Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Gary]

Ahem. Let's look at what Gary said himself with the main parts in bold.

Dear friend: You do NOT need to read the books of Christian apologists, theologians, and pastors to determine if these assertions of ancient, middle eastern facts are true. No. All you have to do is use your brain. And what does your brain tell you: It is all superstitious nonsense.

NO ONE in the 21st century with a high school education should believe these ancient tall tales.

http://danielbwallace.com/2014/03/24...#comment-43939

And where in my statement do I refer to Christians as intellectually inferior or stupid? No where.

I believe that there are many highly educated, very intelligent Christians. I believe that these very educated, very intelligent Christians have been duped (brainwashed) to believe the religious equivalent of two plus two equaling five...in another dimension.

These very intelligent, very bright Christians have been convinced by clever, complicated philosophical arguments and appeals to faith (superstition) that it really is possible for a three-day-brain-dead man to be resurrected into a transformed superhero-like, immortal body that can walk through locked doors and fly into the clouds...in an another dimension (the divine, the supernatural, the extra-natural, or whatever they want to call it).

It has been my argument all along that although two plus two really may equal five in another dimension, (and I cannot prove it doesn't), I can demonstrate very clearly that in THIS worldly dimension in which mankind has lived for tens of thousands of years, NO ONE has witnessed two plus two equal five. In similar fashion, I can demonstrate that there is zero evidence that anyone, in this earthly dimension, has witnessed a three-day-brain-dead man be resurrected into an immortal body capable of flying into outer space. Post death resuscitations? Yes. That is why people learn to do CPR. But resurrected, immortal, fly-through-the-air, superhero bodies? No.

You can have a PhD and be a Rhodes scholar and still believe that the Emperor's new, invisible clothing is fabulous because you have convinced yourself (due to cognitive dissonance) that the Emperor just CAN'T be naked. But a child with a six grade education is quite capable of pointing out just how wrong and silly your view is.

[Mikeenders]

Dear friend: You do NOT need to read the books of Christian apologists, theologians, and pastors to determine if these assertions of ancient, middle eastern facts are true. No. All you have to do is use your brain. And what does your brain tell you: It is all superstitious nonsense.

NO ONE in the 21st century with a high school education should believe these ancient tall tales. [/box]

http://danielbwallace.com/2014/03/24...#comment-43939

The guy is a troll. If its rude to say Gary is a troll then its rude to call ANYONE on the internet a troll and we should just strike the term completely. I do not say it lightly. I have seen many skeptics and atheists that I would never call a troll. I disagree with them but they engage on a subject listen to the counterpoints and at least attempt to deal with them in a discussion. Gary does none of that. how many subject has he taken this thread through? - at least ten. How many has he engaged in point for counterpoint to point to counterpoint and debated through? none.....nada.

He makes false statement after false statement and when caught on the facts clearly showing them false (eg - AN allegorical understanding of genesis one was invented only in the scientific age ) he just switches to something else without the integrity to say "Okay I was wrong there". He is not here to engage in any discussion - just to use TW as a self publishing tool because his blog I bet gets very few readers

[Mikeenders]

And where in my statement do I refer to Christians as intellectually inferior or stupid? No where.

ROFL......Nick even bolded it for you

To claim that saying "all you have to do is use your brain", "no one in the 21st century with a high school education" , "all I need is a high school education and a functioning brain"

is not claiming intellectual inferiority to Christians who nevertheless believe Christianity is just soooooo intellectually dishonest.

its the same thing just using different words. You are fooling no one

P.S. Just decided to scroll back and bam! first page I chose - you can see the kind of attacks Gary has been making all throughout this thread. In post 1914 he accuses One bad Pig of being brain damaged.

Your logic and reasoning are very twisted. This is evidence of the severe mental damage that your cult's brainwashing does to the brains of young, impressionable children

[Mikeenders]

It has been my argument all along that although two plus two really may equal five in another dimension, (and I cannot prove it doesn't), I can demonstrate very clearly that in THIS worldly dimension in which mankind has lived for tens of thousands of years, NO ONE has witnessed two plus two equal five.

go ahead - demonstrate that no one has experienced two plus two equaling five. Don't argue it because what you said is you could demonstrate it and we would all like to see it. As a matter of fact you can have two particles and add two particles in Quantum mechanics and a fifth virtual particle might just appear. So since you can DEMONSTRATE what has never happened please proceed.

