The Resurrection

[HitchSlap]

Feel free to back up your insult with links to my posts that you feel I had been dishonest.

Isn't it deja vu all over again for you? You have another poster telling you, that either you're misunderstanding what they're saying or intentionally obfuscating what they're saying, and you persist with the "I know you are, but what am I," tact. It's a boorish and ineffective way to have a conversation.

//

 

[Tawhano]

I came up with all of the possibilities and asked which combination is consistent with your model. I am not telling you what your model is but rather am asking what yours is.

No you are not. You are coming up with your views of what the possibilities are and completely ignore what I believe the possibilities are and then wanting me to defend your views as my own.

So unless I can disprove the story, I must accept it?

Absolutely not. But that is what you need to prove in order for your views to be validated in rebuttal to my views.

While there is speculation here, I've taken everything into account aside from the motivation of the women being at the tomb, but you certainly don't have that information either.

Exactly, you dismiss my views, based on logical reasoning of the data available, because of your speculation on data that is not available.

You have still ignored the first

Because it would be speculation since it is not recorded. We went from agreeing that speculation was not a valid argument to you basing your entire argument, after not being able to refute the slippery slope fallacy claim, to speculation on data that is not presented.

Your model employs speculation but also ignores severe continuity errors, so your model is dismissed outright until you account for those things.

I shared the data in which I used to logically reasoned a conclusion. I have refrained from speculation because I thought we were in agreement that it was an invalid argument. Please address where I speculated by showing logically that my argument fails the definition of logical reasoning.

Given the data we can use logical reasoning to ascertain the following:

The author records the visit of two women and an undetermined amount of guards at the scene. Therefore, unless the author was one of the women or guards, the author was not there and wrote his account on testimony from another or made it up. If you can prove he made it up then I have to concede and you win the debate and everything and anything I said on the topic is no longer valid. You believe this to be true but have no proof or even reasonable evidence so we should only debate on the data available.

The testimony was that the women were fearful and the guards were like dead men. Logical reasoning would conclude that whoever gave this testimony was aware of both the women’s and Guard’s reaction to the angel and events and that all were present at that time. What other possibility is there that we could assume to account for the author knowing that the guards and women were there when the angel arrived? I can speculate that the women saw the guards and recounted the events to the author who didn’t record it for whatever reason. However that is only speculation. It is plausible but still speculation.

The part I find amusing is that you think that somehow the omission in Matthew on the women’s reaction to the guards somehow negates the logical conclusion that the guards looked into the sepulcher. It does nothing to strengthen your dismissal of my conclusion. You dismiss my views purely out of personal reasons that has nothing to do with logical reasoning.

The guard’s duty was to ensure no one stole the body. The angel moves the stone and then goes into the sepulcher to join another angel (Mark 16:4-5) where the women see them. They run off to tell the others what the angels said to them (Mark 16:8, Matthew 28:8). Why would the angels remain at the sepulcher after they told the women Jesus had risen? Why would the guards not go to investigate the sepulcher after they recovered from the “dead men” state when it was their duty to guard the body?

…what was their plan for moving the stone…

I have no idea but I do know they considered that problem.

(Mar 16:3) And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?

You have given only a completely absurd answer thus far.

Yeah right. So absurd you have not been able to refute it without speculating that another event occurred which is not part of the data we have available to us.

 

[Tawhano]

Isn't it deja vu all over again for you? You have another poster telling you, that either you're misunderstanding what they're saying or intentionally obfuscating what they're saying, and you persist with the "I know you are, but what am I," tact. It's a boorish and ineffective way to have a conversation.

Feel free to back up your false accusation with some facts.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Isn't it deja vu all over again for you? You have another poster telling you, that either you're misunderstanding what they're saying or intentionally obfuscating what they're saying, and you persist with the "I know you are, but what am I," tact. It's a boorish and ineffective way to have a conversation.

//

Feel free to back up your insult with links to my posts that you feel I had been dishonest.

Allow me to try to draft your model for the sequence of events:

The women were... Please let me know which it is or if I'm missing something.

Upon arriving, the women... Once again, let me know which it is or if I'm missing something.

Not my model, that is your speculation. You consistently post your views and want me to defend them. That is not conducive to an honest debate. I totally get why you want nothing to do with an honest debate but I carry on regardless for my own amusement.

You are coming up with your views of what the possibilities are and completely ignore what I believe the possibilities are and then wanting me to defend your views as my own.

 

[Tawhano]

Nihilist Virus said: ↑

Allow me to try to draft your model for the sequence of events:

The women were... Please let me know which it is or if I'm missing something.

Upon arriving, the women... Once again, let me know which it is or if I'm missing something.

Tawhano said: ↑

Not my model, that is your speculation. You consistently post your views and want me to defend them. That is not conducive to an honest debate. I totally get why you want nothing to do with an honest debate but I carry on regardless for my own amusement.

Tawhano said: ↑

You are coming up with your views of what the possibilities are and completely ignore what I believe the possibilities are and then wanting me to defend your views as my own.

Please explain how the above quotes indicate I was being dishonest.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Please explain how the above quotes indicate I was being dishonest.

 

[Tawhano]

zzz

No answer eh? Wow, didn’t see that coming…not!

Because you are literally saying this:

1. Jesus performed more miracles than could be physically recorded at the time, including healing handicapped persons and even raising others from the dead
2. The guards did not see Jesus' body being stolen, nor did they actually see the risen Jesus
3. There is no need to investigate

So you are being quite intellectually dishonest.

When in fact I did not say any of those things.

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

And again this is not what I said at all and you wanted me to pick and defend what I did not say.

