Are there credible witnesses to the resurrection?

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Are there credible witnesses to the resurrection?

I don't care.

Suppose I grant every purported case of 'eyewitness testimony' for the resurrection ever put forward by apologists. Every single one. Granted.

Now... do I believe it happened?

No.

I don't accept 'eyewitness testimony' as evidence for extraordinary claims.

And here's the kicker - neither do Christians.

They don't believe Muhammad had visions of Jehenna. They don't believe Joseph Smith was visited by the angel Moroni. They don't believe mystics in the slums of Kolkata can cure disease through 'chakra alignment'. Etc etc etc etc etc...

So, why are we even talking about this?

That is my take.

 

[Radrook]

I don't care.

Suppose I grant every purported case of 'eyewitness testimony' for the resurrection ever put forward by apologists. Every single one. Granted.

Now... do I believe it happened?

No.

I don't accept 'eyewitness testimony' as evidence for extraordinary claims.

And here's the kicker - neither do Christians.

They don't believe Muhammad had visions of Jehenna. They don't believe Joseph Smith was visited by the angel Moroni. They don't believe mystics in the slums of Kolkata can cure disease through 'chakra alignment'. Etc etc etc etc etc...

So, why are we even talking about this?

That is my take.

Does abiogenesis have credible witnesses?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Does abiogenesis have credible witnesses?

Abiogenesis has credible evidence. Can we get back on topic?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Why are the Apostles being tagged as not credible?

The Apostles would be credible witnesses if we have credible writings of the apostles claiming a resurrection. The earliest writings, of Paul, mention the apostles, but say nothing about them being witnesses to an empty grave or a bodily resurrected Jesus on earth.The gospels and Acts were written later by unknown witnesses that contradict each other, and in my mind, are not credible.

 

[doubtingmerle]

That does make sense.

Why don't you? You keep telling Christians about the Bible message. You keep on telling us we're wrong about what God has said and you know better. Which is curious, as you deny God exists.

Why don't I make the case for Humanism here? Because I am a guest of the Christian Forums, and this place is dedicated to discussing Christianity.

The case for Humanism, if you are interested, can be found at https://www.secularhumanism.org/ .

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I don't accept 'eyewitness testimony' as evidence for extraordinary claims.

And here's the kicker - neither do Christians.

They don't believe Muhammad had visions of Jehenna. They don't believe Joseph Smith was visited by the angel Moroni. They don't believe mystics in the slums of Kolkata can cure disease through 'chakra alignment'. Etc etc etc etc etc...

So, because I do not believe in the therapeutic benefits of snake oil, I refuse to take anti-biotics?

Because I know some automobile dealers and salesmen are not completely truthful, I never buy a car?

Because I know the Piltdown Man to be a fraud, I refuse to acknowledge Quantum Theory?

I find your thinking to be very superficial and rather self-serving. Illogical in the extreme, based entirely on the emotional basis of making yourself feel secure in your non-belief.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Does abiogenesis have credible witnesses?

It has much, much better than that - critically robust data predicated on sound methodologies.

But let's pretend it doesn't. I still fail to see the relevance to my point.

If someone told you they witnessed abiogenesis taking place, and offered no other evidence apart from their say so, would you believe them?

No, you wouldn't. So my point stands. Eyewitness testimony is worthless.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Why don't I make the case for Humanism here?

Trying to divert, are we? I said nothing about making a case for Humanism. I said you should follow your own advice and ask Christians what they believe about God and His message rather than tell us all what we believe.

Obviously, what you think 'we' should do is different from what you do.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

So, because I do not believe in the therapeutic benefits of snake oil, I refuse to take anti-biotics?

The proof of the efficacy of antibiotics does not rely on eyewitness testimony. Nor is there anything extraordinary about it.

Because I know some automobile dealers and salesmen are not completely truthful, I never buy a car?

The proof that cars... what, work? Exist? I'm not even sure what to do with this counterexample.

Anyway, it doesn't rely on eyewitness testimony. Nor is there anything extraordinary about it.

Because I know the Piltdown Man to be a fraud, I refuse to acknowledge Quantum Theory?

The proofs of quantum physics do not rely on eyewitness testimony. Nor is there anything extraordinary about it... well, at least not 'supernaturally' extraordinary.

I find your thinking to be very superficial and rather self-serving. Illogical in the extreme, based entirely on the emotional basis of making yourself feel secure in your non-belief.

I find your attempt at logical scrutiny lacking, to say the very least. Nothing you've said here is analogous to the point I made.

And that is based on eyewitness testimony, so take it how you will.

