The Resurrection

[Nihilist Virus]

Once again, how did the chief priest know there was no body in the sepulcher after the guards “shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done” if the guards did not look? I have asked this question multiple times and you have failed to address it.

I don't have an answer that you'll like. It seems clear to me that the legend of Jesus grew a few decades after he died, and in the Matthew circle people were asking certain details about the resurrection story, which is why the author of Matthew is the only one to invent the guards.

Regardless, your sequence of events seems to be this:

1. The guards are guarding
2. Angel(s) appear
3. The guards are so terrified that they are "like dead men"
4a. The angel(s) temporarily leave(s) (?????) so the guards, who are still terrified, can look inside and make a report
4b. The angel(s) remain(s) but the guards, who are still terrified, inexplicably push their way past the angel(s) to look inside and make a report
5. The women show up later, the angel(s) is/are there, the guards seem to be long gone

So please, take the time to read the four accounts of the resurrection and tell me whether you think it's 4a or 4b, and explain how on earth either of them makes any sense. Because as far as I can see, even in a world where angels exist and slaughtering animals is the logical remedy for wrongdoing, neither 4a or 4b make any sense at all. Oh and just one more thing... you have no evidence for either one.

No

Well then let me show you:

So let's see. My argument is a slippery-slope fallacy because why? You define it as one event meaning that another MUST happen. But what did I actually say? I said that because a certain event didn't follow another, it's EVIDENCE that the other event didn't occur in the first place. This is not even a claim of proof, it is not a claim of fact, it is simply saying that there is a piece of evidence against the resurrection claim. News flash: there is evidence FOR and AGAINST the resurrection. I am citing evidence AGAINST it. It's a solid argument: if there was no real investigation (and no, there wasn't - at least not one that was recorded - unless you can pick between 4a or 4b above), then that is EVIDENCE that nothing of interest occurred.

In any case, you claim that my argument employs a slippery slope fallacy because I am saying that X produces evidence for Y. Meanwhile, you say that N produces evidence for M, and yet it is not a slippery slope fallacy.

I think that your vicious statements earlier, combined with your intellectual dishonesty and your inability to admit being wrong, makes you a bad witness for your Lord. Where's the humility when you are shown to be wrong? I'm a proud atheist and yet I am more humble.

 

[Tawhano]

I don't have an answer that you'll like. It seems clear to me...

You are correct, I do not like your answer because it makes your position clear. All the logical conclusions made from the reading of Matthew will be discounted by you because you believe it was made up. This is why you are unable to answer my questions.

…you have no evidence for either one…

That is correct. I can only make a logical conclusion from what is recorded in Matthew. Making a case on what I think might have transpired outside the record is nothing more than speculation. The record is that the guards made their report and the chief priest knew from their report that the body of Jesus was no longer in the sepulcher.

I said that because a certain event didn't follow another

Here is where you show your misconception of the definition of a slippery slope fallacy. Yes you said an investigation was not recorded which means that your argument is that a recorded event should have been the event that followed. Ergo: Event B should have followed event A for event A to be true. That is a slippery slope fallacy.

…inability to admit being wrong…

When I was wrong I admitted it. I provided the reason I got it wrong but I never said I wasn’t wrong.

…your intellectual dishonesty…

Something you said on several occasions but never with a explanation as to how you arrived at that false accusation.

I'm a proud atheist and yet I am more humble.

Where are the letters “LOL” or at least a winking smiley after that statement?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You are correct, I do not like your answer because it makes your position clear. All the logical conclusions made from the reading of Matthew will be discounted by you because you believe it was made up. This is why you are unable to answer my questions.

You don't like it. Doesn't mean it's not true.

That is correct. I can only make a logical conclusion from what is recorded in Matthew. Making a case on what I think might have transpired outside the record is nothing more than speculation. The record is that the guards made their report and the chief priest knew from their report that the body of Jesus was no longer in the sepulcher.

Please answer if it is 4a or 4b.

