Sauron

Yes, but stating a precise question would remove Nomad's ability to twistfully obfuscate.

You can ask Nomad a lot of things, but asking him to deliberately eliminate the secret of his vanishing act; well, that's going too far.

joedad

Nomad,

Could you be more specific?

This "take over" event as you've called it must have a before and an after which we ought to be able to distinguish. No doubt you are referring primarily to Constantine. Yes?

So, tell me how the Roman Empire changed with Constantine's adoption of a new (christ) god. Give me something specific. Did it show more restraint, tolerance, compassion, strength, etc.? Did it show less of these? Please be specific. Otherwise, this "take over" as you've called it, is only a change in windrow dressing.

The reason I ask this question is because you no doubt believe that christianity and your god are the yardstick against which all of life ought to be somehow measured. I'm providing you with an opportunity to illustrate how christianity's gaining power at the very top of a powerful empire, changed that empire and in so doing illustrates historically the benefits of christianity and christian statecraft.

I'll be listening.

joe

Earl

NOMAD: So, one last time, if you do not have a theory as to what happened, this is cool. I am only interested in talking with those that did. That said, I am not interested in listening to mere assertions, as this is mere opinion offering without evidence, and is simply boring.

EARL: Who said I was talking to you in my last post? I was talking about a particular argument, and whether you think my objections are relevant or not is itself irrelevant. The relevance of my last post should be obvious. Drewjenna, the person who started this thread, said "As far as the resurrection discussion goes, I see two primary areas of discussion: the empty tomb and the appearances. In my opinion, there seem to be reasonable naturalistic explanations for the empty tomb, such as those provided by Jeffrey Jay Lowder in "Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story." With the other factors ignored, I can accept the possibility of Jesus being buried elsewhere or only temporarily buried in a tomb. However, the resurrection appearances seem to provide a much greater hurdle for the skeptic trying to disprove the resurrection of Jesus. I basically see four options for discounting the resurrection appearances. They will be listed here and discussed in the remainder of the essay…"

That alone makes discussion of the resurrection relevant in this thread. In any case, I was merely using the resurrection as an example of what I was mainly talking about, the question of whether Jesus' generation was "uniquely gullible." Thus I said at the end of that post, "Nomad's entire (fallacious) argument from popularity is defeated just by this issue of the burden of proof. I don't care how many people accepted Christianity without being coerced to do so. (But of course there was also coercion beginning with Constantine's laws against paganism, and prior to this there were only "Christian" heterodoxies not overwhelming popularity of any "Christianity.") I don't care how fast and how wide the religion spread. The spreading of a religion is simply not surprising to a skeptic. Religions are popular precisely because God is not around and life is so hard. It's simply a blatant non sequitor to say that Christianity's truth is in any way established by this religion's popularity. Yet we should expect that Nomad will continue to use this argument."

This most certainly is relevant to what Nomad has been saying in this thread. Nomad also said in his first post in this thread, "For myself, I have been hoping that someone would offer a competing theory to the Resurrection, and defend it, allowing us to examine the strength of such a theory." Then Nomad says "My experience has been that the great majority of sceptics do not believe that they need to offer any such thing."

In a later post in this thread Nomad said "In this thread it is taken as a given that the Resurrection did not take place. I am looking for what you think happened, and thus far all you have offered is that "they made it up" (lied), and people were credulous enough to believe it. This is pretty thin stuff, but if that is what you believe, so be it. I was, however, looking for something substantive…."

And later on in that post Nomad said "Now, Dennis, in a later post you told us that the sceptic does not have to offer an alternative, and you are correct. That said, some sceptics do have some serious theories and hypothesis' as to what happened during the foundation of Christianity. I am interested in talking with such individuals, and if you have something to contribute, please do so."

