Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[William]

No, I'm merely suggesting you read Bauckham's argument against your position.

it's on my list. thanks.

[psstein]

The point of the author's article is that Keener is asking his readers to believe in miracles based on eyewitness testimony not based on facts (evidence). Does Keener hire independent, unbiased scientists and physicians to investigate the claims of a miracle or does he simply accept the testimony of the "eyewitnesses"? The author is saying that eye witness testimony is valuable, but is not as good as the evidence itself. Eye witness testimony should not be accepted as fact, especially if it contradicts reason. If five hundred people claim to have seen the dead but resurrected Abraham Lincoln strolling the streets of Peoria, we should NOT accept their "eyewitness testimony" as fact. We should examine the evidence as their claim defies reason.

Keener is reporting miracle claims. Yet again, he is not adjudicating on whether or not they happened. Keener's main argument is an argument against Hume. Hume claims you can't have a sufficient number of eyewitnesses, but then throws out all eyewitness accounts. Instead, he demands direct experience. He doesn't follow this epistemology anywhere else, so his argument is circular.

[Apologiaphoenix]

[QUOTE=William;232357]you seem to implying that I havent read any. I have. If you ask me for a bibliography, I'm afraid I wouldnt be able to offer much, as I just didnt keep track of my studies. I still read now as well, but a slower pace with all else going on. books, articles and what have you, and since I'm out of middle school, I know how to look at credentials and I know what value peer review adds to any work.

and if this isnt worthy of your time to hold discussions related to the bible, then I'll let you have another chance to offer your own personal prerequisites. I'd hate for someone with your education to be burdened with having to discuss too much with laymen. I am kinda poking fun, but really out of good nature. and really, if you dont want to discuss any further unless I've read more to your liking, then please, offer a list. I'll leave you guys alone until I get through them - but i stay quite busy so it would be awhile. [QUOTE]

If you have read, then by all means give the arguments that you have given and state where they come from.

but look at this as well, religion and miracles exist in the world. So whatever sources you may suggest also exist in a world where we have countless experts in the sciences. We have histories that are filled with mythologies that were once believed valid, and examples of others who believed wrongly about things, and many examples of eyewitness testimonies being completely wrong.

Yes. Now if you think the sciences have refuted miracles, then please tell which science and when this was done.

so these "counter points" are also valid.

This is also why I've been asking for an argument against miracles. I have not been given one. Skepticism is a position. It is not an argument.

We know that dead people stay dead. We have all sorts of data backing that up. And this is understandable for all of us. If anyone came up to you and said that some dead guy came back to life, i would think we'd all be very skeptical, and seriously doubt any of us would hold it at 50/50 until we confirmed that there was someone who claimed to be an eyewitness.

Did you know that in the ancient world, people buried their dead? These people saw death on a regular basis. They also knew that dead people stay dead. This is not news.

So with the bible let's say that we have 5 sources for the Resurrection, Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. They all seem to agree that there was a Resurrection. A Resurrection isn't the same as claiming that someone crossed a river or fought in a war; this is more like 5 people claiming to have been abducted by aliens - a Resurrection is counter to natural law, so it couldn't be expected that anyone should take it without any skepticism.

This assumes your version of Natural Law and it assumes that a miracle is somehow the breaking of it. While I do recognize a resurrection is a greater claim and thus needs great evidence, I do not accept your usage of the idea of Natural Law.

Paul says that there were 500 other witnesses, but since there's reason to be skeptical that dead men come back to life and fly, it becomes reasonable to be skeptical of Paul's 500 claim. Why doesn't he name the? Could be giving a random round number merely in a effort to add credibility? But it could be true, albeit still a very big claim. And Paul was evidently called a liar as he made efforts to refute that allegation. Was he a liar?

