Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[tabibito]

Given the number of people who consider it impossible for scholars to be mistaken: it would almost be reasonable to class "scholars being mistaken" as a subset of miracles.

Scholars being mistaken would create difficulty in answering: scholars or experts now - depending on the precise definition, would I think be more likely than miracles. Assuming of course, you stipulate that the current status of churches does not change.

[One Bad Pig]

Ah - the old "divide and conquer trick." When all else fails, start a ruckus.

And Calvinists believe that every single saved Christian is a miracle.

I think one of the reasons Gary isn't trying too hard here is because he thinks that theism in general (and Christianity in particular) is such patent nonsense that it shouldn't take much effort to expose it for what it is.

[Apologiaphoenix]

And Calvinists believe that every single saved Christian is a miracle.

I think one of the reasons Gary isn't trying too hard here is because he thinks that theism in general (and Christianity in particular) is such patent nonsense that it shouldn't take much effort to expose it for what it is.

I agree. It looks like most of what Gary has said has not been about us but been about himself. For instance, this idea of clinging to our faith like a security blanket? Sorry. Doesn't apply. We're not all like that. I was just browsing the thread yesterday and I saw him say something about how this must be painful for us. I couldn't believe it. I nearly burst out laughing. There has been nothing painful about this.

Gary just encountered a bunch of atheists who knew something that he'd never thought about and didn't know what to say.

Now he's encountered a bunch of Christians who know something he's never thought much about and this time ego is getting in the way.

[Apologiaphoenix]

btw, I also listed several of Keener's miracles way back. Only one started to be addressed.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post226743

[tabibito]

I agree. It looks like most of what Gary has said has not been about us but been about himself. For instance, this idea of clinging to our faith like a security blanket? Sorry. Doesn't apply. We're not all like that. I was just browsing the thread yesterday and I saw him say something about how this must be painful for us. I couldn't believe it. I nearly burst out laughing. There has been nothing painful about this.

Gary just encountered a bunch of atheists who knew something that he'd never thought about and didn't know what to say.

Now he's encountered a bunch of Christians who know something he's never thought much about and this time ego is getting in the way.

Over simplified, methinks.

[JonathanL]

Over simplified, methinks.

Not by much though.

[tabibito]

btw, I also listed several of Keener's miracles way back. Only one started to be addressed.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post226743

The problem is that each and every one of them could be hand waved away. Certainly, a dispassionate observer would be given food for thought, but that is as far as it would go. (oh well - you've never heard of a misdiagnosis, never heard of X-rays being mislabelled? ... and the less honest - how do you know the doctors didn't have a vested interest etc. and so forth) Betimes, it can't be denied that such objections do have validity.

[William]

Do you think someone is mistaken about an ear growing back?

No. It's dogma. Miracle accounts are also based on observation and a number have medical documentation and even mention in secular newspapers. Being skeptical of miracles does not mean you are reasonable. It means you are skeptical. When more and more evidence piles up against the position, it is unreasonable. No argument has been given that is persuasive as to why miracles cannot occur and have no occurred. Miracle accounts have been presented and you have to accept for your position that most people are lying or delusional.

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Book_of_Mormon_Witnesses

so you believe this, or do you think they were all lying or delusional?

Because they are. Either the person is saying X is true while knowing it is not, which is lying, or they are saying X is true, while it is not meaning they think it is for some mistaken reason, which I am putting under the word deluded, or else they are saying X is true and it is true, in which they are telling the truth.

I have explained what I mean. If you know of a fourth option, give it.

No. This assumes deity is a class of being. It isn't. God is not part of a genus but rather being in His very nature. This is shown through good arguments in the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition.

Interesting theory.

And we believe testimony that can send people to death row on the testimony of strangers regularly. I prefer to think that the common man is not really as stupid as we think he is and if only a few people were claiming miracles, that'd be something. When millions all over the world are if not more, that's something else.

And your evidence that your present understanding of the world is accurate is?....

So is a feather's nature. It has mass and matter as well. Do they fall the same way on Earth? Nope.

Correct. Much of Aristotle's science is bunk. Much of it is not. That does not apply to his metaphysics.

But also, this isn't much of an argument. It would be like saying "William has got some things wrong in this thread. Therefore everything he says should be viewed with suspicion." Saying people got things wrong is not an argument to show they did not get some things right. The argument is simply about metaphysics. For that, referring to today's scientists will frankly be useless. Scientists are not philosophers in that sense.

