-other-cult-but-theirsism beliefs in magic it all just gets flushed down the toilet.

What's so weird about it, of course, is the Freudian slippery slope of it all. He's not desperately torturing logic--all the while insisting that only he is applying reason--for our sake after all.

Cult member, deprogram thyself.

 

[Learner]

And in 1 Corinthians, but the problem is, both are (allegedly) written by Paul. Those are Paul's guesses about what happens. But he has no authority to say anything at all definitively. His only claim to any kind of authority is that he allegedly had a "vision." Aka, "hallucination," if, in fact, it ever happened and he wasn't simply lying about it and/or it wasn't the evidently common result of some form of epilepsy or other brain disorder, that we know today to cause all manner of religiously themed hallucinations in the similarly afflicted.

It is widely accepted by biblical scholars that Paul DID write 1 Corinthians, not forgetting your friend Bart Erhman believes this also.

But with Paul we have additional evidence that he was not speaking with any kind of authority in the facts that, (1), he was never trusted by any of the actual disciples and was in fact relegated to only tending to the far less important gentile and "hellenized" Jews while the OG disciples ministered to the real Jews (that we curiously know almost nothing about, no less); (2) not even his own congregates believed his opinions (hence the letters in the first place and their repeated insistence that followers had to believe his version or else there was no religion and no salvation and no prize off the top shelf).

Far from being an authority, Paul was a pariah and his opinions on Jesus' death not believed or adhered to by the fringe followers most likely to believe such pagan nonsense to begin with.

Regardless, there is still the problem with Thomas insisting that he would not believe it was actually Jesus unless and until he could physically stick his fingers into the actual wounds.

But why would that be the requirement? Think about it for two seconds. A friend of yours dies in, say, a car accident. You go to the funeral. You see him buried. You walk away and start to mourn. A few days later, your buddies come to you and say, "Dude! Bob resurrected from the dead! Come see him!"

Aside from being astounded, why would your first thought be: I won't believe it's Bob unless I can stick my hands in his wounds! . Are your friends capable of somehow finding a body double for Bob and then pretending that he resurrected to play some sort of elaborate and horrific practical joke on you or something? Is it a common occurrence for you to be tricked by people you thought were dead only to find out, nope! All a ruse!

Not an issue at all. Just because of one disciple, who has not yet been convinced where as the others have been? And in context, Thomas was "not" with the rest of the disciples when Jesus "first" came to them shown below :

John 20:24-27
24 Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”

But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

And why in the world wouldn't just seeing Bob alive and talking to you be more than sufficient for you to believe he's no longer dead? Why would you need to physically stick your hands into his wounds in order to believe it really was Bob?

You would believe straight away, most likely just as the disciples did. As I mentioned to above, the situation is different with Thomas who only "first" heard about the appearance of Jesus from the others.

As I pointed out, the only reason to make up this sequence and add it into this latter account is because--as with Paul's letters evidencing disbelief in Corinthia--clearly the followers some forty-fifty years after Paul's letters still did not buy the notion of Jesus resurrecting. So embellishments were evidently called for, either by the author (whoever he was) or by the then "church elders" (whoever they were).

Iow, Doubting Thomas was intended as apologetics; to cover up a hole in the mythology that clearly had persisted in spite of Paul's earlier attempts to dissuade it and were big enough of a concern to warrant this patch.

The "only" reason - you say with much certainty. I'll borrow Remez's line here, "Your confidence is as misplaced as your aim".

But, like all patches, it doesn't hold water under pressure. The whole point of sticking the fingers in (which he does, no less, so it's not just an idle requirement) is to physically confirm that this is, in fact, that same flesh and blood Jesus that was crucified by the Romans (for no explicable reason) and died and was entombed and then was brought back to life by Jehovah, no question about it.

As the previous above and goes for the rest of your post, its for Thomas satisfaction "only" to get that confirmation, since he wasn't there the first time around.

 

[abaddon]

I suspect Remez has seen or read about some apologetic defense that starts with the presupposition that the resurrection story is true, and then attempts to place the burden on the skeptic to demonstrate that the people allegedly involved in the story were lying.

From what I can see, it seems to me like he assumes that the stories are true, and asks 'what other explanation could there be?'

When someone suggests 'it could be made up,' he reads that as 'The stories ARE made-up!'

Then demands that someone provide positive proof for the claim that they're lies.

Then opponents would have to spend a lot of time recovering the same ground, in restating what they actually did and did not claim... As usual.

I honestly could never be sure if he intentionally attacked strawmen, or just has some sort of reading disability preventing the following of anyone else's narrative.

It's to force the discussion in a direction he's familiar with. The 4 "minimal facts" are paraphrased from Habermas. There's a "who would die for a lie?" within Habermas's argument. So probably, when he thought he saw someone calling the apostles liars, he thought he had a chance to present Habermas' argument or something very close to it. So he assigned atrib to take the "it's lies" position, to force the discussion to go where he wanted.

I don't think it's reading disability. It's more an inability to see the other's POV for not reading posts with the principle of charity in mind. Rather, with just his intention for the thread in mind.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It is widely accepted by biblical scholars that Paul DID write 1 Corinthians

And? Whether something is "widely accepted" as true and actually is true are two entirely different things, particularly when we're talking about providence of two thousand year old writings, many of which (including those historically attributed to Paul) we know have also been revised and otherwise tampered with by subsequent generations, if not outright frauds/plagiarisms.

Not an issue at all.

Oh, well, I guess that settles it then.

Just because of one disciple, who has not yet been convinced where as the others have been? And in context, Thomas was "not" with the rest of the disciples when Jesus "first" came to them shown below

I'm glad you mentioned "context." Let's quote the opening sequence of John 20 before we get to your cherry-pick:

20 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2 So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”

3 So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. 4 Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5 He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7 as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen. 8 Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. 9 (They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.)

So, right there we see that Jesus evidently bodily arose (or was taken as Mary logically believes), since, you know, his body wasn't there. The cave was open already just as it was in Mark, yet there is no young man or utterly pointless two angels (at this point) just hanging out for no reason inside the tomb where the body was and for some unknown reason, neither Peter nor the other disciple (supposedly "John" bizarrely writing in the third person) "still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead."

Not that he did resurrect, but that he had to resurrect.

But even more curious is the fact that the author makes note that the "other disciple" "saw and believed." Well, saw and believed what?

Picture the scene. You and Peter are just having breakfast when Mary--Jesus' beloved Mary--comes running toward you to tell you that the tomb has been opened and Jesus' body has been taken. You go to investigate and you find, indeed, that the tomb is open and Jesus' body is gone. All that remains are the burial linens/cloth. At that point, you do not believe or "understand" anything about Jesus resurrecting. The author of John (or somebody at some point in time) makes that a particular point by placing it in parentheses.