You have said that because of X, Y must have happened.

And once again this is not what I said.

Allow me to try to draft your model for the sequence of events:

The women were coming to anoint Jesus' body and therefore either: 1) they were unaware that guards were posted and there was a massive stone sealing the tomb, or 2) they knew about both of those facts and assumed they could persuade the guards to assist them in removing the stone, or 3) they knew about both of those facts and were planning on killing or otherwise subduing the guards so as to have free access to the tomb, and they had a plan for moving the stone, or 4) they were unaware that there were guards but knew the stone was there and were prepared for the task of moving it. Please let me know which it is or if I'm missing something.

Upon arriving, the women gave no indication that they saw the guards who were either in a state of terror or else were unconscious due to having fainted. The women either: I) did not see the guards, or II) did not think it was worth mentioning to the disciples when they returned to give the very first gospel message, or III) they did mention the guards to the other disciples, but this was not recorded, and Peter went to the tomb anyway. Once again, let me know which it is or if I'm missing something.

Again, you claim this is my model when I didn’t say any of the above. I called you out for being dishonest and because you have nothing to defend your dishonestly you simply replied that I was dishonest but you cannot provide evidence to back up your false accusation. You seemed to think that providing the “or if I’m missing something” negates the fact that you said “draft your model”. What you are missing is what you deliberately left out; my actual views. I say again; You consistently post your views and want me to defend them. That is not conducive to an honest debate.

 

[Tawhano]

Isn't it deja vu all over again for you? You have another poster telling you, that either you're misunderstanding what they're saying or intentionally obfuscating what they're saying, and you persist with the "I know you are, but what am I," tact. It's a boorish and ineffective way to have a conversation.

I repeat, please feel free to back up your false accusation.

 

[HitchSlap]

You consistently post your views and want me to defend them. That is not conducive to an honest debate.

Not sure if serious, or irony.

 

[HitchSlap]

I repeat, please feel free to back up your false accusation.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Well, I never until now actually voiced my opinion that 753+816=1569, but I'm not going to throw a fit and say that you're putting words in my mouth if you conjecture that I would generally purport such a thing to be true. You identify yourself as a Christian so I am assuming that you would generally believe the unsupported fantastical claims in the Bible, and you may or may not also believe in the parts that contradict the other parts. So let's take a look at these three things I've attributed to you in the picture above:

1. Jesus performed more miracles than could be physically recorded at the time (John 21:25), including healing handicapped persons (Mark 10:46-52) and even raising others from the dead (John 11:1-44, Mark 5:21-43).

2. Now I cannot prove a negative here, but you and I have gone over this sequence of events to such an extent that you cannot help but be aware that this is true.

3. Observe the quote here:

There was no need to send anyone as it was the duty of the guards, already posted at the sepulcher, to investigate after the stone was rolled away. This they did and they reported their findings.

So I would like to know which of the three things here you disagree with. Do you disagree with (1.) the Bible, or (2.) the Bible again, or (3.) yourself?

Now... OK... you didn't verbatim say all of the things that I quoted you as saying. But those three things are a fully accurate representation of your worldview. If I can only draw from the verbatim little snippets of what you say, and I cannot presume to know what your worldview generally is by the Christian label you apply to yourself, then, as you so eloquently put it, that is not conducive to an honest debate.

Here you are right to complain because I left out 4c: The guards remained incapacitated while the angel(s) conversed with the women, and then after the angel(s) left the guards woke up, investigated the tomb, and left. I'm not sure if this is your position or not because you spend all your time dodging questions and complaining about my behavior instead of giving answers and contributing to the thread. You refuse to give a precise order of events on the grounds that it would be speculation, but I am only asking for a sequence of events that is plausible, whether or not it is speculation. You refuse to give even that.

This is an outright lie on your part. You snipped out what I said. Here it is:

You have said repeatedly that the guards must have looked in the tomb. Or in other words, you have said that because the guards gave a report, they must have investigated.

How could the guards tell them what happened if they didn’t investigate the sepulcher? How did the chief priest know Jesus’s body was no longer in the sepulcher if the guards who were there did not tell them?

So you have, in fact, said that because of X, Y must have happened. You're a confirmed liar.

I find it to be laughable that you're calling me dishonest. You say that what I am missing is what I deliberately left out; your actual views. Guess what. You haven't given them. The absolute most you've done is cite a large block of scripture and then say that the rest is speculation, with the one exception being your "logical deduction" that the guards must've looked inside the tomb at some point even though you give no plausible sequence of events in which this possibly could have occurred.

 

[Tawhano]

You say that what I am missing is what I deliberately left out; your actual views. Guess what. You haven't given them.

I have posted my views many times. Apparently I failed to make them understandable to you. I will try to correct that.

So I would like to know which of the three things here you disagree with. Do you disagree with (1.) the Bible, or (2.) the Bible again, or (3.) yourself?

All three. The part I disagree with is that you turned my view that there was an investigation and therefore no need for further investigation into your strawman argument that I said there was no need to investigate.

You have said repeatedly that the guards must have looked in the tomb. Or in other words, you have said that because the guards gave a report, they must have investigated.

Another strawman; my view is that because the guards gave a report of what happened and the priest acknowledged that the body of Jesus was missing by bribing the guards to lie about the disappearance of the body then the logical path from these two recorded events (the data) is that the guards told them in their report of the events. If the priest did not know that the body was missing then they would not have fabricated the story that the disciples stole the body. This is logical reasoning in that you take two facts (the data) and ascertain a logical path from one to the other. Logical reasoning answers the question “how did the priest know the body was missing?” from the data given. I could have speculated that the guards reported the stone being rolled away and the priest, in counsel with the elders, sent people to investigate the sepulcher and discovered it was empty but that is not a logical path from one verse to the other. It lacks further data to be substantiated. It is plausible but not logically induced from the given data.