Look at the way Nomad frames the problem. There are those skeptics who don't offer alternative accounts of what happened, say, to Jesus' body, and then there are those with "serious theories." Actually, there are "serious" reasons why the skeptic needn't offer any competing theory. Moreover, what Nomad calls the "pretty thin stuff" is actually thicker than any miracle claim because miracle claims rest on mystery and the unknowable whereas naturalist claims are grounded in a well-tested theory of the universe. Perhaps Nomad can thicken the resurrection claim by telling us how Jesus was raised. On the other hand, we know from our personal experience that many people lie, are gullible, and so forth. Nomad's estimation of the weight of these competing claims is therefore backwards.

By "competing theory" Nomad assumes that were there no good alternative theories as to what happened to Jesus' body the traditional Christian explanation would win by default. (If he does not now assume this, then I'm talking about those theists who do.) This is a false dichotomy since the skeptic is free to remain agnostic not just about what happened to Jesus' body but even as to whether Jesus was executed or lived in the first place. Moreover, even if there were no good alternative accounts of the resurrection--something no skeptic need come close to admitting--that would not mean that belief in the resurrection is justifiable based on the evidence. Even if the resurrection account were the BEST explanation that wouldn't necessarily make this explanation good ENOUGH rationally to accept, given the very high burden of proof required to be met by those who appeal to miracles in their historical accounts. My point, then, is that Nomad (or at least the Nomad of earlier threads) sets up a false problem for the skeptic. Even if we were to grant everything Nomad wants in this context, that would still not make Christianity well supported. There just isn't anywhere near enough evidence to justify belief in the resurrection on its own.

Nomad says he's conceded in this thread for the sake of argument that the resurrection didn't happen. He's just "curious" to know what skeptics think happened. But there's simply no need for a skeptic to have a well-worked out rational reconstruction of every historical event the traditional religious account of which the skeptic rejects. Does the skeptic have to know exactly what DID happen in place of EVERY theistic account of some pseudo-historical event? The Christian says Jesus was born to a virgin. Does the skeptic have the burden to prove exactly how, when and where Jesus was born on pain of granting the virgin birth account as the default position? Certainly not. The theist has the burden to support her miracle claims with adequate evidence. The skeptic has NO burden of proof at all but can simply sit back and wait to see if sufficient proof comes her way from the theist who raises the spectacular claim in the first place.

Let's say the theist fails to come up with sufficient evidence. Does the skeptic then have to grant nevertheless that the miracle must have happened because there is no good alternative theory? Of course not. The underlying, quite dubious assumption here is that our knowledge of history and especially ancient history is perfect or even very good. What the theist needs to understand is that it's perfectly rational and appropriate BOTH to reject a miracle claim as insufficiently grounded by the evidence AND not to offer a competing account. It's perfectly plausible that no one knows what happened to a particular person on a particular day two thousand years ago. The lack of a good alternative theory simply does not warrant acceptance of the only remaining one if the latter were itself an insufficiently supported miracle claim. Like I said, Nomad's whole argument sinks on this issue of the burden of proof. If Nomad isn't now making this argument, then I'm addressing those theists who do, such as the early Nomad.

Luckily, though, there are plenty of satisfactory alternative accounts. Numerous ones have been offered in this thread and in others. Of course, these competing accounts need not themselves meet the same standard of evidence applied to a miracle claim. This is because there is a well-justified presumption against all miracle claims. Any naturalist competing claim already enjoys a wealth of initial support just by being naturalist, which is to say that naturalism is better supported by evidence than supernaturalism. What theists like the early Nomad want to do is pretend that naturalism hasn't toppled supernaturalism and thus shifted the burden of proof in these matters squarely on to the theist. Were we living several centuries ago, the burden of proof in general would have been on the naturalist, since supernaturalism would have enjoyed initial overwhelming plausibility. Naturalism would have been the competing account that had to meet a high burden of proof. This it did through Galileo, Newton (who was also a mystic), Darwin and the rest. Naturalism, the view that there very probably are no miracles, has won the day, leaving Nomad with the high burden of proof. Until he meets that burden belief in the resurrection will be rationally unjustified regardless of an absence of competing accounts.

[ December 06, 2001: Message edited by: Earl ]</p>

Kosh

VERY well said Earl.