So, what is it that you suddenly "believe" after a trusted friend and likely lover of Jesus' tells you the tomb was opened and the body stolen; you investigate and confirm the tomb was open and you see no body, just his linens on the ground? Do you believe, you know, that just like Mary said, someone stole the body? Or that Jesus maybe wasn't actually dead and he got up at some point and took off the linens--like you would--and discarded them in a haze and opened the tomb to go find everyone?

Remember, "John" is also the one who tells us that one of the soldiers stabbed Jesus in the side to confirm that he was dead, so apparently that was a common enough occurrence (the appearance of death when in fact not actually dead) for that soldier to even think of doing such a thing in the first place.

Because either of those perfectly logical events are sure as shit what I would believe, especially if, in the moments leading up to all of that I held no belief or "understanding" that Jesus had to resurrect (whatever that would mean).

But let's go further into context. The very next line is:

10 Then the disciples went back to where they were staying.

What? They are told by Mary the body has been taken, they see an open tomb, no Jesus and his linens left behind (as if either someone hastily unwrapped the body or he just woke up and took them off himself). They didn't believe or "understand" anything about Jesus resurrecting, but the "other disciple" just suddenly now "believed" something not made clear. It is presumed to be that he suddenly and for no apparent reason just believed that Jesus rose from the dead, but this is not actually based on anything coherent.

He saw exactly what Mary said. Open tomb; body taken; linens on the ground. That's it.

So what do they do with this now miraculous news? Eh. They just go back to where they were staying, leaving Mary apparently to weep and wonder where her man went:

11 Now Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb 12 and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.

13 They asked her, “Woman, why are you crying?”

“They have taken my Lord away,” she said, “and I don’t know where they have put him.”

And that's the sole purpose of those two angels that suddenly appeared for no reason. Just that. You know. Like you do. Hanging out in the tomb in order to have some idle chit chat with Mary.

14 At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.

15 He asked her, “Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?”

Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.”

16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.”

She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means “Teacher”).

17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

18 Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them that he had said these things to her.

So, now suddenly two angels appear AND Jesus, but he doesn't look like Jesus for some unknown reason. And he makes a point of instructing Mary not to touch him, because he hasn't ascended to heaven. Whatever the fuck that means. I guess Mary can't touch him, but Thomas can? Must be a vagina thing.

Onward christian soldiers:

19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.

Ok, so, again, picture the scene. Presumably, Peter and the "other disciple" (not to mention Mary) told all of the other disciples about the open tomb and the linens and how one of them suddenly "believed" in something by that evening, considering that all happened just after day break, right? Jesus suddenly just pops into existence somehow (doors locked after all for "fear of the Jewish leaders" for some unknown reason) and yet that fact alone evidently isn't enough for his own disciples--to see Jesus suddenly appear out of nowhere standing in front of them. No, he then makes a point of showing them his hands and side as physical proof that it's him.

Popping into existence inside a locked room and looking exactly like Jesus is not enough. Hey, guys, no, seriously, see? Hands? Side? You know, the Big Jeez!? Didn't Peter and that other guy tell you they found my tomb open and the linens on the ground? Mary thought someone had stolen my body. Women.

Oh, yeah, and now, apparently, the disciples all have the "holy spirit" infused into them and have magical powers to forgive sins, so at this point they can heal the sick, raise the dead and forgive sins.

So why aren't they still walking the earth? But I digress.

Now we get to the part you cherry-picked, but let's go full context:

24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus[a]), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”

But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

26 A week later his disciples were in the house again

Wait, what? A week later? Ok...I guess Jesus had some vaca time and wanted to wonder around or something. Anywho...

and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!”

So he did the sudden pop-in trick again. And then:

27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

But, it wasn't just that he had "seen" Jesus and believed (even, again, after Jesus just magically appeared inside a locked room just like the disciples presumably told Thomas had happened previously). No, it was he saw Jesus and had to stick his hand into Jesus' side wound (that for some strange reason is still there, or there at all for that matter, for something that can dematerialize and rematerialize inside a locked room as well as change their entire appearance such that a beloved concubine can't recognize him in one instant and then seconds later fully recognizes him for again no apparent reason whatsoever; I mean was Jesus hiding from the fuzz in the shape of a gardener and if so why then does he suddenly change back to Jeebus and, more importantly, why wasn't all of that just projected into Mary's and the disciples' heads, but I digress again).

And why in the world wouldn't just seeing Bob alive and talking to you be more than sufficient for you to believe he's no longer dead? Why would you need to physically stick your hands into his wounds in order to believe it really was Bob?

You would believe straight away, most likely just as the disciples did.

No, evidently neither myself nor they would if that account is to be at all believed.

As I pointed out, the only reason to make up this sequence and add it into this latter account is because--as with Paul's letters evidencing disbelief in Corinthia--clearly the followers some forty-fifty years after Paul's letters still did not buy the notion of Jesus resurrecting. So embellishments were evidently called for, either by the author (whoever he was) or by the then "church elders" (whoever they were).

Iow, Doubting Thomas was intended as apologetics; to cover up a hole in the mythology that clearly had persisted in spite of Paul's earlier attempts to dissuade it and were big enough of a concern to warrant this patch.

The "only" reason - you say with much certainty.

Yep. And that certainty hasn't wavered by your sophistry.

I'll borrow Remez's line here, "Your confidence is as misplaced as your aim".

But, like all patches, it doesn't hold water under pressure. The whole point of sticking the fingers in (which he does, no less, so it's not just an idle requirement) is to physically confirm that this is, in fact, that same flesh and blood Jesus that was crucified by the Romans (for no explicable reason) and died and was entombed and then was brought back to life by Jehovah, no question about it.

As the previous above and goes for the rest of your post, its for Thomas satisfaction "only" to get that confirmation, since he wasn't there the first time around.

Oh, I see! You mean a week ago, when his buddies were all talking about how they had seen Jesus suddenly pop into existence inside a locked room (and did a little show and tell of his own to likewise prove that it was really him and not some imposter that had the power to just poof into existence, like that was a common enough occurrence that so many times before had fooled these disciples by false pop-ins or something)?

Yeah, sure, that makes perfect sense. No one--not even a disciple--who has the power to heal the sick, raise the dead (and now) forgive sins like God does--STILL would need to get that personal confirmation by sticking his hand into the stab wound (that bizarrely still exists) before he would believe that Jesus had resurrected from the dead.

That's a tough crowd. Empty tomb (with linens all around)? Nope, not enough. Appear to his girlfriend as somebody else for no explicable reason only to then suddenly change back to good ol' Jesus (and angels, no less; fucking angels now for some reason hanging out in the tomb)? Nope, not enough. Magically pop into existence? Nope, not enough. Magically pop into existence inside a locked room (twice)? Nope, not enough. Gotta see those wounds, Jeeby. Gotta stick my hands inside those wounds! Fool me once, fool me twice. I won't get fooled again.

Yeah, so that's all utterly ridiculous, but why should that stop you? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed. So I guess they're all screwed.

ETA: Almost forgot. Why does Jesus admonish Mary from touching him but not Thomas? Again, if it's a vagina thing, then that's just absurd and speaks entirely to the human stupidity behind the mythology.