I'm not sure if this is your position or not because you spend all your time dodging questions and complaining about my behavior instead of giving answers and contributing to the thread. You refuse to give a precise order of events on the grounds that it would be speculation, but I am only asking for a sequence of events that is plausible, whether or not it is speculation. You refuse to give even that.

This is not true. If you recall I entered this thread with a full explanation of my views on this topic. It is the one where I assumed you did not read the accounts in Matthew. At that time I was given the impression the standard for debate was on the Biblical data which I felt was more than obvious an answer to your question. It was not until later I discovered the standard was actually your view that the book of Matthew was entirely fictional. A view you admitted you could not prove. I believe that you attempted to debate using that standard in disguise of the premise you posted.

…your "logical deduction" that the guards must've looked inside the tomb at some point even though you give no plausible sequence of events in which this possibly could have occurred…

I explained it as best I could. I cannot be held responsible for your inability to comprehend the difference between speculation and logical reasoning.

So you have, in fact, said that because of X, Y must have happened. You're a confirmed liar.

You believe this not because of a failure on my part but a failure on your part. You fail to understand the structure of logical reasoning. It is not “because of X, Y must have happened” at all. It is this:

If X (guards give report)
If Y (priest knew body was missing)
Then Z is a logical path. (the report included the missing body)

You are missing the third element which is the logical reasoned element. This is not saying that Z is the only plausible path. It is saying that it is the logical path based on the data given. I do not know how to explain this any further to make it clear to you. Logical construct is not an easy concept to grasp. I do not say this as slight toward you (despite my personal opinion of you). There were many intelligent people in my class that found it hard to get their head around this construct.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I have posted my views many times. Apparently I failed to make them understandable to you. I will try to correct that.

More insults to my intelligence. Exactly how is that conducive to an honest debate? Quite a hypocritical selection of words.

All three. The part I disagree with is that you turned my view that there was an investigation and therefore no need for further investigation into your strawman argument that I said there was no need to investigate.

Firstly, you are clearly not disagreeing with all three. I think you disagreed with points 1 and 2 out of spite, indicating, once again, that you are a terrible witness for your Lord.

Secondly, the pharisees cannot investigate the resurrection claim until they have first heard of it. You are saying that because they heard it from the guards, there was no need to investigate the claim... despite the fact that Jesus performed thousands of miracles and predicted he would rise from the dead.

Thirdly, your "view that there was an investigation and therefore no need for further investigation" is pure speculation. You have no evidence that the guards investigated the tomb. You call your argument logical deduction, but you are WRONG because logical deductions must necessarily lead to a unique conclusion and you ignore the fact that I have proposed another viable scenario in which no investigation occurs, and on top of this you have not answered to the gaping plot holes emerging from the guards actually investigating the tomb.

My argument stands and you are fully debunked.

Another strawman; my view is that because the guards gave a report of what happened and the priest acknowledged that the body of Jesus was missing by bribing the guards to lie about the disappearance of the body then the logical path from these two recorded events (the data) is that the guards told them in their report of the events. If the priest did not know that the body was missing then they would not have fabricated the story that the disciples stole the body. This is logical reasoning in that you take two facts (the data) and ascertain a logical path from one to the other. Logical reasoning answers the question “how did the priest know the body was missing?” from the data given. I could have speculated that the guards reported the stone being rolled away and the priest, in counsel with the elders, sent people to investigate the sepulcher and discovered it was empty but that is not a logical path from one verse to the other. It lacks further data to be substantiated. It is plausible but not logically induced from the given data.

If you read Matthew 28:11-15, it sounds like a proposal of the origin of the story that the Jews claim the body was stolen. It was an issue the early Christians had been dealing with at least until the author of Matthew put pen to paper. This debate between the priests and the disciples didn't have to originate within a couple hours of the resurrection for Matthew to record it here. It could've taken a few days for the priests to issue such a statement, and they could've done so in response to when the rumors of the resurrection began to spread. This view is entirely consistent with the text and does not require the guards to investigate the tomb. As I said, it is not reasonable to believe that the guards investigated the tomb because they were terrified of the angel(s) and because the text, despite your initial claim to the contrary after scolding me for not reading Matthew 28, DOES NOT SAY they investigated the tomb. Therefore my proposed version of events puts forth less absurdities than yours, so my version of events is better. However, in either case, it is nonsensical for the priests to fully accept the guards' claim that a miracle occurred (another thing you disagreed with early on because you hadn't bothered to pick up the Bible and read) without actually sending an investigation team (or a secondary investigation team, if you like).

Simply put, your version of events proposes something that is implausible, cuts against the narrative of the text (that the guards were so terrified they became like dead men, yet decided to investigate later), and also has plot holes (as explained earlier, in order for the guards to have investigated the tomb, they had to have been there while the women were there, yet the women do not seem to take notice of them). All you do is say that you don't know why the women didn't take notice of the guards, and that you can't explain it, but you refuse to examine my sequence of events which does not have this problem and is also consistent with the narrative. You are completely intellectually dishonest and you know it.

This is not true. If you recall I entered this thread with a full explanation of my views on this topic. It is the one where I assumed you did not read the accounts in Matthew.

