Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    The mere fact that you have to ask this question exposes your utter lack of contextual knowledge. I would take the time to deconstruct your entire hypothesis, but there's not much point. Your unquestioning acceptance of Asher Norman's work (among many, many other examples in this thread) shows that you lack the competence to critically evaluate the arguments placed before you.
    Thank you for your response.

    I did not say that I take Norman Asher's criticism's of Christianity at face value without questioning them. I did find them very interesting. However, nothing Norman says is new. Jews have been making these same, exact allegations against Christianity for two thousand years, and for two thousand years, Christians have refuted (satisfactorily in the eyes of Christian apologists) the Jewish criticisms.

    My point is this regarding Asher Norman: It is very interesting reading if you have never read the Jewish accusations against the messianic claims for Jesus. I think every Christian owes it to themselves to know what Jews say. Norman says it in a very easy to read format, but you can get the same information from reading any rabbi's criticism of messianic claims for Jesus. Bottom line, for me, I would think that it is much more probable that Jews understand their ancient writings better than Gentile Christians. Again, it is all about probabilities with me. Yes, all of Judaism could be wrong about their ancient writings, written in THEIR language, but odds are they are right, and the Gentile graduates of US seminaries are wrong, and so too all the Gentile Christians scholars before them.
    Last edited by Gary; 08-05-2015, 11:19 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
      I really don't think you can place a number on a lot of these. I don't place the Gospels as high because they're not the primary evidence I'd use. I place the empty tomb as greatly important, but I do understand it isn't as well-evidenced as we might like, though I think the evidence is overwhelming. 9 is important, but it's not the argument I made. 10 doesn't really have any relevance since my argument does not depend on the Gospels. Four is important, but also at the end, the information in the creed is even more important.

      The others I'd rank as quite important, but the resurrection is a cumulative case.





      I think I have and this is the problem. You can come up with any explanation to explain one piece of evidence. That's not really a problem. What is needed is an explanation that explains all of them. The more "explanations" you have to tie in together, the more cumbersome the position gets.



      I would say little is "impossible." What we have to go with is the preponderance of the evidence.

      Highly problematic is that there was not much acknowledgment of what all I said above, but the next post...



      Quite different from mine. Many of the pastors I've met have been jerks and I've been burned by churches way too much. We have a great church now, but I stay because of the evidence.



      This part I don't think is a shock to anyone.



      Okay. Here's where we would differ. Right now, I do attend a Lutheran church. I write out the curriculum. My wife and I love our church. I can easily say it's the best we've ever been on. We both feel at home. We both feel like we get what we need.

      And yet I do not identify as Lutheran. I really refuse to identify with any denomination. My wife would say she's Lutheran now, but I don't sign on the dotted line yet. Nothing against my pastor. He's a wonderful man who is quite godly and quite intelligent and knows the material well. Yet while I'm sure he'd say his interpretation is closest to the Bible (Who wouldn't?), he would not say the true apostolic faith I don't think.



      And I can say many times for me, the Christian life can be miserable. It is the constant dying to yourself, but that also makes it wonderful in some ways. I can say the way that people see me treat my wife is a direct outworking of Christian teachings. It's nice when people compliment me on what I do in apologetics. I like it. It's a hundred times better to receive compliments on how I treat my Princess.



      And this is part of the problem. If you are not equipped, then it's like a young soldier who's gone through basic training wanting to dive right into enemy territory. It's a suicide mission.



      I have to wonder if you took an investigation seriously. This is a question that believers and unbelievers realize have eternal ramifications so it should be taken seriously. Most of us spend more time choosing our spouses than this. (Okay. I'm not the example here. Allie and I met and married in less than a year and I proposed before four months time, but I'm an exception.)



      First off, I don't see how this could be demonstrated entirely. You can go and check every single existing manuscript? Now are their some scribal alterations? Yes. Of course, some differences are accidental. We see them all the time in works today. I can read books by established publishing houses with typos. I tell myself as I read what the correct meaning is which is pretty obvious. That's also textual criticism. Even Ehrman would tell you the majority of these are incidental. They don't really matter. Then some of them are intentional, but not for malicious reasons. For instance, consider lectionary reading. This was in an age before we all had Bibles we could carry so you depended on what you heard from the pulpit as it were. You have an assigned reading for that day, say going through a Gospel. The manuscript says "He came into town." If you have the manuscript, you know that He is Jesus. (This is a supposed example. I have no specific verse in mind.) You can't say that, so the scribe writing it just says "Jesus came into town." No big deal.

