Please Make This Make Sense?

[POI]

According to John 20, Mary went to the tomb and finds it empty. It is clear that she is presented to be alone here, as John 20:1 only mentions Mary, and also that John 20:2 states that she ran, rather than stating that they ran. Alternatively, Matthew 28:1 states Mary was with another, and also that Matthew 28:8 states that they left.

Theists will argue, "well, some of these (small) details don't really matter. All that really matters is that Jesus was found missing and later appeared to others." For which a skeptic might reply... "It does matter because Christians argue that THIS collection of events is said to be the most important storyline presented within mankind's history. If the believers cannot even get the basic set of accounts consistent, then why should the skeptic lend credence to ANY of the Bible's claims?"

For debate: Since the Biblical accounting of events is not reliable, where it is argued to matter the most, (via the storyline surrounding a resurrection event), why should a skeptic still take this collection of books seriously?

[POI]

1) I don't really see an objective difference between "ordinary" and "extraordinary" claims. I know these terms are used a lot on the internet, but it seems at best a difference of degree, rather than kind. But I suspect that difference has more to do with one's background assumptions than the claim itself.

2) Is the claim of the resurrection more or less "extraordinary" than the claim of materialism? I don't think the answer is clear enough that either side can rightly claim that the other is making extraordinary claims.

1) I guess specifics are in order to distinguish the difference between what could objectively be considered and "ordinary claim" verses an "extraordinary claim"? How about claims comporting with naturalism alone verses (super)naturalism claims, just for staters? I have experienced countless naturalistic events but have yet to experience a single claimed (super)natural event. And yet, others have made claims to being part of (super)natural event(s). But any time those claims to the (super)natural are investigated, let's just say the provided 'evidence' always comes up lacking?

2) Yes. A resurrection claim would objectively fit within the "(super)natural", as naturalism contends that the decomposition process cannot be reversed. If a Jesus rose from his grave, and the tomb is empty and he later appeared to many, he would present as a partially decomposed 'zombie-like' figure roaming around. And in reading the Gospel accounts, I trust we both agree that if a Jesus really returned, he did not 'appear' to many in a zombie-like looking state?

I suppose that would depend a lot on the details.

Okay, for the basis of <this> discussion, we are discussing the (details) surrounding the claim that a rotting corpse rose again and appeared to many. For this claim, how many (a) uncorroborated and/or b) inconsistent) details surrounding this claim merits its dismissal -- (2, 3, 8)?

a)? Please enter a numerical value
b)? Please enter a numerical value

Frankly, any event is miraculous by some understandings of the word.

I disagree. When following this storyline, had Jesus been placed upon a meat spit for display to all, (which was not too uncommon in those times and in that area), suffered and died, and then was buried or chucked into a mass grave, for which he just rotted there ever more, this would not merit a 'miraculous' claim at all. Countless dead bodies remain in their tombs/holes and rotting.

Alternatively, once you add the one twist, where he instead is said to rise again 1-3 days later, that is where the "miraculous" enters into the equation. As stated above, rotting bodies do not un-rot. This would be where the 'miraculous' occurs. Hence, I'd say a "miraculous" claim would include, but maybe not be exclusive to, (defying the laws of physics, chemistry, and/or biology).

I was (admittedly obliquely) referring to the fact that these cultures weren't particularly impressed by the testimony of women. If John were trying to pad his book with impressive testimony, I'm not convinced that this is the place he'd have chosen to do it.

I would agree. "The Bible" itself thinks lesser of women verses men -- (but I digress). But for the storyline to even be believable, the women were the ones who spiced the dead bodies in those days. So, the (woman or women) had to be the one(s) who discovered that the body was missing.

Apologists navigate John's "account" as him wanting to focus on Mary. Which is why the other woman or women were not mentioned. But why? As stated above, were these women going to be around for later questioning, for the ones who did not yet believe, after John's account - (which only included the one lady)?

Assuming you now just concede that John's account was not exclusive to believers (via the given purpose issued in John 20:30-31), including all 'witnesses' would add more "merit" to the claim. Did skeptics have access to depose the (woman or women) claimed to have been there? And if so, why weren't the other women mentioned in his account, while more were included in all other accounts?

This is doubly true, given how many unknown variables there are with respect to the genesis of this text.