It is quite a moronic proposal to say that you haven't amended your full explanation of your views on the topic since that time because back then you were under the impression that the text directly states that the guards investigated the tomb. This means your proposed version of events was patently WRONG. Pardon me for assuming that you have since abandoned such views. Pardon me for waiting for you to issue a corrected version. If that's what you want to stick with, then you're wrong and we can move on. Because in case you don't recall, there was this:

So as we can see, your early view was that no miracle occurred (therefore the angel(s) did not appear) and that the guards investigated the tomb (false, or speculation at best).

At that time I was given the impression the standard for debate was on the Biblical data which I felt was more than obvious an answer to your question. It was not until later I discovered the standard was actually your view that the book of Matthew was entirely fictional. A view you admitted you could not prove. I believe that you attempted to debate using that standard in disguise of the premise you posted.

I don't believe that everything in Matthew is fictional, but probably all of chapter 28 is. Why are you surprised at this? Do you not see that atheist label under my name? Or is it your understanding that I believe in the resurrection yet don't believe in God?

I explained it as best I could. I cannot be held responsible for your inability to comprehend the difference between speculation and logical reasoning.

You know, you said somewhere in this thread that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. I think I've done a good job of exposing your ignorance here, and yet you continue to throw stones.

You believe this not because of a failure on my part but a failure on your part. You fail to understand the structure of logical reasoning. It is not “because of X, Y must have happened” at all. It is this:

If X (guards give report)
If Y (priest knew body was missing)
Then Z is a logical path. (the report included the missing body)

Again, WRONG. You don't seem to understand that the disciples began to spread the rumors that Christ had risen. The priests didn't have to hear of the empty tomb from the guards, and they probably didn't have to wait very long to hear the rumors popping up. There were hundreds of people who saw the risen Jesus, but it seems that according to you the priests couldn't have known about it unless they heard the story from guards who were either incompetent or were professing a fantastical story, and it seems that you are assuming that the priests issued their false statement about the body being stolen on the day of the resurrection even there is no textual evidence to indicate that. You make assumption on top of assumption and then claim victory.

You are missing the third element which is the logical reasoned element. This is not saying that Z is the only plausible path. It is saying that it is the logical path based on the data given. I do not know how to explain this any further to make it clear to you. Logical construct is not an easy concept to grasp.

Your conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premises. The priests could've already known the body was missing before they even spoke with the guards. While I don't think that is plausible, you still have to contend with that if you want to make a logical deduction. You can't lecture me on logical deduction and then throw a logical deduction at me based on what "probably" happened. That's what gets you into the realm of "the sun rose every day for the last 100 years, therefore it will rise tomorrow."

It's not really surprising to me that you chastise me for having a flawed understanding of deduction when in fact the one with the flawed understanding is you, especially when I consider that one of the very first things you chastised me on was not reading Matthew 28. Now as far as addressing the flaw in your premises rather than the flaw in your logical structure, we see that you are assuming that the pharisees knew the body was missing on the day of the resurrection. THE TEXT DOES NOT SAY OR EVEN IMPLY THIS. The text is giving the origin of a long-term accusation held by the priests which stood "until this day" and so there is no reason to dismiss the possibility that the priests initiated the rumors a few days later as a response to the resurrection claims. This would mean that the report from the guards would only include the earthquake and the appearance of the angel(s). This is fully consistent with the narrative and there are no plot holes, so like I said this proposal is far superior to yours.

I do not say this as slight toward you (despite my personal opinion of you). There were many intelligent people in my class that found it hard to get their head around this construct.

Oh, please, by all means, share your opinion of me.

 

[Tawhano]

…you are WRONG because logical deductions must necessarily lead to a unique conclusion…

Logical deductions do not necessarily lead to a unique conclusion. It simply establishes a logical explanation as a path from event X to event Y. There can be multiple paths. If you recall I accepted that there were other possibilities but the ones you provided are speculations and not derived by logical reasoning. Despite that I accepted that they were indeed a possibility and have said so on numerous occasions.

Again, WRONG. You don't seem to understand that the disciples began to spread the rumors that Christ had risen.

An assumption on your part. Where does it say that in the text?

The priests didn't have to hear of the empty tomb from the guards, and they probably didn't have to wait very long to hear the rumors popping up.

An assumption on your part. Where does it say that in the text?

…you are assuming that the priests issued their false statement about the body being stolen on the day of the resurrection even there is no textual evidence to indicate that….

And you make the assumption that this didn’t happen. Where does it say that in the text?

You make assumption on top of assumption and then claim victory.

And to prove that you offer your assumptions. This is your double standards tactic you have been using throughout this debate. Please explain to me how your assumption trump my alleged assumptions?

My argument stands and you are fully debunked.

Your arguments have been built on assumptions and strawman fallacies. You have not debated anything I actually said but simply ignore my actual position and substitute a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of my position. You debunk your own strawman arguments and have not answered any of my questions.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Logical deductions do not necessarily lead to a unique conclusion. It simply establishes a logical explanation as a path from event X to event Y. There can be multiple paths.

When I say that logical deduction leads to a unique conclusion, I am saying that a valid, sound syllogism cannot have two conclusions that are both equally valid but also mutually exclusive.

If you recall I accepted that there were other possibilities but the ones you provided are speculations and not derived by logical reasoning. Despite that I accepted that they were indeed a possibility and have said so on numerous occasions.

So it seems that you are willing to accept my version of events, provided that I can show it is more plausible. Let me make this perfectly clear: neither of us have a fully plausible version of events. I'll summarize the problems in each of our views below.

