Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Gary]

Using those same standards of evidence in a courtroom would render it impossible to convict anyone of any crime.

However, there is one human who knows with certainty, regardless of how flimsy or solid the evidence, whether in fact the accused has committed the crime. The fact seems to have escaped the cited author's attention.

I don't understand your point. Would you please explain?

[psstein]

A recent committee reached the conclusion Purgatory itself may not exist. The jury is still out on how that will affect Church teachings.

As for Hell, the wicked are punished.

[Gary]

A recent committee reached the conclusion Purgatory itself may not exist. The jury is still out on how that will affect Church teachings.

As for Hell, the wicked are punished.

Would you define "wicked"?

[tabibito]

I don't understand your point. Would you please explain?

It should be self evident:
No matter how skilfully and convincingly a miracle is faked, at least one person knows that it has been faked.
Provided that there are two or more witnesses, at least one person who witnesses a genuine miracle will know beyond all doubt that neither chicanery nor delusion is involved.

Either way, the person will have iron clad evidence of the facts that no number of persuasive words of wisdom can influence.

[tabibito]

A recent committee reached the conclusion Purgatory itself may not exist. The jury is still out on how that will affect Church teachings.

As for Hell, the wicked are punished.

Close examination of the New Testament scriptures reveals that purgatory does indeed exist. However, there were mistakes in determining who enters purgatory and when. The "who" is the committed believer, and the "when" is after baptism.

[Apologiaphoenix]

I am not aware of this ample reason you speak of.

It's the reason I gave. I find J.P. Moreland's account quite good in fact. Why? Because seeing an ear grow back is nothing that you just happen to be mistaken on nor can it be something like the placebo effect. Note that when you have that account there has to be one of three options.

He is lying.

He is delusional in some way.

He's telling the truth.

If 1 and 2 are not likely, then 3 follows. The reality is numerous other people affirm this and Keener points this out in his book with even newspapers around the event citing it. Keener spoke to eyewitnesses and he's still speaking to them. He has students from all over the world and he asks them about miracles regularly.

And as for theism, I think the Thomistic arguments guarantee theism.



You have, but you have not given a basis at the same time. Your position relies on miracle claims being false. Mine says some could be false. Some could be true. Per the Chesterton quote earlier, yours is a position of dogma. Mine says "We determine if the miracle is true or false by the evidence."






Then they are telling the truth.

Sure. Why not?

I think this illustrates how some people will not believe anything. If you keep raising the bar of evidence, then you're not being fair to the evidence. If you make the standards impossibly high, you're also not being fair.

And then what these people claim to have seen is so far outside what I understand about the world we live in, coupled with the fact that all other religions have similar claims, I become skeptical. Just as I am about alien abductions, despite the photographs and volumes of witnesses and accounts.

Is this really a crazy position?

Yes. I think it's nonsensical to think everyone who ever lived who claims seeing a miracle is either lying or deluded in some way.


No. While Psstein referred to J.Z. Smith's excellent work, I'd also point to Mettinger's "Riddle of the Resurrection."


Why does a stone fall? Does it fall because there's a natural law outside of itself that it obeys, or does it fall because that is what is in the nature of a stone? Hume couldn't say that. Once you start denying essences to objects, things start going wrong. It was one of the greatest tragedies that we abandoned Aristotelianism.


Then he was not lying.

It's not imaginary. You made the charge that Paul is lying. I answered and then you said "Maybe he didn't know it was a lie." If he reported something false thinking it was true, then that is not lying. That is being mistaken.

The eyewitnesses would have been known to the community. The statement is meant to be as succinct as possible. That will aid in memorization. In an oral community, this is perfectly acceptable.

So you just said earlier that Paul was seen as a liar by some and then say that everyone is going to trust Paul. Which is it? As for a letter getting lost, what letter? The only one being discussed is 1 Cor. 15 and we have it right here.





No. It's golden because it's a historical claim about a major figure that is remarkably early.


No. I said miracles are not essential to the religions. It's true. They're not. Christianity makes it central.





And have you read anything such as McIver's work on Jesus, Memory, and the Synoptic Gospels? Have you studied oral societies? This wasn't a case of individual memories. This was a case of group memories. The group told the stories to each other over and over and the ones with the best memories were the gatekeepers. Also, memories were far better back then.

This is also a misnomer anyway. You would have no problem with centuries later for ancient history, unless you're skeptical of Alexander the Great. For miracles, you think decades later is too much. Well the creed in 1 Cor. 15 is not decades later and you still throw it out. This has nothing to do with decades or centuries. This has to do with just not being willing to accept miracles.

Ancient history does not take things. It is either ancient people or historians of ancient history.