Actually you can't you are just deluded into thinking evidence and proof are the same thing and overstating your case. sufficient eyewitness testimony IS evidence even if its not proof. further your whole argument is incoherent. You claim to accept that there is good evidence for some kind of creator but should he make contact your logic wold disallow it because nowhere previous to that encounter were you aware of the creator making contact.

No mater how you try to dress it up to hide it - its till just a materialistic supposition that miracles do not happen, cannot happen and therefore anyone that think one might have happened is deluded

Meanwhile you were mum and silent with how you get away from the entire universe not having a natural case.

[Apologiaphoenix]

And where in my statement do I refer to Christians as intellectually inferior or stupid? No where.

I believe that there are many highly educated, very intelligent Christians. I believe that these very educated, very intelligent Christians have been duped (brainwashed) to believe the religious equivalent of two plus two equaling five...in another dimension.

These very intelligent, very bright Christians have been convinced by clever, complicated philosophical arguments and appeals to faith (superstition) that it really is possible for a three-day-brain-dead man to be resurrected into a transformed superhero-like, immortal body that can walk through locked doors and fly into the clouds...in an another dimension (the divine, the supernatural, the extra-natural, or whatever they want to call it).

It has been my argument all along that although two plus two really may equal five in another dimension, (and I cannot prove it doesn't), I can demonstrate very clearly that in THIS worldly dimension in which mankind has lived for tens of thousands of years, NO ONE has witnessed two plus two equal five. In similar fashion, I can demonstrate that there is zero evidence that anyone, in this earthly dimension, has witnessed a three-day-brain-dead man be resurrected into an immortal body capable of flying into outer space. Post death resuscitations? Yes. That is why people learn to do CPR. But resurrected, immortal, fly-through-the-air, superhero bodies? No.

You can have a PhD and be a Rhodes scholar and still believe that the Emperor's new, invisible clothing is fabulous because you have convinced yourself (due to cognitive dissonance) that the Emperor just CAN'T be naked. But a child with a six grade education is quite capable of pointing out just how wrong and silly your view is.

Look at the parts that are bold again.

The implication?

If you are a thinking person and you believe this stuff, you are not using your brain. The message is you are being unintelligent and this stuff is so easily false that all you need is a high school education to disprove it.

Sorry Gary, but you throw out tough talk constantly and you just can't take it when you get called out on it.

That's one reason CBW does ask questions about if you're really a doctor or not. But then, that investigation was also taken as a personal attack.

Now I personally do not consider people fools simply because of their stance but because of how they hold their stance. I could even understand someone being a mythicist if all they hear is mythicist arguments and do not know how history is properly done. But if someone holds a belief and does so in spite of evidence to the contrary repeatedly presented, which mythicists do, then they are being fools.

And by the way, if you say we are doing that here, keep in mind that with the issues you've presented, I've shown where I've done the research either in my own writings or on my podcast where I interview scholars involved with the question.

We have thought through our position.

[Gary]

Look at the parts that are bold again.

The implication?

If you are a thinking person and you believe this stuff, you are not using your brain. The message is you are being unintelligent and this stuff is so easily false that all you need is a high school education to disprove it.

Sorry Gary, but you throw out tough talk constantly and you just can't take it when you get called out on it.

That's one reason CBW does ask questions about if you're really a doctor or not. But then, that investigation was also taken as a personal attack.

Now I personally do not consider people fools simply because of their stance but because of how they hold their stance. I could even understand someone being a mythicist if all they hear is mythicist arguments and do not know how history is properly done. But if someone holds a belief and does so in spite of evidence to the contrary repeatedly presented, which mythicists do, then they are being fools.

And by the way, if you say we are doing that here, keep in mind that with the issues you've presented, I've shown where I've done the research either in my own writings or on my podcast where I interview scholars involved with the question.

We have thought through our position.

Yes, I realize that most of you have studied your beliefs extensively. But wouldn't you agree that very intelligent people can be deceived to believe very false information?

Anyway, I just finished listening to the first 38 minutes of your debate with Matthew Ferguson. Here are my comments so far:

You quoted Ludemann and said, "The (post-resurrection) appearances (of Jesus) cannot be denied."

