Evidence that Christianity is false? [Archive]

Blake Reas

April 24th 2003, 09:48 PM

Yesterday @ 11:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77839#post77839)
Wildcat:

CitizenKyle: That was, indeed, my drift. I personally see no irreconciliable problem with Jesus leaving his physical shell behind and ascending to heaven in spirit. After all, that's what humans are supposed to do, right? I suppose you might argue that Christ's ressurrected body was "glorified" and thus incorruptible, invincible, indestructible, etc. However, if the corpse of Jesus was found and somehow identified, I can see a Christian doctrine arising to the effect that Jesus' rez body was not glorified, but merely a patched up version of his first human body, and Jesus will get his glorified body when he comes for the final time to judge the world and award glorified bodies to all his followers.

Wildcat: I think Kyle is essentially correct. There are always escape routes for people and I believe that most(but certainly not all) people are not open-minded to alternative worldviews. JPH mentions the Great Pyramid and "Devil's Calendar"(I've never heard of this by the way) and the cover-up that occurs. Some JWs may start to question their faith when discovering such issues, but I'd say that most would not. Here is the reasoning, from my experiences, of adherents to most religions, including Christianity(of which I am a proponent/member/adherent):

"My religion is true. Therefore, the evidence you cite against it could not possibly be significant."

And of course, one I get from people who either don't share my Christian worldview or some aspects of it(within Christianity and outside of it) is this:

"Who are you going to believe? Scholars or [the "clear" teachings" of] God's Word(be it the Bible, Qur'an, or whatever)."

To answer Kyle's original question, for most people of Christianity and any faith/worldview, I don't believe that any amount of evidence(I'm speaking in terms of retrospective scholarship-not something like actually finding a body and proving beyond any doubt that it is that of Christ's) would change one's mind, because of such circular arguments presented above that seem very popular.

Naturalism is true therefore any Supernatural Claim the Christian makes must be false this is the position of most Naturalistic Atheist or any atheist for that matter that I know of. Would you like to dispute this? I see this as a closed worldview that is not open to others. Also anothers worldview is never open to another one. A worldview is our basic assumptions about the world. It is very hard if not impossible to root someone out of their world view it takes the spirit of God to do that.

By His Grace For His Glory
Blake

P.S. We all have cherished assumptions that we will not give up on our own, whats yours?

Blake Reas

April 24th 2003, 09:56 PM

finding jesus' body, eh? this sounds...uhm....it sounds a lot like finding a 1st century ossuary with mention of jesus, james, and joseph..... on one side of the fence, you have those who believe it is absolutely, 100%ly authentic....and on the other side, those who wouldn't trust it's authenticity if it grew legs and kicked 'em in the...uhm...weeeell....you know....the buttocks. in the end, seems to me, very few people have a serious change of faith because of such findings.

Umm..... do you know something about the ossuary that no one else does? From what i have heard it is James ossuary which does not and should not cause trouble for faith but strengthen it. It sounds to me like you have not read the findings about the Box! I may be wrong but it sounds like you are speaking from ignorance. Hey then again you could have found the New ossuary that Jesus was in if you did can I have some of the fame? :shrug:

By his Grace For His Glory
Blake

WinAce

April 24th 2003, 10:10 PM

I think naturalism is more like "Humans have a tendency to invent myths. Dead guys coming back to life sounds like a myth. Dead guys really coming back to life has never been reliably observed. Given these facts, stories containing dead guys coming back to life are fictional until demonstrated otherwise."

Really nothing different than the Christians who don't believe a cow gave birth to a lamb in the middle of the Temple in Josephus' time, or that Emperor Vespassian didn't cure blind and lame guys with his spit, the claims of several prominent ancient historians notwithstanding.

Socrates

April 24th 2003, 10:26 PM

Winace:Really nothing different than the Christians who don't believe a cow gave birth to a lamb in the middle of the Temple in Josephus' time, or that Emperor Vespassian didn't cure blind and lame guys with his spit, the claims of several prominent ancient historians notwithstanding. Not at all. Winace is just rambling, without the slightest attempt to provide SPECIFICS of the evidence for these claims v the evidence for the Resurrection.

Also, his pathetic argument is akin to claiming that because counterfeit money exists, real money cannot.

Evangel

April 24th 2003, 10:45 PM

nothing short of jesus's body would even make me doubt him. even then it could be a deception by the devil.

KingDavid8

April 24th 2003, 11:47 PM

Regarding the 'finding the body' issue, has anyone read "A Skeleton In God's Closet' by Paul Maier? It's a rather compelling novel about an archeologist who finds what appears to be the skeleton of Jesus, and the implications this find has on the world. The book is not anti-Christian (in fact, Maier is a devout Christian), but is something that's good food for thought for Christians and non-Christians.

As for what evidence would sway me away from Christianity, there really isn't any one thing I could think of, short of finding the body and being able to prove it's His. This is mostly because there isn't any one thing that convinces me of His resurrection. I believe in Jesus for many reasons. What the Bible says, the historical evidence, the wisdom of Jesus, the dedication of the 1st century Christians, my dealings with both Christians and non-Christians, the experiences in my life, the books I've read, the results of my redemption, what I've felt in my heart - all of these things combine to convince me of Jesus. It was a lot of things that swayed me from atheism to Christianity (I was an atheist for most of my life), and if anything would, hypothetically, sway me back, it would likely be a lot of things. You give me one piece of evidence that goes against Jesus, well, I've got 99 that go for Him, so that better be one darned impressive piece of evidence. Give me ten individual pieces, and that might be a better start.

Here are some things that would, if not convince me, be a big part of the process of swaying me back:

A logical argument for how Christianity could have taken such an extreme hold on so many people in the first century without an actual resurrected Jesus, preferrably with at least some historical evidence to back it up.

Evidence that a story remarkably similar to the Jesus story was floating around prior to the first century.

Evidence that any of the New Testament authors ever denied the truth of what they wrote, even if it was under torture and/or threat of imprisonment or death. Or, in general, any evidence that the authors had doubts about the truth of what they had written.

Evidence that events in the New Testament took place in locations that did not exist at that time.

Evidence that the actions of characters in the New Testament were wildly inconsistent with what such people would do.

Am I asking too much?

David

Wildcat

April 25th 2003, 12:40 AM

Blake: Naturalism is true therefore any Supernatural Claim the Christian makes must be false this is the position of most Naturalistic Atheist or any atheist for that matter that I know of.

Wildcat: Very true. Although I did not state it explicitly, I was including atheism within my undefined set of worldviews.

Blake: Would you like to dispute this?

Wildcat: No, I agree with you.

Blake: I see this as a closed worldview that is not open to others.

Wildcat: Yes, even more closed than most religious advocates, IMO. I never have understood the anti-supernaturalist presupposition. One of the very points that Christians(and other religions' adherents) are trying to demonstrate is that God exists. We present evidence in favor of God's existence and atheists present evidence against God's existence. We cannot prove, in all likelihood, that God exists and atheists cannot disprove that He exists. However, for an atheist to deny the possibility of the supernatural is to *already assume* that God does not exist in the absence of proof. It seems that the argument of "The resurrection didn't happen because miracles are impossible" simply hold no water until God's existence can be disproven.

Blake: Also anothers worldview is never open to another one. A worldview is our basic assumptions about the world. It is very hard if not impossible to root someone out of their world view it takes the spirit of God to do that.

By His Grace For His Glory
Blake

P.S. We all have cherished assumptions that we will not give up on our own, whats yours?

Wildcat: I've been raised a Christian so I held the assumption that Christianity is true all of my life, and still do. Although I'm sure that I have biases that will not be undermined easily, it is only recently through studies in apologetics that I feel confident that Christianity contains an intellectual foundation which is simply missing in other worldviews(both religious and atheistic ones). I trust that this helps to answer some of your inquiries?

Wildcat.

P.S. My original post was not meant to be an attack on religious faith by any means. It was simply an observation that I feel is, unfortunately, true for most people.

Sheepdog

April 25th 2003, 02:15 AM

Yesterday @ 10:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78070#post78070)
Socrates:

Also, his pathetic argument is akin to claiming that because counterfeit money exists, real money cannot.

:rofl: excellent point. as if noting two vaguely comparable accounts makes a strong analogy. :no:

citizenkyle

April 25th 2003, 02:39 AM

Yesterday @ 07:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78036#post78036)
Blake Reas:
Naturalism is true therefore any Supernatural Claim the Christian makes must be false this is the position of most Naturalistic Atheist or any atheist for that matter that I know of.

Not quite, Blake. Of course, I can't speak for all naturalists, but as for myself and many others I know, it's more like this:

The only way to be 100% sure of a supernatural claim is to submit it to rigorous scientific testing. Of course, this is impossible to do with past events. However, people living today make all sorts of supernatural claims. And not one of them can pass the test -- even when there is a million dollars at stake ala the James Randi challenge. Given the utter failure contemporary supernatural claims to be borne out, it is not unreasonable to believe that supernatural events have never happened. Of course, it is possible that genuine supernatural events are extremely rare and have occurred in the past, but without scientific testing at our disposal, naturalists are going to need a lot more evidence than we have for something like the rez in order to produce conviction.

Scotsmanatt

April 25th 2003, 09:17 AM

Scotsmanatt

April 25th 2003, 09:20 AM

Scotsmanatt

April 25th 2003, 09:27 AM

Yesterday @ 01:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77039#post77039)
stevencarrwork:

And how exactly would you identify that?

Matthew Bell
It probably couldn't be identified to 100% certainty but I see no reason why it couldn't be identified as probably being that of Jesus beyond all reasonable doubt given scientific testing of the remains and archaeological/scientific evidence from the surroundings in which it was located.

Steven Carr
And if you were convinced Jesus-mythers were right, then that would not be what it would take for you to throw in the towel???

Matthew Bell
Yes, that would qualify for me.

Steven Carr
And if the Mormons did suddenly produce their Golden Plates, that would also not be enough for you?

Matthew Bell
That wouldn't be evidence for the falsity of Christianity but only evidence for the falsity of Christianity outside of Mormonism, whichever sect of that one considered original.

Thanks
Matthew Bell

WinAce

April 25th 2003, 03:24 PM

Yesterday @ 10:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78070#post78070)
Socrates:

Not at all. Winace is just rambling, without the slightest attempt to provide SPECIFICS of the evidence for these claims v the evidence for the Resurrection.

Also, his pathetic argument is akin to claiming that because counterfeit money exists, real money cannot.

^
http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/nutri_facts.jpg

The "evidence" for a Resurrection or the wilder claims of Josephus and Pliny amount to scribblings in old books.

Sheepdog

April 25th 2003, 03:38 PM

Today @ 03:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78667#post78667)
WinAce:

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/nutri_facts.jpg

:rofl: i love that image, can i borrow it, please?

semmie

April 25th 2003, 04:12 PM

Yesterday @ 08:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77993#post77993)
citizenkyle:

In all fairness, the finding of the ossuary does nothing to damage the skeptic's case (unless one is a Christ-myther). Such a finding is perfectly consistent with Jesus being a merely human preacher who attained a certain level of notoriety.

kyle, i think that was part of my initial point. the ossuary does nothing for or against the question of jesus' divinity or resurrection; it merely supports the fact that he was a first century jew, brother to james, and son of joseph. if it's accurate, that is. and...if that is the case, it is just another archaeological support for the historical accuracy of the bible. *shrug* doesn't mean you have to believe in the resurrection, i suppose. but at the same time, it doesn't at all cause question FOR the resurrection.

