Lord, Lunatic, or Liar - False Dichotomy?

[Cerebrum123]

Oh, it's this argument again, the one that puts all of written human history in doubt because we apparently can't trust a single thing those fallible human writers put to parchment.

The biggest problem with casting the early evangelists as lunatics or liars is that it neatly explains why they might have promoted the gospel message, but it doesn't even begin to explain why anybody else believed them, especially when the message was so offensive and contrary to cultural expectations (and this in a society where "We've always done it that way" was considered a forceful argument). You might expect the apostles to attract a small following under such circumstances but certainly not the critical mass needed to survive and thrive under the extensive persecution that early Christianity suffered.

The question to ask is not is it possible that the apostles were lying but rather is it probable they were telling the truth, and the best evidence we have suggests that they probably were.

It also puts all of science into question since that relies on reliable transmission from those doing the experiments.

[Mountain Man]

It also puts all of science into question since that relies on reliable transmission from those doing the experiments.

But didn't you hear? Science is the ultimate self-correcting discipline and therefore immune to human error.

And if you believe that, I have some nice swampland in Florida you might be interested in.

[TimelessTheist]

For the last time. C.S. Lewis' trilemma had to due with the fact of Jesus being a good moral teacher. It had 'nothing' to do with whether he was divine or not.

[Cerebrum123]

But you didn't you hear? Science is the ultimate self-correcting discipline and therefore immune to human error.

And if you believe that, I have some nice swampland in Florida you might be interested in.

I think shunyadragon will want to take you up on that offer.

[shunyadragon]

I think shunyadragon will want to take you up on that offer.

Science is indeed a self-correcting discipline. No it is neither the ultimate discipline, unless some may claim this believing in Ontological Naturalism, nor is it immune to human error.

[shunyadragon]

Oh, it's this argument again, the one that puts all of written human history in doubt because we apparently can't trust a single thing those fallible human writers put to parchment.

No, all human history is not in doubt. Yes, you can't absolutely trust fallible humans, particularly when corroborating archeological evidence and outside testimony is lacking. Historical methods of investigation consider multiply sources when writing histories, and will consider early testimony as what was claimed in the record without making an absolute claim as true or false.

Miraculous claims of all religions are recorded by many historians as religious claims without considering them true nor false.

The biggest problem with casting the early evangelists as lunatics or liars is that it neatly explains why they might have promoted the gospel message, but it doesn't even begin to explain why anybody else believed them, especially when the message was so offensive and contrary to cultural expectations (and this in a society where "We've always done it that way" was considered a forceful argument). You might expect the apostles to attract a small following under such circumstances but certainly not the critical mass needed to survive and thrive under the extensive persecution that early Christianity suffered.

I do not consider them lunatics nor liars.

The question to ask is not is it possible that the apostles were lying but rather is it probable they were telling the truth, and the best evidence we have suggests that they probably were.

They may have written what they believed to be true, and it was not necessarily true. This is the case throughout history. By the evidence I do not consider the gospels first person testimony.

[Cerebrum123]

Science is indeed a self-correcting discipline. No it is neither the ultimate discipline, unless you believe in Ontological Naturalism, nor is it immune to human error.

You are speaking to someone who doesn't buy that garbage dump(the whole "self correcting" line). Too many scientists are more interested in their politics, and keeping their position of authority than truth.

[shunyadragon]

You are speaking to someone who doesn't buy that garbage dump(the whole "self correcting" line). Too many scientists are more interested in their politics, and keeping their position of authority than truth.

History is a sufficient witness that science is a self-correcting discipline. Science changes as a matter of fact over time as new discoveries, theories and knowledge are confirmed by scientific methods. Your criticism of scientists lacks any consistent basis in history. It is scientist themselves that have uncovered fraud and bad science as a fact of history.

[Cerebrum123]

History is a sufficient witness that science is a self-correcting discipline. Science changes as a matter of fact over time as new discoveries, theories and knowledge are confirmed by scientific methods. Your criticism of scientists lacks any consistent basis in history. It is scientist themselves that have uncovered fraud and bad science as a fact of history.