Is that correct or did Ludemann say, "The early Christian belief in post-resurrection appearances by Jesus cannot be denied"?

There is a very, very big difference in those two statements.

Secondly, you use Paul's conversion as proof for the veracity of his appearance by Jesus. While it is true that Paul's conversion from a Christian-hating, Christian-persecuting Pharisee to a Christian missionary is very, very odd, odd conversions do happen, in every religion. Odd conversions do not, therefore, prove the veracity of any one religion or of any particular miracle or appearance of a dead person.

Thirdly, you use the fact that as Paul was a Pharisee and that therefore he would have believed in a bodily resurrection, this is proof that when he spoke in First Corinthians of a death, burial, and resurrection, this is proof for an empty tomb. This is a non sequitur. If a bright light stopped me in my tracks on the local highway, spoke to me telling me it was Abraham Lincoln, blinded me for three days, then my sight was only restored after a member of the Abraham-Lincoln-is-resurrected cult prayed over me, you better believe that I would believe that Abraham Lincoln had appeared to me in the flesh.

Paul didn't need to see a body to believe that a bodily resurrected Jesus had blinded him with a bright light on the Damascus Road. If Paul believed that Jesus was resurrected, he would have believed, as a Pharisee, that he was bodily resurrected, and proof of that bodily resurrection with an actual presentation of the body was not necessary.

Lastly, you appeal to Craig Keener's book "Miracles", containing thousands of miracle claims, as evidence that the probability of the miracle in question, a resurrection, is more probable than Ferguson is willing to concede. This too is a non sequitar. NO WHERE in Keener's book does Keener assert that anyone who has been brain-dead for three days was resurrected/brought back to life in a superhero-like, immortal body that then flew off into the sky. Keener presents plenty of resuscitations. But the existence of CPR is prove that resuscitations are fairly common. There is no evidence, not one shred of evidence, in Keener's book or any other miracle book of a documented resurrection. Therefore the prior probability of a resurrection is very, very, very, very low. We skeptics cannot prove that a resurrection has never happened, but due to the lack evidence for resurrections occurring in the entire history of humankind, we can safely assert that the probability of a resurrection is just as unlikely as a Muslim prophet riding a winged horse into outer space to visit with his god.

[Gary]

https://adversusapologetica.wordpres...h-nick-peters/https://civitashumana.wordpress.com/...al-naturalism/https://adversusapologetica.wordpres...he-paranormal/https://adversusapologetica.wordpres...econd-century/

[Mikeenders]

Lastly, you appeal to Craig Keener's book "Miracles", containing thousands of miracle claims, as evidence that the probability of the miracle in question, a resurrection, is more probable than Ferguson is willing to concede. This too is a non sequitar. NO WHERE in Keener's book does Keener assert that anyone who has been brain-dead for three days was resurrected/brought back to life in a superhero-like, immortal body that then flew off into the sky. Keener presents plenty of resuscitations. But the existence of CPR is prove that resuscitations are fairly common. There is no evidence, not one shred of evidence, in Keener's book or any other miracle book of a documented resurrection.

You should probably stop using words you don't know the meaning of. It makes you look rather silly. a non sequitor is something that does not logically follow. Of course if we live in a world where multiple true miracles are taking place then it follows there is an agent that does things that defy the natural order. That OF COURSE increases the possibility that the agent can do other things that would defy the natural order. Your begging that unless the witnessed miracle is the same exact kind of miracle it does not affect how we view the probability of another miracle not witnessed often is just absurdly incoherent "logic"

We skeptics cannot prove that a resurrection has never happened, but due to the lack evidence for resurrections occurring in the entire history of humankind, we can safely assert that the probability of a resurrection is just as unlikely as a Muslim prophet riding a winged horse into outer space to visit with his god.

First lets put to bed this empty blather

"but due to the lack evidence for resurrections occurring in the entire history of humankind"

Given that only in the last hundred years we have had instrumentation to record a physical death the only thing that we have had over the "entire history of humankind" are eyewitness accounts. Now we all know from reading you and every skeptic on the planet that you accept no eyewitness testimony as being sufficient to confirm a resurrection. So it turns out your lack of evidence claim is somewhat of a crock.It implies that there could have been evidence that you would accept but there was a "lack" of it being provided when in fact right or wrong there was no possibility of evidence being presented that you would have accepted.