I do not know a single NT scholar who thinks Paul is lying. Paul is not making up the claim here. The claim is one he received secondhand and passed on. The witnesses are not named because this is a creed for easy memorization. It's not going to be easy if it has 500 names. Also, the number of 500 is of course rounding. Who else did this? Every single other author in the ancient world.

and then we take the 4 gospels. They do agree that there was a Resurrection, but then their stories part ways in the details - where the angels met them, who spoke to the angles, where Jesus met them, and who spoke to him, how many people and who did what first or at what time... you can say they're insignificant details to larger claim, but this is exactly how conspirators are caught. The major details were worked out,

And if we followed this standard, we'd lose much of ancient history. For instance, how did Hannibal make it to Rome? We have two accounts that completely contradict. I don't know of any historian of that time period who doubts that Hannibal marched to Rome though.

1 "Okay, we were here all night and ordered in and watched TV."

2 "Got It."

then under interrogation or when writing their memoir decades later,

1 "we stayed home all night, watching Magnum PI and eating Pizza."

2 "We stayed in all evening watching some old movie and ordered Chinese."

these contradictions mean something. maybe they're just off only on those details, but it typically makes either's testimony entirely untrustworthy as no one can say what else they're off on, or whether any actually did any of that. Right? This is fairly obvious.

These are also minor events. They are not what would be called Flashbulb memories. Those kinds of things leaven an impression. Talk to people who were around when Kennedy was assassinated. Many of them can tell you exactly where they were when they heard. Think about 9/11. Many of us have very vivid memories. You think if someone saw a dead person alive again they're going to misconstrue that?

So when all 4 gospels differ in the details and Paul doesn't even give any, where does our confidence reside? in whom can we trust? It could very well be that all of them heard a story enough times that they each wrote from a memory of hearsay and not actual witness, which is why the major details are right and all the others are off.

This is where Bauckham comes in. Also, we go with what they do state with the criterion such as multiple attestation. This is just standard historiography. I've shown the scholarly quotes. That people were honestly convinced Christ appeared to them is not in doubt.

"well, back then no one would lie," except people lie. They always have, so we cant say that they do not or that they did not.

No one has made that argument. We are saying they had nothing to gain from this lie.

"but there are embarrassing details," except a crucifixion isnt be argued against, and women who are on there way to care for a dead body isnt embarrassing, and they allegedly weren't trusted so then the men went to verify becoming witnesses, so is that really embarrassing? and regardless, not many doubt that women may have seen something.

Yes. Women are embarrassing. If the Gospels were making up the story, women would not be the first witnesses. Their testimony was not accepted in a court of law.

"but there's an empty tomb," which proves an empty tomb and no more is evidence for a resurrected body that any empty to grave today and nor does a missing body from ascension into heaven.

Again, who here has argued that the empty tomb alone proves resurrection? Not a single person has. You can take a cumulative case and say "Each piece by itself doesn't prove the point." It doesn't, but taken together it becomes much more powerful.

"but people believed it and they would have known better," and people of all times, and even today, believe in all sorts if nonsense, right?

This can be used to argue against anything if we keep this up. "Our scientists believe in evolution!" But people believe all sorts of nonsense. Right? "Many people believe it's wrong to torture babies for fun." But people believe all sorts of nonsense. "Many people believe the sun is the center of our solar system." But people believe all sorts of nonsense.

What has to be asked is "Why do people with the most to lose believe in something that goes against so much of what they would believe prior and costs them so much?"

"but people wouldn't die for a lie," and who did? Who died that had the chance to recant in order to save their lives? and we have martyrs of other religions as well, which no more proves their religion, than martyrs of Christ prove christ.

This has not been my argument.

"It's the only thing that answers all the questions," except it's not. There are other documented cases of mass miracles. There are documented cases of mistaken identities, where family members believed a stranger living with them was dear family member, documented cases of people being fooled by all manner of things, as well as many scientific and personal reasons to remain doubtful.

Cavin put forward the twin theory. It didn't last, but the reason he had to put a theory forward was that he had to have something to explain the data. Saying there are other mass miracles does not prove this one. Saying mistaken identities in other places does not show it here. If you want to say there is a better explanation that covers all the details, then give it.