And you are right about collusion, but you stop short. An exact carbon copy is suspect. One source is more questionable than several. Some differences are expected, but at a point, if these differences are big enough in the details, that also raises a red flag. To me and others (including scholars), these gospels have such big differences, that it appears they copied Mark for the major points, but then each tried filling in other details into their own works. It looks like they each invented stories, based upon an original, while being unaware then the other was doing the same.

Did Hannibal cross the Alps?

Let's suppose this is true. So what? Once again, my case has never hinged on the Gospels.




For the first kind, you have one case cited and this from modern times, not ancient times. The same for the son. This also assumes the people who claimed Mary didn't see anything and for the dancing sun, it's my understanding that if you stare at the sun long enough, it will cause retinal damage of a sorts that is permanent and will make the sun look like it's dancing. Sorry, but I have no desire to test this hypothesis. Again, this is why I find these cases quite weak.



Okay. What did the Christian cult leaders stand to gain?







There is hardly any major claim that all scholars will agree on in a field, but the data I am using is accepted by the majority of critical scholars. I find the other explanations extraordinarily weak.

What do you mean the only one of its kind? Other stories of deity resurrections were already in existence.

Name one.

Elijah had brought a boy back from the dead too.

Who would later die again. Jesus rose in a body that would never die again.

No. We don't. Every Christian in this thread will agree that miracles are very very rare and if you can show a natural explanation, we will have no problem going with it.

Maybe, but with good historiography, we tend to go with the simplest explanation because multiplying explanations leads to more difficulties.

Well, there are more documented cases of mistaken identities than there are of resurrections, so it seems more plausible already.

Why should I be surprised by this?

Huh? So any ghost story in the ancient world can be trusted as being real because we can know that they were certain? Are you just making stuff up when you think it helps your argument?

Good grief. I wonder how you misunderstand this. With a ghost story, we could be convinced the person thought they saw something. If they thought they saw someone who had been dead before, what would they conclude?

The person was dead. It was their ghost or their angel.

Even today I know of no case where a spouse sees their recently departed spouse and then says "Open the tomb! He must be alive!"

Can I show that a plausible natural explanation actually happened better than you can show that a supernatural explanation happened? Am I not understanding you correctly?

No. You're not.

Memories were better back then?

Yes. In an age where you could not write post-it notes or store everything on an IPhone or Laptop, you had to remember everything. Just look at people like the Rhapsodes who memorized the works of Homer entirely. Many of the educated Jews would have the whole Old Testament memorized.

Dead seen on a day to day basis? No more than today. As for being less educated, this has zip to do with this as they knew dead people stay dead.

Really, are you just making stuff up on the spot or are you being totally serious?

Totally serious. Read some scholarly works on ancient memory.

Who said they see dead people all the time?

I'm not. I'm just saying they had better memories. You're adding in a bunch of other stuff.

Maybe your memory isn't that good....

[Gary]

It should be self evident:
No matter how skilfully and convincingly a miracle is faked, at least one person knows that it has been faked.
Provided that there are two or more witnesses, at least one person who witnesses a genuine miracle will know beyond all doubt that neither chicanery nor delusion is involved.

Either way, the person will have iron clad evidence of the facts that no number of persuasive words of wisdom can influence.

You are assuming that all "miracles" are either true acts of God or an act of lying. You have left out the most common probability: human error. Example: There is a car crash. The victims are trapped in a burning vehicle. Suddenly, "out of nowhere", a being pulls them from the car and then "disappears".

An "angel" rescued us! It is a miracle!

No. The "being" was a homeless person living in the woods next to the road. He helped them but then "disappeared" back into the woods to avoid the police whose sirens he could hear approaching.

[tabibito]

You are assuming that all "miracles" are either true acts of God or an act of lying. You have left out the most common probability: human error. Example: There is a car crash. The victims are trapped in a burning vehicle. Suddenly, "out of nowhere", a being pulls them from the car and then "disappears".

An "angel" rescued us! It is a miracle!

No. The "being" was a homeless person living in the woods next to the road. He helped them but then "disappeared" back into the woods to avoid the police whose sirens he could hear approaching.

So - the one person who knows beyond all doubt whether the story of the angel is true is???
The one who actually performed the rescue miracle.
No matter how many convincing "proofs" to the contrary were offered - (short of deliberate brain washing) no one would be able to convince him that the event had a supernatural cause. Even if everyone else within coo-ee was convinced, yes?

[Gary]

It's the reason I gave. I find J.P. Moreland's account quite good in fact. Why? Because seeing an ear grow back is nothing that you just happen to be mistaken on nor can it be something like the placebo effect. Note that when you have that account there has to be one of three options.