I think the main problem here is that Nomad
comes here mired (dare I say raised? Don't know
his background)in Christian dogma. It's clear
from his perspective that is inconceivable to
think that the accounts in the Gospels could have
been mistaken. He stands at the center of the
Gospels and demand that we provide evidence to
show him wrong, when in fact it must be the
opposite.

Nowhere is this more evident than his reactions
to logical arguments. He gets, shall I say,
"exasperated" with our inability to see things
his way.

bd-from-kg

Earl

Although I obviously agree fully with your general argument, I think you were a bit imprecise in a couple of places, leaving openings for Christian apologists seeking to represent skeptics as unreasonable.

That’s not so. If it were the best explanation, it would be rational to accept it (unless there were a large number of almost equally good explanations). But of course it isn’t. I’m sure (especially in view of the rest of this sentence) that you meant “if it were the best explanation aside from the fact that it involves the absurdly implausible hypothesis that a dead man walked out of his own tomb, that wouldn’t be enough to justify rational belief” .

The first statement is true in a sense, but we have to be careful to say in what sense. There is nothing like adequate evidence for any specific miraculous event, and more importantly, every alleged miracle that has happened recently enough in circumstances that allowed a proper scientific investigation has proved to be bogus. Thus the theory that there are no miracles at all is well-supported at this time. That is, it has “won the day” in the sense that it is currently the best available theory. But no one has any idea what the probability is that it is true – i.e., that there are no miracles at all. Lots of well-supported theories have turned out to be false, and this one is an extremely sweeping generalization. However, the evidence is very strong that miracles are either nonexistent or very, very rare (at least in this corner of the universe). And this creates a very well-founded strong presumption against any particular miracle claim, which would therefore have to meet a very high burden of proof to justify rational belief.

The point that Nomad and other believers seem to overlook is that even if were granted that God exists and performs miracles from time to time, they would still have to show that He performed the particular miracle called the Resurrection. Given the evidence that God (even if He exists) chooses to perform miracles very, very rarely (if at all), and that there is no serious evidence that He chose to perform this particular miracle on any other occasion (with billions of opportunities to do so) the claim that He did so on this particular occasion must be treated with extreme skepticism.

I’m sure that this is what you meant, but it is best to state these things carefully to avoid the common Christian argument that the belief that the Resurrection (for example) did not occur is simply a corollary of the belief that no miracles are possible, and that in view of this belief, no amount of evidence whatsoever could convince a typical skeptic otherwise. If this were true, the skeptic’s disbelief in the Resurrection would be just as “unscientific” – just as unfalsifiable, if you will – as the Christian’s belief in it.

Nomad:

It’s obvious that the reason that you want to only look at alternative theories is so that, at the end of the day, you can say “See, none of these theories is very plausible. So why don’t you accept my theory?” But as Earl has pointed out, that’s not how it works. Even if your theory were plausible (i.e., if it did not involve dead mean walking out of their tombs and such) it would be irrational to accept it.

To see this, consider two cases: (1) Jones says that Smith came to his house for an uneventful visit last night. In this case I would accept Jones’s say-so unless I can think of a reason for him to lie about it that makes it more plausible that he lied than that he told the truth. (2) Smith is on trial for murder. In this case, to get a conviction the theory that the defendant did it must not merely be better than any competing theory; it must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The reason for this is that the stakes are very serious indeed. We are not going to hang Smith merely because the theory that he did it is the best available one, and certainly not merely because no one has come up with a plausible alternative theory (regardless of whether the theory that Smith did it is itself plausible). We are going to insist on strong positive evidence that he did it.

Now the Resurrection question is far more like the murder trial than the uneventful visit, because again the stakes are very serious indeed. The Christian is asking us to change our entire lives – to be “born again”, which involves the death of our “old selves” - and to make our lives revolve around the central reality of Jesus’ sacrifice. No rational person would even consider doing this if the Resurrection theory were merely the best of several possible theories. He’s going to demand strong positive evidence that it really happened.

But in fact your theory is not plausible. It does involve dead men walking out of their tombs and other claims that stretch credulity far past the breaking point. The idea that this is the most plausible theory is ludicrous. It’s not even on the list of the ten thousand most plausible theories.

What you’re trying to do can be illustrated by imagining a group of people who have never seen or heard of “magicians”, and who haven’t been told that they are really illusionists, watching a woman apparently being sawn in half and then reappearing in one piece. Let’s suppose they discuss what really happened. John has one theory, Jim another, and so on, all of them naturalistic but implausible (because they haven’t guessed the trick). Little Susie’s theory is that the lady really was sawn in half and was then magically put back together again. When the grownups scoff at her theory, she points out that they all agree that the other theories are pretty far-fetched, while no one has offered any objections to hers – so hers wins by default!

To play this game fairly, all theories have to be subjected to the same kind of critical scrutiny. You say that some theories of the Resurrection do not agree very well with how people have usually been observed to behave; well, yours does not agree very well with how matter has invariably been observed to behave. And the behavior of people varies from the “normal” regularly, whereas the behavior of matter doesn’t. You think it is implausible that many people would come to believe in the Resurrection if it didn’t happen; but it is far more implausible that a myriad of chemical processes that are always observed to go in one direction should all unaccountably start operating in reverse.

Also, you seem to be totally oblivious to the distinction between “eyewitness evidence” and “evidence of eyewitnesses”. In general there are only two kinds of evidence: physical evidence and testimony. Of these, the former is by far the most reliable. The latter always involves eyewitnesses: either the person giving the testimony is himself an eyewitness or he is reporting that someone else was an eyewitness. If all such evidence were called “eyewitness testimony”, the fact that something is eyewitness testimony would mean only that it was in the less reliable of the two major categories of evidence. But in fact only the first type – testimony by eyewitnesses – is eyewitness testimony; reports by others of what eyewitnesses said is called “hearsay”. You have consistently been misrepresenting the hearsay in the Bible as eyewitness testimony, in a transparent attempt to persuade the ignorant and gullible that it has far more evidentiary value than it does.

Hearsay is considered so unreliable that it is generally not even accepted as evidence in courts of law (whose business it is, after all, to sift out the truth, and whose rules of evidence have been honed over hundreds of years to this end). Also, testimony is considered more reliable if it is given as soon as possible after the events in question. And of course, anonymous “testimony” is almost totally worthless. Finally, if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a piece of evidence has been tampered with by interested parties, it is considered to have little if any evidentiary value. Anonymous hearsay recorded decades after the events, which is known to have been tampered with, is the weakest of all possible types of evidence.

The plain truth is that the evidence for the Resurrection is so poor that it would not suffice to obtain a judgment against my neighbor for making a small dent in my 15-year-old car, much less convince any rational person that he should change his entire life because a dead man supposedly walked out of his tomb two millennia ago.

Earl

Bd,

As usual it's nice doing business with you.

Your second comment directed to me I agree with completely. I think you reworded what I wanted to say when you said "However, the evidence is very strong that miracles are either nonexistent or very, very rare (at least in this corner of the universe). And this creates a very well-founded strong presumption against any particular miracle claim, which would therefore have to meet a very high burden of proof to justify rational belief."

The change that you wanted to make which indeed should be made is that there is a difference in saying "naturalism has won the day" and "naturalism cannot ever be overturned." I certainly did not mean to say the latter which is why I spoke of the supernaturalist's "high" burden of proof rather than her impossible one.

Regarding your first comment about a miracle claim as the "best explanation," what I meant to say is that a miracle claim could be trivially the best available explanation because of the lack of information supporting naturalist alternatives. If I offer as an explanation for the appearance of the present post the notion that I literally threw the words from the palm of my hand across the sky which then splattered onto your computer screen, there would of course be a better alternative account involving the internet. This is because we have no shortage of information about the particulars. We could check with my particular server, track this particular flow of information across the internet, and so forth.