      Sometimes a scribe would put in a side note. Sometimes that side note would be considered as part of the text by the next scribe. IN fact, one manuscript has a rather hilarious side note with one scribe not happy with the prior.

      "Fool and knave, can't you leave the old reading alone and not alter it!"


      Also, keep in mind, most of these scribes were not professional scribes at the start. They were ordinary people trying to copy a text, and sometimes they actually did a better job! This is the best volume I know of on the topic of the early text of the NT right now.

      Sometimes, scribes would try to flatten out difficulties and sometimes, they were trying to give a blow to a heresy (And sometimes heresies were trying to give a blow to orthodoxy). The irony is that we can recognize these. That's how we can be sure of the reliability of the text. That we can spot where the differences are is incredible. In fact, here's what one NT critic says about this:

      If the primary purpose of this discipline is to get back to the original text, we may as well admit either defeat or victory, depending on how one chooses to look at it, because we’re not going to get much closer to the original text than we already are.… At this stage, our work on the original amounts to little more than tinkering. There’s something about historical scholarship that refuses to concede that a major task has been accomplished, but there it is.


      That same critic in a published work of his for students of the NT says:

      In spite of these remarkable [textual] differences, scholars are convinced that we can reconstruct the original words of the New Testament with reasonable (although probably not 100 percent) accuracy.


      Who is this guy? A dyed in the wool Christian fundamentalist?

      No. In both cases, those quotes are from Bart Ehrman. The first is from here: Novum Testamentum Graecum Editio Critica Maior: An Evaluation: TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism, 1998, a revision of a paper presented at the Textual Criticism section of the 1997 Society of Biblical Literature in San Francisco. http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol03/Ehrman1998.html

      The second is from here: Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 481.

      Bottom line is if we can't trust the text of the NT has been handed down reliably, we can't trust any ancient document.

      Here are some shows I have done on the topic:

      http://deeperwaters.ddns.net/podcast...ielWallace.mp3

      http://deeperwaters.ddns.net/podcast...harlesHill.mp3



      Actually, I think He did preserve it, just not in the way modern Americans like. Further, I have no hang-up on inerrancy. I defend it, but it's not an essential at all.



      Interestingly, the discrepancies you're seeing are with the Gospels. Since my case does not rely on those, it doesn't matter.



      I leave these questions more to OT scholars.



      Same here, but as for Hell, why should God talk about in the Old Testament (And I think he did at places.) Did Egyptians and Greeks have similar themes? It should not surprise us that a religion has a theme of an afterlife and that the afterlife you have is based on how you live. It's like saying "All these religions believe in God. They must have copied!"



      I think you spent way too little time. One could spend months on just textual criticism alone. It's also dangerous that so many Christians try to be specialists in everything. You're not. You won't be. Consider for instance science as science. I have no doubt, Sea of Red would crush me on this topic. He knows it. I don't. I can talk about the philosophy and history of science, but not the science itself. (And I think it's a mistake for Christians to do such who don't study science and when I meet someone who want to argue against evolution, I tell them to knock themselves out and do so if they wish, on one condition. Let the case be scientific. If the idea falls, it does because it turns out to be bad science. (Not my call to say if it is or not.) If Christianity is true, there won't be any problem with that. If I meet someone who is a Muslim, I'm not arguing with them about the ins and the outs of the Koran. I've read it, but I'm no specialist. I will talk about Jesus and the New Testament. That's quite different.

      It looks like you went from just believing something because Christians said it was true to believing something because non-Christians said it was true.

      Both sides make drastic drastic mistakes.
      I have appreciated our discussion and I have learned some things.

      I believe that what separates most Christians and most skeptics is our differing views on the probability of "miracles" or as we skeptics would call them, "supernatural" events. I, and I would say, most skeptics I know, are open to the possibility of miracles, its just that we believe they are highly improbable. It is our position that if there is even ONE naturalistic explanation for the event or belief in question, then odds are that the naturalistic explanation is the correct one, not the "miracle" explanation. Our reasoning is based on our own personal experience of never (knowingly at least) experiencing a miracle nor having seen scientific confirmation of such miracles. Yes, we could be wrong, but we are confident with going with the odds on favorite: the naturalistic explanation for all events in our world.

