Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[tabibito]

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

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

[One Bad Pig]

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

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

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

[Apologiaphoenix]

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

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

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

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

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

[Apologiaphoenix]

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

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

[tabibito]

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

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

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

Over simplified, methinks.

[JonathanL]

Over simplified, methinks.

Not by much though.

[tabibito]

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

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

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

[William]

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

That or lying. Both seem to make more sense and be more plausible than an actual ear literally growing back on someone’s head instantly. You really think an ear grew back on someone’s head instantly?

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

I do accept that most people are lying, mistaken or near insane when they claim to have witnesses miracles. I have seen many people lie, be mistaken and even victim to mental issues while I have seen a miracle. I do know that claims and witnesses are not always reliable. While it could be true that miracles do occur and that I am astray for not believing in them, I still just don’t believe they occur any more than I believe the earth is square or that Zeus is real. My skepticism in miracles is based upon my observation and study, not someone else’s.

There are several eyewitness testimonies for the golden plates and even the angel related to Mormonism.
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Book_of_Mormon_Witnesses

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

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

Okay. I’m fine with that, as I went on to say later I would be, if that’s you how you were using “deluded.” So then yes, I think they’re either telling the truth, lying or mistaken.

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

I think we’re clear now. You use “delusional” to cover all areas in which a person can be mistaken. Okay.

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

Interesting theory.

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

You should understand percentages. What’s the world’s population, 7 Billion? What percentage of people today have actually seen miracles in a world population of 7 Billion? What percentage is that? Extremely low. Now, I’d wager the percentage of people who lie, or who are mistaken are much, much higher – wouldn’t you agree?

Regarding death row convictions, or convictions of any type, we are learning that eye witness testimony are much less reliable then we previously thought, and is now not counted as being very good evidence. It’s used, sure, but physical evidence is much preferred. I’ve posted links regarding this already.

But again, how many eyewitnesses did Joseph Smith have? So you’re saying we can believe them?

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

LOL. I wouldn’t say it’s 100% accurate. But same question back at you…

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

Sure they do. The physics is the same. Their shapes and mass are different, but the forces act upon them the same way – there is no exception. Gravity, friction, etc all act upon the mass of an object. I just don’t think it’s accurate to say “an item’s nature is to fall.” An item’s nature is its mass. It falls or raises or whatever when force is placed against it. Why are we talking about physics and have you had any university level physics classes?

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

It is interesting to discuss, and I don’t necessarily have any issue with Aristotle, but metaphysics aren’t as testable as natural physics, so this would only end up in a theoretical realm where we may discuss the finer points using logic and probably the Socratic method. If you want to go through that then it’s probably best done with specifics over generalities, so what specifically do you want to discuss related to Aristotle’s Metaphysics?

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

No. It would be like saying, “William Claims to speak for a perfect God, yet we can see he’s made some mistakes. So, some of what he says may be correct, but we know that some is not, whether intentional or accidental, so when he claims that someone came back to life a flew away, we may need to wait for much more credible evidence since it would require some things happening that never really happen… he may have eaten lunch and lived where he said he lived… but since I can see he’s wrong here and here, I remain doubtful of his claim that something supernatural occurred.”

This how we take big fish stories. We don’t usually doubt that our buddies went out on the water in a boat or that they went fishing, but when we know that the individual has been wrong before, we typically doubt the accuracy of whatever tale he brings with huge fish that he just happens to not have for whatever reason. If he’s not out and outlying then he more likely embellished details of the story.

Or do you typically believe everything you hear?

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

And with 500 witnesses, we don’t who to ask about it. It’s a baseless claim. It doesn’t even eliminate lying.

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

And you well know that some scholars do not believe jesus actually came back to life. But nothing means that no Christian ever never tried to verify those claims, but you and others trying to make the mass belief of a minority, in a superstitious time period, equate to solid evidence for the accuracy of said belief is almost beyond belief. It’s not good sense. But you’re convinced by it. Okay. I am not.