I know, right? I mean, just for starters, who goes to spice a rotting corpse, for which they already knew that they cannot roll away the big and heavy stone door for? The apologetic excuse here is that the women did not have enough time to spice him prior to the start of ceremonial(s) and then had to wait until afterwards.

I'm certainly not claiming to know John's mind here, so that is possible in the sense that any of a number of readings are possible. But I've never found this claim to be a very strong one—certainly not strong enough that one can be deeply confident about exactly how John would narrate the empty tomb story.

Well, we do not need to break out the "secret decoder" pen here, as John 20:30-31 expresses the purpose of the book.

*****************************

I will be away for a bit on vacation. Will talk again soon.

[POI]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #19]

You seriously need to detox yourself off of POI 'bruh'. I'm not engaging you, it's the opposite. You engage me. And I gave you the clear and concise roadmap as to what exactly will convert me (in the other thread). I also gave you ample opportunity to do it. But since you know the facts, in that you both will not and cannot do that, you will instead just continue to huff and puff. I have no more time for your shenanigans Venom. Place your money where your mouth is, or be gone.

No one here is coming to be 'converted', based upon being defeated in a debate. If that were simply the case, conversion would be happening all over the place.

Just let it go Venom. Which-is-to-mean, this weird obsession with me.

[POI]

[Replying to Mr E in post #20]

LOL! Thanks. Please re-read what I asked. Or better yet, I'll just rephrase it here...

Many scholars and biblical commentators argue that Mary Magdalene (and the other women) made more than one trip to the tomb on Easter morning.

I'll be away vacation for a bit. I look forward to your less sarcastic response here.

[Mr E]

[Replying to POI in post #23]

Less sarcastic isn't on my Bingo card and I guess reading comprehension isn't on yours? I answered your question specifically regarding Mary visiting twice.

Signed,
Captain Obvious

(have a nice vacation)

[POI]

[Replying to Mr E in post #24]

LOL! The pushback is that none of them stayed, and that they all came back. This presents with problems. I'll address it when I get back.

[Jester]

1) I guess specifics are in order to distinguish the difference between what could objectively be considered and "ordinary claim" verses an "extraordinary claim"? How about claims comporting with naturalism alone verses (super)naturalism claims, just for staters?

There's the crux of it, then. If we're starting from the assumption that supernatural claims are "extraordinary", and that naturalism is "ordinary" (not needing any real support to be embraced), then it's no wonder that we conclude on a naturalist philosophy. That was baked into our initial assumptions. The only thing left to do, in that case, is to abandon our pretense of objectivity about the question.

I suppose I should address this, however:

I have experienced countless naturalistic events but have yet to experience a single claimed (super)natural event.

But this is another begging of the question. Many have put forward arguments that common experiences are not natural (arguments based on "the hard problem of consciousness" come to mind). If we're going to make the rather bold claim that we've never experienced a supernatural event, we're claiming to have dealt with those arguments. I'd be skeptical of this approach.

And yet, others have made claims to being part of (super)natural event(s). But any time those claims to the (super)natural are investigated, let's just say the provided 'evidence' always comes up lacking?

I've asked many who claim that there is no evidence for God's existence what definition of evidence is being used to make that determination. So far, I've only gotten a list of examples—never a definition (or even an attempt at one).
This seems like another case of baking in a conclusion. It's easy to demand evidence for any philosophical position. I've seen very little in favor of materialism, but the materialists I know seem unbothered by that, even as they demand evidence of other views.

2) Yes. A resurrection claim would objectively fit within the "(super)natural", as naturalism contends that the decomposition process cannot be reversed. If a Jesus rose from his grave, and the tomb is empty and he later appeared to many, he would present as a partially decomposed 'zombie-like' figure roaming around. And in reading the Gospel accounts, I trust we both agree that if a Jesus really returned, he did not 'appear' to many in a zombie-like looking state?

As above, this reading seems to start with a presumption of naturalism. Thus, it doesn't surprise me that it concludes to naturalism.

Okay, for the basis of <this> discussion, we are discussing the (details) surrounding the claim that a rotting corpse rose again and appeared to many. For this claim, how many (a) uncorroborated and/or b) inconsistent) details surrounding this claim merits its dismissal -- (2, 3, 8)?