However, let's say there's an ancient text that speaks of a man two thousand years ago jumping three miles into the air. In an important sense you're absolutely right that the miracle claim is not the best available explanation because of the strength of naturalism in general which leads to the very high burden of proof for miracle claims. But in a trivial sense, we might say that this miracle claim would be the best available explanation were there no contrary information about this man in particular and his jumping abilities. Sure, we could appeal to naturalist evidence in general against the very possibility of anyone jumping that high. Such evidence makes for the presumption against such a miracle claim in general, and for the especially high burden of proof for the claim's proponent. But we might lack evidence to support particular theories about what exactly did happen on the day in question to the man who allegedly jumped that high, and why the author wrote down the claim. In that trivial sense alone did I mean to say that a miracle claim could be the best available one but not independently well-supported by the evidence relative to the appropriate burden of proof.

As it so happens, there are alternative theories regarding what happened to Jesus' body in particular. The latter phrase, "in particular," is important because such theories as, say, Crossan's account of Jesus' non-burial are general but relate also to Jesus in particular. The problem is that these alternatives are not as strong as, say, the evidence that my post traveled through the internet to reach the computer screen of its readers. Crossan's alternative, for example, is not as strong as it could be because we lack specific evidence for what did happen on that day to that person Jesus who lived two thousand years ago. Sure, we know in general that a virgin birth is ridiculously improbable if not logically contradictory and impossible. But do we have a well-grounded account of how exactly Jesus WAS born rather than just how people in general ARE born? If not, due to the lack of evidence, someone might throw up a miracle claim that is trivially the "best" account of the particular event but may still be nowhere near rationally acceptable due to its especially high burden of proof.

Perhaps my point should be clarified with a distinction in terminology. Let's take "theory" to mean a general explanation about, say, internet posts in general or people's birth in general. And let's take "account" to mean a particular explanation about, say, my post's appearance on your particular computer screen at this particular time or Jesus' particular birth in that particular area two thousand years ago. Given this distinction, my point could be rephrased: a miracle account could be the best--because the only--explanation of some particular event without being good enough rationally to accept, given this account's failure to meet its appropriate burden of proof. The reason this account would have a high burden of proof is because of the well-grounded theory of naturalism, the explanation of things in general.

What I wanted to get across is that we shouldn't necessarily expect a well-supported alternative account, as opposed to theory, of what actually happened in place of every single theistic version of an event. We might simply lack enough evidence leaving room for god-of-the-gap "explanations."

My point is similar to your analogy about the magic trick and the lack of good competing accounts (not theories) of how the woman reappeared in one piece. In this case, the group lacks good alternative accounts and the miracle claim is trivially the "best" available explanation but still not necessarily anywhere near good enough rationally to accept. The reason for this is, as you said, because the claim happens to be a miracle claim or, in other words, because Little Susie's account has an especially high burden of proof to meet relative to the triumph of theoretical naturalism as the general, over-riding explanation of events.

****

Just to put to rest any question about whether the early Nomad argued that because there are no good alternative accounts the Christian claim about the resurrection wins by default, here are some quotations from an earlier debate with Nomad. I've inserted some comments within square brackets.

All from "Theoretical Foundation of Christianity" at:

<a href="http://ii-f.ws/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=28&t=000336&p=4" target="_blank">http://ii-f.ws/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=28&t=000336&p=4</a>

From Nomad's November 10, 2000 08:58 PM post:

NOMAD: I think that there really is only one way to discredit Christianity, and that is to prove that the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth never happened.

The problem for the skeptic in this area, in my view does not come from arguing over whether or not these events make logical sense from our theistic, or non-theistic point of view. Quite simply, the events either happened more or less as described in the Gospels and epistles of the New Testament, or they did not.

And if they did happen as related to us by the Bible, then all we are left with is trying to uncover why it happened.

So if I may, I would like to focus on two possibilities.

1) The Gospels are legendary, and not true. The Resurrection (at least) never happened. On what basis would you prove this contention? What is your alternative theory as to what DID happen (since something obviously did happen)? Let's see how it stacks up.