He is lying.

He is delusional in some way.

He's telling the truth.

If 1 and 2 are not likely, then 3 follows. The reality is numerous other people affirm this and Keener points this out in his book with even newspapers around the event citing it. Keener spoke to eyewitnesses and he's still speaking to them. He has students from all over the world and he asks them about miracles regularly.

And as for theism, I think the Thomistic arguments guarantee theism.





You have, but you have not given a basis at the same time. Your position relies on miracle claims being false. Mine says some could be false. Some could be true. Per the Chesterton quote earlier, yours is a position of dogma. Mine says "We determine if the miracle is true or false by the evidence."








Then they are telling the truth.



Sure. Why not?



I think this illustrates how some people will not believe anything. If you keep raising the bar of evidence, then you're not being fair to the evidence. If you make the standards impossibly high, you're also not being fair.



Yes. I think it's nonsensical to think everyone who ever lived who claims seeing a miracle is either lying or deluded in some way.




No. While Psstein referred to J.Z. Smith's excellent work, I'd also point to Mettinger's "Riddle of the Resurrection."




Why does a stone fall? Does it fall because there's a natural law outside of itself that it obeys, or does it fall because that is what is in the nature of a stone? Hume couldn't say that. Once you start denying essences to objects, things start going wrong. It was one of the greatest tragedies that we abandoned Aristotelianism.




Then he was not lying.



It's not imaginary. You made the charge that Paul is lying. I answered and then you said "Maybe he didn't know it was a lie." If he reported something false thinking it was true, then that is not lying. That is being mistaken.



The eyewitnesses would have been known to the community. The statement is meant to be as succinct as possible. That will aid in memorization. In an oral community, this is perfectly acceptable.



So you just said earlier that Paul was seen as a liar by some and then say that everyone is going to trust Paul. Which is it? As for a letter getting lost, what letter? The only one being discussed is 1 Cor. 15 and we have it right here.







No. It's golden because it's a historical claim about a major figure that is remarkably early.




No. I said miracles are not essential to the religions. It's true. They're not. Christianity makes it central.







And have you read anything such as McIver's work on Jesus, Memory, and the Synoptic Gospels? Have you studied oral societies? This wasn't a case of individual memories. This was a case of group memories. The group told the stories to each other over and over and the ones with the best memories were the gatekeepers. Also, memories were far better back then.

This is also a misnomer anyway. You would have no problem with centuries later for ancient history, unless you're skeptical of Alexander the Great. For miracles, you think decades later is too much. Well the creed in 1 Cor. 15 is not decades later and you still throw it out. This has nothing to do with decades or centuries. This has to do with just not being willing to accept miracles.



Ancient history does not take things. It is either ancient people or historians of ancient history.




Did Hannibal cross the Alps?



Let's suppose this is true. So what? Once again, my case has never hinged on the Gospels.






For the first kind, you have one case cited and this from modern times, not ancient times. The same for the son. This also assumes the people who claimed Mary didn't see anything and for the dancing sun, it's my understanding that if you stare at the sun long enough, it will cause retinal damage of a sorts that is permanent and will make the sun look like it's dancing. Sorry, but I have no desire to test this hypothesis. Again, this is why I find these cases quite weak.





Okay. What did the Christian cult leaders stand to gain?









There is hardly any major claim that all scholars will agree on in a field, but the data I am using is accepted by the majority of critical scholars. I find the other explanations extraordinarily weak.









Name one.



Who would later die again. Jesus rose in a body that would never die again.



No. We don't. Every Christian in this thread will agree that miracles are very very rare and if you can show a natural explanation, we will have no problem going with it.



Maybe, but with good historiography, we tend to go with the simplest explanation because multiplying explanations leads to more difficulties.




Why should I be surprised by this?



Good grief. I wonder how you misunderstand this. With a ghost story, we could be convinced the person thought they saw something. If they thought they saw someone who had been dead before, what would they conclude?

The person was dead. It was their ghost or their angel.

Even today I know of no case where a spouse sees their recently departed spouse and then says "Open the tomb! He must be alive!"



No. You're not.





Yes. In an age where you could not write post-it notes or store everything on an IPhone or Laptop, you had to remember everything. Just look at people like the Rhapsodes who memorized the works of Homer entirely. Many of the educated Jews would have the whole Old Testament memorized.



Dead seen on a day to day basis? No more than today. As for being less educated, this has zip to do with this as they knew dead people stay dead.



Totally serious. Read some scholarly works on ancient memory.



Who said they see dead people all the time?



I'm not. I'm just saying they had better memories. You're adding in a bunch of other stuff.

Maybe your memory isn't that good....