Yesterday @ 09:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78043#post78043)
Blake Reas:

Umm..... do you know something about the ossuary that no one else does? From what i have heard it is James ossuary which does not and should not cause trouble for faith but strengthen it. It sounds to me like you have not read the findings about the Box! I may be wrong but it sounds like you are speaking from ignorance. Hey then again you could have found the New ossuary that Jesus was in if you did can I have some of the fame? :shrug:

By his Grace For His Glory
Blake

blake, don't be silly. i'm neither ignorant nor more informed about the ossuary than anyone else, and i haven't found the ossuary that jesus was buried in--although i do know someone who is convinced that it exists (that's another topic). my point was that there are always going to be those who claim 100% accuracy, and those who claim 100% fraudulency, and those of us in the middle who really only see it as a hypothetical, run for your money type of "what if." so what if the ossuary is authentic? it proves (as i said in my response to kyle) only that the biblical record of jesus' existence and relation to james and joseph is accurate. it says nothing about his resurrection.

and i would defend that finding the corpse of christ would be the same type of situation. some would defend its accuracy to their grave; some would defend its inaccuracy to their grave; and others of us can't figure out why it would really change anything.

did christ take his physical body to heaven? i don't know. but being that i believe in his complete divinity, i won't limit what he can or can't do during the lapse of time between his resurrection and his ascension. and...i still think it would come back to a question of the accuracy of the scriptures. if you can prove that the scriptures are wrong, then you've got a case. but if all you've got is a corpse--some "scholars" are going to say it was jesus, others are going to say it wasn't--i don't think that at our particular place in history, it's logical to abandon faith over the supposed corpse of the messiah.

in the same way...i wouldn't expect someone to believe christ is the messiah purely because we found his brother's burial box. surely there is something to be said for the authority of the scriptures--that is, either it's authoritative, or it's not.

WinAce

April 25th 2003, 04:30 PM

Today @ 03:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78675#post78675)
Sheepdog:

:rofl: i love that image, can i borrow it, please?

Sure (from my Image page (http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/images.htm)):

"Anyone reading this webpage is free to copy them to their own webspace and post them as needed to pick on the deluded. Just right click on the desired image and select "Save As...", save it to your hard drive, upload it somewhere, and use the URL you get. Alternatively, if your intention is only to post them on a forum instead of on a website, you can just link to them directly."

jpholding

April 25th 2003, 04:31 PM

Win Ace (sound) bites again. :rofl:

Woman

April 25th 2003, 05:19 PM

The ossuary is interesting though. It could possibly be the first extra-Biblical historical evidence for a man named Jesus, with a brother named James and a father named Joseph.

On the other hand the ossuaries found in 1980 were as interesting, but not in very good shape. One in particular which AP and others reported was the one with the barely legible inscription of Yeshua Bar Yohosef (Jesus son of Joseph).

semmie

April 25th 2003, 05:28 PM

Today @ 05:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78797#post78797)
Woman:

The ossuary is interesting though. It could possibly be the first extra-Biblical historical evidence for a man named Jesus, with a brother named James and a father named Joseph.

On the other hand the ossuaries found in 1980 were as interesting, but not in very good shape. One in particular which AP and others reported was the one with the barely legible inscription of Yeshua Bar Yohosef (Jesus son of Joseph).

still you have an issue...just because you find an ossuary with the words "jesus, son of joseph" doesn't mean that it belonged to the jesus referred to in scripture...you know...the messiah. apparently the names jesus, joseph, and james were all common during that time. i can see how there would be a smaller margin of doubt when all three names are used on james' ossuary...but in regards to jesus being the only jesus of his day who had a pop named joseph....i'm not sure i'd trust that explicitely.

you're right...it is a fascinating topic, though. :teeth:

KingDavid8

April 25th 2003, 07:19 PM

Yesterday @ 07:39 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78173#post78173)
citizenkyle:
The only way to be 100% sure of a supernatural claim is to submit it to rigorous scientific testing. Of course, this is impossible to do with past events. However, people living today make all sorts of supernatural claims. And not one of them can pass the test -- even when there is a million dollars at stake ala the James Randi challenge.

One of the main problems with this is that science deals only with the natural, not the supernatural. Unless the supernatural claim is one that, in some way, affects the natural, you're pretty much out of luck. Obviously a bodily resurrection after being dead for a few days would qualify, but how often do you hear of such things nowadays? A more likely claim would be one of a supernatural healing. Say somebody dying of cancer has a vision of Jesus, and suddenly is cancer-free. Science can't prove that the vision of Jesus happened, since that's not a natural event. Science could show that a man dying of cancer is suddenly cancer-free, but could not prove that the healing was supernaturally-inspired. So exactly what kind of claim frequently given by Christians would you propose be subjected to scientific study? And what results would, hypothetically, convince you of the supernatural?

David

Jim E.

April 25th 2003, 07:30 PM

Yesterday @ 11:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78112#post78112)
KingDavid8:
I believe in Jesus for many reasons. What the Bible says,
<snip>

You said it. Now tell us what the Bible says that you consider a reason to be a Christian.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

jpholding

April 25th 2003, 08:09 PM

Eisele snorts again. :shrug:

Wildcat

April 25th 2003, 08:20 PM

Attention CitizenKyle:

When you say that miracles cannot withstand scientific scrutiny, could you elaborate on that for me?

Let me give you a "counter-example." I had an acquaintance at a hospital where I did some volunteering. She told me that her father was suddenly healed of cancer after his preacher anointed him with oil(as per James 5:14). One minute he was terminal and dying and after the anointing it was totally gone from his body. Now, I grant you that I am assuming the credibility of the story(although I have no reason to doubt her credibility on such matters). However, is it unreasonable to assert the miraculous occurred since this phenomenon defied medical explanation? Or is it an unreasonable assertion because we can't test it? If we can't test it, then how is it that one goes about proving that miracles can or cannot occur?

Wildcat.

citizenkyle

April 26th 2003, 01:06 PM

Attention Wildcat and King David:

You both asked essentially the same question, which is: how exactly would we go about testing a supernatural claim? King David is right, in that we can't test something unless it somehow affects the natural world. So something like a vision of Jesus cannot verified as legitimate or not. However, you both proposed supernatural healing, which is an excellent example for our purposes. Using Wildcat's case of an annointing, we can test that with what is called a "double blind" test. It works like this:

Take 200 terminal cancer patients and split them into two groups of 100 each. One group is the "Test" group and one group is the "Control" group. A pious preacher goes around an annoints the Test group, while an atheist posing as a pious preacher goes around and annoints the the Control group. The key is that NEITHER the patients NOR the doctors observing them know who is the real preacher. Indeed, both patients and doctors should be under the impression that both men are preachers. This levels the field in terms of observer bias and placebo effect. In the end, if the Test group shows considerably higher rates of remission than the Control group then we can conclude that something supernatural may be going on. If we repeat the experiment with similar results several times, the case for the supernatural would be strong indeed.

KingDavid8

April 26th 2003, 01:17 PM

Today @ 12:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78948#post78948)
Jim Eisele:

You said it. Now tell us what the Bible says that you consider a reason to be a Christian.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

That's one, at least.

David

KingDavid8

April 26th 2003, 01:45 PM

Today @ 06:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79462#post79462)
citizenkyle:

Using Wildcat's case of an annointing, we can test that with what is called a "double blind" test. It works like this:

Take 200 terminal cancer patients and split them into two groups of 100 each. One group is the "Test" group and one group is the "Control" group. A pious preacher goes around an annoints the Test group, while an atheist posing as a pious preacher goes around and annoints the the Control group. The key is that NEITHER the patients NOR the doctors observing them know who is the real preacher. Indeed, both patients and doctors should be under the impression that both men are preachers. This levels the field in terms of observer bias and placebo effect. In the end, if the Test group shows considerably higher rates of remission than the Control group then we can conclude that something supernatural may be going on. If we repeat the experiment with similar results several times, the case for the supernatural would be strong indeed.

I would very much like to see such a test done. I've heard of studies on the affects of prayer being done on coronary and AIDS patients. I believe both were done in San Francisco in the 80's and 90's and were written up in medical journals, but I've only heard about these tests from Christian sources, so the information I got could be biased. If anyone has access to them, the sources claim the coronary study was published in the Southern Medicine Joural (1988;81(7):826-829.) and in the Journal of the American Medical Assocation (1997;278(9):792-793) and the AIDS one was in the Western Journal of Medicine (1998:169:356-363). In both cases, I've heard that they were double-blind studies with definite benefits in the prayed-for groups.

David

Jim E.

April 26th 2003, 02:00 PM

Today @ 01:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79471#post79471)
KingDavid8:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

That's one, at least.

David

So, basically, you've been brainwashed by religion. You uncritically accept it as true and no longer care about evidence.

I see that verse and think "religious drivel." I guess you're just not comfortable trying to defend a religion with normal discussion.

You just want to quote a favorite Bible verse and go to a happy place. Whatever...

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

mattbballman19

April 26th 2003, 02:13 PM

Allow me to butt in :smile:

how exactly would we go about testing a supernatural claim?

If that supernatural claim occured in real history and is recorded with a good amount of credibility and vigor should not we let the record have the benefit of the doubt? I suppose that the claim could be false of course, but if it gives notice to the surrounding motivational context for the existence of the record, then it seems that the writers were able and willing to record accurate claims regarding the supernatural. That is, if the conversation is focused on supernatural claims recorded in Scripture.

King David is right, in that we can't test something unless it somehow affects the natural world.

By 'affects' I presume you mean 'interacts physically', correct? I do not know what that would do to various philosophies. The conceptual realm in which the philosophy of naturalism resides in the immaterial. Yet one can enact certain metaphysical/philosophical tests for truth or falsification. But if you mean by 'affects', 'interacts in any way at all', then I do not see how a supernatural occurance would not meet these requirements.

This levels the field in terms of observer bias and placebo effect.

I would agree if this is said in terms of having my provinance within the situation itself. But biasness reappears when the point of view shifts to us, because we transcend the situation.

In the end, if the Test group shows considerably higher rates of remission than the Control group then we can conclude that something supernatural may be going on. If we repeat the experiment with similar results several times, the case for the supernatural would be strong indeed.

(i) Assuming you are comparing the rates of remission to levels of the supernatural, you would seem to have to admit that some supernatural activity is occuring within the Control group also, since it seems that there is remission occuring, even though it is noticably less than that of the Test group.

(ii) I also do not see how repetition would insure a higher degree of certainty when enacting the existence of the supernatural from the stand-point of some inductive scientific concoction of conclusion searching. They way in which the validity of supernatural claims are found seems completely foreign to the story explicated above. Since the claim was made in the past, the scientific method is useless. But within your situation, the scientific method is what drives one to one's conclusions. I may be misunderstanding you, but you seem to be comparing apples and oranges.

matt

jpholding

April 26th 2003, 03:51 PM

Keep in mind that Jim Eisele probably has put me on Ignore for asking him to defend with more than sound bites.

Hey Jim, say "hi" if you don't wash your brain with Suave. :rofl:

citizenkyle

April 26th 2003, 04:17 PM

Today @ 12:13 PM
mattbballman19:
If that supernatural claim occured in real history and is recorded with a good amount of credibility and vigor should not we let the record have the benefit of the doubt?

Not without decisive physical evidence or independent attestation. There are all sorts of supernatural claims being recorded today (faith healing, psychic surgery, talking to the dead, dowsing, etc) and yet, when put to a true scientific test, they always fail.

Today @ 12:13 PM
mattbballman19:
By 'affects' I presume you mean 'interacts physically', correct?

I mean, ultimately, is measurable.

Today @ 12:13 PM
mattbballman19:
I would agree if this is said in terms of having my provinance within the situation itself. But biasness reappears when the point of view shifts to us, because we transcend the situation.

Huh? I don't quite follow. The people recording the data (the observers) cannot be biased if they don't know who is the legit preacher. Perhaps you are saying the data could be interpreted in a biased manner, but ideally the data would be clear cut enough to stand for itself.