In my version of events, I cannot account for the reason that the women want to visit the tomb despite knowing it was sealed and having no men to help them (and it is unknown whether or not they were aware that there were guards present). I also cannot account for why no investigation team was sent, hence this thread. Other than that, my version of events is self-consistent and plausible. I propose that the guards saw the angel(s), were terrified and fled; then the women came, and since the guards were gone the women did not interact with them (this also explains why the guards were omitted from the other three gospels, since no main characters interacted with them or even saw them at all). Next, the guards explained what they saw (angel(s) and the displaced stone) and then the Jews issued their statement either in response to the resurrection rumors (which were likely immediate) or in response to the preaching that began after Pentecost. Note that while the disciples apparently did not begin to preach until after Pentecost, there is no reason to suggest that the rumors of Jesus' resurrection did not spread immediately.

In your version of events you gave a half-baked explanation of the reason that the women wanted to visit the tomb, and you never bothered to defend it after I obliterated it. So either you admit you cannot account for this as well, or else you want to cling to your utterly absurd and indefensible version of events. You also claim that an investigation did occur by the original guards, who looked inside the tomb before they ever left. You also said that this investigation was sufficient and reasonable to the priests. You made absolutely no attempt whatsoever to explain either 1) why the guards, who were so terrified that they were like dead men, were somehow curious or brave enough to sneak past the angel(s) and peek inside the tomb, or else 2) why the women did not see the guards laying on the ground (or remark to the other disciples that they were there). You're free to propose a third possibility, but I believe I proved that it has to be one of the two. If I were to pick between the two, I'd choose 2) and say that the women didn't see the guards either because the guards were not visible where they had collapsed (behind a bush?) or else the women were too overwhelmed with the presence of the angel(s) to take notice of the guards. You then go on to suggest that the priests were satisfied with the explanation given by the guards, and that an investigation of these miraculous claims would be "moronic" (post #330). You go on to say, "Is it not true that a second investigation would only be performed on further evidence becoming available due to advances in forensic investigation or a new witness testimony that contradicts the findings of the investigation?" No, that is not the only reason that a second investigation would be performed. A second investigation would need to be performed if the first one was unsatisfactory. If the guards are all reporting a fantastical occurrence, then their report is in question. Why you do not comprehend this is utterly baffling. Even if you want to contend that the appearance of angels was commonplace, using them as an excuse for failing at your job should at least be eyebrow raising. But no, to you, the story is completely plausible to the priests. What's even more baffling is that these priests were fully aware that Jesus prophesied he would rise from the dead, and now were firmly believing that there was an earthquake+angel(s)+empty tomb, and STILL none of them, not even one, believed in Jesus. So not only do you fail to resolve the issue in this thread, but you propose something that is utterly preposterous as a solution.

Now, I don't know exactly where the Old Testament "prophesies" that Jesus would rise from the dead. Perhaps you have that information for me. But if such a prophecy existed, this would explain why the Jews did not want the body to be stolen: because then Jesus would be mistakenly confirmed as the messiah, who was supposed to be a military leader, and then this might result in a revolt which could dislodge the priests from their cushy position when mighty Rome decides to crush the uprising. I fully understand their concern in this case. What I don't understand is that they were fully aware that Jesus was quite dead, and that they fully believed that all of the aforementioned supernatural events preceded Jesus' empty tomb - an event which Jesus even predicted, TO THE DAY - and yet they still did not believe he was the messiah. Were their hearts really that hard? Or perhaps their skulls were quite thick? I do not find it plausible that they all knew the law more than anyone else on the planet and yet willfully rejected the messiah.

An assumption on your part. Where does it say that in the text?
An assumption on your part. Where does it say that in the text?

The best I can say with certainty is that the disciples began to preach after the Pentecost, which, if I'm not mistaken, was 50 days after the first Easter. So either I need to amend my argument and say that the Jews issued their statement as a response to the resurrection claim which came 50 days later (instead of almost immediately) or I need to pull a half-Tawhano and say that I logically deduce that the disciples began to spread the rumors immediately. Mind you, a full-Tawhano is to claim logical deduction despite employing premises that are implausible and undefended.

And you make the assumption that this didn’t happen. Where does it say that in the text?

I said there is no evidence in the text that they issued their statements immediately. I need evidence to say there is no evidence for something?

And to prove that you offer your assumptions. This is your double standards tactic you have been using throughout this debate. Please explain to me how your assumption trump my alleged assumptions?

Everything that the both of us are saying are pure speculations. The difference is that your speculations are not internally consistent.

Your arguments have been built on assumptions and strawman fallacies.

Don't forget the slippery slope fallacy where I am saying that an investigation should follow if fantastical claims are presented as an explanation as to why one failed at one's job.

You have not debated anything I actually said but simply ignore my actual position and substitute a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of my position. You debunk your own strawman arguments and have not answered any of my questions.

Well let's see what you have to say about this post here.

 

[Tawhano]

So it seems that you are willing to accept my version of events, provided that I can show it is more plausible.

No, I accept your views as plausible.
I will be gone for the remainder of this week but I will reply as soon as I am able.

 

[Tawhano]

When I say that logical deduction leads to a unique conclusion, I am saying that a valid, sound syllogism cannot have two conclusions that are both equally valid but also mutually exclusive.

You crack me up. First of all you already demonstrated you lack the skills to ascertain what a valid logical argument is. You never understood the concept behind the fallacy you used as your main argument. Second you demonstrate here that you did a web search or something and found the definition of syllogistic logic and failed to understand that concept as well. A syllogism is a tool to determine the validity of the conclusion of an argument. If a logical deduction has two or more conclusions you use the formula of syllogistic logic to ascertain each conclusion separately. So while what you say about syllogism is correct in having one conclusion you confused that with the construct of a logical deduction.