Regardless, the apparent point to ALL of this embellishment is, once again, that the gentiles evidently still were not buying the whole resurrection nonsense. John was supposedly written around 100 CE. Paul's letter to Corinthians around 55 CE. Nobody bought it in his time and some half a century later they evidently still weren't buying it.

Thus the whole proximity to an event nonsense is rendered what it always was; nonsense.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Oh yeah, several other points that didn't hit me until after the deadline for editing. First, why was the tomb open at all? Jesus had the ability to just magically appear *POPP!* inside two...count them two locked rooms, but he needed to physically move the stone in front of the tomb? Why?

So that he could play a prank on his followers and make them think that someone had stolen his dead body?

Especially since, without his burial linens he would have been nekkid as a jay. So are we to assume that Jesus resurrected from the dead, removed his burial linens and then--naked--pushed open the rock in front of the cave because he didn't yet know he could just magically pop into and out of locked rooms at that point? Was there a learning curve?

Is that what was going on with Mary? He was using her as a test of his new found powers that he hadn't perfected before leaving the cave?

And then, why wouldn't he stay wrapped in the linens? Wouldn't that be a far more effective form of proof to show up all mummy-like (but with his head uncovered or maybe covered and then *POOF* he swipes it off his head for the big reveal)?

Physical proof was evidently a very big deal. It's noted twice; first with him popping into existence inside the first locked room he insists on showing the disciples his wounds and then again when he popped into existence inside the second locked room a full week later for some unknown reason (poor Thomas).

Three times, actually, if you count his completely unnecessary shapeshifting "experiment" with Mary where she somehow does not realize it's the love of her life come back from supposedly having died yesterday, standing right in front of her.

So, was he naked in front of Mary? She probably would have noticed that (and his wounds). Did he have to physically move the rock--as part of his learning curve--go out and find some gardener and take his clothes and then somehow discovered at that point that he could shape shift and/or just magically pop into and out of existence and at long distances?

For a magical being that can pop in and out of locked rooms from a distance, you'd think that a very important detail in the story would be that the tomb was NOT open. That in fact, it was very difficult to open (but we know is not the case, since one old rich Jew could do it on his own).

Sealed tomb and when opened Jesus' body is not there? Now THAT would be a mystery. Even better mystery? Sealed tomb with Jesus' body still in there at the same time that he appears right in front of Mary and/or pops into locked rooms with the disciples.

Now THAT would be a miracle and more in keeping with Paul's blathering nonsense about their being two separate and distinct types of bodies; one that is made out of flesh and blood and one that isn't. But in John we evidently have a flesh and blood body, with wounds that can be penetrated and a physical form that can evidently be defiled by the touch of a woman (but not the touch of a man for some ludicrous ancient man-made nonsense that couldn't possibly apply to beings like an omni-capable creator of all things, including and especially vajajays).

Open cave after a guy (having awakened from a coma and desperately taking off his premature burial linens) had pushed it open in a terrified frenzy to go find his friends to tell him what the hell happened to him and why he was sealed up in a cave with burial linens on and/or someone opening the cave and stealing the dead body (as supposedly feared and for this exact reason) that later gets turned into an apocryphal story of resurrection (that no one is buying some 25 years after the alleged event, let alone another 70 or 80, and so the stories have to be embellished with additional apologetic nonsense to try and cover up the obvious flaws)?

Not so miraculous.

 

[remez]

3. The gospels do not all agree.

If all of your witnesses were in perfect agreement, wouldn’t you suspect the fix was in? The historical concept is called dissimilarity. Look it up, it’s a good read. It is a strength not a detriment.

There are NO witnesses that attested to seeing Jesus' miracles, only a few much later writers offering hearsay at best. That is my understanding... if I am misinformed then name two witnesses.

You are conflating witnesses with authors/reporters. A witnesses need not be the author and an author reporting on witness testimony does not infer there were no witnesses. We still today read of reporter accounts of witness testimonies. Think of all the reporting of Watergate or the Simpson trial. Bob Woodard, Carl Bernstein and deep throat. So yes there were testimonies of eyewitnesses reported by authors that were even pre-Gospel.

if testimony alone is sufficient to determine truth,

It's not. Here................

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction 105: Witnesses.

You alone must judge the credibility or believability of the witnesses. In deciding whether testimony is true and accurate, use your common sense and experience. You must judge the testimony of each witness by the same standards, setting aside any bias or prejudice you may have. You may believe all, part, or none of any witness’s testimony. Consider the testimony of each witness and decide how much of it you believe.

In evaluating a witness’s testimony, you may consider anything that reasonably tends to prove or disprove the truth or accuracy of that testimony. Among the factors that you may consider are:
* How well could the witness see, hear, or otherwise perceive the things about which the witness testified?
* How well was the witness able to remember and describe what happened?
* What was the witness’s behavior while testifying?
* Did the witness understand the questions and answer them directly?
* Was the witness’s testimony influenced by a factor such as bias or prejudice, a personal relationship with someone
involved in the case, or a personal interest in how the case is decided?
* What was the witness’s attitude about the case or about testifying?
* Did the witness make a statement in the past that is consistent or inconsistent with his or her testimony?
* How reasonable is the testimony when you consider all the other evidence in the case?
* [Did other evidence prove or disprove any fact about which the witness testified?]
* [Did the witness admit to being untruthful?]
* [What is the witness’s character for truthfulness?]
* [Has the witness been convicted of a felony?]
* [Has the witness engaged in [other] conduct that reflects on his or her believability?]
* [Was the witness promised immunity or leniency in exchange for his or her testimony?]

Do not automatically reject testimony just because of inconsistencies or conflicts. Consider whether the differences are important or not. People sometimes honestly forget things or make mistakes about what they remember. Also, two people may witness the same event yet see or hear it differently.

[If the evidence establishes that a witness’s character for truthfulness has not been discussed among the people who know him or her, you may conclude from the lack of discussion that the witness’s character for truthfulness is good.]
[If you do not believe a witness’s testimony that he or she no longer remembers something, that testimony is inconsistent with the witness’s earlier statement on that subject.]

[If you decide that a witness deliberately lied about something significant in this case, you should consider not believing anything that witness says. Or, if you think the witness lied about some things, but told the truth about others, you may simply accept the part that you think is true and ignore the rest.]

 

[Politesse]

Makes for better symbolism if the tomb is open. History, not so much perhaps. But I mean, you want a display of power in the middle of the ritual, not a murder mystery. There's a reason they usually leave off talking about the locked room til the 2nd Sunday after Easter.

 

[remez]

I recommend everyone should read more and not jump to conclusions.

Reading more on history and drawing conclusions...that is our point with theists. They base it all on the gospels for which there is no corporation and takes the form of Greek and Roman mythology.

----"corporation"....that is twice now...What in the world do you mean by corporation? I'll continue with what I think you meant... Corroboration. Please proof read your stuff.

----read more for there is sufficient corroboration.