      You claim that the cumulative evidence can only be explained by a resurrection. I don't think that you can prove this. This is simply your opinion. I believe that for every piece of evidence you present, I can present a plausible, naturalistic alternative explanation, and that all these naturalistic explanations together are much, much more probable than a resurrection/reanimation of dead human flesh.

      I would be happy to read any Christian NT scholar that you would recommend, Nick, if you would promise me that the evidence that this NT scholar presents has never been presented before and that there are ZERO naturalistic, alternative explanations for this evidence; evidence which proves, beyond any possible doubt, the historicity of the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

      I will bet that you would not do that because you are an intelligent man and you know that there are very few situations in life when we can say that something is "impossible".

      So why shouldn't we just agree to disagree, shake hands, and I will go to my corner and keep my beliefs to myself and fellow atheists/agnostics, and you will go to your corner and keep your beliefs to yourself and fellow believers. Answer: We both believe that that other man's position is dangerous. You believe that I may be leading people astray from believing in Jesus and eternal life, I believe that you are teaching yet another generation to place ancient superstitions above reason and science, and, you are, in one way or another, threatening people with eternal punishment for not accepting your belief system. I view this as the behavior of a cult.

      Maybe one reason that I reject miracle claims is my training as a physician. When I examine a 68 year old woman whose skin and whites of her eyes are yellow, whose abdomen contains a hard mass where her liver should be, I do not include in my diagnoses differential that she might be possessed by 2,000 demons, all residing inside her liver. I never entertain the supernatural in diagnosing my patients' illnesses, and for some strange reason, I have yet to encounter a medical condition that requires an exorcism.

      For most of the last two millennia, Christians have been blaming illnesses (illnesses which we today know are caused by toxins, viruses, bacteria, and cancer, all due to science), on sin and invisible demons. I had a distant cousin who I met when I was about seven and she was in her nineties. For most of her life she had been the black sheep of the family. She had been treated as an outcast. Do you know why? Answer: She had epilepsy. My very devout conservative Christian family believed that people who writhed on the floor with convulsions, biting their tongue, acting mad, were demon possessed; demon possessed due to some hidden sin, just like the people in the Bible, out of whom Jesus cast out demons. Since her "demons" refused to leave her body, even after repeated attempts by Christian pastors to cast them out, it was assumed that she was holding onto a secret sin.

      That poor woman suffered terrible psychological abuse for YEARS because of a silly, silly supernatural, superstitious belief.

      So, yes your miracles are possible, Nick, but I believe that they are highly improbable, and beyond that, I believe that they are very bad for humanity.
      Last edited by Gary; 08-06-2015, 12:25 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Gary View Post
        Thank you for your response.

        I did not say that I take Norman Asher's criticism's of Christianity at face value without questioning them. I did find them very interesting. However, nothing Norman says is new. Jews have been making these same, exact allegations against Christianity for two thousand years, and for two thousand years, Christians have refuted (satisfactorily in the eyes of Christian apologists) the Jewish criticisms.

        My point is this regarding Asher Norman: It is very interesting reading if you have never read the Jewish accusations against the messianic claims for Jesus. I think every Christian owes it to themselves to know what Jews say. Norman says it in a very easy to read format, but you can get the same information from reading any rabbi's criticism of messianic claims for Jesus. Bottom line, for me, I would think that it is much more probable that Jews understand their ancient writings better than Gentile Christians. Again, it is all about probabilities with me. Yes, all of Judaism could be wrong about their ancient writings, written in THEIR language, but odds are they are right, and the Gentile graduates of US seminaries are wrong, and so too all the Gentile Christians scholars before them.
        Trypho's arguments in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho are better than what I generally see out of Jews today. I don't care if Norman's work is in an easy to read format if he uncritically promulgates poor arguments because they agree with his premise. Also, Jesus and his immediate disciples (as well as Paul) were all Jews; it's not like Christianity was founded by Gentiles. Further, the Jews' own scriptures are full of evidence that the majority didn't get it right, and there have been Jewish believers in Jesus Christ throughout history. If you think the rabbis are correct, why aren't you converting to Judaism?
        Last edited by One Bad Pig; 08-06-2015, 07:58 AM.
        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
        sigpic
        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Gary View Post
          Thank you for your comment.