Next

You repeat the same tired logic over and over again that because historically something has not happened before the possibility of it happening now or in the future decreases. Should we have applied that logic to the 9/11 tragedy? - that because planes had never been crashed into skyscrapers intentionally they are very unlikely to have been crashed into the twin towers? How about black presidents? How about anything that happens for the first time in the history of mankind?

The particular silliness of your logic when applied to a visitation from God is that its precisely this uniqueness that you skeptics would demand if someone claimed to be God right now. You would ask him to do something that no man had ever done!! or could do!! and yet here you are claiming that the very fact that something had not happened before in history is a sure sign of it being unlikely to be true regardless of evidence.

Now all this is not to claim that there should not be GOOD evidence that a resurrection has taken place but to claim something is improbably by itself merely because it would be a unique indicator of divinity is just a VASTLY nonsensical argument and even sillier is to compare what has been attested to by millions to be historical with a muslim flight to outer space on winged horse as an equivalent just shows you don't know how to equate.

As I have stated before I don't find the resurrection story compelling outside of a context of prophecy. I'm just pointing out the absurdness of your logic that what hasn't happened in human history before automatically rules out what might happen in the future. Standing by itself as a principle its a silly not well thought out basis for an argument.

[Mikeenders]

https://adversusapologetica.wordpres...he-paranormal/\

Bravo! Stein should take a bow.

He had Ferguson nailed right. Ferguson's denial by linking to an article where he in essence appeals to the naturalistic presuppositions of Science shows that ferguson very much does and was operating under "naturalistic presuppositions". Anyone that can read that article (including Ferguson) and not see Ferguson's naturalistic presuppositions is as blind as a bat. The only thing that Ferguson does there is wrap his naturalistic presuppositions into a general paranormal wrapper lumping UFOs, sasquatch citing etc into the same package.

My background is in Classics, which means that I also study the broader ancient world outside of just the NT and Christian origins (which are subtopics of my research). Beyond Christian apologists trying to prove the truth of their religion, nobody in Classical Studies tries to defend other ancient miracle claims.

That might be true but it is equally true that nobody in classical studies is actively engaged defending against miracle claims in the classics. So if Mr Ferguson wishes to disqualify any scholar that has come to the conclusion the NT is defensible then he has disqualified himself as well by claiming in multiple places to be actively involved in an anti- apologetic mission. There will be none of that they are biased but I am not ill formed logic here.

Meanwhile perhaps Mr Ferguson might work on thinking more clearly. The reason why no one in Classical studies defends ancient miraculous claims outside of christian apologist (a pejorative for the likes of skeptic dogmatists such as Ferguson) is because no ancient miracle claims have been considered authentic throughout history by millions upon millions. Its rather embarrassing that someone dedicated to historical studies missed such a rather obvious historical context.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Late tonight. Answering tomorrow.

[tabibito]

Isn't there a passage in Acts that says some guy was casting out demons in Jesus name but he was not a believer? If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if someone claims to be performing a miracle in Jesus name, no miracle will occur?? How do you account for the miracles performed in Jesus name by outright con artists and charlatans? Can you prove that their "miracles" do not occur any more than I can prove that Christian miracles in Keener's book do not really occur?

No - Acts has the seven sons of Sceva, unbelievers, attempting to perform an exorcism in Jesus name "in the name of Jesus whom Paul preaches" - the demon knocked the stuffing out of them "Jesus I know and Paul I know, but you? Who are you?"

[psstein]

Thank you for taking the time to read the article, Stein. I respect your opinion.

If you get a chance, would you mind briefly explaining your last sentence in relation to Ferguson's article?

Metaphysical naturalism, also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism and scientific materialism is a worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences, i.e., those required to understand our physical environment by mathematical modelling. In contrast, methodological naturalism is an assumption of naturalism as a methodology of science, for which metaphysical naturalism provides only one possible ontological foundation. Broadly, the corresponding theological perspective is religious naturalism or spiritual naturalism. More specifically, metaphysical naturalism rejects the supernatural concepts and explanations that are part of many religions.