----Look at what you reasoned there. You jumped to the conclusion that Christianity is like the Greek and Roman mythology. You made no case for that just concluded or assumed that. Now if you are going to make that case you would have to logically identify the distinct characteristics of each for comparison. To do so you would have to actually research ancient history of each. Now if you were to really do that you would discover that there is far far far more documentation of Christianity then that which you so confidently compared it to. If you really researched that conclusion you would have in no reasonable fashion equated and obviously unique mono-theism with a two different polytheisms. Your comment is a good example of "jumping to a conclusion."

-----I overtly have not based ALL of my case on the Gospels. That said I add this..........you have made no case against the exclusion of the gospels as evidence. You assumed or jumped to the conclusion that they are not evidence. You must make that case in a scholarly fashion to have that evidence thrown out. Simply equating the gospels to fantasy is not a case, it is but smoke screen fooling skeptics into believing they are being reasonable. It just reasoning by guilt of association.

You are prolific today. However verbosity still does not get around the fact there is no contemoraaneous accounts of Jesus any anything supernatural.

....... there you go again...what in the world do you mean by "contemoraaneous " my best guess is contemporaneous. Try spell check.

...... You're jumping to a conclusion based solely on the fact that you can't see the evidence that many have debated for centuries.

..... Again read more. These contemporaneous accounts have been discussed for centuries. Their non-existence is not based upon your inability to find them.

....... to the issue of my providing a "verbose" case for my beliefs. The issues raised require more than a short answer.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Yeah, I wouldn't be applying those standards if I were you, remez. Especially:

use your common sense and experience.

You've had first hand experience with gods that incarnate into flesh in order to pointlessly kill themselves as a necessary sacrifice to themselves to save all of us from their wrath, only to then resurrect themselves to somehow prove that we all now live eternally as that body then physically ascends into the sky and presumably outer space until it reaches some magical realm?

That's what you're going to use your "common" sense to judge? And you judge....what now?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Makes for better symbolism if the tomb is open.

How so?

But I mean, you want a display of power in the middle of the ritual, not a murder mystery.

Again, the rock that was supposedly rolled into place could be moved by an old rich guy by himself. How is that a display of power that it was then found opened? A true display of resurrection would, again, be that the tomb was sealed, Jesus' dead body was found inside where he lay, while at the same time his non-flesh and blood "spiritual body" was popping in and out of existence and shapeshifting etc.

There's a reason they usually leave off talking about the locked room til the 2nd Sunday after Easter. ??????

Indeed.

 

[skepticalbip]

3. The gospels do not all agree.

You are conflating witnesses with authors/reporters. A witnesses need not be the author and an author reporting on witness testimony does not infer there were no witnesses. We still today read of reporter accounts of witness testimonies. Think of all the reporting of Watergate or the Simpson trial. Bob Woodard, Carl Bernstein and deep throat. So yes there were testimonies of eyewitnesses reported by authors that were even pre-Gospel.

if testimony alone is sufficient to determine truth,

It's not. Here................

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction 105: Witnesses.

You alone must judge the credibility or believability of the witnesses. In deciding whether testimony is true and accurate, use your common sense and experience. You must judge the testimony of each witness by the same standards, setting aside any bias or prejudice you may have. You may believe all, part, or none of any witness’s testimony. Consider the testimony of each witness and decide how much of it you believe.

In evaluating a witness’s testimony, you may consider anything that reasonably tends to prove or disprove the truth or accuracy of that testimony. Among the factors that you may consider are:
* How well could the witness see, hear, or otherwise perceive the things about which the witness testified?
* How well was the witness able to remember and describe what happened?
* What was the witness’s behavior while testifying?
* Did the witness understand the questions and answer them directly?
* Was the witness’s testimony influenced by a factor such as bias or prejudice, a personal relationship with someone
involved in the case, or a personal interest in how the case is decided?
* What was the witness’s attitude about the case or about testifying?
* Did the witness make a statement in the past that is consistent or inconsistent with his or her testimony?
* How reasonable is the testimony when you consider all the other evidence in the case?
* [Did other evidence prove or disprove any fact about which the witness testified?]
* [Did the witness admit to being untruthful?]
* [What is the witness’s character for truthfulness?]
* [Has the witness been convicted of a felony?]
* [Has the witness engaged in [other] conduct that reflects on his or her believability?]
* [Was the witness promised immunity or leniency in exchange for his or her testimony?]

Do not automatically reject testimony just because of inconsistencies or conflicts. Consider whether the differences are important or not. People sometimes honestly forget things or make mistakes about what they remember. Also, two people may witness the same event yet see or hear it differently.

[If the evidence establishes that a witness’s character for truthfulness has not been discussed among the people who know him or her, you may conclude from the lack of discussion that the witness’s character for truthfulness is good.]
[If you do not believe a witness’s testimony that he or she no longer remembers something, that testimony is inconsistent with the witness’s earlier statement on that subject.]

[If you decide that a witness deliberately lied about something significant in this case, you should consider not believing anything that witness says. Or, if you think the witness lied about some things, but told the truth about others, you may simply accept the part that you think is true and ignore the rest.]

You are arguing a strawman and not responding to the content of my post. The Biblical stories of Jesus' miracles are not first hand accounts by those involved, they are not a second hand accounts by witnesses, they are not accounts from journalists' interview accounts reporting on what was reported by those who were involved with the miracle or those witnessing the miracles. The Biblical stories are at best a repetition of hearsay or then maybe the invention of the writer.

There are many people who have given first hand accounts of having been abducted by anal probing space aliens.

Now the question is why you would have absolute faith in the truth of the first case and (I assume) seriously doubt the second case. And please, judge both cases by the same standards, not a double standard.

ETA:
And your referring to jury instructions is damned funny. You surely know that hearsay evidence is not even permitted in a trial because it is meaningless while first hand accounts during testimony is not only permitted but expected in most trials and is to be weighed (as per the jury instructions) in making a judgement.

 

[Politesse]

How so?

Ah, you know, death itself conquered, the barrier between worlds overcome. Like the temple curtain. For a narrative of liberation, you want open symbols snd surmounted barriers, not closed ones. Would look silly painting a mural of a sealed tomb.

At my childhood church they slammed the lectern bible closed on good friday to stmbolize the closing of the tomb, then made quite a show out of opening it again at the conclusion of Easter Vigil.

Incidentally, I think when I took the whole thing more literally, it had always been the angels who'd unsealed the tomb.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Just for gits and shiggles, let's apply the standards for Juries in California:

In evaluating a witness’s testimony, you may consider anything that reasonably tends to prove or disprove the truth or accuracy of that testimony. Among the factors that you may consider are:

* How well could the witness see, hear, or otherwise perceive the things about which the witness testified?

We don't know. We don't know with any certainty who the "witnesses" actually may have been or whether said witnesses' testimonies were recorded faithfully or had been tampered with in any way over the centuries along with clear evidence that tampering was in fact undertaken in regard to certain passages and whole sections falsely attributed to certain alleged authors, etc.