In your version of events you gave a half-baked explanation of the reason that the women wanted to visit the tomb, and you never bothered to defend it after I obliterated it.

You have never argued my views but instead you make up something and present it as my view so please site the post where you “obliterated it” with valid arguments.

…you want to cling to your utterly absurd and indefensible version of events…

Please explain how you are qualified to judge my versions as “utterly absurd and indefensible version of events”. You have never provided rebuttal to my actual views except to ridicule them without one single reason as to why you judge them as such. I can and have defended my views. Your replies have always consisted of insults, strawman and lies with no connection to my views.

…I need to pull a half-Tawhano and say that I logically deduce that the disciples began to spread the rumors immediately. Mind you, a full-Tawhano is to claim logical deduction despite employing premises that are implausible and undefended.

Again, how do you even entertain the idea that you have one ounce of ability (or credibility) to determine what is a logical deduction and what is not? You consistently demonstrate you do not possess any such skills.

Don't forget the slippery slope fallacy where I am saying that an investigation should follow if fantastical claims are presented as an explanation as to why one failed at one's job.

This just proves what I have been saying all along; you lack the skills to determine what is a valid argument and what is not. I have explained this to you multiple times and you still don’t get it. You do not know who wrote Matthew so you cannot possibly know the circumstances behind how he obtained the information to write the epistle and what he should or shouldn’t include in it. Saying that he should have recorded an investigation is a fallacy because you cannot possibly use that as a true premise for your conclusion. All premises have to be true. You cannot provide any evidence that this premise is true. That is the fallacy; that you based your argument on your unsubstantiated opinion that he should have included that information. There may have been an investigation that the author knew nothing about. The author may have seen the resurrected Jesus with his own eyes and therefore deemed the investigation was of no importance to his narrative. He reported minimal information on how the guards who were in charge with making the sepulcher sure and “shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done” as details on the investigation. There are a whole host of reasons why the author did not include exact details about an investigation. None of which you even attempted to address to prove that an omission of the details is evidence to the resurrection never having taken place.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You crack me up. First of all you already demonstrated you lack the skills to ascertain what a valid logical argument is. You never understood the concept behind the fallacy you used as your main argument. Second you demonstrate here that you did a web search or something and found the definition of syllogistic logic and failed to understand that concept as well. A syllogism is a tool to determine the validity of the conclusion of an argument. If a logical deduction has two or more conclusions you use the formula of syllogistic logic to ascertain each conclusion separately. So while what you say about syllogism is correct in having one conclusion you confused that with the construct of a logical deduction.

There is no fallacy behind my main argument. I'm not saying it is factual that there was no investigation, and neither am I using that to claim that the resurrection did not occur. I'm saying it is factual that no investigation was recorded, and this is correct. I then go on to explain why this omission, if indeed it is an omission, cuts against the narrative of the gospels, and I explain that if there was never an investigation to begin with then the story is not plausible. I explained this in depth in the post that you are responding to, and you deliberately left those remarks out of your response. This is, as you say, not conducive to an honest debate.

I performed no web search on the definition of a syllogism, and even if I had it would be irrelevant.

You have never argued my views but instead you make up something and present it as my view so please site the post where you “obliterated it” with valid arguments.

In post 433 you ask,

The guards were there to ensure the body wasn’t stolen. Why would they not let the women in to anoint the body?

In post 434 I reply,

Because there is a massive stone blocking the entrance, so there is little to no chance they would go through the hassle of moving an extremely large boulder for some post-burial rites of a criminal who was executed by their own government. I find it especially unlikely that they would do this for people who were of what they considered to be an inferior race and gender. Also they would have to be morons to allow known associates of Jesus into the tomb when there was concern that other known associates of Jesus were interested in stealing the body. "Yes, ladies, we will lay down our swords and move this stone for you. Surely there are not other members of your group using a former prostitute as a diversion so that they may ambush us whilst we are encumbered and unarmed."

I never saw your response to this, and I even double-checked by ctrl+F searching "whilst" on that page and this one and there were no uses of it in your posts, so you did not quote me on the topic. And I would say your absurd suggestion was obliterated.

Please explain how you are qualified to judge my versions as “utterly absurd and indefensible version of events”. You have never provided rebuttal to my actual views except to ridicule them without one single reason as to why you judge them as such. I can and have defended my views. Your replies have always consisted of insults, strawman and lies with no connection to my views.

I'm quite happy to dig up old posts in the event that you've forgotten our discussion, but in this case you are deliberately redacting things from my previous post and then asking where my good arguments are. I extend you far more charity than you deserve and assume that you must've not seen it the first time. Let me say it again so you notice it this time:

You go on to say, "Is it not true that a second investigation would only be performed on further evidence becoming available due to advances in forensic investigation or a new witness testimony that contradicts the findings of the investigation?" No, that is not the only reason that a second investigation would be performed. A second investigation would need to be performed if the first one was unsatisfactory. If the guards are all reporting a fantastical occurrence, then their report is in question. Why you do not comprehend this is utterly baffling. Even if you want to contend that the appearance of angels was commonplace, using them as an excuse for failing at your job should at least be eyebrow raising. But no, to you, the story is completely plausible to the priests. What's even more baffling is that these priests were fully aware that Jesus prophesied he would rise from the dead, and now were firmly believing that there was an earthquake+angel(s)+empty tomb, and STILL none of them, not even one, believed in Jesus. So not only do you fail to resolve the issue in this thread, but you propose something that is utterly preposterous as a solution.

Can you see it now?

Again, how do you even entertain the idea that you have one ounce of ability (or credibility) to determine what is a logical deduction and what is not? You consistently demonstrate you do not possess any such skills.