 

[Radrook]

It has much, much better than that - critically robust data predicated on sound methodologies.

But let's pretend it doesn't. I still fail to see the relevance to my point.

If someone told you they witnessed abiogenesis taking place, and offered no other evidence apart from their say so, would you believe them?

No, you wouldn't. So my point stands. Eyewitness testimony is worthless.

Abiogenesis has no credible witnesses at all. Why? Simple! Because no one can say that he or she has ever observed it to happen.

Methodologies? The methodologies are simply wishful thinking and desperate attempts at forcing it to occur in a lab even though it refuses to happen naturally in nature. In infinitely stark contrast, life emerging ONLY from previous life is a commonplace occurrence in nature and provides the solid rational foundation for an inductive leap which atheists refuse to make because it would lead to a conclusion that doesn't please them.

Such thinking is NOT scientific. Instead, it is the epitome of a worthless activity and a paragon example of fanaticism buttressed by systematic irrationality.

 

[Radrook]

The Apostles would be credible witnesses if we have credible writings of the apostles claiming a resurrection. The earliest writings, of Paul, mention the apostles, but say nothing about them being witnesses to an empty grave or a bodily resurrected Jesus on earth.The gospels and Acts were written later by unknown witnesses that contradict each other, and in my mind, are not credible.

Why weren't they challenged immediately as bogus?
The Jews were keeping close critical watch on Christianity at that time and hoping to find the slightest flaw to pounce on. Did they pounce at that time?

BTW
There are various explanations which reconcile the seeming contradictions and which cause no obstacle to those who read the Gospels with an unbiased mind. So the objection is not insurmountable.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Abiogenesis has no credible witnesses at all. Why? Simple! Because no one can say that he or she has ever observed it to happen.

Methodologies? The methodologies are simply wishful thinking and desperate attempts at forcing it to occur in a lab even though it refuses to happen naturally in nature. In infinitely stark contrast, life emerging ONLY from previous life is a commonplace occurrence in nature and provides the solid rational foundation for an inductive leap which atheists refuse to make because it would lead to a conclusion that doesn't please them.

Such thinking is NOT scientific. Instead, it is the epitome of a worthless activity and a paragon example of fanaticism buttressed by systematic irrationality.

Uh huh. Put down the creationist propaganda for a few minutes and read some science. You might learn something.

But again, suppose I indulge you for a minute and grant everything you've said here.

Does it in any way refute my point - that 'eyewitness testimony' is worthless in determining the truth value of an extraordinary claim?

No, it does not. It's utterly irrelevant.

 

[Radrook]

Uh huh. Put down the creationist propaganda for a few minutes and read some science. You might learn something.

But again, suppose I indulge you for a minute and grant everything you've said here.

Does it in any way refute my point - that 'eyewitness testimony' is worthless in determining the truth value of an extraordinary claim?

No, it does not. It's utterly irrelevant.

. The reading of camouflaged conjectures based on wishful thinking and lacking solid evidence is not the reading of science. It is the reading quackery striving to pass itself off as science..

BTW
I need not be a creationist literature reader in order to recognize quackery when I see it.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

What boy in Jesus' tomb are you referring to?
I have repeatedly read the four Gospels and don't recall a boy in Jesus's tomb.

Mark 16:

1When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. 2 Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3 and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?”

4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

I was referring to the young man in the tomb.

How are the accounts of Jesus appearance known forgeries?

Mark is the earliest gospel. The earliest copies of Mark do not contain the second half of Mark 16.

Known by whom

Scholars. Even conservative scholars.

and how?

By looking at the earliest manuscripts.

What is so implausible about guards reporting a supernatural experience?

Did you not read what I said? Suppose the Sanhedrin acted as one entity (so we ignore the possibility that they disagreed with one another as that could be solved by either voting or a power hierarchy). Then we have two possibilities: the Sanhedrin either believed the guards or they didn't. Suppose they believed the guards. Is it plausible that angels appeared and that the tomb was empty, yet Jesus was not who he said he was? Why is there no record of even one of them converting? Is it reasonable to believe that one of them would convert and that none of the four gospel writers would care to mention it? Suppose they didn't believe the guards. Is it plausible that they would then pay the guards hush money when the guards were not only incompetent but also lying to them? Was that the plan? To put a couple clowns there who would be rewarded no matter how incompetent they are? Why even place guards there?

Don't people today report UFO experiences?

That's kind of the point. These claims ought to be met with skepticism.

I had a UFO experience and it isn't a forgery.

See above.

 

[miknik5]

Wouldn't it be better to ask us what we believe?