There are also multiple instances of verbatim conversations being recorded by someone that could not possibly have been present to actually hear or see or "perceive" such things, like the temptation in the desert and such.

* How well was the witness able to remember and describe what happened?

We don't know. Legend has it that all of the original stories were related orally at first--told from one person to the next and over the generations until the first of them were referenced tangentially in some letters (the providence we do not have any way of confirming other than "scholarly consensus", aka, most in the field accept this or that for various reasons, none of which are concrete) and the first of any long-form telling allegedly having been written down around forty to fifty years after the alleged events and then that story being used by later authors as the basis of their differing versions allegedly a few decades later.

* What was the witness’s behavior while testifying?

Nonsensical and grandiose, making fantastical claims that others contradicted, while constantly misquoting older scripture--particularly fantastic claims of prophecy and magical beings with magical powers--that the new stories were supposedly fulfilling, yet whenever scrutinized, do not actually fulfill.

When confronted with these obvious problems and contradictions and outright fabrications (such as conversations they claim to have heard verbatim but could not have; or whole events that could not have taken place; or magical events that could not have happened), defenders of the alleged witnesses get irate and use circuitous illogic and commit numerous fallacies to desperately try to patch all of the holes, but never can. Instead of responding rationally and agreeing that such things can not possibly be verified or happen as described--such as a Roman Prefect inexplicably granting not only the release of a murdering seditionist leader of Jews against Rome but also ordering the torture and execution of a man he publicly found to have committed no crime, both instances done as a gift to the very people he was there to subjugate no less--such "witness apologists" simply hand wave away anything that contradicts their foregone conclusions.

* Did the witness understand the questions and answer them directly?

Rarely if ever. Instead numerous fallacies are employed to avoid, dissemble, prevaricate and obfuscate in an attempt to reframe any such questions typically into strawman form that they can respond to, but almost always indirectly.

* Was the witness’s testimony influenced by a factor such as bias or prejudice

Unquestionably.

a personal relationship with someone involved in the case

In a very particular sense.

or a personal interest in how the case is decided?

Unquestionably. In fact, their eternal damnation literally depends on the case being decided in their favor.

* What was the witness’s attitude about the case or about testifying?

Well, again, we don't know first hand, but generally they seemed elated to relate what they felt to be an important story.

In regard to the witnesses' apologists, however, they clearly preconceived the testimony to be true in spite of the evidence presented against it. Indeed, it was a central tenet that they believe what they say on faith alone until that is challenged in which case they will shamefully flip-flop and assert that, no, it is all based on evidence, when in fact what they mean to say is third party anecdote that cannot be independently verified.

And when that is pointed out, they then assert that is has been independently verified by "extra biblical" sources, but when those sources are examined and presented and broken down, no such substantive verification is found.

When that is pointed out, instead of simply conceding the point, they continue to deny that any contradiction or counter-argument exists and that it is all merely speculation, or words to that effect.

No matter what is disproved or debunked or demonstrated to be false, they deny any such condition exists or has been demonstrated.

It is as if they do not understand what an argument entails. For them, the fact that an argument can be formed (just in its physical structure as words on paper) is the same thing as the argument having been proved.

* Did the witness make a statement in the past that is consistent or inconsistent with his or her testimony?

Unknown. All we have are alleged statements that purport to depict the same central event, however none of those versions are consistent with each other and there is expert consensus that at least two of the later versions of the same story were based almost entirely on the first telling of the story in a plagiaristic fashion. Iow, the majority of the later versions will even quote the original or first version verbatim, but then slight embellishments/changes are made in crucial events (that they likewise could not have personally witnessed).

* How reasonable is the testimony when you consider all the other evidence in the case?

Could literally not be more un reasonable.

* [Did other evidence prove or disprove any fact about which the witness testified?]

An abundance of evidence--like the entirety of human experience--disproves nearly every assertion of fact about which the witnesses allegedly "testified."

* [Did the witness admit to being untruthful?]

One did, allegedly, stating essentially that it's ok to lie in service to disseminating the "good news." All alleged witnesses lied in the sense of omission. They all related events and conversations that they could not have personally witnessed, but did not state up front how it was that they were able to present such events or conversations when they weren't present.

* [What is the witness’s character for truthfulness?]

Impossible to determine as we have no concrete confirmation of who these alleged witness really were or exactly how much of their "testimony" actually remains after the two thousand or so years of changes and copying and forgeries and transcriptions from one language into another, etc.

In general, however, the fact that so many fantastical and contradictory claims and reports of events/conversations that they were not personally present to witness and the unkown providence of anything any of them have allegedly written and the two thousand years of changes and errors and translations and embellishments and forgeries and frauds and the fact that we have no original manuscripts from their own hands that can be clearly and unmistakably tied directly to any one person makes everything they relate impossible to assess properly.

* [Has the witness been convicted of a felony?]

Supposedly they were all persecuted, but the evidence for that is likewise unclear and the motive illogical, if, in fact, all they were was a bunch of fishermen who followed around a humble carpenter Jewish Rabbi that just taught everyone to love everyone else, especially their enemies, the Romans.

* [Has the witness engaged in [other] conduct that reflects on his or her believability?]

Well, supposedly they burned Rome. So, you know. But some other guy claimed a conspiracy theory about Nero being the one that torched his own throne for some unknown reason, but there is strong evidence that suggests that other historian had a beef with Nero and just lied about that.

* [Was the witness promised immunity or leniency in exchange for his or her testimony?]

Shit yeah! Like, the ultimate possible immunity. Eternal life in a celestial realm at the hand of God. Oh, yeah, and they had the power to heal the sick, forgive sins and raise the dead, but for some unknown reason didn't just use that power on each other or Jesus or any of their friends and family--or entire armies to defeat the Romans--but hey. Those were confusing times.

 

[Atheos]

Anonymous writers writing stories about their favorite religion are the least credible "testimony" imaginable. And that's being generous.

Bringing judicial recommendations into this is downright laughable. Jurists will be exposed to both sides of the argument with all testimony being cross-examined. Testimony and/or evidence that cannot be demonstrated to have a clear chain of custody will be discarded without prejudice (which is what would happen with all of the gospel narratives and most of the Pauline epistles). What little cross-examining archaeologists and historians have been able to do has demonstrated the truth: The authors of these narratives tripped all over themselves telling lies about a great many things. Herod's soldiers weren't ordered to massacre a bunch of kids "throughout the coasts." Quirinius's didn't order a musical-chairs census. There was no zombie apocalypse, no 3 hours of darkness, etc). Yet we're supposed to swallow the fantastic stuff we can't validate.

It's truly amazing how effectively religion can blind someone to the plainest of absurdities.

 

[remez]

Hold on. You are not going to get away with blaming me for all the "gish gallop". You were the one that jumped all over everything in every direction. My duty was to respond.

