Does Jesus's Prayer Show Christianity Is False?

[Adrift]

Which is the furthest that a historian, acting only as a historian, can go.

Exactly. It's one of the most troubling issues I've seen with skeptics who haven't actually read the work of NT scholars is this thinking that scholars are out to either prove or falsify the miraculous claims of the NT. As far as I can tell, most scholars realize that that is outside the purview of their historical methodology. You start moving into philosophy, metaphysics, and theology when you start commenting about the evidence leading inevitably to the miraculous. And that's fine, but that's not what historians do (at least, not in their academic work).

When Nick makes the point that the historical evidence does lead to miraculous conclusions, he's well within his right to use the work of historians to make historical claims that lead up to that conclusion. But it's in his role as a philosopher, or an apologist, or what-have-you that he goes from the historical evidence to the miracle claim. And again, that's fine. There are some who argue that historians ought to be able to offer conclusions that point to the miraculous in their academic work, but I think those arguments vary in their strength. So far as I can tell, no one is making that argument here, nor is it necessary to do so.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Gary. Again, the question of miracles is a metaphysical claim as to if they can happen and a historical claim as to if they have happened.

Why should scientists or medical professionals, neither of whom study either area as scientists or medical professionals, be the ones who adjudicate that?

[Gary]

You've totally misunderstood the point of the post. Read psstein's reply.

Something I've been noticing by the way. You seem to have a problem (perhaps intentional, perhaps not) with moving the goal post and/or losing focus of the immediate context of the discussion. So, for example, it should have been very clear to you that I did not quote Vermes to demonstrate what he believed about the resurrection. He doesn't believe in the resurrection. Yet his expert assessment of the subject is that none of the naturalistic explanations passes stringent examination, and so it's a mystery to the historian.

One expert's opinion does not a consensus make.

[Gary]

You missed my point.

You have argue for miracles to argue from the historical evidence. It's a historical event, but it can't be argued for with only historical methods.

And what else are you suggesting is needed to argue for this alleged event? The metaphysical? Theological? Philosophical?

[Gary]

Gary. Again, the question of miracles is a metaphysical claim as to if they can happen and a historical claim as to if they have happened.

Why should scientists or medical professionals, neither of whom study either area as scientists or medical professionals, be the ones who adjudicate that?

Because in the real world of western civilization we do not consider metaphysical causes...except when it comes to religion. If you wake up and your keys are missing tomorrow morning, do you entertain a metaphysical explanation for the disappearance of your keys? No.

We skeptics believe that it makes for a more organized and less superstitious world if we view ALL life events with the same perspective.

Just as you and we would never entertain the possibility that a ghost walked through the wall of your house last night and took your keys, so too, we believe, you and we should not entertain metaphysical explanations of spirits and resurrected bodies (non-human bodies) as the explanation of empty tombs.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Because in the real world of western civilization we do not consider metaphysical causes...except when it comes to religion. If you wake up and your keys are missing tomorrow morning, do you entertain a metaphysical explanation for the disappearance of your keys? No.

We skeptics believe that it makes for a more organized and less superstitious world if we view ALL life events with the same perspective.

Just as you and we would never entertain the possibility that a ghost walked through the wall of your house last night and took your keys, so too, we believe, you and we should not entertain metaphysical explanations of spirits and resurrected bodies (non-human bodies) as the explanation of empty tombs.

Good night but this is ridiculous.

When you make statements about miracles, ghosts, spirits, or anything, you are doing metaphysics. When you speak about the nature of existence, morality, numbers, and triangles, you are doing metaphysics. It is unavoidable.

You are essentially making a metaphysical claim that you don't do metaphysics.

This doesn't even say why the Western view, which yours is amusingly a minority, should be accepted as the default or why doctors and scientists should speak on something outside their area.

Seriously. Go to the library and read some real books.

[Gary]

Good night but this is ridiculous.

When you make statements about miracles, ghosts, spirits, or anything, you are doing metaphysics. When you speak about the nature of existence, morality, numbers, and triangles, you are doing metaphysics. It is unavoidable.

You are essentially making a metaphysical claim that you don't do metaphysics.

This doesn't even say why the Western view, which yours is amusingly a minority, should be accepted as the default or why doctors and scientists should speak on something outside their area.

Seriously. Go to the library and read some real books.

Nick,

You guys seem to believe that I am a complete fool for not seeing your "strong" evidence for the Resurrection, but why do you think that the vast majority of the people who should be most familiar with the Honor-Shame society that you so often refer to reject your evidence: the Jews. Other than Lapide, you will be hard pressed to find a Jew who finds your evidence convincing. Why do you think that is?