I have a bachelor's in mathematics. Yes I understand logic. You're just absurd. You have proven yourself to be a liar in every meaning of the word.

This just proves what I have been saying all along; you lack the skills to determine what is a valid argument and what is not. I have explained this to you multiple times and you still don’t get it. You do not know who wrote Matthew so you cannot possibly know the circumstances behind how he obtained the information to write the epistle and what he should or shouldn’t include in it. Saying that he should have recorded an investigation is a fallacy because you cannot possibly use that as a true premise for your conclusion. All premises have to be true. You cannot provide any evidence that this premise is true.

You have utterly failed to explain how it is plausible that the original guards investigated the tomb. You "deduce" that it occurred without addressing the gaping plot holes. But here's the thing. EVEN IF we grant you this assertion, you still have not dealt with the above paragraph in red. You have made NO ATTEMPT WHATSOEVER. Let me repeat that: NO ATTEMPT WHATSOEVER.

You have contended in the past that a followup investigation of the tomb would have been moronic.

Now you ask whether the author of Matthew should have recorded an investigation or not. You're getting way ahead of yourself because you still haven't corrected your claim that such an investigation would have been moronic. I assume you don't want to contend that the author of Mathew should've included moronic material.

That is the fallacy; that you based your argument on your unsubstantiated opinion that he should have included that information. There may have been an investigation that the author knew nothing about. The author may have seen the resurrected Jesus with his own eyes and therefore deemed the investigation was of no importance to his narrative. He reported minimal information on how the guards who were in charge with making the sepulcher sure and “shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done” as details on the investigation. There are a whole host of reasons why the author did not include exact details about an investigation. None of which you even attempted to address to prove that an omission of the details is evidence to the resurrection never having taken place.

Is this your way of correcting yourself and admitting that a (secondary?) investigation of the tomb would not have been moronic? Are you finally admitting that the guards, even if everything they said was completely true, were pitching a story that needed to be verified?

If you're not there yet, I simply cannot reason with you because by that logic there would be no basis for questioning an Elvis sighting. Alien abductees? Can't question their story. Any fantastical claim is just accepted. On what grounds would you find it reasonable to accept the claims of those several guards and also dismiss the claims of several people who claim they were all abducted abducted by aliens together?

If, on the other hand, you've finally joined me in reality, the place where such occurrences either never actualize or are so rare that they must be investigated, then we can have what is called a rational discussion. Now here, in reality, if the guards made the claims that they apparently did, then I expect an investigation to follow. And I swear to your God if you tell me this is a slippery-slope fallacy then we will be reduced to discussions about Big Foot and other tabloid covers. So if you're still with me, and if you're agreeing that there should have been an investigation even though one was obviously not recorded, we find that we have to ask why.

There may have been an investigation that the author knew nothing about.

Quite true. Fortunately, the gospels had to have been given to the authors via divine revelation... right? If yes, then your point is irrelevant. If not, then an interesting discussion awaits.

The author may have seen the resurrected Jesus with his own eyes and therefore deemed the investigation was of no importance to his narrative.

Then the author was clearly stupid because he expects the reader to believe his fantastical claims based on nothing at all.

There are a whole host of reasons why the author did not include exact details about an investigation.

Got any good ones?

 

[Tawhano]

There is no fallacy behind my main argument. I'm not saying it is factual that there was no investigation, and neither am I using that to claim that the resurrection did not occur. I'm saying it is factual that no investigation was recorded, and this is correct.

I’m not sure why you feel that is a valid argument against your conclusion being based on a fallacy. An argument is an argument even if it is hypothetical. You are still basing your hypothetical argument on the premise that the author would have recorded an investigation if the resurrection did occur. Is that not your main argument?

I never saw your response to this, and I even double-checked by ctrl+F searching "whilst" on that page and this one and there were no uses of it in your posts, so you did not quote me on the topic. And I would say your absurd suggestion was obliterated.

You used sarcastic remarks to obscure my views with your own. There was nothing to reply to. I already gave you my answer which was “I do not know”. You use this argument which has nothing at all to do with my explanation on why I believe the text does indicate that the guards investigated because you have nothing to back up your unsubstantiated claims. This is nothing more than a smoke screen. The only thing you obliterated was your own strawman argument.

You have utterly failed to explain how it is plausible that the original guards investigated the tomb. You "deduce" that it occurred without addressing the gaping plot holes.

Your inability to understand basic logical reasoning is not an indication of my failure to provide a plausible explanation as to why I believe the text indicates that the guards investigated the sepulcher. Your attempts to insert your views as mine is the reason for this failure. Answer this question; why did you agree that it was plausible, not once but multiple times, if it was not plausible?

Then the author was clearly stupid because he expects the reader to believe his fantastical claims based on nothing at all.

That is your unsubstantiated view. You cannot provide one single coherent reason why it would be stupid of the author to do such. I wager that even if the author included a detail account of a full blown investigation it would not make one iota of a difference to unbelievers.

…we can have what is called a rational discussion…

This would be impossible because of your prejudices and unwillingness to acknowledge that your sole purpose in being here is to ridicule the beliefs of the people you disdain. You believe somehow that your views trump the views of the people on this forum and that is equivalent to you obliterating their views. There is nothing rational about that.

Fortunately, the gospels had to have been given to the authors via divine revelation... right?

No, it was divine inspiration.

Got any good ones?

Got anything other than sarcasm, lies and strawman arguments to show that the ones I gave are not “good ones”? No you do not. All you have is smoke and mirrors.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I’m not sure why you feel that is a valid argument against your conclusion being based on a fallacy. An argument is an argument even if it is hypothetical. You are still basing your hypothetical argument on the premise that the author would have recorded an investigation if the resurrection did occur. Is that not your main argument?