Dismissal? I'm not sure of an exact number, but definitely more than we've discussed.
I've tried not to hammer too hard on the point, but I've yet to see one. Given what I know of ancient biography, none the claims we've discussed has been established as either uncorroborated or inconsistent.

Frankly, any event is miraculous by some understandings of the word.

I disagree. When following this storyline, had Jesus been placed upon a meat spit for display to all, (which was not too uncommon in those times and in that area), suffered and died, and then was buried or chucked into a mass grave, for which he just rotted there ever more, this would not merit a 'miraculous' claim at all. Countless dead bodies remain in their tombs/holes and rotting.

In terms of likelihood, I don't yet have a reason to conclude that this is more probable, given what we know, than an actual resurrection—so long as I don't start from the assumption that a resurrection is automatically less likely than any natural event I could name.
But, if I were to start from that assumption, then my objection has nothing to do with the text, or even empirical consideration. It is simply a philosophical commitment to naturalism.

That would be fine, if naturalism were supported in the terms that we expect of competing philosophies (theism or whatever), but I haven't yet seen evidence of that.

Hence, I'd say a "miraculous" claim would include, but maybe not be exclusive to, (defying the laws of physics, chemistry, and/or biology).

I'd actually deny that scientific laws need to be broken for a hypothetical event to be miraculous. All that would be needed is the universe being an open system and an outside source of energy.

But for the storyline to even be believable, the women were the ones who spiced the dead bodies in those days. So, the (woman or women) had to be the one(s) who discovered that the body was missing.

Are we sure? There are exceptions to every practice.

In general, we need to decide whether we believe:
1) John was willing to distort what he heard from outside sources in order to bolster his credibility, or
2) He was not.

If 1, then one wonders why he didn't simply claim that men were among the discoverers (someone who happened to come along for some outside reason). If 2, then all the talk about how he would definitely included other women (in spite of the fact that we don't know exactly what his source told him) is speculation at best.

Either way, I don't see much force in the "John would have mentioned more women" argument.

Let's break up this next section:

This is doubly true, given how many unknown variables there are with respect to the genesis of this text.

I know, right? I mean, just for starters, who goes to spice a rotting corpse,

An embalmer, I should think.

for which they already knew that they cannot roll away the big and heavy stone door for?

By themselves. I'd always assumed that they'd planned on asking for help from the household when they got there.

The apologetic excuse here is that the women did not have enough time to spice him prior to the start of ceremonial(s) and then had to wait until afterwards.

Why are we confident that this is an excuse? Do we know for certain that there was time for the embalming process on the day of his death?

I'm open to considering many possibilities other than the standard view. I'm much more skeptical, however, of the idea that we should accept them uncritically. If we care about evidence, it should be required here as well.

In general, I think this tone of confidence is out of sync with the amount of evidence that we actually have that they would have had ample time and resources to finish the embalming on the first day.

I'm certainly not claiming to know John's mind here, so that is possible in the sense that any of a number of readings are possible. But I've never found this claim to be a very strong one—certainly not strong enough that one can be deeply confident about exactly how John would narrate the empty tomb story.

Well, we do not need to break out the "secret decoder" pen here, as John 20:30-31 expresses the purpose of the book.

We're going to have to use a real secret decoder pen if we want to get from "John's trying to present a convincing case" to "John definitely would have added more women".

In fact, I find your proposal here genuinely confusing. If we're so sure that this is what he would do, why (on your view) didn't he? You don't seem to think it is a commitment to honesty that stayed his hand—so why did he choose to mention only Mary?

I will be away for a bit on vacation. Will talk again soon.

Everything else aside, have a great time. I hope all is well.

[RBD]

According to John 20, Mary went to the tomb and finds it empty. It is clear that she is presented to be alone here, as John 20:1 only mentions Mary, and also that John 20:2 states that she ran, rather than stating that they ran. Alternatively, Matthew 28:1 states Mary was with another, and also that Matthew 28:8 states that they left.

Theists will argue, "well, some of these (small) details don't really matter. All that really matters is that Jesus was found missing and later appeared to others."

Some 'theists' may say that, whatever a 'theist' is. But Christians knowing Jesus Christ and His words, will study for the truth:

Jhn 16:13
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:

For which a skeptic might reply... "It does matter because Christians argue that THIS collection of events is said to be the most important storyline presented within mankind's history.