"You have, but you have not given a basis at the same time. Your position relies on miracle claims being false. Mine says some could be false."

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Our position has never been that all miracle claims are false. Our position is that miracle claims are much less probable than other (non-miracle) explanations for odd, rare events, and, that miracle claims are unprovable.

You believe JP Moreland's ear sprouting story because he is a respected member of your Faith. If he were a fundamentalist Muslim claiming that Allah had caused an ear bud to sprout, would you be so willing to believe him? I doubt it.

Let me give you one possible explanation for Moreland's ear sprouting experience:

It is a faith healing service. The crowd has been whipped up into an emotional frenzy. They are all believers in miracles. Moreland and the ear-less man were not standing in front of a group of skeptical medical professionals. The man truly believed that Moreland could re-sprout his ear.

Moreland prayed for Jesus to start the ear-sprouting. The man, gripped with hysteria, violently grabs his head, causing a contusion to the area of the severed ear. A hematoma (collection of blood) develops and a bump/protrusion of skin/tissue begins to swell from the area of the opening of the ear canal.

"A new ear is growing. Praise Jesus!"

I challenge you to provide just ONE miracle claim from Keneer's book or any other miracle claim, for which we are unable to provide a more probable, non-miracle explanation.

[Gary]

Dear Christians, why is it that you believe Christian miracle claims but most of you don't believe other "miracle" claims?

Take for instance "mediums": People who allege that they can talk to your dead relative. I know some very intelligent people who believe that these hucksters can really talk to dead people, even though there is evidence that mediums use all kinds of devious tricks to learn information about the dead person prior to "calling him or her up".

All I ask you to do in regards to Keneer's miracle claims is use the same skepticism that you would use for the "miracle" claims of mediums. People readily believe what they want to believe. If you really want miracles to be true, it won't take much to convince you that they are.

[psstein]

I'm perfectly open to miracle claims in other religions. They need to stand or fall, as do Christian miracles, based on the evidence.

[Adrift]

I'm perfectly open to miracle claims in other religions.

Just about everyone in this thread has said so repeatedly. I don't know why Gary or William thinks that this is such a powerful argument when they've been told time and time again that we're all open to non-Christian miracle claims. It occurs to me that there must be some sort of old hyper-literalist/fundamentalist thinking that goes on when this question is asked repeatedly, as though to say "when I called myself a Christian, I was never so open-minded, so therefore, all Christians must be equally close-minded". That obviously isn't the case. In fact, I'm fairly certain that isn't the case for most Christians who've thoroughly investigated and considered the truthfulness of their worldview rather than the type who kinda went along with it because that's what mommy and daddy believed, or because of some sort of airy emotional faith that was squelched when things started going south, or when the first seeds of skepticism started stirring in their minds.

[Gary]

I'm perfectly open to miracle claims in other religions. They need to stand or fall, as do Christian miracles, based on the evidence.

Ok. Let's see a claim, the evidence for it, and let's see if there could be a more probable explanation other than a miracle. Just present ONE miracle claim from Keneer's book. I'm sure that Nick has a copy of the book(s).

And here is something to think about: Have you heard of the "Long Island Medium"? She is so famous for her abilities to call up the dead that they gave her her own television show. She has the amazing ability to pick people out of a crowd and tell them things about their dead loved ones. Amazing details that she could not have known by guessing.

But an odd thing happens when you spring a "request" on her to speak to a dead relative without her having any advance notice. This happened when she appeared on David Letterman. Letterman was chatting away with her and suddenly asked her, "Hey, it would be cool to speak to my dead Uncle Bob. Can you call him up right here, right now?"

What was her response: "That's not fair!"

She had all kinds of excuses why it wasn't fair to be asked to do a "calling up" on the spot but the real reason is that she had not had the time to look up the details about ol' Uncle Bob ahead of time. Critics allege that she plants people in her audience who overhear someone say, "Boy I hope she picks me so I can speak to poor Aunt Susan who died in that terrible car crash last year..."

Now, why doesn't JP Moreland go down to the local ER and re-sprout severed ears in front of skeptical medical professionals? Why is it that miracle workers always have an excuse why they won't do that? Why do they always perform their miracles in a controlled environment? Think about that, folks.

[tabibito]

Seems to me that Gary might be avoiding the issue of whether the person performing the miracle might actually know whether his claims are true or faked.

[Gary]

Seems to me that Gary might be avoiding the issue of whether the person performing the miracle might actually know whether his claims are true or faked.

A person who KNOWS he is faking it will know he is faking it. A person who BELIEVES a miracle has happened but is mistaken, does not know he is faking it, because he isn't. He is simply wrong in his conclusion as to cause.