[William]

So how do you know that the miracles alleged by Keneer were not ALL performed by demons? How do you know that the resurrection appearances were all perpetrated by demons. How do you know that the Satan isn't behind all of it to steer people away from God's true teachings: orthodox Judaism??

because jesus said that if the miracle worker credits god, then he couldnt be of the devil, as that would not help the devil's case and would only aid God, who is the devil's enemy. Of course, it could be that if the devil wants people to go to hell, that it's easier to convince peopl eto follow the wrong God or follow God the wrong way than it is to convince them to out right follow satan.

But then Duet 13 warns the Israelites that even in someone came to them working miracles, that they shouldnt believe them if they were also trying to get them to follow a different god. Reading that Chapter I can see why the Jews rejected Jesus if he were going from one "God" to "One God and me, his deity son."

[Gary]

With regards to what Psstein said about the resurrection being the best explanation of the data, while we disagree on secondary details, I thoroughly agree with the primary point. I don't think any other explanation really comes close to the explanatory power of the resurrection hypothesis. We have to get into things like aliens and conspiracies and such.

I'm thinking with William it might be best to focus our discussion more now on the point of miracles since that seems to be the key issue.

Great! So I think we have made a major step forward. We have all agreed that there are plausible, alternative explanations for the early Christian belief in a bodily resurrection. We differ as to which explanation is the MOST plausible. Now we must examine the probabilities of miracles. Have tens of thousands of these events happened in human history and are still happening today, in every culture and in every religion, or, are these events simply rare but natural phenomena?

[Gary]

Looking at the thing from Gary's post, it looks more like Gary is refusing to read the books and is just reading about the books or watching videos. This is why I asked "Have you read any of Bart Ehrman's books?" I did not get a reply to this. When Hoffmeier has been recommended, he has not been read, but rather a video of Hoffmeier has been watched. To avoid reading material because it disagrees with you or because you think it will be too "time-consuming" is not the route to go if you claim to be a man of reason seeking truth. If you are seeking truth, it is worth every ounce of effort that you get it.

I've read Keener's book and it looks like the critic of the snippet video has the same problem as Hume has. It's in fact a kind of racism. Keener records numerous miracles, many of them with medical documentation including before and after evidence.

You can try approaching the actual book and going through it or stick your head in the sand and ignore it.

Nick, as a medical professional myself, I can assure you that there is a very big difference between someone claiming medical documentation for an event, and you accepting that claim as fact, versus, hiring professional, non-biased experts in the field to independently investigate the claims. If you can show me that Keneer hired professional, non-biased experts to independently investigate these claims, then I will buy the book and I will read it.

In regards to Hoffmeier: Hoffmeier has made clear in the interviews that I have watched that he views the finding of ruins of a city or location mentioned in the Exodus story as proof of the entire Exodus story. This is non-scientific thinking and frankly, downright silly. He is not a serious scholar, he is a person of faith desperately seeking any and all evidence to support his supernatural beliefs.

Yes, I read Ehrman's books.

As I have said before, I also read NT Wright's 800+ page book. I am willing to read any Christian scholar's book when someone can convince me I am going to read a fresh idea, not the same assumptions and second century hearsay.

[Adrift]

And if we followed this standard, we'd lose much of ancient history. For instance, how did Hannibal make it to Rome? We have two accounts that completely contradict. I don't know of any historian of that time period who doubts that Hannibal marched to Rome though.

Yeah, the idea that conspirators don't get the details wrong on minor details is not correct. Quite the reverse is true, usually conspirators who have the time to write out their conspiracies are in perfect harmony. True eyewitness reports are the ones where we expect disharmony on smaller details. This is so well attested that the disharmony between the Gospels is often pointed to as evidence for their general truthfulness on historical facts.

[Adrift]

"but people wouldn't die for a lie," and who did? Who died that had the chance to recant in order to save their lives? and we have martyrs of other religions as well, which no more proves their religion, than martyrs of Christ prove christ.

"People wouldn't die for a lie" is not the argument that apologists make. A lot of people think it is for some reason, and it comes up a lot of forums like this, but it simply is not the argument made. The argument is, "people do not KNOWINGLY die for a lie". In other words, no one is going to go get themselves killed for something they have first hand knowledge is false.

[Gary]

Here is a claim of a "cure" with medical documentation:

People Saved from the Brink of Death
by the One-Minute Cure
This is an excerpt from a real-life case study.
Names have been changed for privacy reasons.

Dr. Lance Moriarty, the Director of a medical clinic in Nairobi, Kenya (where 1 out of every 8 people is infected with AIDS or HIV), reported that "Patients have literally been dragged back from the brink of death" from the use of the natural oxygenating substance revealed in The One-Minute Cure. When the substance was administered to 50 patients who were suffering from AIDS or the HIV virus, 30 of them went into immediate remission -- and the rest of the patients reported an increase in stamina and a sense of well-being they never had before. This success rate is unheard of in the medical and pharmaceutical world where AIDS is still considered incurable! Dr. Moriarty went on to say that whenever the one-minute cure is administered throughout the community, "People come back to life! It blows my mind!"

Gary: So we have a doctor who claims he has a cure for AIDS. A claim that defies conventional medical thinking the world over as no cure for AIDS has yet been found. So should we believe this one doctor's claim as fact?

I hope your answer is "no". And why? We should not believe even a DOCTOR'S claim of a cure if it defies all conventional medical wisdom. Before accepting a "cure" claim which defies REASON, we should examine the facts ourselves or have an independent team of doctors/scientists investigate the evidence. We should not believe eyewitness testimony, even supported by alleged "medical documentation" without thoroughly investigating the facts. Eyewitness testimony is valuable but when eyewitness testimony defies reason, it must be considered highly suspect.

[One Bad Pig]

So how do you know that the miracles alleged by Keneer were not ALL performed by demons?

Demons do not generally heal people; it's against their nature.

How can you be sure that the resurrection appearances were not all perpetrated by demons? How do you know that Satan isn't behind all of it to steer people away from God's true faith: orthodox Judaism??

Troll harder. Acts 19:11-17.

[Gary]

Obviously, I didn't provide the exact specifics. We happen to know quite a bit about Jesus' general activity and life during his public ministry. With form criticism and source criticism, it's also fairly easy to figure out what specifically goes back to Jesus and what doesn't. Embellishments are often quickly sighted.

I really fail to see how that post "blows Keener out of the water." Keener's is attacking Hume's circular argument. There are insufficient eyewitnesses only if you ignore the eyewitnesses. He's not arguing for the veracity of miracles; he's simply saying there's more to it than Hume's argument. You have to read the book rather than just go off of blog posts and talks. I've listened to talks and completely disagreed with the people giving them. I've read their published work later and conceded they have a point.

There are other, largely philosophical issues with that post, and it would require a discussion far beyond the scope of this thread. The worst is "religious faith is antithetical to reason."

I'll quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (my denomination's Articles of Faith): "Our Holy Mother, the Church, teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be knwon with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason" (CCC 36).

The author's point is that eyewitness testimony is valuable, but, when eyewitness testimony defies reason, eyewitness testimony is suspect. In this situation we must look at the evidence ourselves or ask non-biased experts to evaluate the evidence. Eyewitness testimony that defies reason is suspect even in a court of law. Even if one thousand people testify in court that they have seen Elvis Presley alive since his alleged death their testimony is NOT going to be highly regarded.

Prove to me that Keneer hired qualified, unbiased experts to examine his miracle claims and I will buy and read his book. Tell me that the veracity of his miracle claims, and the alleged medical documentation for those miracle claims, are based on "eyewitness testimony" and I will say that all you have is hearsay.