Again, every single element of the mythology can be "best" explained (or, certainly better explained) by any of the following that do not rely upon magic being real:

With an opening like that you want me to consider you serious?
Fallacy of poisoning the well, because my case has nothing to do with magic. Your counter is also straw man of the supernatural. Magic is natural not supernatural.

Thus this..................

*sigh* . You're hanging your hat on the presumption that magic is "reasonable." That's simply unsupportable all on its own, so you've already self-defeated long before the gish gallop.

.......... remains a fallacy. You simply repeated yourself. You make no case just simply assume. Simply repeating your self does not mean your assumption is true. I had a duty to respond to your assumption there, hence the gish gallop was of your creation.
and now this from 234 where you quote me............

And now I'll do it again. First, your "four historical facts" are not facts. They are assertions from mythological stories, the origin of which we do not know and the original authorship we do not know.

The simple undefended assumption behind your assertion infers that the authorship of the NT is somehow crucial to determining them to be credible historical sources for the life of Jesus.

No, it does not so we can skip all of that pointless straw to....

Your denial about authorship cannot be denied. The evidence is right there in your own gish gallop.
And
You keep repeating the same ole gish gallop. Even again later in this post. And you could not handle the counter-argument I provided to challenge your reasoning so you simply labeled it a straw. Be fair.

So I did my part addressing your reasoning.
So....
Until you address what I presented there, your reasoning regarding authorship diminishing the facts of the NT, doesn't even scratch the surface my case.

Remember you brought that up not I. You forced me to address it. Again.

2. The cave was allegedly found to be open and NOT empty; a young man was allegedly found sitting inside of it who told the visitors that Jesus (aka, "the body") had gone ahead of them to Galilee and that they should tell the disciples and go see him (which sure as shit implies that they "produced a body" and that it was the same Jesus/body that was placed into the cave in the first place).

...2. based on your uncommon interpretation/speculation and it reasons from only one source.

"Uncommon" is not a thing and the fact that it comes from "one source" is not a counter-argument. If you're going to make an appeal to authority, then it is "common" among biblical scholars to note that Mark is the original source of the story and that later authors have simply taken his story, repeated it but then made their own embellishments. Iow, they made shit up, but even if they did not--and we had any evidence at all that could possibly confirm such an assertion--it STILL is not a counter-argument. Mark's version was the first one and it contradicts later versions.


You don't get to pick and choose which one you're going to go with, nor is it allowable to conflate all of them into one, where you simply dismiss the fact that the cave is not empty and there is a young man sitting in it. Those are either facts or fictions. Which is it? Fact that the cave was open and a young man was sitting inside or fiction?

First note my original counter was only 13 words long you added all the gish gallop that I have to respond to........so parsed.....

"Uncommon" is not a thing and the fact that it comes from "one source" is not a counter-argument.

Of course it is. It is clearly fallacious reasoning. It is clearly cherry picking on your part to ignore all other sources to advance your uncommon interpretation. How is that not clear? Now before you once again baldly assert that only Mark counts and all other sources are embellishment, you would need to establish that as sound reasoning. That is only your assumption and not fact.
So again I did not raise this fallacious reasoning against my case ....you did. I had the responsibility to respond. So the gish gallop here again was of your own creation.
like here again................

If you're going to make an appeal to authority, then it is "common" among biblical scholars to note that Mark is the original source of the story and that later authors have simply taken his story, repeated it but then made their own embellishments.

I'm not appealing to an authority, just more sources than you are. I fully acknowledge your concern of embellishment and agree it exists, just not here as you simply assume. Historians have procedures to weed out the embellishment. Consider the selection of the canon, the embellished "other" gospels were not included. You are assuming that since embellishment exists you can therefore conclude everything you don't like is an embellishment when it comes to the NT. That is clearly unreasonable. You need to make a specific case for that here regarding this context. Otherwise you are reasoning guilt by association.

Mark's version was the first one and it contradicts later versions.

Again this is you adding 2 more counters to the gish gallop. My responsibility is to respond.
Thus (1) regarding your assumption that Mark is the first source.........No I gave you a pre-Gospel source that supported my four facts (premises). More on that below.

Now regarding (2)......... Mark's differences with the other Gospels. Are all differences necessarily contradictions? That is an assumption you want to be true. Make a case that all differences between Mark and the other Gospels are contradictions. You have not presented anything other than your blind belief on this point. I have repeatedly redressed your assumption and it remains wanting. It is common for eyewitness accounts to disagree on some points of the case, even major ones.

Consider............
A man standing at a bank counter quietly robbing the bank with a note to the teller. A follow co-worker next to the teller and the teller as well, report the robber had a gun in a holster inside his coat that he show to the teller. The co-worker could even identify the make and model because he enjoyed target shooting. The teller reports the gun as well but could not name the gun. The person in line behind the robber reports there was no gun. But could also report that the man left the bank carrying a briefcase that the teller placed a lot of money in. The guard near the door saw the man with no gun carrying a briefcase walk out the door and a short distance down the street. When the alarm sounded the guard then saw the man with the briefcase starting sprinting about ten yards further down the street where he jump into a car driven by a women. A female bystander on the sidewalk that was knocked by the fleeing bank robber saw that there were two adults in the car when the bank robber jumped into the backseat. The teller and co-worker reported the robber left the scene on foot. All report the man was wearing a sports coat over jeans and had short red hair and was in the bank at 2pm.

Now the next lady in line was the one to first to provide testimony. Does that mean the testimony of the guard about the car being driven by a women as an embellishment? Does that mean the other adult in the car did not exist because it was automatically and embellishment? Does that mean there was no gun (angel) yet another embellishment? Does the fact that the woman and guards testimony of no gun infer there was no gun because they contradicted the tellers and co-workers testimony? Or does it mean there testimony needs to be completely disregarded because they did not report the gun?

Oh and my faves....Because none of eyewitnesses actually authored a written account of the robbery we....
then can assume there weren't any eyewitnesses
and......
can also assume the event did not occur because all testimonial accounts were not written by the eyewitnesses themselves therefore they must be absolute hearsay?

Further does it infer that reporters who interviewed the witnesses and wrote about the robbery produced unreliable (hearsay) accounts because they didn't actually witness any of the events themselves?

See?
That is what your absurd reasoning is concluding.
By all means show me I'm wrong.
So ....have I demonstrated to you or not that............
Not all differences in witness testimony indicate contradiction or embellishment.
and...
Just because the witness themselves did not offer a written account does not mean the accounts we have are heresy. See you are really reasoning by quilt of association. You cannot assume universal embellishment or hearsay based on quilt by association. You have to be specific to my case.

Again it was my duty to respond to your gish gallop.

You don't get to pick and choose which one you're going to go with,

OH YES I DO. It is my case. I'm building a case on evidence (the four facts in the case) and reasoning (abductive). You do not get to choose that for me. You do get to challenge my evidence or reasoning with evidence and reasoning of your own.