Today @ 12:13 PM
mattbballman19:
(i) Assuming you are comparing the rates of remission to levels of the supernatural, you would seem to have to admit that some supernatural activity is occuring within the Control group also, since it seems that there is remission occuring, even though it is noticably less than that of the Test group.

I'm not comparing rates of remission to levels of the supernatural. Cancer is known to go into spontaneous remission, and there is the placebo effect to contend with as well. In other words, cancer goes into remission for naturalistic reasons sometimes. Presumably SOME patients would experience naturalistic remission in both groups. That's why it's the difference between Control and Test groups that is telling.

Today @ 12:13 PM
mattbballman19:
I may be misunderstanding you, but you seem to be comparing apples and oranges.

Yes, of course, we can't test something like the rez under scientific conditions. I was proposing a test for current miracle claims (as that was what King David and Wildcat asked me about) not historical ones. It is true that Christianity could not be falsified by such testing, however certain claims made by various Christian groups (faith healing, tongues interpretation, etc) can be debunked.

Sher

April 26th 2003, 04:57 PM

Jim: "Tell us what the Bible says"

KingDavid8 honors that request.

Jim: "You just want to quote a favorite Bible verse ... "

:lol: That's kind of funny, Jim ... I am begining to think you were actually hired to be comic relief.

Posted by jpholding:

Keep in mind that Jim Eisele probably has put me on Ignore for asking him to defend with more than sound bites.

Yeah ... me too ... until I made Moderator :teeth: He can't put Cirisme on ignore either ... so he just keeps falsely asserting (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=77653#post77653) and moving back to the shadows.

Wildcat

April 26th 2003, 07:25 PM

“ Today @ 01:17 PM post located here
KingDavid8:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

That's one, at least.

David ”

So, basically, you've been brainwashed by religion. You uncritically accept it as true and no longer care about evidence.

I see that verse and think "religious drivel." I guess you're just not comfortable trying to defend a religion with normal discussion.

You just want to quote a favorite Bible verse and go to a happy place. Whatever...

Wildcat: I thought you were asking him to state "from the Bible" why he believes in it. In the post he made previously to that one he gave several *objective* criteria by which his faith in Christianity would be shaken.

Wildcat.

Wildcat

April 26th 2003, 07:35 PM

“ Today @ 12:13 PM
mattbballman19:
If that supernatural claim occured in real history and is recorded with a good amount of credibility and vigor should not we let the record have the benefit of the doubt? ”

CitizenKyle: Not without decisive physical evidence or independent attestation. There are all sorts of supernatural claims being recorded today (faith healing, psychic surgery, talking to the dead, dowsing, etc) and yet, when put to a true scientific test, they always fail.

Wildcat: Of course, I disagree with you that the Gospels do not represent several indepent attestations for the rez, but that's for another thread. :fight:

I have a question about King David's mention of the prayer studies. Although I would agree that they *could* be biased, if the results are true in any one of them, it seems difficult to claim that they fail the scientific test. How about you? Perhaps you know something about those studies that I do not.

Also, I wonder about these studies because it is almost as if we are making God play the role of "laboratory mouse." In other words, if a Christian conducts such a study, we are doing so to "prove a point" moreso than earnestly wanting our friend/family member to be healed. I'm not sure if God, as I understand the Bible's perspective on Him, would comply with such studies. Do you get what I'm saying?

Wildcat.

KingDavid8

April 26th 2003, 08:53 PM

Yesterday @ 07:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79488#post79488)
Jim Eisele:

So, basically, you've been brainwashed by religion. You uncritically accept it as true and no longer care about evidence.

I see that verse and think "religious drivel." I guess you're just not comfortable trying to defend a religion with normal discussion.

You just want to quote a favorite Bible verse and go to a happy place. Whatever...

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

Excuse me? I thought you asked me for something from the Bible. Maybe I was mistaken. That's what "tell us what the Bible says" means, I believe. If not, then what, exactly, were you asking for?

If you want to discuss the evidence, I'll be glad to do so. But please don't ask me for something, then criticize me for giving it.

As I believe I explained earlier, I believe in the Bible for many reasons, not just one. I believe in it because of what the Bible says, plus the evidence, plus my experiences, etc.

David

citizenkyle

April 27th 2003, 12:39 AM

Wildcat: Of course, I disagree with you that the Gospels do not represent several indepent attestations for the rez, but that's for another thread. :fight:

:smile: I think perhaps you would not disagree with me in the strict sense of indepedence I demand. Presumably, you agree that all the gospel authors knew each other and were part of the same burgeoning Jesus movement. I am looking for something outside of that circle--the memoirs of Pilate, for instance.

I have a question about King David's mention of the prayer studies. Although I would agree that they *could* be biased, if the results are true in any one of them, it seems difficult to claim that they fail the scientific test. How about you? Perhaps you know something about those studies that I do not.

I am not aware of any successful studies done under sufficiently controlled conditions. I will have to go to the library and look up the specific tests cited by King David. As he noted, he read about them from a Christian source, so my guess is that the source was trying to draw conclusions of a scope not warranted by the tests. But I could be wrong. If the tests are definitive, I recommend the researchers contact James Randi so that they can claim his million dollar prize in order to continue their groundbreaking research.

Also, I wonder about these studies because it is almost as if we are making God play the role of "laboratory mouse." In other words, if a Christian conducts such a study, we are doing so to "prove a point" moreso than earnestly wanting our friend/family member to be healed. I'm not sure if God, as I understand the Bible's perspective on Him, would comply with such studies. Do you get what I'm saying?

Oh yes, that is a point often made in these types of discussions. And it may very well be a valid one. The problem is that it is also a convenient excuse if the test should fail. This non-falsifiabilty is one of the reasons many skeptics are wary of religion.

Vorkosigan

April 27th 2003, 12:48 AM

In the end, if the Test group shows considerably higher rates of remission than the Control group then we can conclude that something supernatural may be going on. If we repeat the experiment with similar results several times, the case for the supernatural would be strong indeed.

Maybe yes and maybe no. How would you be able to show that the minds of the analysts or audience were not controlled so that they saw only what some supernatural power or entity wanted them to see? Actually, the ramifications of this problem are immense.

The problem is you have eliminated the rules, so now you are unable to say anything about what actually happened. Even if the Test population had 100% cure rate, you can't solve the problem of solipsism. That's why Collins and Pinch argued in one of their books that the whole idea of "research" into the supernatural is impossible. Once you argue that Consciousness can suspend the laws of nature at Will, you can never perform a controlled experiment.

Of course, you'd have real trouble eliminating capricious aliens with advanced technology who chose to interfere in your experiment too....

Vorkosigan

Woman

April 27th 2003, 02:48 AM

I have also heard of such studies and there have been more recent ones than those cited here. In the one I particularly remember, the patients were post-op and the group prayed for did seem to have a quicker heal rate. the thing was though, that the volunteers were recruited from Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist and "new-age" groups and their "prayers" included classic petition, meditation and just sending good thoughts.

I'll see if I can find the study. I don't know what this means. It's interesting though.

Jim E.

April 27th 2003, 09:28 AM

Today @ 08:53 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79676#post79676)
KingDavid8:

Excuse me? I thought you asked me for something from the Bible. Maybe I was mistaken. That's what "tell us what the Bible says" means, I believe. If not, then what, exactly, were you asking for?

If you want to discuss the evidence, I'll be glad to do so. But please don't ask me for something, then criticize me for giving it.

As I believe I explained earlier, I believe in the Bible for many reasons, not just one. I believe in it because of what the Bible says, plus the evidence, plus my experiences, etc.

David

My position is that there are no valid reasons to be a Christian. Your first "reason" for being a Christian was "what the Bible says" (specifically John 3:16). John 3:16 is a faith statement that can only be believed if you think Christianity is of divine origin. Are you trying to claim Christianity is true because of the amazing evidence of John 3:16?

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

mattbballman19

April 27th 2003, 09:53 AM

Not without decisive physical evidence or independent attestation. There are all sorts of supernatural claims being recorded today (faith healing, psychic surgery, talking to the dead, dowsing, etc) and yet, when put to a true scientific test, they always fail.

It sounds as if you are making physical evidence and/or independent attestation necessary conditions for the discovery of the supernatural. I find this dubious at best. Think of the object of the one who receives the supernatural experience (which is to be distinguished from a religious experience). Unless you include the necessary condition of memory and sensory means of knowledge aquisition into your defintion of physical evidence I would disagree with my first intuitive understanding of what I thought you meant by it.

Also, I see no reason to doubt a priori that various claims to the supernatural are false. I don't know what you mean by scientific testing, but it is intuitive to me that claims made about the supernatural tend to occur in the past and therefore preclude any kind of scientifc investigation (if by 'scientific' you mean the 'scientific method') and moves over to the fields of philosophy and historiography and maybe even psycology.

Huh? I don't quite follow. The people recording the data (the observers) cannot be biased if they don't know who is the legit preacher. Perhaps you are saying the data could be interpreted in a biased manner, but ideally the data would be clear cut enough to stand for itself.

My point was that the observers of the analogy (you and me) could be biased regarding its conclusion since we do know who the legit preacher is. We transcend the situation.

With regard to you last sentence, I do not see how the former what negate all possibility of the latter. The O.J. Simpson case is a good counter-example :smile:

That's why it's the difference between Control and Test groups that is telling.

But even though it may be proven that naturalistic remission occurs is some, and, maybe, even all cases, I don't see how that precludes all possibility of the supernatural. God can also be understood in Christian theology to utilize the natural to accomplish supernatural ends. So, even though the remission could be scientifically proven to be natural, the theist can still say that it is possible for that remission to be the natural means through which a supernatural end could be reached. This is an under-cutting defeater instead of a rebutting one. This defeater does not say that I have proven my case, but that not enough has been said for your case to be proven.

I was proposing a test for current miracle claims (as that was what King David and Wildcat asked me about) not historical ones.

And what seemed evident to me was that even 'current miracle claims' are made in the relative past! And since science cannot be used to verify past events, another avenue of inquiry is in order.

however certain claims made by various Christian groups (faith healing, tongues interpretation, etc) can be debunked

Hmm. So you are saying that since the claims are being made in the midst of such activities, you can eliminate the validity of the claims by scientifically investigating the activities. I think this might lead to one generalizing fallaciously from particlular experiments of activities, since it would still be scientifically impossible to test if activities in the scientifically unverifiable past are true or no. Assuming that the experiments supported a naturalistic conclusion, it would still not divest the proponent from my under-cutting defeater explicated above, and complete extrication from possible, past, valid, supernatural activities.

matt

KingDavid8

April 27th 2003, 10:28 AM

Today @ 02:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80000#post80000)
Jim Eisele:

My position is that there are no valid reasons to be a Christian. Your first "reason" for being a Christian was "what the Bible says" (specifically John 3:16). John 3:16 is a faith statement that can only be believed if you think Christianity is of divine origin. Are you trying to claim Christianity is true because of the amazing evidence of John 3:16?

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

You really may want to go back and read my first posting here, because you've already forgotten, or decided to ignore, what I said. Here, I'll repost the relevant portion.

"What the Bible says, the historical evidence, the wisdom of Jesus, the dedication of the 1st century Christians, my dealings with both Christians and non-Christians, the experiences in my life, the books I've read, the results of my redemption, what I've felt in my heart - all of these things combine to convince me of Jesus."

How does one get from that that "What the Bible says" is the ONLY reason I'm a Christian and that I "no longer care about evidence." ("evidence" is right there in the list, dude!). Did you read the first four words, then quit? Are you under the impression that if someone posts a list of reasons, the first one is the only one they really mean, and the rest are just window dressing?

So your position is that there are no valid reasons to be a Christian. Fine, I acknowledge your position. Please acknowledge (or at least attempt to comprehend) mine if you want to continue this discussion. If necessary, read the above quoted portion two or three times.

