Originally posted by seer
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Morally Wrong Behavior vs. What the Civil Government Should Prohibit
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by seer View PostGood grief! Even if there were extra biblical references for these miracles they would not qualify as historical evidence.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostGood grief! Even if there were extra biblical references for these miracles they would not qualify as historical evidence.
And that still does not change that you have no methodology/basis for the claim "this event actually happened" with respect to these three things. What I am seeing, Seer, is a man who so desperately needs to hold on to his POV that he is willing to cling to contradictory claims and special pleading in order to do so, all the while denying that he is doing so.
What I still can't figure out is if you are doing this intentionally, or are truly blind to the phenomenon.Last edited by carpedm9587; 05-19-2020, 06:12 AM.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
First, this was not what we were discussing which was - did Paul and the early Christians believe that Christ's physical body was raised. According to Ehrman yes.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostFor miracles - you are correct. For the other two things I have been citing, you are not correct.
And that still does not change that you have no methodology/basis for the claim "this event actually happened" with respect to these three things. What I am seeing, Seer, is a man who so desperately needs to hold on to his POV that he is willing to cling to contradictory claims and special pleading in order to do so, all the while denying that he is doing so.
What I still can't figure out is if you are doing this intentionally, or are truly blind to the phenomenon.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostCarp, but the miracles, the resurrection and the claims to divinity are the central issues.
Originally posted by seer View PostIf we were just taking about a man going around telling people to love one another. That he visited this town or that, most people would not have a problem seeing that as historically reasonable. And really Carp, don't call me desperate, and I won't call you a biased hypocritical hack. K?
And you will note I was speaking to the impression you leave. I do not know what is actually going on inside you. Only you can know that. But I can think of no reason for holding the contradictory positions you seem to hold quite easily, and then deny holding them. You are an intelligent person, AFAICT. But you are working so hard to avoid the reality of your position, while simultaneously acknowledging the reality of your position. It is...well...quite odd.Last edited by carpedm9587; 05-19-2020, 07:59 AM.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostTo you. The entire issue of "can we trust the NT as a historical source for information about the life of Jesus" is the central issue for me. There are three broad swaths of the NT claims about Jesus of Nazareth for which it is NOT an adequate resource for making historical claims, and they constitute the majority of what we think we know about Jesus of Nazareth.
Seer, I have long since abandoned any thought that you are going to do anything other than turn to poisoning the well in your exchanges, so I have no doubt that claims of hypocrite, disingenuous, and liar, as well as "nonsense," and "that's silly" and "that's ridiculous" will continue to flow from your typing fingers. It's what you do. You are in good company with MM, Sparko, Pix, Rogue, and Sean in that respect. It is your nom de plume.
And you will note I was speaking to the impression you leave. I do not know what is actually going on inside you. Only you can know that. But I can think of no reason for holding the contradictory positions you seem to hold quite easily, and then deny holding them. You are an intelligent person, AFAICT. But you are working so hard to avoid the reality of your position, while simultaneously acknowledging the reality of your position. It is...well...quite odd.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostSorry Carp, I have been clear from the beginning. I take these writing at face value, and will do so until I have good evidence for doing otherwise.
Originally posted by seer View PostAnd as I explained I would do this for any ancient texts.
Originally posted by seer View PostHistorically I don't think there is any question about what the early Christians believed about Christ. You even agreed.
Originally posted by seer View PostThe only question is why they believed these things. Divine Sonship, miracle worker, resurrection, etc...
Originally posted by seer View PostAlong with many ethical teachings that are found both in the Gospels and reflected in the Epistles. And these beliefs came out of the earliest known Christian community, populated by the original Apostles and disciples. So I see no good reason not to take these writing as generally accurate. And that is the reality of my position. Again, I'm done with you...The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
No Tass, according to Ehrman the "spiritual" body was the physical body transformed. The physical body was not discarded. Paul would have agreed that the tomb was empty.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostWhich is special pleading...as I've shown
However, if someone wants to convince a person who is NOT committed to those Christian beliefs of the historicity of the Resurrection, then he is adopting an extra burden of proof. Either he needs to use standard historiological methodology-- including methodological naturalism-- or else he must first convince the other person to accept the other beliefs which make the Resurrection more reasonable when used in addition to historiology. Similarly, if I was trying to convince a person that an event did NOT occur based solely on historiography, that would not be very convincing to a person who had been convinced that the event occurred on the basis of something OTHER than historiology.