True enough. Though all Scriptures are important, since all Scriptures are inspired by Jesus Christ.

If the believers cannot even get the basic set of accounts consistent, then why should the skeptic lend credence to ANY of the Bible's claims?"

Also true in a sense. Though it's not about Christians getting the Bible right, since any reader can do so with objective and critical honesty. But it's absolutely true that if any Scriptural record is erroneous, then none of the Bible can be accepted as true.

Fair play of course would mean that all the bible can be true, if none of the record is in error...

For debate: Since the Biblical accounting of events is not reliable, where it is argued to matter the most, (via the storyline surrounding a resurrection event), why should a skeptic still take this collection of books seriously?

For debate would be if vs since. It's not a debate with anyone already concluding one way or the other.

In any case, John 20 records Mary coming to the tomb in the dark early before morning. Matthew 28 has Mary with others coming in the early morning light.

Any record can be accused of error by ignoring certain words, and only selecting other words that look out of place without them. Which is always the case when taking words out of context.

[RBD]

Are you aware of a reason why this passage should be interpreted in such a way as to conclude that unmentioned people were definitely not present?

The context and language is that she was alone in the dark. Which Mark 16 confirms she was the first to see the Lord alive, and was at the tomb. With all the later visits to the tomb, it would be hard to think she was the 'first in line'.

Also, when all of the women are recorded seeing Jesus, it's only after departing the tomb and seeing Him altogether at the same time.

I expect that others would stress that differences in detail is generally taken as a sign of authenticity.

Difference in detail is what disproves the claim of the Author being the perfect Almighty God inspiring every detail of Scripture.

And the only way errors of detail can be authentic, is authentic errors of detail by the Author.

Suspecting errors by the writers and later scribes, only white-washes the recorded errors. Either all the Scriptures written from Gen 1-Rev 22 are perfectluy inspired by the Lord Jesus Christ, or they're mistaken.

If the believers cannot even get the basic set of accounts consistent, then why should the skeptic lend credence to ANY of the Bible's claims?

I'm not sure how a skeptic could lend credence to Biblical claims. Humans don't lend credence; arguments do that.

Humans do the arguing. So any reader can argue for consistency or error.

Act 17:11
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

This mistake seems to be shifting the general question from weighing theistic and non-theistic accounts of reality against each other

This mistake?? Are you agreeing the written record is mistaken? Are you one of those that say some of these (small) details don't really matter?

Any mistake in Scripture matters entirely. It proves all Scripture is not inspired by Jesus Christ, and if not all, then which is? Calls to believe all that is written in the Scriptures as true, becomes hollow:

Luk 24:27
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

The claim that the biblical accounting of events is not reliable is question begging. This claim needs to be established before it can be taken as the basis for debate.

But you already have concluded there's a mistake, haven't you?

Rather, the person who is skeptical of the bible should put forth an account of reality that he believes to be superior to the biblical account,

Which anyone is free to do, if the written record is mistaken.

When a Book's authenticity is based upon it's inerrancy, then any fallen dominoes fells them all...The whole house of cards collapses by any fractured stone;

Mat 7:26
And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

Bible authenticity is the house of God's words, that is either built upon the perfectly solid and true Rock Christ Jesus, and stands against all challenges and accusations of error, or it's just another sandy beach of men's fables and fantastic legend:


2Pe 1:16
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

After some discussion, one hopes that it will become clear which view is better supported.

The fact that John 20 records Mary at the tomb in the dark before dawn, and Matthew 28 records Mary with others at the tomb in the dawning light, clears up any supposed conflict between activities in the dark, vs later activities in the morning.

[Jester]

The context and language is that she was alone in the dark. Which Mark 16 confirms she was the first to see the Lord alive, and was at the tomb. With all the later visits to the tomb, it would be hard to think she was the 'first in line'.

If you mean to say that she was alone in this moment, that is plausible. I was asking whether she was said to be alone for the entire trip, as the OP claims.

I expect that others would stress that differences in detail is generally taken as a sign of authenticity.

Difference in detail is what disproves the claim of the Author being the perfect Almighty God inspiring every detail of Scripture.

I'm not sure that it does, nor am I sure why we can insist that God is the author of these books. Setting aside the debate over religion, that is more of a muslim view of scripture than one that I'd recognize from the christian scholars I know. I'd say that this is mostly irelevant.