Yes!
Why didn't we ever think about that?

Doubtingmerle?

What do you believe?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Uh huh. Put down the creationist propaganda for a few minutes and read some science. You might learn something.

But again, suppose I indulge you for a minute and grant everything you've said here.

Does it in any way refute my point - that 'eyewitness testimony' is worthless in determining the truth value of an extraordinary claim?

No, it does not. It's utterly irrelevant.

So it is only acceptable for scientists to make extraordinary claims based on a lack of eye-witness testimony? (Origin of the universe, spontaneous generation, ect) so long as God is not in the picture.

 

[Radrook]

I was referring to the young man in the tomb.



Mark is the earliest gospel. The earliest copies of Mark do not contain the second half of Mark 16.



Scholars. Even conservative scholars.



By looking at the earliest manuscripts.



Did you not read what I said? Suppose the Sanhedrin acted as one entity (so we ignore the possibility that they disagreed with one another as that could be solved by either voting or a power hierarchy). Then we have two possibilities: the Sanhedrin either believed the guards or they didn't. Suppose they believed the guards. Is it plausible that angels appeared and that the tomb was empty, yet Jesus was not who he said he was? Why is there no record of even one of them converting? Is it reasonable to believe that one of them would convert and that none of the four gospel writers would care to mention it? Suppose they didn't believe the guards. Is it plausible that they would then pay the guards hush money when the guards were not only incompetent but also lying to them? Was that the plan? To put a couple clowns there who would be rewarded no matter how incompetent they are? Why even place guards there?



That's kind of the point. These claims ought to be met with skepticism.



See above.

There is a world of difference between a boy and a man. Otherwise I would not have found the reference strange. A boy ranges from infant to young adolescence. A man is from approx. 18 onward.

You say that earliest manuscripts aren't as detailed as later manuscripts and that therefore the later manuscripts must be the result of chicanery. If indeed that is so, then why did not the Early Christians notice the Chicanery and why didn't the Jews who were intensely watching Christianity's development like hawks in order to point out flaws pounce on that supposed purposeful tampering?

Is indeed your accusation of chicanery the only feasible interpretation in view of this discrepancy? It can be argued that God is a God of progressive revelation. After all, he did take thousands of years to fully reveal his plan salvation to mankind. So if indeed he chose to gradually reveal the full account of what occurred with Jesus during the first century, it would fit right in with the gradual revelation modus operandi.

About a UFO experiences being met with skepticism. Why? I saw what I saw and am claiming nothing about what I saw. So what is it that you can be skeptical about? If I made a specific claim about the MEANING of what I saw, then you can be skeptical. But you have no details!

Skepticism? I was skeptical and dismissed it as an illusion. However, what I saw was seem at the airport a few moments later. It was reported in the newspapers the next day. So exactly what is it that you are being skeptical about. In fact, you are being skeptical about NOTHING because you haven't even cared to ask in your desperate need to assume the skeptical stance what it was that I actually saw.

The men at Jesus' tomb might have reported truthfully exactly what they experienced and might have been doubted. No guards with any common sense would offer such a story as viable unless shocked into it by the experience itself. Otherwise they would have calmly reconsidered the claim's ramifications. But under the immediate shock of the experience they hysterically lost common sense and placed their reputation on the line in a foolish display of emotional honesty. The emotionally illogical nature of their described behavior indicates truth.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Trying to divert, are we? I said nothing about making a case for Humanism. I said you should follow your own advice and ask Christians what they believe about God and His message rather than tell us all what we believe.

Obviously, what you think 'we' should do is different from what you do.

If you follow my posts I ask lots of questions. I am not here to tell you what you believe but to listen to you.

Do you have anything that constitutes a clear, credible witness to the resurrection? I find that what I read in the NT about the resurrection is suspect.

 

[Radrook]

All scholars are not unanimous in considering it a later addition as you claim:

Mark 16:9-20
Nevertheless, some scholars have not been impressed with the evidence against these verses, and have maintained that they are original. These scholars have pointed out that the witnesses which bring the verses into question are few, and that the verses are quoted by church Fathers very early, even in the second century. To represent this point of view we give below a long excerpt from F.H.A. Scrivener, together with its footnotes.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html

 

[Radrook]

Abiogenesis has credible evidence. Can we get back on topic?

Your criticism of lack of credible witnesses for one claim while simultaneously being very willing to believe a phenomenon claim that has absolutely nothing to support it except wishful thinking and conjecture is indeed relevant to the subject because it causes your demands for witnesses in reference to the biblical account to be perceived as blatantly hypocritical due to your inconsistency of policy.