          First, I don't know of any prominent NT scholar, Christian or non-Christian, who claims that the "burial garments" detail is a historical fact. It could be true. It could be an embellishment. If there is such a scholar, please identify him or her.
          Everyone from Calvin to the editors of the Pulpit Bible commentary seems to accept the story. Which Christian (in particular) scholars say otherwise?

          I note that you are using the word "implausible", and not the word, "impossible". Therefore, this confirms what I said above. Neither Christians nor skeptics can state the claims of the other side are impossible, we can only express our opinion that the other sides' claims are implausible. We are stuck with a difference in opinion regarding which is more probable:
          A single issue, IMO, can only be declared implausible. A sufficient number of implausibles in combination might add up to a (beyond reasonable doubt) impossibility.

          1. Romans or Jews taking the body, increasing the chances of Christians claiming the prophesied resurrection had occurred.
          2. The reanimation/resurrection of dead human flesh.

          I, and I would bet, most non-Christians, would say that there are plenty of more plausible and much more probable explanations for why both the Romans and Jews would risk fueling the claim of a Resurrection by moving the body, over a miracle resurrection Here is one:
          Atheists by no means comprise a majority of non-Christians.
          The gospel writers exaggerated the significance of Jesus' crucifixion. Jesus was the leader of a small rag tag group of Galilean peasants who showed up one day at the Temple and infuriated the Sanhedrin by causing a disturbance. They wanted him dead and Pilate obliged. No big deal. End of story. Another dead Jew. Nothing of any real news.
          Pretty much the way the Bible tells it, as it happens - except for the "turning up one day" bit, that is.
          Neither the Romans or the Jewish authorities could care less if a small band of peasants believed a resurrection had occurred. They just wanted the trouble maker dead.
          In all probability, the Romans would not have been the slightest bit interested, except for being provided with an opportunity to needle the pestilential religious leaders. The Jewish leaders on the other hand, would have found Jesus and his followers a potential threat that they wanted dealt with post haste. They were, after all, the ones being publicly castigated by Jesus.

          This scenario, is much, much more probable in the cumulative history of human experience than that a dead body was resurrected. You are certainly welcome to disagree, but I would encourage you to pose this scenario to a neutral person (if such a person exists) and see what they say.
          Taken in isolation, probably.
          Last edited by tabibito; 08-06-2015, 07:44 AM.
          1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
          .
          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
          Scripture before Tradition:
          but that won't prevent others from
          taking it upon themselves to deprive you
          of the right to call yourself Christian.

          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

          Comment


          • Nick, you wrote this to Gary: "You can come up with any explanation to explain one piece of evidence. That's not really a problem. What is needed is an explanation that explains all of them."

            Why should this be the case? I see no reason why we should expect a single explanation rather than multiple explanations to explain the 10 items Gary listed.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallac...e_single_cause

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Dave View Post
              Nick, you wrote this to Gary: "You can come up with any explanation to explain one piece of evidence. That's not really a problem. What is needed is an explanation that explains all of them."

              Why should this be the case? I see no reason why we should expect a single explanation rather than multiple explanations to explain the 10 items Gary listed.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallac...e_single_cause
              Dave. Picture a homicide. We have ten pieces of evidence that led to the conviction of Smith. Smith's defense attorney knows the simplest theory that explains all the data is "Smith is the murderer." Instead, he comes up with ten theories to explain the ten pieces of evidence. Unfortunately, the problem is with multiple theories that they become more likely to contradict and mix up with one another. Now if you can come up with ten theories that somehow explain everything, that might be different, but I haven't seen it done yet.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                I have appreciated our discussion and I have learned some things.

                I believe that what separates most Christians and most skeptics is our differing views on the probability of "miracles" or as we skeptics would call them, "supernatural" events. I, and I would say, most skeptics I know, are open to the possibility of miracles, its just that we believe they are highly improbable. It is our position that if there is even ONE naturalistic explanation for the event or belief in question, then odds are that the naturalistic explanation is the correct one, not the "miracle" explanation. Our reasoning is based on our own personal experience of never (knowingly at least) experiencing a miracle nor having seen scientific confirmation of such miracles. Yes, we could be wrong, but we are confident with going with the odds on favorite: the naturalistic explanation for all events in our world.
                Look at that sentence about if there is even ONE naturalistic explanation, the odds are that is the correct one. Why? This is assuming the naturalistic explanation must be the most evidenced one. Why should I think that? Note I pointed to specialists in probability theory, one an agnostic, for my approach, and I pointed to the leading work on Miracles right now from a scholarly perspective. None of this has been responded to.