Here is where you show your misconception of the definition of a slippery slope fallacy. Yes you said an investigation was not recorded which means that your argument is that a recorded event should have been the event that followed. Ergo: Event B should have followed event A for event A to be true. That is a slippery slope fallacy.

See, I said an event SHOULD HAVE happened, not that one MUST HAVE happened.

When I was wrong I admitted it. I provided the reason I got it wrong but I never said I wasn’t wrong.

You said you worded it wrong. It was far beyond that. It's like a thief admitting that he was borrowing without asking.

Something you said on several occasions but never with a explanation as to how you arrived at that false accusation.

OK how's this for starters. You redact my sequence of events, including propositions 4a and 4b, replacing them with ellipses, and you don't bother to answer.

Where are the letters “LOL” or at least a winking smiley after that statement?

I wasn't joking.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

To clarify:
A slippery slope fallacy is when you say because event A happened then event B will follow and you have no evidence that event B always follows event A. I do not base my evidence of there being an investigation on the premise that an investigation would follow an unexplained phenomenon. However since we both agree that an investigation would follow the events that took place on Easter Sunday then it would not be a slippery slope argument to posit that premise. I based my evidence on the verse that says the guards reported the events to the chief priest. How could they report the body was missing if they didn’t investigate the sepulcher? You agreed with me that the investigative tools available to the guards would have simply been their observation.

I repeat the slippery slope fallacy you made because you have yet to offer a defense for making the fallacious argument. Instead you continue to demonstrate that you do not grasp the concept of that fallacy. This is the crux of your argument and you are held responsible to defend that position. The challenge remains.

I have to give you my respect. You are far more patient that I am with NV.

 

[createdtoworship]

Nihilist Virus said this: "OK. If you want to play like that, what evidence do you have for God's existence? None."

end quote...

Ok, if Mr Virus wishes to play like this, what evidence does he have that a mud pool spawned all life on earth?

and what evidence does he have that we evolved from a rock?

or a pebble?

or a piece of slime in a swamp somewhere?

Did Big Foot tell him?

Or perhaps an extra terrestrial?

Maybe He had a divine vision from the magnetic diety of the force of the Big Bang?

 

[Tawhano]

I have to give you my respect. You are far more patient that I am with NV.

Not really. As a reference, I took Logic, Design and Programming, Exposition and Persuasion and Fundamentals Public Speaking in college in 2014. In each class I received an ‘A’ as a grade. I tell you this to my shame not to boost. In all three courses the basic rules given for composing an argument is to never lower your standards and participate in a mudslinging contest. When I stated that NV did not grasp the concept of the fallacy and logical deduction I should never had added the phrase “it went over your head”. I should have just outline his error and left it at that. Oh well to err is human.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Not really. As a reference, I took Logic, Design and Programming, Exposition and Persuasion and Fundamentals Public Speaking in college in 2014. In each class I received an ‘A’ as a grade. I tell you this to my shame not to boost. In all three courses the basic rules given for composing an argument is to never lower your standards and participate in a mudslinging contest. When I stated that NV did not grasp the concept of the fallacy and logical deduction I should never had added the phrase “it went over your head”. I should have just outline his error and left it at that. Oh well to err is human.

You deduce that the guards looked in the tomb. Please use those skills to tell me whether 4a or 4b occurred.

 

[Tawhano]

You don't like it. Doesn't mean it's not true.

No but it does mean your OP was dishonest. You indicated in your OP that the discussion was on the accounts recorded, or more appropriately, not recorded in the Bible. Now you reveal that you believe it was made up. This makes your OP a moot point. If it was made up then it does not matter what was or was not recorded which renders any arguments posted by posters ineffective. This is why you do not answer my questions. You secretly apply your belief that the record was made up and discount any argument put to you.

See, I said an event SHOULD HAVE happened, not that one MUST HAVE happened.

I said that and explained it to you. Please re-read.

You said you worded it wrong. It was far beyond that. It's like a thief admitting that he was borrowing without asking.