Of course not, but it eliminates lying and if he's persuaded he's telling the truth, it's up to us to examine the claim.

I have presented the scholarly evidence that does not doubt the appearance tradition. This is not the issue with scholars. Ludemann tried to get this to fit with Acts 2 and Pentecost, but he has since abandoned that position and is not sure last I heard what Paul is referring to. Paul is sharing a statement known to Christians all over. This would mean that no Christian ever bothered to go and consult these eyewitnesses, which flies in the face of rich and influential pagans and Gentiles becoming Christians.

And people in churches today do not live in honor-shame societies where their reputation is on the line for what they believe and where claims of falsehood can be met with death. What would it be like for people walking around Jerusalem and other areas to claim they had seen Jesus risen and He was the Lord? Ask yourself what it would be like to be a Christian in a country where ISIS has a strong hand and claim that Jesus is Lord.

Actually, it is one. Paul is replying to questions that they have at the time. In the sequel to this letter, we see no indication that any of this was disagreed with.

So it looks like the standards change when it suits you. Earlier, Paul had a reputation as a liar. Now he has a reputation as someone they would trust. Which is it? If he had a reputation as a liar, to preserve his honor he would want to change that. If he had one as trustworthy, to preserve his honor he would want to keep that trust.

I didn't say anything about it being true there. I said it's a major figure and it's early. We would love to have this for any other ancient figure. Your adding in to my claim is what is silly.

I believe you're the one who had started the discussion about miracles and other religions. I was just answering.

No. I know no such thing. In fact, I am quite certain their memories were better and ours are usually horrible. Now if you think this is not the case, then please present scholarship on ancient societies and how they handled oral tradition.

Of course they rehearsed, but even still, many people heard things one time and they could memorize it all. Lord has shown this in even some modern societies where oral tradition is strong. Jews especially valued memorization. A young student was to repeat a text of Scripture 400 times and then do it from memory. If he couldn't, he did it 400 more times.

[William]

Our first biographies of him show up 400+ years after he lived. If 400+ years isn't a problem, the timeframe for the Gospels shouldn't be.

Then you should discount Alex because that's centuries later and that's a passage of time. Again, your methodology would destroy all of ancient history.

I have pointed to the work of Martin, Licona, Wright, and Gundry on this issue and argued repeatedly why this isn't a spiritual resurrection. There has been no response other than to repeat the claim.

Then do what stein and OBP and Adrift and others have been asking along with me. Give a better explanation of the data.

Why would you say you just think so? I don't know a historian who doubts this of the time.

No. It's never hinged on them because I prefer to use earlier material with claims accepted by critical scholars.

Sure it was for good reason. The gospels present more questions than they do anything else.

This ignores much of what I said unfortunately.

Money? Sorry, but the early church was persecuted. That would mean the loss of possessions. Glory? From who? A Jew would want the glory of God most and to change their most cherished beliefs about Him would require darn good evidence. Attention? Oh they got attention alright. They got lit on fire for Nero's ceremonies. They got shamed. They got persecuted in general. Pride? Yeah. It feels good to be the leader of a sect seen as deviant and to be declared deviant yourself. Paul would definitely change his nice position with the Sanhedrin for that.

The only ones I know who deny this are mythicists.

There are multiple ideas of what happened to Dionysus. Osiris meanwhile came back to life....in the underworld! He never returned to life again.

He would have had to have been. If all that was done was the body that was crucified got up again with no healing, no one would have thought this was a new and glorified body. David Strauss said this years ago and he was no friend of Christianity.

So jesus and the boy were both resurrected in their fleshy, physical bodies, according to the bible.

No. When you've given a natural explanation, I've shown what I consider problems with it. Those are not responded to other than pointing to biases and such supposedly that I find unconvincing. Meanwhile, every miracle account that is presented here is ipso facto dismissed.

When it can explained by a anural cause of any type, then yes, much like you did with the miracle claims of the other religions we discussed earlier.

And whatever problems that arise from any natural explanation, they are far smaller the problems with supernatural explanation.

Yeah. Ancient people knew the same kind of thing too. No one here is just saying "God did it." We're noting the life of a person charged with religious significance and a claim centered around their very theistic claims. The earliest eyewitnesses said it was a resurrection and we see that the other explanations are flimsy.

They would need to give evidence of that claim. We have in fact given evidence. We've argued He died, was buried, was seen again bodily and this by large crowds of people, and that the evidence was enough to convince the people who had the most to lose in an honor-shame society. We have not just said "He flew into Heaven."