BUT the fact you are missing is that your challenge is not automatically considered reasonable by default. I'm overtly challenging the reasoning you are bringing against my case. Now what you do to fix or defend your reasoning is up to you. But so far your reasoning brings no real challenge to my evidence or reasoning. Keep in mind my case for the resurrection was four simple facts and one simple explanation. Your challenges have created the gish gallop.

nor is it allowable to conflate all of them into one,

Not the case at all. I'm just using more evidence than you. And you have failed to reasonably throw my additional evidence out of court.

where you simply dismiss the fact that the cave is not empty and there is a young man sitting in it. Those are either facts or fictions. Which is it? Fact that the cave was open and a young man was sitting inside or fiction?

Again this is a point you continue to bring up not I. Why should I dismiss the empty tomb when you have yet to give us sufficient reason to do so? You presented that Mark claims the tomb was empty. I have properly challenged you that Mark is not the only source. You then countered that the other accounts are embellishments. I rightfully asked you to make that case. You have yet to do so.
and.....
here is yet another line of reasoning I did not mention earlier because I was trying to be brief.
So.............try it this way......
You assertion of the tomb not being empty is unreasonably dismissing the expected context of "the empty tomb." Because when I assert that the tomb was empty. I saying so in regards to the very reasonable context of the expected corpse of Jesus not being there. I fully confess the wrappings of Jesus were still in the tomb but would still reasonably claim the tomb was empty in regards to Jesus' body.
next..........
To the regards of a young man? or Angel. The greater evidence suggests Mark simply did not identify the young man as an angel. The Bible is replete with evidence that angels oft keep there identify hidden. So it is not out of the ordinary at all in this context. Just because Mark did not specify that the young man was an angel does not infer he was not. Revisit our quiet bank robber just because the teller could not specify the type of gun (being) does not mean there was no gun (angel). The co-worker could identify the gun (being) and a specific type of gun (angle). Does that mean Mark's source did not see angel?

3. We are then told by other later anonymous third parties that the disciples believed they saw the risen Jesus

...3. an assertion not only without evidence but in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

How is anything I wrote in 3 an "assertion" let alone "without evidence"?

"LATER" Ignores Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, which predates the Gospels.......so that counters your "later" gish gallop. It was distinctly Paul thus that counters your "anonymous" gish gallop. The"without evidence" was in context to your ongoing undefended reasoning that Mark is the only unembellished account. And hidden in your reference to third parties is an assumed distance from the facts that is not there with Paul and Luke. They spoke with the eyewitnesses within a short period of time following the events. Saul (Paul) was persecuting them for these four facts you are laboring to deny. Paul died in around 30 years after the resurrection around 65. Think about that......He quoted Luke as scripture which has the source of Mark predating it.

Mark is typically dated to around 70 CE; Matthew and Luke to around 85–90 respectively, and John to around 100.

"Typical" does not make your case. It just means you are assuming again.
Now your dating of the Gospels is not gospel, that is something you WILL have to support. I would caution any jury to beware of reasoning that begins and ends with "typically" with nothing else in between.
Caution........
Don’t just give me the historians believe. Tell me why they believe it to be around 70. I think you be surprised with the weak reasoning for this date. For I can easily present a more reasonable case that they are earlier. And of course we can then let the jury decide. BE FAIR give us the reasoning for those dates.

Even if we assume it took between forty and eighty years for each respective "disciple" to finally write down their eyewitness accounts,

Not assuming that at all. Most were dead by then. BE FAIR give us the reasoning for those dates.

we have no evidence confirming who any of those authors actually were, reliable evidence proving that their stories have not only been altered by subsequent copyists,

I've repeatedly redressed your authorship reasoning (gish gallop) and provided reliable evidence supporting those facts. And will support it again below when we get back to Paul. No sir, I gave you and the jury evidence and reasoning to the contrary of your unsupported and undefended assumption. Simply repeating your assumption does not make it true. I carefully explained this last time to you and you didn’t get it. So you dismissed it as straw. That was the part where I provided the historians evidence and reasoning that Paul was reciting a early pre-Gospel creed.

And you come back here after ignoring that evidence and claim there is no evidence. I can live with that. Remember as I stated before. The purpose of an argument is to leverage the economy of reason to your account. Overtly broadcasting that there is no evidence in the face of the evidence I provided represses your economy.

and events (like the "temptation" in the desert by the devil) that no eyewitness could have possibly eyewitnessed.

Jesus was there and told his disciples. Again you have the author/witness relationship thing all messed up. You are not making sense.

If I start our saying that I witnessed a car crash and then include in my account the private thoughts of the victims as they were going through the crash you can immediately discount my claim that I was an eyewitness as I would have zero way to know anyone's private thoughts.

Not necessarily. Especially if you knew the people involved. If the people survived the crash and told you of their experience and you included their experience as part of event when you retold it, then why I should doubt it? Now in the case of the NT temptation event. Is it at all unreasonable to reason that Jesus told all of his disciples what occurred. And if it actually didn’t occur like that wouldn’t be reasonable to assume at least one of them have denounced it as a lie.... by now?
Again you brought that up.
Now to your Erhman quote...again you added this to the gish gallop not I. Again my duty is to respond.....

The term Synoptic Problem is a technical term for a specific issue, namely why Matthew, Mark, and Luke have so many similarities – in which stories they tell, the sequence in which they tell them, and the words with which they tell them (verbatim, word-for-word agreements in places!) – and yet also have so many differences. If there were not extensive similarities, there would be no “problem.” But how does one explain these similarities (and these differences)? The answer that has been around for a very long time indeed is that the similarities are there because these books utilize some of the same sources (they, or two of them, are copying) and the differences are there because the authors have altered the sources they have used.

Easy to disagree with. The similarities mostly occur because they were reporting about the same event. The dissimilarities are because they each had some different addition sources as well. There were many witnesses of these events, from different perspectives and vantage points. So to simply assume corruption of one source has occurred really has no merit at all. Also assumed in there is that all the differences were contradictions. Well that is an obvious bad assumption as well.
Still Bart…..

I then collect four papers, at random, and tell everyone that we are going to do a synoptic comparison. And I read, one by one, each paper, asking everyone else if anyone has a *single sentence* that is just like one of the four. The four are always completely different. And no one – ever, in my 30 years of teaching – has a sentence (or even four or five words in sequence) the same as any of the four.

But notice. He does not point out that the difference are contradictions. So where is the problem? Seriously I could read a dozen different sports articles about the super bowl the day after and not find one sentence exactly the same. But I'm reasonably confident I got facts about the event.
More Bart…………

But then I ask, what if I didn’t do this exercise today, but I waited forty, fifty, or sixty years, and I didn’t ask you, but I asked four people each of whom knew someone who had a cousin whose wife was next door neighbors with someone whose brother once knew someone in the class to write what happened that day – and they had entire sentences that were exactly alike, word for word?

Seriously flawed reasoning. The significance of the event in view makes all the difference. Do you doubt that someone bent on recording the truth of 911 could not do so now almost twenty years later? The witnesses are still here, some are gone but many remain. If four different reporters did just that. Could they each reasonably have some of the same sources and some different sources accounting for the similarities and differences? And would a difference automatically conspire to a contradiction. Sorry that simply another one of Bart’s many blunders.
In the context please keep in mind I only chose four simple facts, nothing miraculous or outrageous.
Now back to you……….