I've seen too many lives destroyed. Heard too many horror stories. Had my own life destroyed.

I'll admit to a few scientists being interested in truth, but far too many are only interested in themselves and what they can gain.

[whag]

But didn't you hear? Science is the ultimate self-correcting discipline and therefore immune to human error.

And if you believe that, I have some nice swampland in Florida you might be interested in.

by virtue of transparency and repeatability, it is self correcting. competition in science ensures those corrections will be made (because scientists like being acknowledged for discoveries).

no, that doesn't prevent crackpots from manufacturing evidence. it only ensures a procedure for exposing falsity. you don't understand the scientific method.

[whag]

You are speaking to someone who doesn't buy that garbage dump(the whole "self correcting" line). Too many scientists are more interested in their politics, and keeping their position of authority than truth.

that's funny. can you really attain a position of authority in science with manufactured evidence? aren't your peers more than willing to do the math to prove you wrong?

[MaxVel]

by virtue of transparency and repeatability, it is self correcting. competition in science ensures those corrections will be made (because scientists like being acknowledged for discoveries).

no, that doesn't prevent crackpots from manufacturing evidence. it only ensures a procedure for exposing falsity. you don't understand the scientific method.

Please remember your first two sentences above next time you are tempted to criticize Christians for having faith....

[whag]

I've seen too many lives destroyed. Heard too many horror stories. Had my own life destroyed.

I'll admit to a few scientists being interested in truth, but far too many are only interested in themselves and what they can gain.

too many lives destroyed by what?

[whag]

Please remember your first two sentences above next time you are tempted to criticize Christians for having faith....

how do you mean? skepticism isn't "criticizing Christians for having faith."

my skepticism is closer to those Christians who inquire about the beliefs of Mormons and Muslims. I dont believe they criticize them for having faith.

[Mountain Man]

by virtue of transparency and repeatability, it is self correcting. competition in science ensures those corrections will be made (because scientists like being acknowledged for discoveries).

no, that doesn't prevent crackpots from manufacturing evidence. it only ensures a procedure for exposing falsity. you don't understand the scientific method.

I understand it just fine, but what you're really defending here is not the scientific method itself but the process of peer review which exists in every academic discipline, including history, and to that end, there are thousands of peer reviewed scholars from conservative to liberal to skeptical who all agree concerning the basic facts about Jesus. Some of these facts are:

1) A man named Jesus lived at the time recorded in the Bible.
2) He was crucified by Roman executioners and buried in a tomb.
3) His tomb was found empty a short time later.
4) His followers went from despair to boldly proclaiming that they had witnessed the resurrected Jesus, and they maintained these beliefs even when faced with death (as the saying goes, "Liars make poor martyrs.").
5) At least two hostile witnesses, Saul of Tarsus and James the brother of Jesus, became convinced that Jesus had risen from the dead.

There are others, of course, but those are the ones most widely accepted by critical scholars.

Now the trick is coming up with a single explanation that can account for all the facts. Most brain-dead skeptics think they can dismiss each point individually and that's good enough, but I'm afraid that won't work. For instance, dismissing point #1 by arguing that Jesus didn't exist doesn't account for the four remaining facts. Or dismissing point #4 by arguing that Jesus' disciples really, really wanted to believe that their friend had risen from the dead or they were genuinely mistaken (for instance, the body was stolen) or they were lying doesn't account for point #5.

There is, however, one explanation that accounts for every single one of these facts: Jesus actually rose from the dead. The next step is figuring out how he did it and its significance.

The following essay is by Dr. Gary Habermas who devised the Minimal Facts thesis as his PhD dissertation. It provides a detailed look at the methodology he used to come up with each of the minimal facts:

http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles...gical_review/m inimal-facts-methodology_08-02-2012.htm

A more detailed look at each of the minimal facts (in this case 12 of 'em):

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/garyhabermas.htm

So bottom line, we have excellent historical evidence from peer reviewed (that is to say "self-correcting") sources that Jesus really did rise from the dead.