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

Honor-shame does have some place in our society. It’s still present in other parts of the world today. Not everything was worthy of death back then. And as you yourself have pointed out, what was considered honorable and shameful could be different among select groups of their population, so the question becomes obvious: How do you know that those who believed in the Christianity were swayed by the honor-shame you say they must have been when Israelites/jews could be prostitutes, johns, thieves, tax collectors, etc, etc?
But again, you’re evidently sold on this point. I think you have to ignore a lot of common sense and several other factors, but either way, you find this very compelling, evidently. Okay. I just do not.

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

Letter correspondence isn’t a conversation. When people are together and ask for clarification or verification during their shared dialogue, that’s a conversation and is quite different than writing letters. Earlier on this every forum someone went on about how difficult and costly it was write back then, and now you seem to be trying to peddle that it was as easy as email and face to face discussion.
I feel like you’re not being 100% honest here or you’re either just not thinking. I really am not trying to be rude, but this is how it seems.

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

What are you talking about? I can try to go over this again, but I never said the same people viewed him as a liar and still trusted him. I am saying there is evidence that someone called him a liar – maybe another teacher or some jews somewhere and that claim made its way to the church he was writing to. Perhaps Paul knew the word was out there, and wanted to address it, so he wrote his letter to church who heard the claim against him, but still overwhelmingly sided with Paul.
Those in Corinth may have trusted Paul, and at his word easily dismissed the claims of him being liar and easily accepted the baseless claims of 500 witnesses. He was writing to Christians, so they already thought Jesus was the son of God and resurrected, etc. You may verify things you already believe to be true, but not everyone does, and at a time where communication, information and travel were nothing like they are today, it becomes even easier to see why a claim of 500 may have gone unchallenged by people who were already sold on the religion.

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

There are early repotts of Tecumseh’s earthquake, yet most historians that I know of don’t believe that part of Tecumseh’s life.

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

When I said
“I don’t really see what that has to do with anything.”
I was referring to what you were saying about miracles being central to whichever religion. What does it matter if they’re central or not? The miracles happened or they didn’t. If there were multiple witnesses, you seem to think that means we can and should believe them. If they’re real, then was it their god that did them, or did your God do it for them and let them think it was their god?

And again, if so say their only central to Christianity, then I still think it makes miracles of other religions even more problematic for Christianity. When the bible said that God was the one true God, did it mean he was the only one, or just the only one he wanted everyone to pay attention to?
Or is that you think the miracles witnessed from other religions were all reports of lies or delusion?

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

This is just stupid. Sure, I can do that. Show me an ancient group of people that we can test… oh, they’re all dead? So I guess one can claim nearly anything about them without much contest. Oh, scholars show that they memorized things more often than we do. Okay, that doesn’t mean their memories were better, it means that they used them more often for certain things, and it wasn’t the entire population that did this. Nor does it mean that memories scripture or poems or laws helped their memory in all other aspects of day to day living. Now, if you want to show otherwise, feel free… oh, that’s right, they’re all dead, so no real research can be done.

People made mistakes back then. People memorize things today. Young men and women in the military today are forced to memorize and recite several creeds, and even passages of the regulations and field manuals. I have memories from the age of 2.

You’re putting a lot on the mouths of scholars I think. They may show that they memorized lengths of text, but that again does not even imply their memories were better than they are now at everything else.

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

And that’s called rehearsal. Soldiers and young bible students in fundamental churches do that today.

[William]

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

If that’s all there were it may be a problem, but it isn’t. I don’t care to go back see when the earliest mention of Alexander was, but I feel certain there is reference much more recent that 400 years later… but even then, we have mounds of physical evidence. Cities, causeways, and lasting influence. And while I am skeptical of some of the Alexander stories, none of them were miraculous.

Again, I can believe a friend camped out in the woods. But if he told me he camped out in the woods and was abducted by aliens, I wouldnt believe the alien part while I’d likely believe the camping part. You seem to think the two are on equal believability scales while I do not. I am not sure how we can get around these differences.