So you need to tell us which it is; facts that contradict each other and therefore only ONE is the correct or most accurate one, or fiction and someone made shit up.

It is a fallacious false dilemma. You are the one assuming these difference are contradictions. I have directly redressed your assumption. Now it's your turn to show me where my reasoning about that your contradictions is wrong. Even by way of example I provided a robbery case where key differences in the accounting of the events don't necessitate contradiction. It is clearly your duty to make your case here an not just simply assume it. I and the jury await your response.

Which is it? Which version is the historically accurate version of verifiable facts? You don't get to claim they are ALL factual.

The facts are the facts. What you are obviously getting mixed up is your interpretation of the facts being in contradiction to one another.

You can't both have a young man and no young man. Or two angels at the same time as there are no angels.

See that is your assumption and once again here is my redress of your assumption............
Sure you can. It totally depends on the report you are reading. One report only spoke of the one angel for some reason, that in no way logically infers there was only one.

Again by way of a more modern angelic ex...............

Facts LAA 8 NYY 0. One reporter reports Mike Trout’s three home runs won the game. And he might have been the only angel mentioned in the report. But why would we need conclude that he was the only angle there. After all who was pitching?

Another reporter might not have mentioned any angels at all and energetically opined on and on about poor pitching and coaching of the Yankees.
Now each report reported the score LAA 8 and NYY 0.

Do we know who won and who lost?

Seriously you are so caught up in this assumption that differences are always contradictions.

The curious issue here is you have yet to present such a difference that would necessitates a serious doubt of the reported account. Meaning you have not given any such difference that is a contradiction. You simply assume all differences are contradictions. I have again and again redressed your reasoning here. End the gish gallop and reason it though. You have no case on that point here.

4. No one knows what the disciples actually thought, of course, since we do not have a single piece of papyrus that can be definitively tied to any particular OG disciple.

...4. faulty reasoning. Assumes authorship is the only means to your conclusion.

So, you are seriously arguing that there is another means to find out what someone thought from two thousand years ago aside from verifiable first person authorship? I'd ask you to present such an idiotic argument, but I'm tired of addressing idiotic arguments.

Yes I'm seriously arguing that.
But not just someone ….the disciples. Paul tells us he went to Jerusalem to meet with Peter. Paul tells us on several occasions what Peter was thinking.

Do you realize that ALL of what we know about Alexander the Great and what he was thinking did not come from Alexander himself? So I really don’t see your point. Many great figures in history were not first person authors of their own lives. We get that from those who wrote about them. Note that is our earliest source on the life of Alexander comes from Plutrach almost 4 centuries later? And you are freaking out about 30 years.

Note right there, I did not assume I was correct. I directly responded to your assumption that you presented (gish gallop) by exposing an obvious flaw in your assumption. Now it is your turn to defend your assumption by showing me my error of reasoning? Or let it go. Maybe the jury will forget about it. Don't pile the gish gallop any higher.

So to counter your four points I offer............this pre-Gospel source..... Perhaps the most intriguing developments in NT scholarship is the recognition of the historical sources that form the foundation of the NT. For example the 4 line traditional creed about the core events of Jesus' death and resurrection recorded by Paul in his letter to the Corinthians.

You mean, Paul? The same source I "offered"? What is the basis of his information? You gave the clue yourself:

No you are still not understanding the full weight of the evidence here. It was not the same source. You offered Mark. Mark was not Paul’s source. This pre-dated Mark. I did not hint at Paul’s source. It’s been common knowledge for almost 2000 years. Paul’s source was directly from God. So…………

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received

I'll spoil it for you. He claims he had a vision.

Yes a vision that had him teach the "confirmed" and "exact" same message the apostles were teaching if you researched it further. Paul confirmed his given message with Peter and other leaders in Jerusalem….at least twice. First time within three years of the cross. So within three years of the cross we have that creed which was already firmly in place. Examine the rest of the context. Paul began teaching. But he then went to Jerusalem and met with the leaders including Peter. Paul confirmed his message with Peter within the first three years of his teaching the message given to him. And he did it again 14 years later. Paul testifies that they added nothing to the message I provided in Corinthians.

Thus with those facts of Paul's message being confirmed, your assumption that because it was God sent and therefore unreliable is a pure genetic fallacy.

So you see everyone of concern here was on the same page, with the same message. And Paul died around 65. So again where is your problem with these early testimony and confirmation of those facts? The jury is waiting.

You are beginning to sound desperate…………

This is pointless. You're done and you know it.

Done?
No way.
You haven't even begun and you don't know it. I have (thus far) successfully supported my case against your poor assuming. You have offered nothing but several common assumptions (gish gallop) that were oh so easy to refute or rebut. Nothing new what so ever. Yet I had the duty to respond to every one of them.

And now you may quit in the middle of your gish gallop and demand......

It you want me to decimate any of your other points, by all means, post it on its own and not in this obvious gish gallop. Going through any more of your desperate nonsense is just tiring.

I gave you my concise case back at the beginning. You were the one that created this gish gallop when you aimlessly started firing away at my case with all or your wild speculation and faulty assumptions. It was my duty to address them ALL. I did not create this. And I'm not sorry at all if this got a little too hard for you to follow. I had an easy wealth of reasoning to combat your bankrupt assumptions with much more yet to spend. If you want to end the discussion, fine, but be mature about it and quietly rest your case without any further false blame and accusation.
Be Fair.
And one last thing to keep in mind..................

Also..... Do you understand the criterion of dissimilarity when it comes to multiple sources? Seriously do you?

Enough with the pathetic attempts at condescension. You are demonstrably at fault repeatedly. To whit:

That was a sincere question, because as I repeatedly pointed out, you were obviously so wrong on that point. But your complaint of inferring my insulting tone there was so classically hypocritical given the manner in which you began your last post.....

And it has been refuted again and again and again.


And now I'll do it again. First, your "four historical facts" are not facts. They are assertions from mythological stories, the origin of which we do not know and the original authorship we do not know.


So right out of the gate, you are wrong. Objectively, conclusively, irretrievably wrong. Those are NOT "facts."


Second, they are not even accurate. Once again, I will correct you:

Thank you.

now on to atrib..............

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

How so?

Ah, you know, death itself conquered, the barrier between worlds overcome. Like the temple curtain. For a narrative of liberation, you want open symbols snd surmounted barriers, not closed ones. Would look silly painting a mural of a sealed tomb.

At my childhood church they slammed the lectern bible closed on good friday to stmbolize the closing of the tomb, then made quite a show out of opening it again at the conclusion of Easter Vigil.

Incidentally, I think when I took the whole thing more literally, it had always been the angels who'd unsealed the tomb.

And you never connected the fact that he could pop in and out existence wherever he pleased?