This, I think, is where we are at odds. I see no more reason to think that Yahweh empowered Jesus of Nazareth to heal the blind, for example, than to think that the god Serapis empowered Emperor Vespasian to heal the blind (as recounted in Tacitus' History, Book 4, Chapter 81). However, someone who is already committed to the idea that Yahweh exists, that Yahweh is the only god that exists, and that Jesus is Yahweh's son (in whatever sense) would have reasons to believe the former over the latter. Alternatively, someone who is convinced that Serapis is real but not convinced that Jesus stood in any special relationship to divinity might incline to Tacitus' account while rejecting the gospels. Finally, someone who was convinced of both Serapis and Jesus special relationship with divinity (for example, Christian syncretists living in Alexandria who identified Serapis with Yahweh) might be willing to accept both."[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
--Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View PostI don't know that I would necessarily categorize this as special pleading. Rather, it seems that he's coming to this view from a different set of criteria for belief. I don't believe that Seer is simply saying he accepts what the gospels recount for no reason at all. Rather, it would seem that his prior commitment to Christian beliefs makes belief in these particular accounts more reasonable. I can absolutely understand that position, and while we might then pursue whether or not his prior commitment to Christianity is itself reasonable, it would not really constitute a fallacy of special pleading.
However, if someone wants to convince a person who is NOT committed to those Christian beliefs of the historicity of the Resurrection, then he is adopting an extra burden of proof. Either he needs to use standard historiological methodology-- including methodological naturalism-- or else he must first convince the other person to accept the other beliefs which make the Resurrection more reasonable when used in addition to historiology. Similarly, if I was trying to convince a person that an event did NOT occur based solely on historiography, that would not be very convincing to a person who had been convinced that the event occurred on the basis of something OTHER than historiology.
This, I think, is where we are at odds. I see no more reason to think that Yahweh empowered Jesus of Nazareth to heal the blind, for example, than to think that the god Serapis empowered Emperor Vespasian to heal the blind (as recounted in Tacitus' History, Book 4, Chapter 81). However, someone who is already committed to the idea that Yahweh exists, that Yahweh is the only god that exists, and that Jesus is Yahweh's son (in whatever sense) would have reasons to believe the former over the latter. Alternatively, someone who is convinced that Serapis is real but not convinced that Jesus stood in any special relationship to divinity might incline to Tacitus' account while rejecting the gospels. Finally, someone who was convinced of both Serapis and Jesus special relationship with divinity (for example, Christian syncretists living in Alexandria who identified Serapis with Yahweh) might be willing to accept both.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
-
Actually, for Paul, it did. The transformed, resurrected body was a physical, material thing, in Paul's eyes. It just wasn't made up of the same stuff that makes up mortal bodies.
The idea that something could be "physical certainly, but specifically not material" would have been entirely alien to anybody at that time. In fact, I'm not sure that I even understand what it's supposed to mean. Paul absolutely thought that the body of pneuma was material.
There is no reference to an empty tomb nor any of the other accounts of the resurrection event as described in the gospels - ALL of which date 20+ years after Paul and 40 years after the fact."[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
--Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View Postthere was not a uniformity of belief concerning what, exactly, that meant.
My guess it that Paul does not talk about any traditions that indicated that women went to the tomb and found it empty because he had not heard these tradition. Paul certainly thought, and would have said, if asked, that the tomb was empty, because he definitely thought Jesus was physically raised from the dead. That is his entire argument in 1 Corinthians 15. His Corinthian opponents maintained that the resurrection of believers was a past spiritual event, and they had already experienced it.OBVIOUS and AGREED UPON between himself and the Corinthians. Which means it is not simply spiritual. Which means they have not experienced it yet, whatever they may be saying or thinking. Would he have said the tomb was empty? Certainly yes. But that would have been out of logical necessity, not because he had heard stories about Mary Magdalene going there on the third day.
https://ehrmanblog.org/pauls-view-of...n-for-members/Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment