J-D

I don't know what you're referring to. I'd need more details to judge.

J-D

But this is so very basically wrong. Detectives often know who is innocent without knowing who is guilty. Edison knew many things that would not work as filaments for an electric light bulb well before he found out what would. Often I find myself trying to solve a problem with a computer: I try something and establish that it doesn't work, even though I still don't know what will work. A blood test reveals that X is not the father of Y, but leaves us ignorant about who is the father of Y. So long as your argument rests on this basic error it's going to be worthless.

aa5874

Detectives may suspect that someone is innocent but would not rule out the possibility of guilt even without evidence.

But, a detective's knowledge of guilt or innocence must be based on evidence not on imagination or suspicion.

Please, tell me what is a detective's knowledge of resurrections.

Are you implying that Edison was just working in the dark? Edison knew the answer he just had to find the material. He needed a piece of wire that glowed when an electric current was applied.

So, please enlighten me on how Edison would use that process of elimination to find the answer for the text of the resurrection.

Again, please tell me how can it be that, after having established that something did not work on your computer, and that you don't know what will work, you can still try to claim to know the solution that is possibly correct.

It is obvious you don't know what you are saying.

You admit that you don't know why the resurrection was written, how could you possibly know the correct answer?

Your statement is just totally illogical and self contradictory.




You mean that there was a BLOOD-TEST done on JESUS and His FATHER after the resurrection? I did not know that.

But, please tell me, after the blood-test made you ignorant, did you still claim that you know the correct father or son? Or why the father had a son?

And you have totally missed your own argument. Whether or not the resurrection took place is irrelevant, it is the reason for the resurrection as written that you are querying and claiming that you know the answers that are possibly correct while admitting that you don't know the answer.

Only the authors of the resurrection can give you the answers and they did.

Please read the Pauline Epistles and the Gospels for the answers to the resurrection, just like detectives would examine a confession when there is no physical evidence, no eyewitnesses, no computer data, no Edison, nor DNA

J-D

Imagine this.

I put three beads in an opaque bag.

One of them is grey, one of them is orange, and one of them is purple.

I ask you to reach into the bag and bring exactly one of the beads out without showing it to me.

I then reach into the bag myself, feel around, and find that there are exactly two beads in it. This confirms that you took exactly one of the beads, but at this point I have no idea which one. There are three logical possibilities: you may have the grey bead, you may have the orange bead, or you may have the purple bead.

Now I take one of the beads out and look at it. It's the grey bead. Now I can rule out the possibility that you took the grey bead. That leaves two possibilities. I now know that one of the original logical possibilities, that you took the grey bead, is not the case, and I know this even though I still don't know which is the correct answer: that you took the orange bead or that you took the purple bead.That they don't happen. It is not possible for somebody to die and then return to life. That is the logical possibility I am excluding, because we know it is not in fact a possibility.I don't know. I don't know how anybody would do it. I know that we can eliminate the possibility that somebody actually died and then came back to life, but I don't know how to choose between the other possibilities.It depends on what the problem is. For example, if I click one button and it doesn't work, it's still possible that clicking a different button might work. If I can't find the option I'm looking for in one sub-menu, that might still leave other sub-menus as possibilities.I didn't say what you cite me as saying. There is no contradiction in what I actually said.And I did not mean that.I wasn't talking about any actual case, only about the general principle.No, I'm not. I never asked why the resurrection happened, because I know perfectly well that it never did happen.There are no 'authors of the resurrection', for the excellent reason that there was no resurrection. There are only authors of stories about a resurrection, and like most authors of stories, they don't tell you in the story why they wrote the story, or any part of it. In most stories you will not find an explanation of why the author wrote the story. Nowhere in Northanger Abbey, for example, is there any explanation of why Jane Austen wrote Northanger Abbey, or of why she gave the main character the name of Catherine Morland, or of why part of the story is set in Bath, or of why she gave the story a (mostly) happy ending, or, in short, of most of the features of the novel. Near the end she does give an explanation of one or two features, but this is notable precisely because it is unusual for somebody writing a story to do that.There is no confession. Since we know that nobody does die and then come back to life again, we must by inescapable logic conclude that a story about somebody dying and coming to life again must originate either with somebody consciously making up a false story or with somebody mistakenly coming to a false conclusion, but nowhere in the Pauline Epistles or in the Gospels does anybody confess to having done either of these things.

aa5874

Now, apply this three colored-ball-theory to the text of the resurrection!

Again, whether you think the resurrection occurred or not does not answer the question. Some people believe that Jesus was a God, the creator, and could resurrect.

You keep on repeating the same thing over and over. Saying the resurrection did NOT happen is irrelevant.


[b]There are REAL HUMAN authors of the text that Jesus resurrected and the reasons can be found in the very text.


I told YOU to read the Pauline Epistles and the Gospels. The detectives will deal with the confession.

Again, you have failed to take into account that the authors of the text may have believed they were writing the truth.

The Pauline writer may have had visions that JESUS resurrected and the reasons for the resurrection was revealed to him. And he just simply wrote the text.

And further, in stories of fiction, it must be the authors who have all the answers for the texts of their fictitious characters and events.

I have a book of fiction in front of me, a character got killed, where would you expect me to look for the reasons the character was killed?

In the book!

No?

The book is fiction so no-body died .The author is irrelevant? There can be no reason?

It must be Homer for text of Achilles. The NT authors for the text of the resurrected God/man.

J-D

That depends what the question is. Which question are you talking about?I know that. But they're wrong. Do you disagree?I know that. I said that.Again, that depends. The reason for what?On the contrary, I already said exactly that. But if they believe that, when it can't have been true, then why did they believe that?That is one among a number of possibilities. And if that were the case, it would give rise to the question: 'Why did the writer have those visions?'Again, it depends which kind of questions you're talking about.Again, it depends on which kind of question you're talking about. The question 'Why did Professor Moriarty kill off Sherlock Holmes in "The Final Problem"?' has a different answer from the question 'Why did Arthur Conan Doyle kill off Sherlock Holmes in "The Final Problem"?' The answer to the first question can be found in the text; the answer to the second can't.If a book is entirely fictional then it does not describe the real deaths of any real people, by definition. But if it is not entirely fictional, it may describe the real deaths of real people.The relevance of the author depends on what the question is.I never said that. I've always said there must be a reason.

aa5874

The same question for which you claim that you don't know the answer but know the possible answers

"The Final Problem" is a work of fiction, yet you NOW admit that the answer for why the Professor killed off Sherlock Holmes is in the text.

Well the Pauline author gave reasons for the resurrection of Jesus in the text. According to the Pauline writer Jesus resurrected to save mankind from sin.

But, Paul is the supposed writer in the Epistles, he is the one who wrote about the resurrection. He claimed he and over 500 people saw Jesus in a resurrected state.

Paul must have been lying but he did give a reason for the resurrection in the text.

The reason must come from the author, he wrote the story.

You can no longer deny that the PAULINE WRITER did give reasons for his resurrection story although he appeared to be a fiction writer and participated in the very fiction that he fabricated.

I hope you did NOT expect Paul to say that he wrote that Jesus resurrected to deceive.

dog-on

I am referring to the sources for Mark.

You don't see these sources as evidence that Mark was not writing history?

J-D

I don't think it is the same question. I don't know what makes you so sure that it is. Which question are you talking about? Why won't you restate it?Of course it is. Not only do I say that now, I've never said anything to the contrary.Yes, that's the answer to the in-story question. But it isn't the answer to the real-world question of what inspired the authors to write what they did.I know. So what?I don't see how you can know that he must have been lying. When people write things that are false, it is sometimes because they're lying, but it's sometimes because they're sincerely mistaken, and it's also sometimes because they write with the intention that what they write not be taken as fact. You haven't given any reason I can see for the conclusion that Paul must have been lying.Yes, the in-story reason. But that doesn't tell us why he wrote what he wrote. Even if you're right that he was lying, that doesn't tell us why he was lying.In-story reasons for in-story actions can only come from authors, but the same is not true of reasons for authors' own real-world actions.I never did deny that the authors gave in-story reasons.Of course not. Why would you even ask that question?

J-D

I just told you that I don't know what you're referring to and I'd need more details to judge. You haven't given any more details, so I still can't judge.