No, you said others said that he flew into heaven, so we can be sure of it since they said that they were telling the truth. Paul said 500 saw it so it must be true.

Feel free to show it happened with Jesus.

Same to you.

Who said it was a ghost? It was just something. Even if it's a hallucination, they are still convinced they are seeing something.

I don't believe in ghosts, but I do believe that people are certain they see dead loved ones again and you know what it means to them every time? It means the person is dead. I don't know of cases where this happens and they say "Open the tomb! My spouse is alive!"

But you do think all those people were delusional or lying?

The same in the ancient world. If you saw someone like that, they were dead. A Jew would say it was the person's angel for instance.

You would think so.

I asked you to show something happened. If you have a case, make it. Don't just throw out an idea. Give evidence from the best scholarly material why that should be accepted.

okay

Not in this case. For what reason would one superstition be traded for another, especially if this other one would put you on the outs with Rome and Judaism both and would mark you as shameful in your society as a whole?

I guess for the same reasons people in the US leave Christianity for other religions like Islam. Do you need a scholarly source that happens or are you already aware that does in fact take place?

Sure. Try Wax Tablets of the Mind, or try the Lost World of Scripture, or try Memory, Jesus, and the Synoptic Gospels.

They get this by reading the ancients and by studying similar societies today. There are still oral societies today where memorization is praised.

Do you have any indication that this is going on in the case of Jesus? Do you have any indiciation of PTSD or that these were people who claimed to see dead people every day?

In an area that is readily available to all, sure.

[William]

Given the number of people who consider it impossible for scholars to be mistaken: it would almost be reasonable to class "scholars being mistaken" as a subset of miracles.

Scholars being mistaken would create difficulty in answering: scholars or experts now - depending on the precise definition, would I think be more likely than miracles. Assuming of course, you stipulate that the current status of churches does not change.

interesting response. I was hoping Nick and some of the others would respond as well, and maybe they will.

[tabibito]

What you have is not to be found in 1 Corinthians 15. The chapter does not even address the subject of whether Christ was risen in the flesh or in some other form. It is not possible to even think it refers to Christ's being raised in terms of a spiritual raising unless it is pre-supposed that such a concept existed - a pre-supposition that has no support anywhere in the New Testament. Without some concrete statement to the effect that resurrection is not necessarily a resurrection of the flesh - the idea is pulled out of the air theorising born of a mishmash of wishful thinking and - again - presupposition.

[Adrift]

interesting response. I was hoping Nick and some of the others would respond as well, and maybe they will.

I don't get the question, or how the two are supposed to be related. I don't know how often authentic miracles happen. I presume they happen fairly often and very probably without our direct knowledge or awareness most of the time. And among all of the fields that exist academically, professionally, and unprofessionally, I'm certain that scholars and experts are very often mistaken about something in their field at certain times of the day, week, month, and year.

[One Bad Pig]

Nick and Others,

Which do you think is more likely or happens more often?

A) Authentic Miracles

B) Scholars or Experts are mistaken about something in their particular field

B) is broad enough to be almost meaningless IMO. In some fields, there is substantial disagreement between experts in various areas; in such cases, at least one set of experts is going to be mistaken.

[William]

What you have is not to be found in 1 Corinthians 15. The chapter does not even address the subject of whether Christ was risen in the flesh or in some other form. It is not possible to even think it refers to Christ's being raised in terms of a spiritual raising unless it is pre-supposed that such a concept existed - a pre-supposition that has no support anywhere in the New Testament. Without some concrete statement to the effect that resurrection is not necessarily a resurrection of the flesh - the idea is pulled out of the air theorising born of a mishmash of wishful thinking and - again - presupposition.

I'm just reading 1 Cor 15 in it's entirety and saying how some view it. They may have presuppositions and you may too, but that does not change what 1 Cor 15 says.

[William]

B) is broad enough to be almost meaningless IMO. In some fields, there is substantial disagreement between experts in various areas; in such cases, at least one set of experts is going to be mistaken.

yeah, I understand that there is even disagreement among critical Scholars regarding the actual Resurrection of Jesus.

But A was broad too, as I did not specify a particular miracle, but am speaking with regard to miracles in general.

I ask, because it seems so many here insist that the scholars should be trusted and that doubts in miracles can be overcome by looking to the scholars. Not all the scholars agree number one, and two, i would think that human error is more likely and happens more often than miracles.