BTW, Is Jim always like this, or is this just for my benefit?

David

Jim E.

April 27th 2003, 10:36 AM

Today @ 10:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80027#post80027)
KingDavid8:
How does one get from that that "What the Bible says" is the ONLY reason I'm a Christian and that I "no longer care about evidence." ("evidence" is right there in the list, dude!). Did you read the first four words, then quit? Are you under the impression that if someone posts a list of reasons, the first one is the only one they really mean, and the rest are just window dressing?

Uh, let's take them one at a time. And I clearly said your first reason, not your ONLY reason. Maybe after your first reason is thoroughly debunked you will want to take a break. If your first reason isn't your strongest, feel free to change the discussion to your strongest reason. Just throwing out John 3:16 is pretty weak stuff.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

Ben Reid

April 27th 2003, 11:40 AM

04-23-2003 @ 11:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76997#post76997)
citizenkyle:

I'd like to hear some Christians' thoughts on this inquiry:

What evidence (if any) could convince you that Christianity is false?

The evidence cited can, of course, be hypothetical.

Hey Kyle,

Good question. I like these "what would it take" type of queries. Helps us to see if we are being realistic in the evidence we are looking for (or not looking for :teeth:).

I would probably echo what everyone else has said regarding finding the body of Jesus. That's pretty much a clincher. Though I'm not sure how one would go about proving it was actually Jesus body and not someone else (matching DNA from the shroud of Turin??)

Other falsifications for me would be:

a) Proof that Jesus was a myth (i.e. the historical Jesus never existed)
b) Proof that Jesus' resurrection never happened
c) Proof that the gospels were fabricated or made-up

(note: I'm only after "weak proof" here. Showing that proposition X is more likely than not is good enough.)

I should add that, even assuming that one could show that Christ was just an ordinary man (or a myth), I wouldn't then become an atheist. Far from it. One doesn't become an atheist by virtue of not being a Christian. There's a whole world of other religions out there :thumb: :teeth:

To become an atheist, I'd need to see convincing naturalistic explanations of free will, morality, consciousness, rationality and the noumenous. Just to name a few things. If this were to happen, I'd probably give up my belief in God.

However, right now, as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord :rockon:

Kind regards,

~Ben~

jpholding

April 27th 2003, 01:07 PM

King David,

He's ALWAYS like this. :zzz:

KingDavid8

April 27th 2003, 03:24 PM

Today @ 03:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80029#post80029)
Jim Eisele:

Uh, let's take them one at a time. And I clearly said your first reason, not your ONLY reason. Maybe after your first reason is thoroughly debunked you will want to take a break. If your first reason isn't your strongest, feel free to change the discussion to your strongest reason. Just throwing out John 3:16 is pretty weak stuff.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

This conversation just gets more and more surreal.

So were my eyes deceiving me when I read your statement that I 'no longer care about the evidence'? Did somebody hijack your post and put that in there against your will? Or do you feel that something being SECOND on my list means I no longer care about it? And I 'just threw out' John 3:16 because you said, "Now tell us what the Bible says that you consider a reason to be a Christian." Sorry if it's some sort of faux pas to give you what you ask for.

David

Wildcat

April 27th 2003, 06:34 PM

CitizenKyle: I think perhaps you would not disagree with me in the strict sense of indepedence I demand. Presumably, you agree that all the gospel authors knew each other and were part of the same burgeoning Jesus movement. I am looking for something outside of that circle--the memoirs of Pilate, for instance.

Wildcat: Oh I see what you're saying, but on the other hand, we're not too likely to see any material from non-Christians affirming the rez. for obvious reasons. If we did, I suspect they would have already become Christian like Paul and James since it is this by this doctrine that Christianity rises and falls.

CitizenKyle: I am not aware of any successful studies done under sufficiently controlled conditions. I will have to go to the library and look up the specific tests cited by King David. As he noted, he read about them from a Christian source, so my guess is that the source was trying to draw conclusions of a scope not warranted by the tests. But I could be wrong. If the tests are definitive, I recommend the researchers contact James Randi so that they can claim his million dollar prize in order to continue their groundbreaking research.

Wildcat: True, it looks like we may have hit a wall on this for now.

CitizenKyle: Oh yes, that is a point often made in these types of discussions. And it may very well be a valid one. The problem is that it is also a convenient excuse if the test should fail. This non-falsifiabilty is one of the reasons many skeptics are wary of religion.

Wildcat: True, which I feel takes us back to the question of historical evidence for previous miracle claims, or lack thereof, as the case may be.

Wildcat.

Sher

April 27th 2003, 06:48 PM

Today @ 10:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80027#post80027)
KingDavid8:

BTW, Is Jim always like this, or is this just for my benefit?He's always been like this on this forum ... look for some of his other threads ... next he will be telling you that he had loads of evidence showing you are wrong ... and insulting you when you ask that he actually provide some of it.

citizenkyle

April 27th 2003, 10:15 PM

mattbballman19:[/i]
It sounds as if you are making physical evidence and/or independent attestation necessary conditions for the discovery of the supernatural.

That is the only evidence that would be sufficient to convince me that a bona fide supernatural event took place in history.

mattbballman19:[/i]
Also, I see no reason to doubt a priori that various claims to the supernatural are false.

Really? Thousands of people claim to have been abducted by aliens. Don't you doubt them by default?

mattbballman19:[/i]
I don't know what you mean by scientific testing, but it is intuitive to me that claims made about the supernatural tend to occur in the past and therefore preclude any kind of scientifc investigation (if by 'scientific' you mean the 'scientific method') and moves over to the fields of philosophy and historiography and maybe even psycology.

I was talking about reproducible, lab experiment testing...for such claims as faith healing, telekinesis, channeling, etc. Obviously, such experiments don't apply to "one-time" events in the past.

mattbballman19:[/i]
My point was that the observers of the analogy (you and me) could be biased regarding its conclusion since we do know who the legit preacher is. We transcend the situation.

But we are not recording the results, so that is irrelevant.

mattbballman19:[/i]
But even though it may be proven that naturalistic remission occurs is some, and, maybe, even all cases, I don't see how that precludes all possibility of the supernatural.

It doesn't. But the burden of proof is on the supernatural claimant. Lacking any reason to give the claim more merit than none, a position of skepticism is in order.

mattbballman19:[/i]
And what seemed evident to me was that even 'current miracle claims' are made in the relative past!

Yes, that's why lab experiments would only apply to reproducible claims.

citizenkyle

April 27th 2003, 10:28 PM

Wildcat:
Wildcat: Oh I see what you're saying, but on the other hand, we're not too likely to see any material from non-Christians affirming the rez. for obvious reasons. If we did, I suspect they would have already become Christian like Paul and James since it is this by this doctrine that Christianity rises and falls.

That's a point. OTOH, if all the miracles surrounding Jesus' death are geunine (earthquake, midday darkness, torn temple curtain, saints rising from their graves, etc) and the empty tomb was well known and verified, it is somewhat surprising that everybody in Jerusalem at the time didn't convert. And that more people didn't record such events.

Wildcat:
Wildcat: True, which I feel takes us back to the question of historical evidence for previous miracle claims, or lack thereof, as the case may be.

Which brings up the key question. What standard of evidence should be considered sufficient in establishing historical supernatural claims? I have asserted in this thread (and elsewhere) that I consider only decisive physical evidence and/or (strict) independent attestation to be sufficient. How about you?

Wildcat

April 27th 2003, 11:33 PM

CitizenKyle: That's a point. OTOH, if all the miracles surrounding Jesus' death are geunine (earthquake, midday darkness, torn temple curtain, saints rising from their graves, etc) and the empty tomb was well known and verified, it is somewhat surprising that everybody in Jerusalem at the time didn't convert. And that more people didn't record such events.

Wildcat: That's an interesting point about the miracles. With all of the social stigmas involved with the Christian movement at that time, however, it may be reasonable to conclude that these events could have been rationalized away as unrelated coincidences by the public in order to excuse themselves from converting to the socially deviant movement. We actually do see evidence of the midday darkness being rationalized away as an eclipse, for instance, in an extra-biblical account. The rez. would have been the only event that would have been undeniably related to the Christian movement although I grant you that rationalizing away all of the miracles surrounding the crucifixion as being unrelated to the rez. would seem to be absurd. As for the empty tomb, the Jews, if we believe Matthew, apparently already had an explanation for it in place.

As for the writings, Luke indicates in the first verse of his gospel that "many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us...." This combined with the fact that so little has survived from the ancient world to our present day may indicate that many did write of these events.

CitizenKyle: Which brings up the key question. What standard of evidence should be considered sufficient in establishing historical supernatural claims? I have asserted in this thread (and elsewhere) that I consider only decisive physical evidence and/or (strict) independent attestation to be sufficient. How about you?

Wildcat: To be perfectly honest, I have not established criteria for miracle claims. However, the evidence typically presented in apologetic circles(which I'm sure you are well aware) is more than enough for me personally to believe the rez. is a historical event.

Wildcat.

mattbballman19

April 27th 2003, 11:55 PM

That is the only evidence that would be sufficient to convince me that a bona fide supernatural event took place in history.

I guess that I must live with your personal expectations, but the rub seems to be that this same evidence which would be sufficient to convince you should, I think, be entitled to be believed by various people who you decide to share your experience based on this sufficient evidence. I know it is, from your presuppositional stand-point, difficult to accept as being valid, but speaking from within the Christian world-view, the disciples, if, of course, they recorded accurate information, experienced this sufficient evidence. They got to enjoy the epistemic warrent that you so desire, hypothetically. Now, according to your view, it would be wrong, justifiably, to accept the testimony of one who experience the sufficient evidence so desired, even though that sufficient evidence existed in the distant past. So, even though you might not be able to experience that sufficient evidence first-hand, you can let it effect you in the sense that you accept a testimony from an otherwise noble and truth-oriented person that he/she experienced whatever so that you can base the potential reaching of your quota on this historical event. Otherwise, if it did so happen that God satisfied your quota and gave you the sufficient evidence personally, you would have no consistent motive for sharing that experience unless you thought it thinkable that the people you are telling are epistemically obligated to believe in the existence of the sufficient evidence you are advocating with-out the first-hand experience that you thought was so necessary.

Really? Thousands of people claim to have been abducted by aliens. Don't you doubt them by default?

1. Abduction by aliens would not be classified as the 'supernatural', since they are products of the natural universe. 2. 'Doubt' is not the same as 'Rule out uncritically with no attention given to the possibility of an actualization of the event in lue of potentially viable evidence'. If the latter is taken into one's arsenal of truth-investigation then it would seem that what I said about it being unreasonable 'a priori' to rule out the supernatural stands.

I was talking about reproducible, lab experiment testing...for such claims as faith healing, telekinesis, channeling, etc. Obviously, such experiments don't apply to "one-time" events in the past.

I don't see how the lab experiments being reducible would somehow preclude the possibility of conclusions being reached within the experiments occuring in the past. The occurance of a discovery of natural causes of the unusual occurances explicated above seems to be a one-time event in the sense that the even occured one time in order for their to be a conclusion drawn. Every single other time the event occured in the history of man-kind has not been taken into account, so I think that this experiment would be insufficient to divest oneself of total impossibility of the supernatural being a factor in one of the unusual occurances.

It doesn't. But the burden of proof is on the supernatural claimant. Lacking any reason to give the claim more merit than none, a position of skepticism is in order.

Then I guess my suspicion arises as to the confidence level of the naturalist in basing her philosophy on the conclusions of an experiement which do not yeild certainty. Also, if skepticism is in order in the absence of my supernatural reasons then this would include skepticism of the naturalism that the experiment is seeking to support. Of course, I lack the time and resources to investigate all cases of unusual and/or possibly weird happening to see if there must be some supernatural explanation. My case would rest on the claims made in the Bible and how the adherance to a supernatural metaphysics is the only philosophy which makes sense when looking at history within the Christian context.

citizenkyle

April 28th 2003, 11:35 AM

Wildcat:
We actually do see evidence of the midday darkness being rationalized away as an eclipse, for instance, in an extra-biblical account.