Maybe a Creator God or Gods can be found by human reason, but not Yahweh-Jesus the Christ.

[tabibito]

Once again you are making the logical error of Begging the Question: You are using the testimony in question (the four anonymous gospels) as evidence for the validity of the claims of the very same testimony. Your argument falls apart when we look at actual evidence: Christians have the same morbidity and mortality rates as non-Christians. Christians do NOT have lower rates of illness or death than persons of other religions or even atheists. Therefore, claims that persons who follow sound Christian teaching are more likely to experience a miracle than those who do not is proven false.

You missed the alternative explanation - or are you claiming that every one of the competing and contradictory precepts is sound doctrine?

[Gary]

That's more or less my stance as well. I think there are other possible alternatives, but they don't have the same explanatory power. The hallucination leading to the empty tomb is almost a sort of provincialism and presentism. I think Wright's treatment in Chapter 18 of the Resurrection of the Son of God is damning to the hallucination hypothesis.

How about false sightings and visions? These entities are not the same as a hallucinations, unless you believe that Paul's "heavenly vision" was an hallucination.

[Gary]

Demons do not generally heal people; it's against their nature.

Troll harder. Acts 19:11-17.

And you know this fact how?

[William]

If you have read, then by all means give the arguments that you have given and state where they come from.

- I have already said that I have not compiled a bibliography or a list over everything I’ve read. And I am offering my own arguments based upon my thoughts and knowledge.

Yes. Now if you think the sciences have refuted miracles, then please tell which science and when this was done.

- There is ample reason to be skeptical of supernatural events from lack of every seeing any, to examples of faked ones, to there being no proof of any and documented cases where eyewitnesses were completely wrong and at times in masses.

This is also why I've been asking for an argument against miracles. I have not been given one. Skepticism is a position. It is not an argument.

- My argument against miracles has never been solely, “I am skeptical.” If you’re really concerned with great evidences and rational arguments, then show how skepticism toward miracles is baseless, or provide actual evidence for miracles besides claims that there were miracles.

Did you know that in the ancient world, people buried their dead? These people saw death on a regular basis. They also knew that dead people stay dead. This is not news.

- I have no doubt that ancient people knew that dead people died, but ancient people already had other stories of dead people coming back to life, and in a time when the population was more given to superstition than they are today.

This assumes your version of Natural Law and it assumes that a miracle is somehow the breaking of it. While I do recognize a resurrection is a greater claim and thus needs great evidence, I do not accept your usage of the idea of Natural Law.

- Assumed natural law? Is it really assumption that dead men coming back to life after 3 days is contrary to natural law? If you want to argue that then fine, I’ll just say that Miracles, if real at all, are extremely rare; and are sometimes faked.

I do not know a single NT scholar who thinks Paul is lying. Paul is not making up the claim here. The claim is one he received secondhand and passed on. The witnesses are not named because this is a creed for easy memorization. It's not going to be easy if it has 500 names. Also, the number of 500 is of course rounding. Who else did this? Every single other author in the ancient world.

- Paul may not have been lying about the 5oo, but he was obviously called a liar by someone back then. So the scholars may not think he was lying about 500 he got word on hearsay, but they don’t know whether he was or wasn’t lying about anything else – we just know the accusation had been made and he made efforts to defend that claim.


and then if the 500 was mere hearsay, then it's inadmissible in a court of law, and for good reason - there's nothing to back it at this point beyond paul's word, which has been called into questions by some of his peers.

And if we followed this standard, we'd lose much of ancient history. For instance, how did Hannibal make it to Rome? We have two accounts that completely contradict. I don't know of any historian of that time period who doubts that Hannibal marched to Rome though.

What supernatural events do you believe in ancient history that aren’t related to the Judeo-Christian? Historians usually toss that stuff out while accepting the rest, and even then, it’s usually taken as based on a true story. Plus, nothing else in ancient history has any divine or eternal consequences attached to the belief in that thing. Christianity does, so it’s not satisfied with “maybe” or “could be” but requires a definite believe in Jesus’ divinity.