2) The events described are more or less true. Jesus lived, he died on the cross, and he rose again from the dead. This is what confronted the disciples, and every one of the witnesses. What is your reaction? PintoXtreme has already related what happened to me. Once I realized that Jesus died, and rose again, I had to believe that He was God. What other rational choice do we have?

Take either tact, I am interested in the replies. Offer a counter theory that you think works, or explain how to respond to the fact of the resurection of a man circa 30AD.

[EARL: Notice Nomad's clear dichotomy: there are attempts to prove that the resurrection did not happen and that something in particular happened instead, and then there's the resurrection claim. The skeptic must take one of these two routes. But this is false. The skeptic need NOT offer any alternative account and can say instead that the evidence is insufficient to know what happened in particular to Jesus' body in that particular place in those particular circumstances at that particular time. We can easily enough offer the naturalist theory but not necessarily a naturalist account (see my above distinction between "theory" and "account"). The lack of good alternative accounts does NOT mean the resurrection claim is itself well-grounded relative to its especially high burden of proof. Nomad's dichotomy is, therefore, false, because the skeptic can both reject the resurrection account and--for the very good reason about the poverty of the evidence in general--not give any alternative, well-supported account.]



From Nomad's November 15, 2000 05:11 PM post:

NOMAD: Christianity tells us what happened. Yes it is incredible. Yes it strains credulity (including the credulity of the ancients, just look at what they were saying about it). It doesn't even appear to line up with the Jews themselves believed about the Messiah. Yet it happened, and it prospered, and it continues to draw adherents by the millions. This is a great puzzle, and one that I think more skeptics need to think about much more deeply.

[EARL: Even if this were a great puzzle, that wouldn't justify Nomad's false dichotomy between either (1) accepting the Christian account of the resurrection or (2) supporting an alternative account with sufficient evidence. There simply might not be enough evidence adequately to support ANY account of those early events.]



From Nomad's November 14, 2000 06:58 PM post to faded_glory,

FADED GLORY: This begs the question of why people believe it to be historical rather than made-up.

NOMAD: There really is only one explanation (considering the idea of the resurrection of a body that has been dead a few days is outside of the worldview of any person alive at the time that it happened).

The only possible explanation is that it really did happen as described by the witnesses. If you have another theory, I would very seriously like to hear what it is….

[EARL: Again, Nomad sets up the false dichotomy. The resurrection is, according to the early Nomad, the "only possible explanation" by default, meaning (falsely) that the event "really did happen" given the lack of alternative accounts.]

On the other hand, if we simply view the evidence as presented and available to us with a minimum of preconceived ideas and opinions about what actually happened, we are left with the following at the very least:

1) Jesus lived
2) Jesus was crucified and died on the cross
3) The tomb He was buried in was found empty
4) Every single witness to the events says that they saw Him risen and alive.
5) These witnesses founded a Church that survived, prospered, and came to dominate first an empire, and then a large portion of the world, all in a relatively short historical time frame.

These facts need an explanation. Christianity offers the only one that makes any sense to me, and to a great many people. I am open to other theories however, and would like to hear what they are.

[EARL: Nomad has more than just preconceived ideas; he has the preconception of religious faith. I think there's reasonable doubt about most of the statements above, 1-5. But notice again Nomad's attempt to shift the burden of proof. The skeptic need not offer any alternative account, as opposed to theory, about any of these alleged 5 facts. The theist is the one with the burden to support the Christian explanation with sufficient evidence relative to the especially high burden of proof for miracle claims. Even if the Christian account were the only available one--which it isn't--that wouldn't mean the resurrection claim is independently well-supported by the evidence. Notice also the way Nomad puts forward the false dichotomy in the last paragraph. Christianity is the only explanation that makes sense, but we always have the option of offering an alternative account--as if the lack of such an alternative account would itself be evidence in favour of Christianity. No, the Christian has her very own, independent and appropriately very high burden of proof to meet which she does not.]



From Nomad's November 15, 2000 03:29 PM post to me:

NOMAD: So, again, I am asking people to seriously challenge the claims that led to the foundation and propogation of Christianity and its worldview, or withdraw from the thread.

[EARL: Again, notice Nomad's language. The alternative accounts have to "challenge" the Christian one. This is to say that the Christian account wins by default. It doesn't. The Christian not the skeptic has the burden of proof in this case and the Christian fails to meet that burden of proof. The Christian account is as thin as can be precisely because it appeals to miracles. Since the Christian fails to meet this appropriate burden, the skeptic can reject the Christian account without offering any alternative one. The two are entirely separate, rejecting the Christian account and supporting an alternative one with sufficient evidence. Nomad erects a false dichotomy, ignoring the third option of (1) rejecting the resurrection claim on independent grounds having to do with the Christian's especially high burden of proof relative to the very well-supported THEORY, not the account, of naturalism, and (2) remaining agnostic about what exactly did happen in the case of early Christianity, not offering any alternative ACCOUNT due to insufficient evidence. The events did, after all, happen two thousand years ago!]

[ December 08, 2001: Message edited by: Earl ]</p>

NOGO

How did Christianity come about?
The question is obviously asked based on the belief that it could not have come about through natural means. That is, humans on their own could not have started Christianity.

Well I have a question.
On the day of the resurection Matthew says that Mary went to the tomb at dawn and it was still sealed. There was an earthquake and an angel came down from Heaven rolled the stone away and sat on it. He then told Mary that Jesus had resurrected and that He would see his disciples in Galilee and also to go and tell the others. Mary leaves the tomb a bit frightened but happy to know that Jesus had resurrected. Jesus appears to them later that day in Galilee but some doubted.

John says that Mary went to the tomb while it was still dark. The tomb was already open and empty. She returned to tell the others believing that someone had stolen the body. She meets John and Peter and the three return to the tomb. John and Peter see the empty tomb and leave. Mary then recognized Jesus which she first mistook for the gardner.

Luke tells us that the disciples saw Jesus that same night in Jerusalem.

My question (to NOMAD) is this.
When the disciples went out with this story to convince people that Christianity was true and that Jesus died for their sins and then resurrected HOW IS IT THAT NOONE spotted this immense contradiction in the resurrection story?
Noone spotted it and noone corrected it. This says something about the kind of people who got converted. 2000 years later the contradiction stands and people still believe.

That is how Christianity came about and will continue.

Benjamin Franklin

Hi Nogo

I started a thread called Easter Challenge debating this contradiction. It seems to have disappeared and I don't know how get it back (hopefully someone enlighten me)

Anyway the debate about this contradiction between me and Polycarp can be found in this KJV vs NIV thread

<a href="http://ii-f.ws/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000878&p=" target="_blank">http://ii-f.ws/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000878&p=</a>

The apologist argument is that the meeting in Galilee is not the first one after the resurrection and my argument is that when Matthew is read in context, it has to be the first one.

You can read the rest of details in the thread.

Muad'Dib

In the forum view, there is a selection field that says, "Show topics from last 20 days." Change that to an appropriate value and hit GO, then use the page numbers to find the topic you're looking for.

Kosh

Just a side note about this topic and something
I was thinking about today. As with Pearl Harbor,
they were saying that you'll always remember what
you were doing on Sept 11. And I think this ties
in nicely with the "how could the resurection
have been exagerated" question.

I first heard about the WTC attacks as I got out
of the shower. My wife said she'd heard on
the radio about a plane crashing into the WTC.
At the time, I pictured a small cessna or something.

I was riding the Harley to work that day, so
I had no radio contact as I headed off. After
15 minutes of commute (total 30 since I'd first
heard), I stopped into a grocery store near
work to get some cash. The buzz there was that
six planes had been hijacked and crashed, including two into the pentagon.

Now, here we have a case of a very newsworthy
event, and in just 30 minutes the truth has
already been distorted. And this in an age where
people can watch TV and get the facts corrected.


Imagine what it would be like in the middle east,
2000 years ago, with no technology to set the
facts straight, just word of mouth. Here we have
and example of how things can get distorted in
just 30 minutes. Try 40 years! (to the date of
the earliest Gospel).