I don't think I've seen that. What account are you referencing?

Wildcat:
The rez. would have been the only event that would have been undeniably related to the Christian movement although I grant you that rationalizing away all of the miracles surrounding the crucifixion as would seem to be absurd.

Indeed, and it's not as if the Jews were an unsuperstitious lot who put no stock in signs. And some of the signs (torn curtain, ressurected saints) were unmistakably religious. It would be stunning if there were not mass conversions after that. Which, as far we know, there were not.

Wildcat:
As for the empty tomb, the Jews, if we believe Matthew, apparently already had an explanation for it in place.

Yes, but how many would buy that excuse for the empty tomb in conjunction with everything else ?

Wildcat:
As for the writings, Luke indicates in the first verse of his gospel that "many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us...." This combined with the fact that so little has survived from the ancient world to our present day may indicate that many did write of these events.

Yes, that's always possible. I was going to mention that in my last post.

Wildcat:
Wildcat: To be perfectly honest, I have not established criteria for miracle claims. However, the evidence typically presented in apologetic circles(which I'm sure you are well aware) is more than enough for me personally to believe the rez. is a historical event.

I think you'd be hard pressed to come up with a standard that allowed for the miracles of the Bible, but excluded many non-Biblical accounts. Of course, you could take the position I've seen from some others that you are inclined to believe some other supernatral accounts, and attribute them to demonic forces.

citizenkyle

April 28th 2003, 11:50 AM

mattbballman19:
I guess that I must live with your personal expectations, but the rub seems to be that this same evidence which would be sufficient to convince you should, I think, be entitled to be believed by various people who you decide to share your experience based on this sufficient evidence.

I do not think I am entitled to that. Indeed, while Jesus appearing to me and letting me feel his wounds would convince me, I would expect anyone else to be convinced by my report of such an event.

mattbballman19:
1. Abduction by aliens would not be classified as the 'supernatural', since they are products of the natural universe.

Supernatural, paranormal, extrasensory; it all falls under the same rubric for me.

mattbballman19:
2. 'Doubt' is not the same as 'Rule out uncritically with no attention given to the possibility of an actualization of the event in lue of potentially viable evidence'. If the latter is taken into one's arsenal of truth-investigation then it would seem that what I said about it being unreasonable 'a priori' to rule out the supernatural stands.

I agree. But you originally said, "I see no reason to doubt a priori that various claims to the supernatural are false," [emphasis mine]. I do not "rule out" a priori, but I do doubt.

mattbballman19:
Every single other time the event occured in the history of man-kind has not been taken into account, so I think that this experiment would be insufficient to divest oneself of total impossibility of the supernatural being a factor in one of the unusual occurances.

It doesn't establish "total impossibility", but it does establish skepticism as the default position to be overturned only by tremendous evidence.

mattbballman19:
Then I guess my suspicion arises as to the confidence level of the naturalist in basing her philosophy on the conclusions of an experiement which do not yeild certainty. Also, if skepticism is in order in the absence of my supernatural reasons then this would include skepticism of the naturalism that the experiment is seeking to support.

Of course. Skeptics are (ideally) skeptical about everything--including their own experiments. That's why there are so many strict controls and calls for repeated, corroborating tests. Certainty is a luxury the skeptic cannot have.

mattbballman19

April 28th 2003, 01:08 PM

I do not think I am entitled to that. Indeed, while Jesus appearing to me and letting me feel his wounds would convince me, I would expect anyone else to be convinced by my report of such an event.

But that is my point. Your expectations are in conflict with the quota you've constructed since their is an inconsistency between what would be sufficient for you and what should be sufficient for other people.

Supernatural, paranormal, extrasensory; it all falls under the same rubric for me.

I see your point, but I would think that, if you are a naturalist, then anything supernatural would register higher on the skeptical thermometer than weird and rare occurances within the realm of the natural ontology.

I agree. But you originally said, "I see no reason to doubt a priori that various claims to the supernatural are false," [emphasis mine]. I do not "rule out" a priori, but I do doubt.

Ok . . I see your distinction.

It doesn't establish "total impossibility", but it does establish skepticism as the default position to be overturned only by tremendous evidence.

And within the rubric of 'tremendous evidence' you are only willing to except the supernatural which personally effects you. I still see that same tension where it still seems justifiable for you to historically investigate the alleged occurances of others who have received and experienced this personal attestation of supernatural revelation and recieve warrent from that. A kind of hazy analogy utilizes your line of reasoning by showing us a particular doubter who has made the willful decision to disbelieve that George Washington existed, let alone performed the feats that are recorded of him, unless he, himself, presents himself to the doubter. Does not this sound a little unwarrented?

Of course. Skeptics are (ideally) skeptical about everything--including their own experiments. That's why there are so many strict controls and calls for repeated, corroborating tests. Certainty is a luxury the skeptic cannot have.

I don't want to be the annoying philosopher type, but is not the above quote highlighted in italics a statement that is certain? If so, then it is self-stultifying; if not, then it does not seem to be sufficient justification for the allegation I raised in the previous post.

Wildcat

April 29th 2003, 12:49 AM

CitizenKyle: I don't think I've seen that. What account are you referencing?

Wildcat: It's Julius Africanus responding to an assertion by Thallus. Glenn Miller did a piece on this that actually gives evidence that this was a widely discussed event at that time. Richard Carrier has also done a skeptical piece on it. At Tekton we also did a comparison of their arguments. If you're interested I'll get you the URLs. Just e-mail me or I can place them here on the forum.

CitizenKyle: Indeed, and it's not as if the Jews were an unsuperstitious lot who put no stock in signs. And some of the signs (torn curtain, ressurected saints) were unmistakably religious. It would be stunning if there were not mass conversions after that. Which, as far we know, there were not.

Wildcat: JP mentioned that the Jews could have interpreted the signs as God's condemnation of Jesus if they desired to have an "out." However, upon further reflection on your original assertion, I still disagree about the mass conversions. Most people, as I had indicated earlier on a post in this thread, are unwilling to change their paradigm regardless of what you present them. I see it all the time in e-mail convos I have with members from another particular religion. How much moreso would this have been the case back then when joining Christianity would have bought you nothing but trouble, at least in this world?

On the resurrected saints, Matthew's account doesn't give us much information on it. We don't know how many saints were resurrected nor to how many people they appeared. If the number is reasonably small, it may be reasonable to suggest the possibility that the majority of those that saw them did convert.

I think you made an interesting point, but what I'd have a more difficult time rationalizing away personally is why the Gospel writers would have fabricated events that could have been checked when it wasn't essential to their message rather than why there were not mass conversions, especially in light of the factors just described. If the Gospels were written around 200 A.D. this is understandable, but even if we accept the liberal dating of the synoptics fabrications would seem unlikely since they would have likely been more of a hinderance than a help.

CitizenKyle: I think you'd be hard pressed to come up with a standard that allowed for the miracles of the Bible, but excluded many non-Biblical accounts. Of course, you could take the position I've seen from some others that you are inclined to believe some other supernatral accounts, and attribute them to demonic forces.

Wildcat: It is within the Biblical worldview to believe that demonic miracles can be performed and will be performed. Thus, I don't simply dismiss uncritically pagan miracle stories from the past and present. As far as the standard you mention, I figure you are correct for some miracles, especially that of the O.T., but I know of no pagan miracle accounts that even come close to matching the credibility of those of Christ and the apostles, especially the rez. I think Miller has performed quite a bit of scholarship on this as well. You may want to check out his work at some point if you're interested.

Wildcat.

jpholding

April 29th 2003, 12:01 PM

I'm pleased to see all is well here. :smile: Folks are giving much the same answers I would.

Carry on. :smile:

WinAce

April 29th 2003, 01:49 PM

[See new topic]

citizenkyle

April 29th 2003, 03:44 PM

mattbballman19:
But that is my point. Your expectations are in conflict with the quota you've constructed since their is an inconsistency between what would be sufficient for you and what should be sufficient for other people.

Oops! I dropped a very important word! My sentence should've read:

Indeed, while Jesus appearing to me and letting me feel his wounds would convince me, I would NOT expect anyone else to be convinced by my report of such an event.

mattbballman19:
I see your point, but I would think that, if you are a naturalist, then anything supernatural would register higher on the skeptical thermometer than weird and rare occurances within the realm of the natural ontology.

Perhaps I'm not that hardcore a naturalist. :smile:

mattbballman19:
And within the rubric of 'tremendous evidence' you are only willing to except the supernatural which personally effects you. I still see that same tension where it still seems justifiable for you to historically investigate the alleged occurances of others who have received and experienced this personal attestation of supernatural revelation and recieve warrent from that.

I think you've misunderstood me slightly. For claims of contemporary miracle-workers, I demand they put their money where their mouth is and allow us to test them in a lab environment. For historical miracle claims, since that kind of testing is unavailable, I am willing to relax the standards to decisive physical evidence and/or multiple independent attestation.

mattbballman19:
A kind of hazy analogy utilizes your line of reasoning by showing us a particular doubter who has made the willful decision to disbelieve that George Washington existed, let alone performed the feats that are recorded of him, unless he, himself, presents himself to the doubter. Does not this sound a little unwarrented?

It is unwarranted, and here's why:
1. The feats of Washington are not supernatural, or even paranormal. They fall perfectly within the pale of human ability.
2. We have multiple independent attestations of Washington's existence in terms of historical reports from the British as well as the colonists, and foreign observers. Also, it should be noted that some reports on Washinton (i.e. the cherry tree story) are widely considered fictional due to their poor attestation and mythic quality.
3. There is some physical evidence in the sense of portraits, old coins bearing Washington's image, etc.

citizenkyle

April 29th 2003, 04:11 PM

Wildcat:
Wildcat: JP mentioned that the Jews could have interpreted the signs as God's condemnation of Jesus if they desired to have an "out."

How do you know that intrepretation is wrong? :smile:

Wildcat:
However, upon further reflection on your original assertion, I still disagree about the mass conversions. Most people, as I had indicated earlier on a post in this thread, are unwilling to change their paradigm regardless of what you present them. I see it all the time in e-mail convos I have with members from another particular religion. How much moreso would this have been the case back then when joining Christianity would have bought you nothing but trouble, at least in this world?

That raises another question. If an in-person witness to the wondrous signs and circumstances surrounding the rez wasn't enough to convince people to convert, why was a mere report (second hand in the case of Paul and some others) of such events decades later able to covert large numbers? In other words, if Christianity was so much trouble and people were desperately looking for an out, why did anyone convert?

Wildcat:
I think you made an interesting point, but what I'd have a more difficult time rationalizing away personally is why the Gospel writers would have fabricated events that could have been checked when it wasn't essential to their message rather than why there were not mass conversions, especially in light of the factors just described. If the Gospels were written around 200 A.D. this is understandable, but even if we accept the liberal dating of the synoptics fabrications would seem unlikely since they would have likely been more of a hinderance than a help.

This is actually something JP and I will be tackling in our forthcoming second installment to the Impossible Faith debate. In brief, I would say that if the Gospels were written post 70 AD (which seems to be the liberal consensus), then this is after the Roman sack of Jerusalem and everything would be much harder to verify at that point. In addition, there is the question of how many people had the means to investigate such claims, and of those that had the means, how many had the WILL to investigate such claims.

Wildcat:
Wildcat: It is within the Biblical worldview to believe that demonic miracles can be performed and will be performed. Thus, I don't simply dismiss uncritically pagan miracle stories from the past and present. As far as the standard you mention, I figure you are correct for some miracles, especially that of the O.T.,

Are you saying that some miracles recorded in the OT are probably not genuine?