The argument is and always has been that this is a piece of evidence on the scales against the resurrection. It's never been my claim that this is a knock-down argument. Therefore it cannot possibly qualify as a slippery-slope argument. Your dishonesty perpetuates, to no one's surprise.

You used sarcastic remarks to obscure my views with your own. There was nothing to reply to. I already gave you my answer which was “I do not know”. You use this argument which has nothing at all to do with my explanation on why I believe the text does indicate that the guards investigated because you have nothing to back up your unsubstantiated claims. This is nothing more than a smoke screen. The only thing you obliterated was your own strawman argument.

I quoted you and responded to your argument. The quote was verbatim and I quoted you in full. Nothing was left out or added in. I addressed your entire argument and showed how absurd it is.

If I quote you verbatim, and you say I obliterated a strawman, then it's quite clear which of us is not undersanding what a logical fallacy is.

Your inability to understand basic logical reasoning is not an indication of my failure to provide a plausible explanation as to why I believe the text indicates that the guards investigated the sepulcher. Your attempts to insert your views as mine is the reason for this failure. Answer this question; why did you agree that it was plausible, not once but multiple times, if it was not plausible?

You appear to be referring to post #427 where I say,

For your version of events to be plausible we need the guards to willfully remain there for a bare minimum of several minutes in a state of terror and then witness the angels leave and then look inside the tomb. Two thens, neither of which are plausible or recorded. The only other possibility I see is that they are so terrified that they faint and the angels are gone when they wake up - plausible because it fits the "like dead men" description - but it still doesn't explain why the women didn't see them.

You seem to not have noticed the part where I say, "BUT IT STILL DOESN'T EXPLAIN WHY THE WOMEN DIDN'T SEE THEM."

Once again, a segment of your version of events is plausible BUT there are gaping plot holes, so your version as a whole is NOT plausible. I never said your case is so weak that you can't even string together a sequence of two events without tripping over yourself. So yes, there is a string of events in your version which is plausible, BUT it still produces continuity issues.

You are taking me out of context, either accidentally or deliberately. Neither is acceptable. The latter, of course, means you're lying, as you are wont to do. As for the former, you said in post #143 in my "Choices in the Garden of Eden" thread that "In order for you to offer rebuttal in a debate you must read and understand your opponents post." At best, you do not seem to have bothered to read my post. Once again you chastise me for things which you engage in regularly.

That is your unsubstantiated view. You cannot provide one single coherent reason why it would be stupid of the author to do such. I wager that even if the author included a detail account of a full blown investigation it would not make one iota of a difference to unbelievers.

Firstly, your wager is an equally UNSUBSTANTIATED VIEW. Do you not see how your words look to other human beings?

Secondly, I think we've established that the resurrection story, at best, has gaps in continuity, or, at worst, has plot holes. If a story has no corroborating evidence AND has continuity issues, and yet the events are true, then the author of the story has done a very poor job.

This would be impossible because of your prejudices and unwillingness to acknowledge that your sole purpose in being here is to ridicule the beliefs of the people you disdain. You believe somehow that your views trump the views of the people on this forum and that is equivalent to you obliterating their views. There is nothing rational about that.

You began the ridicule here by telling me I need to read the text before making threads like this despite the fact that you had to pull your foot out of your mouth after such a hypocritical remark. The very first thing you said on this thread is found in post #108:

Had you bothered to read the accounts in Matthew then you would have seen that the answer was there.

You later follow that up by adding this in post #266:

Where does it say that the Pharisees believed a miracle occurred? Where does it say that the guards believed a miracle occurred and reported that occurance occurrence? All we can conclude from the Biblical account is that the guards witness an earthquake and noticed the stone sealing the sepulcher was no longer in place. When they investigated they saw that the sepulcher was empty.

This was your response to my remark:

Even more bizarre is the thought that the pharisees actually did believe the guards, that they did believe a miracle occurred, and somehow did not believe Jesus was Lord.

Aside from blundering all over my thread before bothering to read the account in question, you allow your factually erroneous answers to stand. In my red and bold paragraph above on this page, which you have ignored twice now, I'm asking this same question. Now that you've read the account in Matthew, you have no answer for it and it appears to be as implausible to you as it is to me. Before having read the account, your reasoning for why none of the priests believed in Jesus as Lord was because there was no miraculous event and the scene was more or less consistent with a grave robbery. This also explains your reasoning as to why the guards were able to look inside the tomb without the issue of the presence of the angel(s) and also it explains why there was no need for a second investigation. Because I agree that if the story involved nothing supernatural, then the guards' explanation to the priests would not require verification and there would be little need for another investigation.

So you initially had a reasonable version of events rattling around in your head, but when you actually took the time to read the narrative you saw that your version of events was factually in error and you also saw that the version you were reading was nonsensical and/or had plot holes, and you are so intellectually dishonest that you ignore these things and lob accusations of fallacy at me as if I won't notice that you've clearly IGNORED the new data that does not fit your model, or even any working model for that matter.

No, it was divine inspiration.

A divinely inspired story presented with continuity issues. OK.

Got anything other than sarcasm, lies and strawman arguments to show that the ones I gave are not “good ones”? No you do not. All you have is smoke and mirrors.

I've got nothing else for you because you are a dishonest and hypocritical debater, and because you refused to address my paragraph in bold and red twice. You deliberately redact and ignore the strongest points of my arguments in direct opposition to the principle of charity. You are a complete waste of time, and I'm out like Benedict XVI.