These are also minor events. They are not what would be called Flashbulb memories. Those kinds of things leaven an impression. Talk to people who were around when Kennedy was assassinated. Many of them can tell you exactly where they were when they heard. Think about 9/11. Many of us have very vivid memories. You think if someone saw a dead person alive again they're going to misconstrue that?

IF they saw it. what i am saying is that this testimony that contains contradictory details, written decades after the event, creates questions. These people may not have even been witnesses, but had only heard the accounts of others in general and decided to write down the events, taking poetic license. And because memories are not static is exactly why eyewitness testimony is no longer counted as very reliable - someone's best efforts to be truthful can still result in error.


[QUOTE=Apologiaphoenix;232373]
This is where Bauckham comes in. Also, we go with what they do state with the criterion such as multiple attestation. This is just standard historiography. I've shown the scholarly quotes. That people were honestly convinced Christ appeared to them is not in doubt.

- And while it’s not a doubt that some people believed that jesus rose from the dead, it is also not doubted that many other did not find that tale convincing. So some people believed it – their belief is no more proof of their religion’s reality than any other sincere believer proves any other religion’s reality.

No one has made that argument. We are saying they had nothing to gain from this lie.

- Some may not have had anything to gain from the lie while others may have. James may have. Paul even could have. People lie. People are mistaken. People are wrong all the time without realizing it.

Yes. Women are embarrassing. If the Gospels were making up the story, women would not be the first witnesses. Their testimony was not accepted in a court of law.

Would it have been embarrassing to have the men going to clean the dead body? Either way, the text also has men witnessing the empty tomb, and that’s not embarrassing. But again, even if women actually saw an empty tomb, that only indicates there’s nothing inside, not that the dead returned to life.

Again, who here has argued that the empty tomb alone proves resurrection? Not a single person has. You can take a cumulative case and say "Each piece by itself doesn't prove the point." It doesn't, but taken together it becomes much more powerful.

I never said anyone said the empty tomb alone proves anything. But the response to each point, taken together becomes much more powerful in refuting the entire thing.

This can be used to argue against anything if we keep this up. "Our scientists believe in evolution!" But people believe all sorts of nonsense. Right? "Many people believe it's wrong to torture babies for fun." But people believe all sorts of nonsense. "Many people believe the sun is the center of our solar system." But people believe all sorts of nonsense.

What has to be asked is "Why do people with the most to lose believe in something that goes against so much of what they would believe prior and costs them so much?"

or rather what we have to ask is what does the evidence show. You shouldnt believe in evolution because someone claimed it were real – what does the evidence show? Precisely, that’s how it’s supposed to work. And even with evolution, they’re still trying to learn more and more and if better data comes along, why the adjust their position to account for all the data. Don’t take anyone’s word on it – review the data.

This has not been my argument.

so you agree it's a bad one?

Cavin put forward the twin theory. It didn't last, but the reason he had to put a theory forward was that he had to have something to explain the data. Saying there are other mass miracles does not prove this one. Saying mistaken identities in other places does not show it here. If you want to say there is a better explanation that covers all the details, then give it.

saying that there other accounts of miracles shows this is not as unique as some would like it to be, as well as provide a solid example of people, even in groups, believing in nonsense.

saying that there are documented cases of mistaken identities does show a feasible explanation as to how someone may have believed to jesus after his death. It happens.

so taking these documented cases does present a feasible and natural explanation to the sightings.

I have given several other possible explanations, and has Gary, and then I have provided links to studies and cases of mistaken identities and mass witnessed miracles to illustrate that they are not only possible, but that they do in fact happen.

I really dont understand how you really think that it's much more plausible and likely for a man to come back to life and fly away than these other natural explanations, that have been shown to actually happen.