Wildcat

April 29th 2003, 04:51 PM

CitizenKyle: How do you know that intrepretation is wrong?

Wildcat: Indeed, how do we?

CitizenKyle: That raises another question. If an in-person witness to the wondrous signs and circumstances surrounding the rez wasn't enough to convince people to convert, why was a mere report (second hand in the case of Paul and some others) of such events decades later able to covert large numbers? In other words, if Christianity was so much trouble and people were desperately looking for an out, why did anyone convert?

Wildcat: I think that's the point of JPH's article. Without powerful evidence of a bonafide resurrection, its unlikely that such a movement could have survived in the first place.

Kyle: This is actually something JP and I will be tackling in our forthcoming second installment to the Impossible Faith debate. In brief, I would say that if the Gospels were written post 70 AD (which seems to be the liberal consensus), then this is after the Roman sack of Jerusalem and everything would be much harder to verify at that point. In addition, there is the question of how many people had the means to investigate such claims, and of those that had the means, how many had the WILL to investigate such claims.

Wildcat: Events like the temple curtain being torn would be difficult to verify it seems although there would have still been eyewitnesses that could have denied it, but needless to say, after the Temple's destruction the argument loses much of its force. The empty tomb may be another. The other events mentioned would not seem to be more difficult to verify, however, other than the fact that we're talking about a lapse in 2 or 3 decades. Of course, here we've hit a wall since I believe the synoptics were compiled in the 60s A.D. or sooner.

Speaking of which, any takers on that debate on gospel dating yet JPH?

As far as having the means is concerned, I find it interesting that a higher proportion of people that DID have the means converted to Christianity in comparison to the general population. In a collectivistic society, such claims it seems would be very unlikely to go unchallenged, especially by those that had the means. Is this why there existed this disproportionate amount of the wealthy in the deviant movement?

CitizenKyle: Are you saying that some miracles recorded in the OT are probably not genuine?

Wildcat: Oh not at all. First of all, I'm not an authority on O.T. miracles so I suppose I could be way off-base. However, what I'm saying is that you may be correct in certain instances that it would be difficult to establish standards whereby we could verify certain miracles in the Bible and eliminate other pagan accounts. However, if the rez. is true, then in my book that verifies that Jesus is Who He claimed to be. Since Jesus regarded the O.T. miracles as authentic, there is no reason not to believe Him *IF* indeed my position is correct. Basically, everything in the Bible, as Jason Rennie has aptly demonstrated, rises and falls with the rez, and for that we do have more than ample historical corroboration, IMO.

If you do not respond before about noon tomorrow, this will probably be my last post for awhile-going out of town. If you can get another one in, then I'll see you perhaps one more time.

Regards,
Wildcat.

jpholding

April 29th 2003, 07:14 PM

Cat and folks:

Only one taker on Gospel dates -- Bud (ugh) on Matthew. Bring Lysol. The offer expires tomorrow.

Wildcat

April 29th 2003, 07:18 PM

You must have really lit a fire under Bud with that "Why Skeptics Don't Deserve the Benefit of the Doubt" piece. :rant:

citizenkyle

April 29th 2003, 07:48 PM

jpholding:

Only one taker on Gospel dates -- Bud (ugh) on Matthew. Bring Lysol. The offer expires tomorrow.

I'm studying the dating issue as we speak. Perhaps you can resurrect (pun intended) it as a debate topic in the future--or make a special dispensation for me :smile:

jpholding

April 29th 2003, 07:52 PM

For you it'd be worth it. :thumb:

citizenkyle

April 30th 2003, 12:47 PM

Wildcat:
Wildcat: I think that's the point of JPH's article. Without powerful evidence of a bonafide resurrection, its unlikely that such a movement could have survived in the first place.

But if a decades old report of a rez and miracles was enough to convince people to join a socially deviant movement, why wasn't the live reality of such things convincing? Presumably the apsotles started preaching the rez almost immediately--when the empty tomb, the guards, and all the rest were right there for ready verification. If the Jewish polemic about a stolen body was enough for people to rationalize the rez away, why wasn't that polemic powerful enough in later years?

Wildcat:
Of course, here we've hit a wall since I believe the synoptics were compiled in the 60s A.D. or sooner.

I'd be willing to grant a date in the 60s for the original Mark, but since he doesn't claim any of the miracles (or even the appearances!) that doesn't do us much good.

Wildcat:
As far as having the means is concerned, I find it interesting that a higher proportion of people that DID have the means converted to Christianity in comparison to the general population. In a collectivistic society, such claims it seems would be very unlikely to go unchallenged, especially by those that had the means. Is this why there existed this disproportionate amount of the wealthy in the deviant movement?

I am no expert on ANE cultures, but I have a hard time believing that ANE people, wealthy or otherwise, were highly critical of supernatural claims. In today's 1st world countries, with widespread literacy and advanced scientific knowledge, there are all sorts of charlatans and quacks (John Edward, Sylvia Browne, Oral Roberts, Jeane Dixon, et al) who are readily believed and adored by MILLIONS. Most of the believers do not make even the most cursory examination of the claims made by these fraudsters (despite having the means to do so!). Tons of people in the 21st century avoid walking under ladders, flying on Friday the 13th, etc. I have seen no evidence that indicates the people of the past were any less superstitious or gullible.

In addition, we might suppose that the wealthy saw Christianity as a way to safeguard their power, since Christianity taught a submission to the law of the land, and encouraged a contentment with one's station in life; focusing not on the material now, but the spiritual hereafter. This was a policy that would've found support from the rich who were seeking to pacify the poor masses and reduce class struggle.

Wildcat

May 5th 2003, 11:54 AM

CitizenKyle: But if a decades old report of a rez and miracles was enough to convince people to join a socially deviant movement, why wasn't the live reality of such things convincing?

Wildcat: It *was* convincing for many people that would have been witnesses to those events, enough for the religion to survive(and even thrive) despite all of its disadvantages. In fact, Luke records that there were 3,000 converts on the very first day that the apostles preached the rez(Acts 2:41). The apostles had also established churches throughout Judaea and the Roman Empire before their deaths, which of course, is before 70 A.D. in the cases of Peter and Paul. How exactly is it that you feel that the live reality of the miracles was less compelling from about 31-70 A.D., given this?

CitizenKyle: Presumably the apsotles started preaching the rez almost immediately--when the empty tomb, the guards, and all the rest were right there for ready verification. If the Jewish polemic about a stolen body was enough for people to rationalize the rez away, why wasn't that polemic powerful enough in later years?

Wildcat: I'm not sure that I understand what you're asking. Some bought into that theory then and some still buy into it even today. It is simply one of many "escape routes" that some skeptics still use, but this particular one seems to be the oldest one. I personally don't buy the "disciples stole the body" theory, of course, but I can't speak for others. Perhaps this alternative was expounded because it was the only possible(or most plausible) alternative at that time, in the minds of the Jewish elite? Whether or not it had force at any time(including THAT time) might be debatable, but as they say, "Desperate times call for desperate measures." As I had mentioned before, if people are bound and determined to reject something, even an idea like "Space aliens abducted Christ's body" may be considered by some people if necessary(which is something that apparently HAS been proposed by some in our modern era). Just ask JPH who is having to deal with some guy who is proposing that Jesus had a twin who apparently stayed hidden for 33 years. :-)

CitizenKyle: I'd be willing to grant a date in the 60s for the original Mark, but since he doesn't claim any of the miracles (or even the appearances!) that doesn't do us much good.

Wildcat: You mean except for the appearances to the women? Plus, there appears to be evidence that Mark's Gospel does not end at verse 8(http://www.tektonics.org/markend.html), but grant you, we can only make educated guesses at what was actually recorded. However, since Christ in verse 7 indicates to the women that He will appear to Peter and company, it is reasonable to assert that the original author went on to write about these appearances.

By the way, the miracles of the temple veil being ripped and the 3 hours of darkness ARE recorded in Mark(15:33,38).

CitizenKyle: I am no expert on ANE cultures, but I have a hard time believing that ANE people, wealthy or otherwise, were highly critical of supernatural claims. In today's 1st world countries, with widespread literacy and advanced scientific knowledge, there are all sorts of charlatans and quacks (John Edward, Sylvia Browne, Oral Roberts, Jeane Dixon, et al) who are readily believed and adored by MILLIONS. Most of the believers do not make even the most cursory examination of the claims made by these fraudsters (despite having the means to do so!). Tons of people in the 21st century avoid walking under ladders, flying on Friday the 13th, etc. I have seen no evidence that indicates the people of the past were any less superstitious or gullible.

Wildcat: This is an interesting point. I remember this from your response to the TIF article. As far as the difference in ANE and now, I think JPH might have better insight on this than I can provide, so I'll await round 2 of your debate for that issue where it hopefully will be addressed. One thing worth noting, however, is that, as far as I know, the followers of the examples you mentioned are not buying the same kind of trouble, especially socially, that early converts to Christianity were buying. Plus, we get back to the individualistic vs. collectivistic societies when we talk about the making and investigating of such claims. The examples you mention are all modern I believe. Plus, I don't know who Sylvia Browne is, but with that possible exception(?), these people are not teaching new religions where vast changes must be made in a person's lifestyle and cherished belief
system(s). For me to believe John Edward, for instance, all I'm believing is that he talks with dead people. For me to revere Oral Roberts, I'm simply revering what I feel(or felt, as the case may be), is/was a highly respected Christian leader. I'm not as likely to investigate their claims since I don't have a whole lifestyle, a world of trouble, and concerns about my eternal destiny hinging on my decisions. In other words, if I'm wrong about the characters you mention, potential broken heart aside, so what?

CitizenKyle: In addition, we might suppose that the wealthy saw Christianity as a way to safeguard their power, since Christianity taught a submission to the law of the land, and encouraged a contentment with one's station in life; focusing not on the material now, but the spiritual hereafter. This was a policy that would've found support from the rich who were seeking to pacify the poor masses and reduce class struggle.

Wildcat: But were the alternatives to Christianity(Judaism, pagan Roman religions, etc.) that "anti-establishment"(for that matter, did those religions promote upheaval of the law?) to the point where many would have embraced a religion that could have, and probably did, bring/brought them much ostracization?
OTOH, if those other religions mentioned above were not "anti-establishment" any moreso than Christianity, then there seems to remain no tangible reason to convert to Christianity, but still many reasons NOT to convert.

Sorry for the delay in responding, but I was out of town for a few days.

Wildcat.

DBoone

May 5th 2003, 03:28 PM

If the Jesus mythers are right they would've produced the body of Jesus a long time ago. Or maybe they have some similar myth to the one they claim that Christians have for the reason they can't produce his body.

Heck, all of this would've been moot a long time ago if the Jews had just wheeled his body thru the streets while Peter was preaching the resurrected Jesus.

They couldn't do that. They still claim the disciples stole the body. Pfff! Yeah right. Snuck up to professional soldiers & incapacitated them. Or waited til they were all asleep? The penalty for abandoning your post was pretty harsh, death if I'm not mistaken.

Why these guys would proclaim at spearpoint a myth about some dead guy that they had stolen has always baffled me. The more I hear that argument the more I laugh.

My short answer to the question would be:
- The body of Jesus
- The absence of the Holy Spirit.
- A priest being struck dead in the Holy of Holies in the Jewish Temple by the Power of God any time after the claims of Christ's resurrection.
- documentation of the disciples of Christ discussing how they would concoct the "Jesus Hoax" and rewrite all the prophecies in the Old testament while no one was looking to make it look like Jesus fulfilled them.
- The clouds parting and a Voice from heaven saying, "Sorry guys I was just kiddin."

Actually, I'd probably even question the last three on my list.

mattbballman19

May 5th 2003, 03:44 PM

YO YO

Indeed, while Jesus appearing to me and letting me feel his wounds would convince me, I would NOT expect anyone else to be convinced by my report of such an event.

This seems to me to be double-speak. You say, further down the post, that I am willing to relax the standards to decisive physical evidence and/or multiple independent attestation. If you set this as a standard for sufficient justification of historical/past miraculous truth-claims, then would not your expectation be that others do the same. If not, then this sufficient justification is not universal, and does not satisfy an objective way in which these miraculous claims are to be believed.

Perhaps I'm not that hardcore a naturalist. :smile:

If I may ask, what is your metaphysical world-view?

1. The feats of Washington are not supernatural, or even paranormal. They fall perfectly within the pale of human ability.

But you said above that I am willing to relax the standards to decisive physical evidence and/or multiple independent attestation.. If this is so, then it really has nothing to do with the philosophical question of the possibility of the miraculous. If so, then I suggest this reason to be revised.

3. There is some physical evidence in the sense of portraits, old coins bearing Washington's image, etc.

I do not see how this a necessary or a sufficient condition for the existence of a person.

1. Someone can exist, without a portrait being constructed.

2. Someone can have a portrait contructed, and the one on that portrait not exist.

matt

Jim E.

May 5th 2003, 08:42 PM

Today @ 03:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88257#post88257)
DBoone:
Heck, all of this would've been moot a long time ago if the Jews had just wheeled his body thru the streets while Peter was preaching the resurrected Jesus.

Moot point. The stories about Jesus were made up long after he was dead. This is the nature of mythology. Lots and lots of embellishment. Embellishment is such a simple answer, especially given all of the holes in the Bible. Get a grip, man.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

DBoone

May 5th 2003, 09:12 PM

<Moot point. The stories about Jesus were made up long after he was dead. This is the nature of mythology. Lots and lots of embellishment. Embellishment is such a simple answer, especially given all of the holes in the Bible. Get a grip, man.>

Moot to you, maybe. But then again you probably don't know that there are extant copies of new testament dated 30-40 yrs from the ressurection. That's a world record, and no other ancient book can hold a candle to the textual veracity of the new testament either.

You get a grip.

"If I could just touch the hem of His garment, I know I'd be made whole."

Woman

May 5th 2003, 09:27 PM

Citizenkyle - I also am very interested in historical evidence of authorshipp and dates for the synoptics as well as for the later books. Lemme know if you run into a great site or start a new thread! :thumb:

jpholding - Don't you mean "boor?"

citizenkyle

May 6th 2003, 11:49 AM

Wildcat:
Wildcat: It *was* convincing for many people that would have been witnesses to those events, enough for the religion to survive(and even thrive) despite all of its disadvantages. In fact, Luke records that there were 3,000 converts on the very first day that the apostles preached the rez(Acts 2:41). The apostles had also established churches throughout Judaea and the Roman Empire before their deaths, which of course, is before 70 A.D. in the cases of Peter and Paul. How exactly is it that you feel that the live reality of the miracles was less compelling from about 31-70 A.D., given this?

I'm a bit confused. I thought that you originally were arguing that there were NOT mass conversion in Jerusalem immediately following the rez of Jesus. Now, you seem to be saying that there were. Of course, we might have reason to doubt Luke's numbers, but barring any reliable membership figures for the newborn church, we've probably hit a wall here.

Wildcat:
Wildcat: You mean except for the appearances to the women? Plus, there appears to be evidence that Mark's Gospel does not end at verse 8(http://www.tektonics.org/markend.html), but grant you, we can only make educated guesses at what was actually recorded.

Actually, it is not Christ but a "young man" who talks to the women. Unless you wish to assert that the young man was Christ in disguise or something.

Wildcat:
By the way, the miracles of the temple veil being ripped and the 3 hours of darkness ARE recorded in Mark(15:33,38).

Oops. Guess I'd better pay closer attention to my Bible! :smile:

Wildcat:
Wildcat: This is an interesting point. I remember this from your response to the TIF article. As far as the difference in ANE and now, I think JPH might have better insight on this than I can provide, so I'll await round 2 of your debate for that issue where it hopefully will be addressed. One thing worth noting, however, is that, as far as I know, the followers of the examples you mentioned are not buying the same kind of trouble, especially socially, that early converts to Christianity were buying. Plus, we get back to the individualistic vs. collectivistic societies when we talk about the making and investigating of such claims. The examples you mention are all modern I believe. Plus, I don't know who Sylvia Browne is, but with that possible exception(?), these people are not teaching new religions where vast changes must be made in a person's lifestyle and cherished belief
system(s). For me to believe John Edward, for instance, all I'm believing is that he talks with dead people. For me to revere Oral Roberts, I'm simply revering what I feel(or felt, as the case may be), is/was a highly respected Christian leader. I'm not as likely to investigate their claims since I don't have a whole lifestyle, a world of trouble, and concerns about my eternal destiny hinging on my decisions. In other words, if I'm wrong about the characters you mention, potential broken heart aside, so what?

The basic point here is that potential converts would be unwilling to make the personal sacrifices necessary to become Christian--unless they had airtight reasons for believing it true. I'm afraid the history of religion just does not support this point. The ancient religion of Cybele believed in Attis, a castrated deity, and the male priests castrated themselves in their god's honor. The early Mormons faced severe persecution and ostracization for upholding their beliefs. Some Islamic freedom fighters are willing to blow themselves to smithereens for their faith. David Koresh's followers were willing to take on the US Govt. in what was sure to be a losing battle. The Heaven's Gate members castrated themselves and commited suicide in hope of being taken aboard a hidden spaceship. The list goes on and on. Clearly, suffering is no barrier to belief. And think we can both agree that the people who made huge sacrifices in the above examples (and many others) had nothing like airtight reasons for believing their faith to be true.

citizenkyle

May 6th 2003, 12:30 PM

mattbballman19:
This seems to me to be double-speak. You say, further down the post, that I am willing to relax the standards to decisive physical evidence and/or multiple independent attestation. If you set this as a standard for sufficient justification of historical/past miraculous truth-claims, then would not your expectation be that others do the same.

Yes, but this is not doublespeak. A single report from me is NOT decisive physical evidence and/or multiple independent attestation.

mattbballman19:
If I may ask, what is your metaphysical world-view?

Well, metaphysics is one of those vague terms that means different things to different people. So, I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but a VERY succint summary of my world view would be as follows:

If someone makes a claim which does not agree with common experience, and cannot be scientifically verified, I am inclined to disbelieve it.

mattbballman19:
But you said above that I am willing to relax the standards to decisive physical evidence and/or multiple independent attestation.. If this is so, then it really has nothing to do with the philosophical question of the possibility of the miraculous. If so, then I suggest this reason to be revised.

I disagree. This where the "does not agree with common experience" part of my above statement comes in. George Washinton's feats agree with our common experience of what a man can accomplish. This is not a sufficient condition for the feats being true, but it doesn't give us any reason to doubt them right off the bat.

mattbballman19:
I do not see how this a necessary or a sufficient condition for the existence of a person.

It's definitely not a NECESSARY condition. It might be a sufficient condition though, if such likenesses were widespread in a small enough time frame with relation to the supposed existence of a person. For instance, if King X starts appearing on coinage at the same time as King X supposedly reigned, that would probably be sufficient to establish the existence of King X, although it would say little about his feats.

jpholding

May 6th 2003, 02:22 PM

Today @ 01:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88472#post88472)
Jim Eisele:

Moot point. The stories about Jesus were made up long after he was dead. This is the nature of mythology. Lots and lots of embellishment. Embellishment is such a simple answer, especially given all of the holes in the Bible. Get a grip, man.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

I reallY, REALLY need a farting smiley.

jpholding

May 6th 2003, 02:24 PM

Today @ 02:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88525#post88525)
Woman:

Citizenkyle - I also am very interested in historical evidence of authorshipp and dates for the synoptics as well as for the later books. Lemme know if you run into a great site or start a new thread! :thumb:

jpholding - Don't you mean "boor?"

Dear Ms. Woman, :smile:

I do have items on my site on the subject of Gospel dates/authorship if you are interested.

I do mean "bore" though the double meaning is intended. :thumb:

jpholding

May 6th 2003, 02:26 PM

Hey bud,

Actually, it is not Christ but a "young man" who talks to the women. Unless you wish to assert that the young man was Christ in disguise or something.

It was probably an angel. Angels were considered to take the appearance of young men and Josephus even calls one a "young man".

The ancient religion of Cybele believed in Attis, a castrated deity, and the male priests castrated themselves in their god's honor. The early Mormons faced severe persecution and ostracization for upholding their beliefs. Some Islamic freedom fighters are willing to blow themselves to smithereens for their faith.

Sounds like a preview of TIF II. :smile: You know of course that I compared Islam and Mormonism using the same criteria?

citizenkyle

May 6th 2003, 04:20 PM

jpholding:
It was probably an angel. Angels were considered to take the appearance of young men and Josephus even calls one a "young man".

Oh yeah, I know that's the standard line, but Wildcat said that Christ appeared to the women in Mark 16:1-8, which would be incorrect.

jpholding:
Sounds like a preview of TIF II. :smile: You know of course that I compared Islam and Mormonism using the same criteria?

Yes, but I'm not directly comparing Xtianity to those religions or saying they meet all the same criteria; I'm simply establishing the historical precedent of people who are willing to undergo personal suffering for religious causes which are not bolstered by unassailable evidence.

jpholding

May 6th 2003, 07:24 PM

Yes, but I'm not directly comparing Xtianity to those religions or saying they meet all the same criteria; I'm simply establishing the historical precedent of people who are willing to undergo personal suffering for religious causes which are not bolstered by unassailable evidence.

Hmm, okay. Now how much do you/we know about (to use an example) the Branch Davidian cult? The thing is that I am not sure there WAS much suffering (until it was too late to do anything about it!) or that there was any that was not countered by some sort of benefit. Waco may owe as much to American paranoia/conspiracy leanings as it did to Koresh himself...I seem to recall more to it, more along the lines of a system or paradigm whereby these people *already* had doubts about the feds...

Pardon me. I'm just being a complex social analyst. :argh:

citizenkyle

May 6th 2003, 08:36 PM

jpholding:
Hmm, okay. Now how much do you/we know about (to use an example) the Branch Davidian cult? The thing is that I am not sure there WAS much suffering (until it was too late to do anything about it!) or that there was any that was not countered by some sort of benefit.

I was under the impression that the Branch Davidians willingly holed up in the compound and stood their ground against the US Govt, but I could certainly be wrong on that count. If so, the Branch Davidians may not be an apt example for my point, but the others are applicable. And I'm sure we could come up with many other examples from history.

Jim E.

May 6th 2003, 08:44 PM

Yesterday @ 09:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88514#post88514)
DBoone:

<Moot point. The stories about Jesus were made up long after he was dead. This is the nature of mythology. Lots and lots of embellishment. Embellishment is such a simple answer, especially given all of the holes in the Bible. Get a grip, man.>

Moot to you, maybe. But then again you probably don't know that there are extant copies of new testament dated 30-40 yrs from the ressurection. That's a world record, and no other ancient book can hold a candle to the textual veracity of the new testament either.

You get a grip.

"If I could just touch the hem of His garment, I know I'd be made whole."

Ooh. 30-40 seconds. Oh wait, minutes. No, hours. No, no, days. No, weeks. No, no, months. No, years!!!!! Get a grip, man.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

Wildcat

May 6th 2003, 09:34 PM

CitizenKyle: I'm a bit confused. I thought that you originally were arguing that there were NOT mass conversion in Jerusalem immediately following the rez of Jesus. Now, you seem to be saying that there were. Of course, we might have reason to doubt Luke's numbers, but barring any reliable membership figures for the newborn church, we've probably hit a wall here.