No, it was like I made a mistake and admitted it was a mistake and explained why I made it. You harp on that because you do not have any legitimate arguments to offer and therefore offer this “poisoning the well” fallacy as an argument.

OK how's this for starters. You redact my sequence of events, including propositions 4a and 4b, replacing them with ellipses, and you don't bother to answer.

The ellipses are there to indicate it was taken from within a sentence and is perfectly legitimate and in no way “redact” your “sequence of events”. I explained my position to the question in post# 382, please re-read.

…and you don't bother to answer…

I asked you a question which you replied with another question. Replying to a question with a question is not an answer. What possible reason do you have in avoiding the question except that you have no legitimate answer to give thereby exposing your lack of a legitimate argument?

Once again, how did the chief priest know there was no body in the sepulcher after the guards “shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done” if the guards did not look? I have asked this question multiple times and you have failed to address it other than responding with a question.

I wasn't joking.

Okay, but it was funny to me.

 

[Tawhano]

You deduce that the guards looked in the tomb. Please use those skills to tell me whether 4a or 4b occurred.

I only need to deduce that the guards looked into the sepulcher because they reported the events to the chief priest who acknowledged the body of Jesus was no longer there. I do not need to accept your sequence of events as my answer. The reason you do not answer the question of how did the chief priest knew the sepulcher was empty if the guards did not tell them is because you know that the only other way is that they went to look for themselves or ordered an investigation performed.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

No but it does mean your OP was dishonest. You indicated in your OP that the discussion was on the accounts recorded, or more appropriately, not recorded in the Bible. Now you reveal that you believe it was made up. This makes your OP a moot point. If it was made up then it does not matter what was or was not recorded which renders any arguments posted by posters ineffective. This is why you do not answer my questions. You secretly apply your belief that the record was made up and discount any argument put to you.

I said that and explained it to you. Please re-read.

No, it was like I made a mistake and admitted it was a mistake and explained why I made it. You harp on that because you do not have any legitimate arguments to offer and therefore offer this “poisoning the well” fallacy as an argument.

The ellipses are there to indicate it was taken from within a sentence and is perfectly legitimate and in no way “redact” your “sequence of events”. I explained my position to the question in post# 382, please re-read.

I asked you a question which you replied with another question. Replying to a question with a question is not an answer. What possible reason do you have in avoiding the question except that you have no legitimate answer to give thereby exposing your lack of a legitimate argument?

Once again, how did the chief priest know there was no body in the sepulcher after the guards “shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done” if the guards did not look? I have asked this question multiple times and you have failed to address it other than responding with a question.

Okay, but it was funny to me.

You conclude that because the priests knew the tomb was empty, the guards must have looked inside the tomb. HOW did they do this? You did not answer this question.

You want me to explain how the priests knew the tomb was empty and you want me to do so within the gospel narrative. The priests were providing a counter-explanation to the disciples' resurrection claim. The priests' version of events didn't come out for a few weeks because they first needed to hear of the resurrection claim.

There you go. Try to poke holes in it. In the meantime, your version has a big gaping hole because the guards never had the opportunity to investigate the tomb on Easter Sunday.

I only need to deduce that the guards looked into the sepulcher because they reported the events to the chief priest who acknowledged the body of Jesus was no longer there. I do not need to accept your sequence of events as my answer. The reason you do not answer the question of how did the chief priest knew the sepulcher was empty if the guards did not tell them is because you know that the only other way is that they went to look for themselves or ordered an investigation performed.

Did they ever teach you in those classes that if you deduce something which is impossible then your premise is flawed?

 

[Tawhano]

You conclude that because the priests knew the tomb was empty, the guards must have looked inside the tomb. HOW did they do this? You did not answer this question.

I thought that would have been obvious. They walked over to the sepulcher the same way they walked back into town.

There you go. Try to poke holes in it.

My conclusion came as a result of examining the information provided whereas your explanation is speculation only. You made it quite clear that you would only accept written accounts and here you are making something up. Using this new criteria I can now say that there was a thorough investigation that secretly took place that none of the authors of the four Gospels knew about so therefore they could not record it.

Did they ever teach you in those classes that if you deduce something which is impossible then your premise is flawed?

Yes indeed. Which is why I made sure all my premises have been true. None of my premises have been addressed by you logically which tells me you had no rebuttal for them.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I thought that would have been obvious. They walked over to the sepulcher the same way they walked back into town.

The same way they just casually strolled into town, eh? Actually, they fled in terror from the angel(s) at the tomb. So did they walk right past said angel(s) to investigate, or did the angel(s) leave (so the guards could investigate) and then come back (to greet the women)? And how does either of those even make sense?


See, you CAN say that it was the maid in the library with the wrench IF you deduce it, even without seeing it, but you CAN'T deduce it was the maid in the library with the wrench if part of your own claim is that the maid has crippling arthritis in both hands.

In fairness, you have never actually claimed the guards were terrified of the angel(s), so I see why it is not taken into account by you. But if you read Matthew 28, it's quite clear that the guards wanted nothing to do with the angel(s).

 

[ChetSinger]

You conclude that because the priests knew the tomb was empty, the guards must have looked inside the tomb. HOW did they do this? You did not answer this question.

There you go. Try to poke holes in it. In the meantime, your version has a big gaping hole because the guards never had the opportunity to investigate the tomb on Easter Sunday.

I'm sorry, but it seems blindingly obvious to me that the chief priests accepted the tomb was empty, because they saw a need to provide a public explanation for it:

And when they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a sufficient sum of money to the soldiers and said, “Tell people, ‘His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.’

And how did they reach that conclusion? The previous verse reveals it:

While they were going, behold, some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests all that had taken place.

So clearly, the guards observed the empty tomb and passed on that knowledge to the chief priests, who quickly saw a need to explain away that observation.

After twenty pages (!) of posts, this is where I see it sitting: the guards inspected the tomb, saw it was empty, and some of them went into town and passed on that information to the chief priests. Can you agree with that?

 

[Tawhano]

Actually, they fled in terror from the angel(s) at the tomb.

Actually they “became as dead men” so I do not think that is a logically deductive view that they fled.

…or did the angel(s) leave (so the guards could investigate) and then come back (to greet the women)? And how does either of those even make sense?

It would make sense in that we do not know how long the guards remained in the “like dead men” state or how long the angel sitting on the stone or those in the sepulcher stayed there. I surmise the angels stayed long enough to address the women and after the women left there was no reason for the angels to stick around. We see in Matthew 28:2-5 that the women appeared before the guards became like dead men and entered into the sepulcher during that event. After the angels left I would expect the guards to come around and look into the sepulcher to see what happened.

You should have never mentioned the ellipses; now I am going to use them often just to annoy you.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You should have never mentioned the ellipses; now I am going to use them often just to annoy you.

Thanks for making it clear that you don't take this seriously. But what annoyed me was that you replaced my quote with ellipses and then didn't address what you redacted.

Actually they “became as dead men” so I do not think that is a logically deductive view that they fled.

So they did not flee, but just strolled away casually?

It would make sense in that we do not know how long the guards remained in the “like dead men” state or how long the angel sitting on the stone or those in the sepulcher stayed there. I surmise the angels stayed long enough to address the women and after the women left there was no reason for the angels to stick around. We see in Matthew 28:2-5 that the women appeared before the guards became like dead men and entered into the sepulcher during that event. After the angels left I would expect the guards to come around and look into the sepulcher to see what happened.

So you are saying the guards left after the women left? A little curious that there was no mention of the guards coming from the women, or from Peter. Can you give me a list of the events as they occurred in sequence, backed with citations from the gospels?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I'm sorry, but it seems blindingly obvious to me that the chief priests accepted the tomb was empty, because they saw a need to provide a public explanation for it:


And how did they reach that conclusion? The previous verse reveals it:

Either the priests believed that a supernatural event occurred and did not investigate, or else they didn't believe the guards and still didn't investigate. Neither seems plausible, regardless of whatever damage control fiction they made up afterwards.