                You claim that the cumulative evidence can only be explained by a resurrection. I don't think that you can prove this. This is simply your opinion. I believe that for every piece of evidence you present, I can present a plausible, naturalistic alternative explanation, and that all these naturalistic explanations together are much, much more probable than a resurrection/reanimation of dead human flesh.
                Then go for it, but everyone of your explanations has frankly shown you don't know what you're talking about. A criminal section of the garden? Please.....

                I would be happy to read any Christian NT scholar that you would recommend, Nick, if you would promise me that the evidence that this NT scholar presents has never been presented before and that there are ZERO naturalistic, alternative explanations for this evidence; evidence which proves, beyond any possible doubt, the historicity of the bodily resurrection of Jesus.
                This is an excuse. I don't make such caveats for reading non-Christian scholars. I have Spong's book here right now. I didn't need any caveats. I simply read the book that disagrees with me. That you make excuses leads me to conclude you're not really taking the investigation seriously. If you want to read the best responses, go read people like Licona in his latest book on the resurrection.

                I will bet that you would not do that because you are an intelligent man and you know that there are very few situations in life when we can say that something is "impossible".
                No. I wouldn't because someone who keeps making caveats and excuses is someone who is not willing to face the leading scholars that oppose them. When you want to read them simply for wanting to learn from them, let me know.

                So why shouldn't we just agree to disagree, shake hands, and I will go to my corner and keep my beliefs to myself and fellow atheists/agnostics, and you will go to your corner and keep your beliefs to yourself and fellow believers. Answer: We both believe that that other man's position is dangerous. You believe that I may be leading people astray from believing in Jesus and eternal life, I believe that you are teaching yet another generation to place ancient superstitions above reason and science, and, you are, in one way or another, threatening people with eternal punishment for not accepting your belief system. I view this as the behavior of a cult.
                Feel free to show when I have threatened people with Hell. Feel free to show where I have spoken against science and religion.

                Maybe one reason that I reject miracle claims is my training as a physician. When I examine a 68 year old woman whose skin and whites of her eyes are yellow, whose abdomen contains a hard mass where her liver should be, I do not include in my diagnoses differential that she might be possessed by 2,000 demons, all residing inside her liver. I never entertain the supernatural in diagnosing my patients' illnesses, and for some strange reason, I have yet to encounter a medical condition that requires an exorcism.
                Ever been to the third world?

                For most of the last two millennia, Christians have been blaming illnesses (illnesses which we today know are caused by toxins, viruses, bacteria, and cancer, all due to science), on sin and invisible demons. I had a distant cousin who I met when I was about seven and she was in her nineties. For most of her life she had been the black sheep of the family. She had been treated as an outcast. Do you know why? Answer: She had epilepsy. My very devout conservative Christian family believed that people who writhed on the floor with convulsions, biting their tongue, acting mad, were demon possessed; demon possessed due to some hidden sin, just like the people in the Bible, out of whom Jesus cast out demons. Since her "demons" refused to leave her body, even after repeated attempts by Christian pastors to cast them out, it was assumed that she was holding onto a secret sin.
                Wow. So one account that's anecdotal and we know what 2,000 years of Christianity history was like. Fascinating. Have you read anything about the medieval period of church history and what science was going on then? Wait. I know the answer already....

                That poor woman suffered terrible psychological abuse for YEARS because of a silly, silly supernatural, superstitious belief.
                Tell you what. Let's go to Russia during the Communist reign. Let's look at all the people who were thrown into the Gulag. Let's look at all the churches that were dynamited. Let's look at all the millions that were murdered. These people suffered for YEARS because of a silly silly naturalistic belief.

                So, yes your miracles are possible, Nick, but I believe that they are highly improbable, and beyond that, I believe that they are very bad for humanity.
                And you have shown this by responding to Keener and McGrew and Earman and....oh wait...