I'm not sure how a skeptic could lend credence to Biblical claims. Humans don't lend credence; arguments do that.

Humans do the arguing. So any reader can argue for consistency or error.

Agreed, the question is whether any particular argument is a strong one.

This mistake seems to be shifting the general question from weighing theistic and non-theistic accounts of reality against each other

This mistake?? Are you agreeing the written record is mistaken? Are you one of those that say some of these (small) details don't really matter?

"This mistake" refers to the original post. I felt that it was demanding a certain amount of proof from one side of the debate, while not demanding any support from the other side. That struck me as inconsistent.
But I was talking about the posts on this blog, not scripture.

It proves all Scripture is not inspired by Jesus Christ, and if not all, then which is?

I'm not sure that follows. Can something be inspired, but have a mistake introduced to it on the way to being written down? I don't claim to know.
To me, the main question is "are the central claims true". Debates about innerrancy are important, to be sure, but less important than that.

The claim that the biblical accounting of events is not reliable is question begging. This claim needs to be established before it can be taken as the basis for debate.

But you already have concluded there's a mistake, haven't you?

I don't see where. I was specifically asking POI to support the claim that there was a mistake. I was consistently skeptical of that idea.

Rather, the person who is skeptical of the bible should put forth an account of reality that he believes to be superior to the biblical account,

Which anyone is free to do, if the written record is mistaken.

Anyone is free to put forward any account of reality he likes. I was simply saying that I don't see a point in demanding that we reject the biblical account without putting forward an alternative that we can also examine to see how it compares. I find that many people like to criticize one view without putting forward an alternative—which is a debate trick, not a way to get at truth.

When a Book's authenticity is based upon it's inerrancy, then any fallen dominoes fells them all...The whole house of cards collapses by any fractured stone;

I agree, but don't yet see that inerrancy is the basis of biblical authenticity. If it were, I'd have no idea how we'd establish it as inerrant before we'd even considered its central claims.

After some discussion, one hopes that it will become clear which view is better supported.

The fact that John 20 records Mary at the tomb in the dark before dawn, and Matthew 28 records Mary with others at the tomb in the dawning light, clears up any supposed conflict between activities in the dark, vs later activities in the morning.

I think that is a perfectly reasonable way to interpret the text. I'd say that it is wrong to simply insist that Mary was alone for the entire trip—particularly in that I haven't seen any real argument in favor of that. As such, yes, this would clear up an apparent conflict.
I think there are several ways this might be done, and am not really making bold claims about which is the correct read. I was just unsure as to why anyone should demand that John definitely contradicted Matthew. I didn't see much of a case for that.

[RBD]

[Replying to POI in post #7]

So far, you've been pretty good at responding to everything I say. I have to wonder why you skipped THIS part?

John (20:1-2) states that one woman saw it (before dawn) and ran.

Saw what? Jesus alive? That was after running from the empty tomb and returning. She didn't run after seeing Jesus at the tomb in the dark

Matthew (28:1 & 8) states that two women saw it (after dawn) and left.

The two Marys came and left the tomb in the morning light before seeing Jesus alive.

Mark (16 1 & 2 & 8) instead states that three women saw it (after dawn) and left.

The two Marys and Salmoe came and fled in the morning light, without seeing Jesus alive. Magdalene is said to have seen Him first at her earlier first visit in the dark.

And Luke (24 1 & 10) alternatively states that there was maybe four women, (early morning), and then left.

The two Marys and Joanna and others, making at least 5, came and fled the tomb without seeing Jesus alive.

Four separate accounts, with four differing perspectives in both numbers and timeframes.

4 separate accounts with 4 different perspectives.

Difference in numbers with two different timeframes. One in number in the dark before dawn. At least 5 in number at dawn.

And yet, the 'facts' are all over the place.

No. The recorded facts are simple enough, but only spread out between 4 different narratives.

The first record is easy enough, with Magdalene first at the tomb in the dark before morning, and the first to see the Lord while at the tomb.

And then the other three records beginning very early in the morning when it began to dawn: The two Marys and Salome with sweet spices come with others, one of which is Joanna. They all flee the tomb together, and meet Jesus in the way, and worship Him.

Now, if you're looking for the people and events written in order of one continuous narrative by one writer. There isn't one. Unless we do it ourselves by study between them.