[Adrift]

One expert's opinion does not a consensus make.

Nor have I implied as much. The post you initially replied to had nothing to do with consensus opinion one way or the other, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up. My point in quoting Vermes was simply that Christians are neither crazy nor hopped up on goofballs, or whatever, for finding naturalistic explanations less than sufficient. This is also a view shared by critical NT experts like Geza Vermes (an expert that some have called "the greatest Jesus scholar of his generation"), so it isn't the case that Christians are engaging in some sort of blind faith, grasping at straws that the resurrection is a better explanation than some other, equally plausible naturalistic explanation. According to a reputable non-Christian scholar who did not believe in the miraculous, there have been no naturalistic explanations put forward "that stand up to stringent scrutiny". If you're a materialist, of course miraculous explanations are going to be ignored out of hand, but for the theist who is not under any such restrictions, an argument can be made that the evidence does fit a non-naturalistic explanation.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Nick,

You guys seem to believe that I am a complete fool for not seeing your "strong" evidence for the Resurrection, but why do you think that the vast majority of the people who should be most familiar with the Honor-Shame society that you so often refer to reject your evidence: the Jews. Other than Lapide, you will be hard pressed to find a Jew who finds your evidence convincing. Why do you think that is?

No. We're not saying you're a fool for disagreement, but for uninformed disagreement. You really don't know what you're talking about on any topic thus far.

Also, I think you can find several Jews who believe in Jesus as the messiah. They're called messianic Jews.

But your argument works against any position.

"Outside of skeptics who don't believe in miracles, most people find the claim miracles have never happened to be unconvincing. Why do you think that is?"

[Adrift]

Nick,

You guys seem to believe that I am a complete fool for not seeing your "strong" evidence for the Resurrection, but why do you think that the vast majority of the people who should be most familiar with the Honor-Shame society that you so often refer to reject your evidence: the Jews. Other than Lapide, you will be hard pressed to find a Jew who finds your evidence convincing. Why do you think that is?

They've all converted?

[Gary]

Nor have I implied as much. The post you initially replied to had nothing to do with consensus opinion one way or the other, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up. My point in quoting Vermes was simply that Christians are neither crazy nor hopped up on goofballs, or whatever, for finding naturalistic explanations less than sufficient. This is also a view shared by critical NT experts like Geza Vermes (an expert that some have called "the greatest Jesus scholar of his generation"), so it isn't the case that Christians are engaging in some sort of blind faith, grasping at straws that the resurrection is a better explanation than some other, equally plausible naturalistic explanation. According to a reputable non-Christian scholar who did not believe in the miraculous, there have been no naturalistic explanations put forward "that stand up to stringent scrutiny". If you're a materialist, of course miraculous explanations are going to be ignored out of hand, but for the theist who is not under any such restrictions, an argument can be made that the evidence does fit a non-naturalistic explanation.

"According to a reputable non-Christian scholar who did not believe in the miraculous, there have been no naturalistic explanations put forward "that stand up to stringent scrutiny". "

Once again, you are quoting ONE scholar. Let me know when the majority of NT scholars make that claim.

[Gary]

No. We're not saying you're a fool for disagreement, but for uninformed disagreement. You really don't know what you're talking about on any topic thus far.

Also, I think you can find several Jews who believe in Jesus as the messiah. They're called messianic Jews.

But your argument works against any position.

"Outside of skeptics who don't believe in miracles, most people find the claim miracles have never happened to be unconvincing. Why do you think that is?"

The OVERWHELMING majority of the members of your "Honor-Shame Society", Jews, in the first century and for the last twenty centuries, have rejected the Christian "evidence" for a Resurrection. Why?

[Gary]

They've all converted?

???

[Adrift]

"According to a reputable non-Christian scholar who did not believe in the miraculous, there have been no naturalistic explanations put forward "that stand up to stringent scrutiny". "

Once again, you are quoting ONE scholar. Let me know when the majority of NT scholars make that claim.

So what if I'm quoting one scholar. What does that have to do with anything? I'm not attempting to demonstrate what the majority of scholars believe. I'm simply explaining that even reputable non-Christian experts on the NT have reached similar conclusions. That being a Christian has nothing to do with the claim that the naturalistic explanations that have been put forward are not satisfactory, as you had stated.


You know what...nevermind. Either you lack the capability to understand what I'm explaining, or I don't have the capability to explain it to you in a way that you can understand. Either way, furthering discussion on the point seems a bit fruitless.

[Gary]

Gary. Again, the question of miracles is a metaphysical claim as to if they can happen and a historical claim as to if they have happened.

Why should scientists or medical professionals, neither of whom study either area as scientists or medical professionals, be the ones who adjudicate that?