                Someone not willing to read the other side and making excuses is not someone who is going to be taken seriously. It's amusing you won't read real scholars on these issues, but you'll jump at reading Spong and Norman.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                  Dave. Picture a homicide. We have ten pieces of evidence that led to the conviction of Smith. Smith's defense attorney knows the simplest theory that explains all the data is "Smith is the murderer." Instead, he comes up with ten theories to explain the ten pieces of evidence. Unfortunately, the problem is with multiple theories that they become more likely to contradict and mix up with one another. Now if you can come up with ten theories that somehow explain everything, that might be different, but I haven't seen it done yet.
                  Sorry, but this is an oversimplification. Let's say we were trying to determine why Smith killed the man. Smith is claiming that he heard a voice in his head telling him to do it. An investigator comes up with a long explanation that involves Smith's childhood and upbringing, lack of a father figure, some friends with mob ties and possible involvement with a recent bank heist. Should we say that this explanation is too lengthy and conclude that Smith heard a voice in his head just because it is a single explanation? (Note: I'm not trying to make an analogy to our topic, just an example of something a bit more complex (and yet not as complex as our topic))

                  Do you think the Fallacy of the single cause (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallac...e_single_cause) is a valid fallacy?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Dave View Post
                    Sorry, but this is an oversimplification. Let's say we were trying to determine why Smith killed the man. Smith is claiming that he heard a voice in his head telling him to do it. An investigator comes up with a long explanation that involves Smith's childhood and upbringing, lack of a father figure, some friends with mob ties and possible involvement with a recent bank heist. Should we say that this explanation is too lengthy and conclude that Smith heard a voice in his head just because it is a single explanation? (Note: I'm not trying to make an analogy to our topic, just an example of something a bit more complex (and yet not as complex as our topic))

                    Do you think the Fallacy of the single cause (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallac...e_single_cause) is a valid fallacy?
                    I think you're missing the point.

                    Very few cases would be decided on one piece of evidence. It's all the evidence in conjunction that makes the case more likely. Historians do look for the simplest explanations. These are the ones with more explanatory power, explanatory scope, they're less ad hoc, they're plausible, and they illuminate the data the best. In this case, one theory is to be preferred over ten.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                      I think you're missing the point.

                      Very few cases would be decided on one piece of evidence. It's all the evidence in conjunction that makes the case more likely. Historians do look for the simplest explanations. These are the ones with more explanatory power, explanatory scope, they're less ad hoc, they're plausible, and they illuminate the data the best. In this case, one theory is to be preferred over ten.
                      No, I think you missed my point. A single theory can include a series of explanations and should not be preferred less because of this. (If there are contradictions or implausibilities that is another matter)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Dave View Post
                        No, I think you missed my point. A single theory can include a series of explanations and should not be preferred less because of this. (If there are contradictions or implausibilities that is another matter)
                        Sure, and the single theory I put forward is the resurrection. It explains all the data better than multiple independent explanations happening all at once.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                          Sure, and the single theory I put forward is the resurrection. It explains all the data better than multiple independent explanations happening all at once.
                          I think alternative theories could also be plausible and can also explain the data even if they involve different explanations for different items.

                          1. A very shameful belief arising/occurring in an Honor-Shame Society.
                          It wasn't shameful because they believed Jesus was risen by God (honored by God). They also gained honor by sharing their possessions with each other.

                          2. This shameful belief persisting and not dying out even under severe persecution.
                          The early Christians believed they would receive eternal rewards for undergoing suffering. This may have been part of Jesus' original message: "Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you, revile you, and defame you on account of the Son of Man. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, for surely your reward is great in heaven."

                          3. The appearance claims listed in the early Creed mentioned in I Corinthians 15.
                          The creed makes no reference to an empty tomb and does not explicitly say that the appearances are physical in nature so we can only speculate what is meant by "appear". What we can say with some degree of certainty is that according to Paul there was early belief that Jesus died, came back to life and then appeared to his followers on different occasions. We don't know if any grave checking was done at this point or not or if that was even possible. People sometimes have very realistic dreams that are interpreted as a visitation. People sometimes are mistaken about what they see (Ghosts, Mary apparitions). People sometimes think they see something and then exaggerate what they saw. And there are some occasions when people lie about something just to be included in a group (Elvis sightings). These are all things that happen and could explain the shared belief that Jesus was still alive. To this day people are still claiming to have visions of Jesus and some Muslims even convert to Christianity because of this. Then there are Mary appearances too, but it seems she only appears to Catholics and not protestants.