If I understand your point, what you are saying is that Ferguson has restricted his worldview. He only accepts evidence that is consistent with metaphysical naturalism, whereas you would encourage him to expand his worldview to accept the possibility of the supernatural. Am I correct in that summary of your position?

If this is correct, it seems to me that Ferguson did address this issue when he said this:


Suppose next that the waiter asks me why I am so skeptical about the existence of the mythical stew. I would then respond that I do not believe that the stew exists, because I see no good evidence that griffins, mermaids, or dragons exist. Suppose next that the waiter accuses me of having a presupposition that such mythical creatures are not real. This, again, would be an absurd argument, as I would point out to the waiter that my skepticism is not based on an a priori assumption, but is reached a posteriori upon repeated and thorough investigation of a world that has no griffins, mermaids, or dragons.

Just as in the case of the stew, [I]it is an absurd argument for apologists to claim that skeptics only doubt the resurrection because of "naturalist presuppositions." This is because the view of metaphysical naturalism is reached a posteriori upon investigating a world and universe that only has natural forces, entities, and causes.[/I]

No, he did not. He's inferring that you can somehow get to ontological or metaphysical naturalism from methodological naturalism, which science (operating in the field of natural forces, entities, and laws) assumes.

The argument for ontological naturalism is one you have to make beyond science; it's not enough to say "causally closed world based on science, therefore naturalism." You have to argue beyond that.

[psstein]

If I remember correctly, your side is convinced of the truthfulness of the Gospel stories because in ancient times, in the Near East, people treated the oral tradition with great respect and even memorized it. Your side assured everyone that the oral tradition can be trusted.

So shouldn't this same logic apply to the Jews? The Jews have the written Torah and they have the oral Torah. They have the written Law and ancient teachings of Judaism and they have the oral Law and ancient teachings of Judaism. So to be consistent, your side should respect the accuracy of the Jewish teachings of the Old Testament era with the same respect as you do the Christians for their oral tradition in the New Testament era.

To say that Christians maintained an uncorrupted oral tradition but the Jews' oral tradition became riddled with errors and misinterpretations within just a couple hundred years, is the height of arrogance and hubris.

The oral traditions in both religions were fairly rigid until they were finally codified. With the Jews, it was done in the Mishnah, around AD 200. With the Christians, it was done in the NT. Jews often had particular schools of thought carried down through generations, so the time gap isn't particularly damaging.

Where we get into interesting questions is the formation of the OT.

[psstein]

I've said this before and I'll say it again, I don't want stuff I've said on this website posted on blogs or in emails. There's a certain amount of respect I think we all deserve from each other, and I don't think it's right to put forum posts in an email. I wouldn't take someone's comment here and use it to trumpet how much of an idiot said person is. It's not right.

Ferguson is correct that some (i.e. a small minority) of scholars treat this as an apologetic enterprise, which is why I generally try to stay with more centrist scholars. I said there are a few scholars who don't approach the evidence objectively, and I stand by that point.

Blomberg, Bock, and Witherington have produced work I think has some significant issues. They're good scholars, but some of their work has been flawed. The same is true with Craig Keener and Mike Licona. What I suggested about Raymond Brown's work was that Ferguson quoted a small portion out of context, with a potential attempt to mislead. It really looks that way, but I don't think it right to accuse someone of dishonesty when incompetence fits the bill just as well.

Finally, the best intellectual position on miracles (as a scholar) is one of agnosticism. You cannot argue either for or against the veracity (or falsity) of miracles without mounting an argument one way or the other. The usual "Christian apologist" canard is often used to simply ignore the other position. I can say Richard Carrier is an atheist apologist (which he is), but that doesn't preclude me from having to actually engage his position, wrong as it may be. Most of labels are simply nonsense to avoid actually having to mount an argument against someone else.

[Gary]

No - Acts has the seven sons of Sceva, unbelievers, attempting to perform an exorcism in Jesus name "in the name of Jesus whom Paul preaches" - the demon knocked the stuffing out of them "Jesus I know and Paul I know, but you? Who are you?"

Yes, I was mistaken. I was thinking of the guy in Samaria named Simon mentioned in Act chapter 8. I thought he had cast out demons as a non-believer, but he was just performing "magic".