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

No it wouldn’t. Did you think Alexander was blessed by the gods? I mean, he sacrificed to them and achieved many magnificent things. Or, are you doubtful that his pagan gods actually helped him, while you believe Alexander himself was real and achieved remarkable things? Plus, with Alexander, we have much more physical evidence in support of his military conquests. You’re not being rational.

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

I have Paul and what he said in 1 Cor 15. You may base your beliefs on the scholars, but many Christians base their beliefs on the Bible alone, not wanting to be as the young prophet who was missed by the old prophet in Kings. I personally don’t care what Paul meant to say on this, I was just saying that 1 Cor 15 says what it says, no matter who may interpret it one way or the other, it still says what it says, and unfortunately, it can still be taken differently than what Martin, Licona and Gundy think.

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

Well, I may not understand what you’re looking for since I think I already have. Maybe you can give me an example of what you mean by better explaining the date and witnesses for Joseph Smith’s claims and all the sightings and testimony of alien abductees?

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

I don’t recall what this is in reference to anymore.

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

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

This ignores much of what I said unfortunately.

How’s that? I present miracles to you of other faiths, and you just to dismiss them because there could have been natural explanations.
If you’d like to prove that those natural explanations happened and the miracles didnt, then okay… which is how someone like you on their side might retort…

And I said that I thought you had a good point and that I am doing the same with the miraculous claims of your religion too.

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

I couldn’t say what motivates a cult leader or what they think they stand to gain by heading off a cult, but they do it. Whatever it could have been, is what I am saying James and Paul could have thought to Gain.

The only ones I know who deny this are mythicists.

Oh crap, typo… meant to write, “Could you offer a percentage of the critical scholars in that the field that believe history shows that jesus actually came back to life?”

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

There seem to be several ideas as to what happened to Jesus too. I don’t think anyone was actually resurrected.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mpre flimsy than an actual resurrection? Because some people changed their lives based upon some religions experience? All religions can claim the same. Are there many paths to the top of the mountain, or are you one of those “only through Jesus, Christians?” if only through Jesus, you can begin to see why this is flimsy, seeing as how any religion can claim the same.

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

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

Feel free to show it happened with Jesus.

Same to you.

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

Right. That’s exactly right. Seeing something doesn’t mean that something was actually there. Right, exactly.

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

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

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

You would think so.

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

okay

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

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

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

I’ve read the synoptics several times each and still peruse them from time to time. I must say I find issue with them, but I’ll add the others to my list. Thanks.

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

Is there a society where memory isn’t praised? I get the differences, of course. But read above for thoughts on it.

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

I thought you said that the 1st century people saw dead people every day, and are you now asking if I can verify that? I don’t think they literally saw dead people every day but I do think they saw it much more often than we do, so I wasn’t going to argue over the “every day” thing.

If you’re asking as to wheter soldiers saw dead people every day, I would doubt that they saw death every day of their life. But I have firsthand experience in the 2003 invasion of Iraq that dead people were seen in groups on a daily basis, at least for a month straight.

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

Sort of like everything we experience and don’t experience in life. And like seeing all the ways science has helped us in various fields in testable and tangible ways. I can understand that.

[William]

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

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

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

[tabibito]

I have Paul and what he said in 1 Cor 15. You may base your beliefs on the scholars, but many Christians base their beliefs on the Bible alone, not wanting to be as the young prophet who was missed by the old prophet in Kings. I personally don’t care what Paul meant to say on this, I was just saying that 1 Cor 15 says what it says, no matter who may interpret it one way or the other, it still says what it says, and unfortunately, it can still be taken differently than what Martin, Licona and Gundy think.

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

[Adrift]

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

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

[One Bad Pig]

Nick and Others,

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

A) Authentic Miracles

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

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

[William]

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

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

[William]

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

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

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

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