                          4. Paul’s personal testimony of Jesus’ appearance to him.
                          Paul may have been lying about an actual appearance to gain credibility. People do lie sometimes when they want to be recognized as important.

                          5. Paul’s change in behavior due to the alleged appearance by Jesus to him.
                          Paul was a charismatic person and had several good ideas for his version of the gospel. He may have genuinely thought that his ideas were a direct revelation from God. From Galations 1:11-12, "For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ."

                          6. The change in the disciples behavior.
                          They really thought Jesus was still alive and they kept preaching his message.

                          7. The appearance stories in the Gospels.
                          Some of these could be exaggerated oral traditions and some could be invented by the authors.

                          8. The empty tomb.
                          Someone could have invented this story to suppress any notions that the resurrection was spiritual as opposed to physical. It could have been a separate oral tradition that became popular among some of the followers. The author of Mark puts this oral tradition into his gospel and the other gospel authors copy from Mark and add some of their own improvements. Acts does not have any new converts going to check out the empty tomb nor is it mentioned in any of the sermons. It would seem from Acts that many converts are capable of believing and being baptized without the need to investigate any resurrection claims.

                          The disciples would not die for a lie.
                          Everyone was convinced they were doing God’s will and were preaching his words. This ties in with #2.

                          10. Papias’ statements regarding the authorship of the gospels.
                          Papias may have been reporting hearsay or it may have been true. Papias also says that Judas Iscariot lived on and became bloated, wider than a chariot, with pus and worms coming out of his body.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                            Trypho's arguments in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho are better than what I generally see out of Jews today. I don't care if Norman's work is in an easy to read format if he uncritically promulgates poor arguments because they agree with his premise. Also, Jesus and his immediate disciples (as well as Paul) were all Jews; it's not like Christianity was founded by Gentiles. Further, the Jews' own scriptures are full of evidence that the majority didn't get it right, and there have been Jewish believers in Jesus Christ throughout history. If you think the rabbis are correct, why aren't you converting to Judaism?
                            Why don't I become a Jew? Answer: I don't believe the Jewish claim that an invisible god spoke out of the clear blue sky to three million Hebrews camped around a mountain in the Sinai peninsula at some point in the Bronze Age. This is another supernatural claim with no good evidence to support it.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                              Everyone from Calvin to the editors of the Pulpit Bible commentary seems to accept the story. Which Christian (in particular) scholars say otherwise?

                              A single issue, IMO, can only be declared implausible. A sufficient number of implausibles in combination might add up to a (beyond reasonable doubt) impossibility.

                              Atheists by no means comprise a majority of non-Christians.
                              Pretty much the way the Bible tells it, as it happens - except for the "turning up one day" bit, that is.
                              In all probability, the Romans would not have been the slightest bit interested, except for being provided with an opportunity to needle the pestilential religious leaders. The Jewish leaders on the other hand, would have found Jesus and his followers a potential threat that they wanted dealt with post haste. They were, after all, the ones being publicly castigated by Jesus.

                              Taken in isolation, probably.
                              Are you serious? Because a Protestant pastor in sixteenth century Switzerland and the editors of Bibles believe that the detail about Jesus' folded burial clothes was an historical fact, people today should believe it??

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                                Everyone from Calvin to the editors of the Pulpit Bible commentary seems to accept the story. Which Christian (in particular) scholars say otherwise?

                                A single issue, IMO, can only be declared implausible. A sufficient number of implausibles in combination might add up to a (beyond reasonable doubt) impossibility.

                                Atheists by no means comprise a majority of non-Christians.
                                Pretty much the way the Bible tells it, as it happens - except for the "turning up one day" bit, that is.
                                In all probability, the Romans would not have been the slightest bit interested, except for being provided with an opportunity to needle the pestilential religious leaders. The Jewish leaders on the other hand, would have found Jesus and his followers a potential threat that they wanted dealt with post haste. They were, after all, the ones being publicly castigated by Jesus.

                                Taken in isolation, probably.
                                "A single issue, IMO, can only be declared implausible. A sufficient number of implausibles in combination might add up to a (beyond reasonable doubt) impossibility. "

                                No. If every single issue has a naturalistic alternative explanation, then the conclusion for the accumulated individual pieces of evidence has a naturalistic, alternative explanation. Please provide ONE piece of Christian evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus that cannot have an alternative, naturalistic explanation.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X