So clearly, the guards observed the empty tomb and passed on that knowledge to the chief priests, who quickly saw a need to explain away that observation.

After twenty pages (!) of posts, this is where I see it sitting: the guards inspected the tomb, saw it was empty, and some of them went into town and passed on that information to the chief priests. Can you agree with that?

No. With how terrified the guards were I simply do not see them hanging around the tomb waiting to look inside. Risking their lives to guard the corpse of an executed criminal.

 

[ChetSinger]

Either the priests believed that a supernatural event occurred and did not investigate, or else they didn't believe the guards and still didn't investigate. Neither seems plausible, regardless of whatever damage control fiction they made up afterwards.

Are you saying the text is not plausible?

No. With how terrified the guards were I simply do not see them hanging around the tomb waiting to look inside. Risking their lives to guard the corpse of an executed criminal.

But they must have, to provide the report to the chief priests that they did. Are you saying the text is not plausible?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Are you saying the text is not plausible?


But they must have, to provide the report to the chief priests that they did. Are you saying the text is not plausible?

Yes.

 

[ChetSinger]

Yes.

OK. If you don't think the text is plausible regarding the chief priests and guards then I don't know what we have to talk about. I mean, what common ground do we have? None that I can see.

 

[Tawhano]

Thanks for making it clear that you don't take this seriously.

I enjoy debating and on occasion I encounter an intelligent poster that I actually learn something from even if I do not agree with their position. I cannot take this debate seriously because you lack the credibility of a serious debater. You refuse to directly answer questions but instead you answer questions with questions and just gloss over important details without credible evidence to support your claims. You chose to debate ideas that do not detract or lend credence to your position. Therefore I cannot take this debate seriously. It just an amusing pastime for me.

But what annoyed me was that you replaced my quote with ellipses and then didn't address what you redacted.

The ellipses did not redact anything. You tried to impose your opinion on what happened at the sepulcher and get me to accept one to defend. I accepted none of your suggestions. I explained this to you already. Please re-read.

So they did not flee, but just strolled away casually?

When they were as dead men, no they could not flee, after that it is purely speculation. Speculation is not evidence. I explained this to you already. I don’t know if they strolled, ran or caught the four o’clock commuter camel into town. How they got into town is immaterial to this discussion.

Can you give me a list of the events as they occurred in sequence, backed with citations from the gospels?

I can (or if you are really interested you can Google it) but I will not be lead away from the real problem in this farce of a debate; that is the slippery slope fallacy that you based your OP on. As you mentioned if the premise is wrong then the conclusion is wrong.

Premise of OP:

“…the gospels did not record this? That would seem to cut against the narrative of the gospels…”
“…And yet there is no record of anyone visiting the tomb after Easter Sunday…”
Conclusion:
“The complete lack of an investigation for a miraculous event is in fact evidence that no miracle occurred in the first place.”

Event A: the resurrection of Jesus Christ
Event B: Gospel authors should record an account of an investigation of Event A.

After asking you multiple times to explain why “That would seem to cut against the narrative of the gospels” you finally gave the answer in post#373” Believability is necessary to the message, and the lack of an investigation is not pursuant to a believable story”. That was all you had. This is your opinion and you know that evidence and opinion are not the same. My opinion is that nobody cares about whether the chief priest conducted an investigation in this story or not because the believability is that Jesus rose from the dead and was seen. An investigation of the sepulcher would only prove the body was not there and not that Jesus rose from the dead. However my opinion is not evidence and neither is yours.

In conclusion you have no evidence to support your premise that the Gospel authors should have recorded an investigation of the sepulcher. That makes it an invalid premise and therefore your conclusion is based on a false premise based on a slippery slope fallacy.