Wildcat: I think that we've misunderstood each other. When you say "mass conversions," perhaps you don't mean "majority conversions?" If it means the latter, then on a worldwide scale there has never been a "majority conversion" since estimates even today have the number of nominal Christians at about 1 in every 3 people on the globe, and that is the highest it has ever been. What I think I'm asking is if the conversion rates were accelerated post 70 A.D. beyond what we'd anticipate? Now, obviously, the number of Christians in, say, 170 A.D. would be much higher than 70 A.D., but was the conversion rate post 70 A.D. not predictable of what would come in the next century or so based on past patterns? As for Acts, since it has been proven to be historically reliable in so many areas, I have personally no reason to doubt its contents. However, if you do, then we have indeed hit a wall.

CitizenKyle: Actually, it is not Christ but a "young man" who talks to the women. Unless you wish to assert that the young man was Christ in disguise or something.

Wildcat: You're correct. I made a mistake. I think I got confused in another account where Christ talks to Mary Magdalene. Sorry about that.

<<<Wildcat:
By the way, the miracles of the temple veil being ripped and the 3 hours of darkness ARE recorded in Mark(15:33,38). ”>>>

CitizenKyle: Oops. Guess I'd better pay closer attention to my Bible!

Wildcat: It looks like that makes two of us. :-)

CitizenKyle: The basic point here is that potential converts would be unwilling to make the personal sacrifices necessary to become Christian--unless they had airtight reasons for believing it true. I'm afraid the history of religion just does not support this point. The ancient religion of Cybele believed in Attis, a castrated deity, and the male priests castrated themselves in their god's honor. The early Mormons faced severe persecution and ostracization for upholding their beliefs. Some Islamic freedom fighters are willing to blow themselves to smithereens for their faith. David Koresh's followers were willing to take on the US Govt. in what was sure to be a losing battle. The Heaven's Gate members castrated themselves and commited suicide in hope of being taken aboard a hidden spaceship. The list goes on and on. Clearly, suffering is no barrier to belief. And think we can both agree that the people who made huge sacrifices in the above examples (and many others) had nothing like airtight reasons for believing their faith to be true.

Wildcat: You are correct about the sacrifices. Also, martyrs for any religion, including Christianity today, are doing this based on nothing but faith for their respective beliefs. However, the point of the whole argument about Christianity, and TIF, as far as "Stepping into History" is concerned, is that the claims, if true, were testable. In other words, how does one explain how Christianity would have grown without an empty tomb, for instance? Who would join a movement based on something that is demonstrably false? Now, I had better insert a disclaimer. I *do* believe that religions can survive *after* they are established, especially today, if they can be shown to be demonstrably false simply because of the conservatism, especially in regards to religion, that we see in the world. However, to actually start a new religion, especially in light of this *same* conservatism, one had better have one's facts straight, especially in the kind of society through which Christianity had its inception. Those that placed their faith in Mohammad, Joseph Smith, and even David Koresh did so based on the claims of those men. However, if there was a way to *prove* that these guys were not God's spokesmen, could the respective religions have actually survived past their preliminary stages, especially when we place them in 1st century Roman and Jewish society?

To summarize my point, if Jesus was just another Man claiming to be a prophet who lived and died, then the rise of early Christianity would have been no different than the rise of the other religions, at least as far as testable and untestable claims are concerned. However, Christianity was based on testable claims, most importantly, of course, Christ's resurrection. The disciples knew and witnessed the facts(barring, of course, some kind of mass hallucination), and certainly many of the early converts could have checked, and an understanding of the times suggests would have checked, many of the facts. Of course, when it comes to the darkness, the resurrected saints, the guard at the tomb, etc., the dates of the gospels once again become important. I think the bottom line is that Christianity and many of the claims surrounding it could have been disproven, which is not the case for the other examples you mention, as near as I can tell.

Thanks for the comments.

By the way, you might want to check out JPH's pieces on Islam and Mormonism on TIF, if you have not done so.

Wildcat.

mattbballman19

May 6th 2003, 09:48 PM

Yes, but this is not doublespeak. A single report from me is NOT decisive physical evidence and/or multiple independent attestation.

When alleging the 'double speak', I would tend to lean more toward the truth of the disjunction rather than the conjunction of the paired criteria. Since by the rules of propositional logic, the truth of a disjunction is sealed when one part of the disjunction is true: i.e. If P is true, then 'P v Q' is also true. The question, then, is why it is not so that your advocation of your spiritual experience is not decisive, at least in some cases? Or, if you disagree that this is physical evidence at all, why not? It is, of course, logically possible for your eyewitness testimony of some supernatural occurance to be decisive. That seems intuitive to me.

Well, metaphysics is one of those vague terms that means different things to different people. So, I'm not sure exactly what you're asking

I agree that there is somewhat of a public relations problem when speaking of metaphysics. The name seems to spark ideas of New Age mysticism and/or various astrological palm-reading phenomenas. What I meant when I asked for your metaphysical world-view was basically your philosophical justification for your views concerning nature/reality.

You say,
If someone makes a claim which does not agree with common experience, and cannot be scientifically verified, I am inclined to disbelieve it.

I would suppose that one would seek to verify that 'inclinedness' by seeking possibly existing evidence which could serve as a means to the end of discovering that which may force your definition of 'common experience' to be revised.

Also, with regard to your statement on claims lacking scientific verification being thereby disposed into the inclination of disbelief, I would simply say that I find this a soft version of verificationism, which was so prevalent in the early 20th century. I call it the soft version (hereafter SVOV), because of the strong version (hereafter STVOV) went further than mere inclination of disbelief to the idea that the proposition was meaningless. I think that it can be said that both SVOV and STVOV fail in similar ways. I think it can said that STVOV fails, because of, what I call, a logical self-refutation; namely, it's affirmation cannot logically co-exist with the philosophy under-lying that affirmation. I may be wrong, but SVOV seems to be improbable (as opposed to impossible), because it's affirmation seeks to make improbable the truth that is affirmed. Since your proposition is one which does not meet the requirements of scientific verification, then one is obligated (by the truth of your metaphysics) to hold that since your 'truth of your metaphysics' does not meet the quota of scientific verification, you should not only be inclinded to disbelieve the 'truth of your metaphysics', but also the specific qualification of scientific verification as a necessary condition for metaphysical research.

I disagree. This where the "does not agree with common experience" part of my above statement comes in. George Washinton's feats agree with our common experience of what a man can accomplish. This is not a sufficient condition for the feats being true, but it doesn't give us any reason to doubt them right off the bat.

But it still seems that my requested revision of your evidence requirements was satisfied. For the quota of that I am willing to relax the standards to decisive physical evidence and/or multiple independent attestation , was qualified with that which corresponds to our common experience. The latter was not part of the quota. It seems now that the former is fallaciously restricted to the latter, because no matter what physical evidence and/or multiple attestation we discover, your philosophy of metaphysics will always trash supernatural conclusions, since they are so defined, by you, as that which is against common experience. This is looking to be less of a historical problem, and more like a philosophical problem. I, personally, allow the history (whatever that may be) to determine my metaphysics, not the other way around. But I could be wrong.

It's definitely not a NECESSARY condition. It might be a sufficient condition though, if such likenesses were widespread in a small enough time frame with relation to the supposed existence of a person. For instance, if King X starts appearing on coinage at the same time as King X supposedly reigned, that would probably be sufficient to establish the existence of King X, although it would say little about his feats.

It might, but it also might not. But I don't see how your reason supports your thesis. I don't see how 'such likenesses' being 'widespread in a small enough time frame with relation to the supposed existence of a person' is a necessary condition for the existence of that sufficient condition. It is still logically possible for the above to be true and yet there not be the construction of a coin with the given leader's portrait chisled in the surface.

matt

KingDavid8

May 6th 2003, 10:36 PM

Yesterday @ 04:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88913#post88913)
citizenkyle:

The basic point here is that potential converts would be unwilling to make the personal sacrifices necessary to become Christian--unless they had airtight reasons for believing it true. I'm afraid the history of religion just does not support this point. The ancient religion of Cybele believed in Attis, a castrated deity, and the male priests castrated themselves in their god's honor. The early Mormons faced severe persecution and ostracization for upholding their beliefs. Some Islamic freedom fighters are willing to blow themselves to smithereens for their faith. David Koresh's followers were willing to take on the US Govt. in what was sure to be a losing battle. The Heaven's Gate members castrated themselves and commited suicide in hope of being taken aboard a hidden spaceship. The list goes on and on. Clearly, suffering is no barrier to belief. And think we can both agree that the people who made huge sacrifices in the above examples (and many others) had nothing like airtight reasons for believing their faith to be true.

I have little doubt that those Cybelians, Mormons, Muslims, etc. who willingly did these things honestly believed their faith to be true. But how many of them claimed to have witnessed any of their deity's miracles first-hand, as opposed to taking them COMPLETELY by faith? Or even lived at the same time as those who did claim to witness them? You might be able to make such a claim with the early Mormons, but we're talking about only, what, three people who claimed to see the miraculous plates? The only 'miracle' attributed to Mohommad within the first 100 years after his time was his miraculous revelation from God, which came to him while he was alone, with zero witnesses. It's true that Koresh's followers knew him first-hand, but any claims of miracles there? In fact, didn't Koresh claim that he would be resurrected within a specific amount of time after his death (something like 100 days), which, obviously, didn't happen? The Heavens Gate people were taking their leader's word about the spaceship following Hale-Bopp. None of them actually claimed to have seen it. So no eyewitnesses there, either.

However, the earliest Christians who suffered persecution claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus for themselves, or at least had hundreds or thousands of people verifying that they saw Him, which more than exceeds most people's standards of proof.

That's what Christianity has that no other religion on Earth has - the fact that it was started by people (not just a few, but hundreds if not thousands) who no doubt knew whether or not Christianity was true, and still believed even to the point of withstanding persecution and death. Without an actual resurrected Jesus, Christianity would have fallen flat on its face within 100 years. No other religion even comes close to having something like this.

David

WinAce

May 6th 2003, 11:03 PM

^ Unsupported assertions rule.

jpholding

May 7th 2003, 01:51 PM

Today @ 04:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89516#post89516)
WinAce:

^ Unsupported assertions rule.

Sound bites kick rear, man.

Goochdad

May 7th 2003, 02:30 PM

Dboone:

Moot to you, maybe. But then again you probably don't know that there are extant copies of new testament dated 30-40 yrs from the ressurection. That's a world record, and no other ancient book can hold a candle to the textual veracity of the new testament either.

Extant copies of the new testament? Huh? Where? The complete new testament? This is patently false. The earliest fragment of ANY NT document we have is the Rylands fragment P52, which paleographers date anywhere from the early 2nd century up to the 3rd century.

Nice try. The earliest complete new testament that is extant is the Codex Sinaiticus (or possibly the Codex Vaticanus) both of which date to at least three hundred years after the events in question.

citizenkyle

May 7th 2003, 03:37 PM

Wildcat:
Wildcat: You are correct about the sacrifices. Also, martyrs for any religion, including Christianity today, are doing this based on nothing but faith for their respective beliefs. However, the point of the whole argument about Christianity, and TIF, as far as "Stepping into History" is concerned, is that the claims, if true, were testable. In other words, how does one explain how Christianity would have grown without an empty tomb, for instance? Who would join a movement based on something that is demonstrably false? Now, I had better insert a disclaimer. I *do* believe that religions can survive *after* they are established, especially today, if they can be shown to be demonstrably false simply because of the conservatism, especially in regards to religion, that we see in the world. However, to actually start a new religion, especially in light of this *same* conservatism, one had better have one's facts straight, especially in the kind of society through which Christianity had its inception. Those that placed their faith in Mohammad, Joseph Smith, and even David Koresh did so based on the claims of those men. However, if there was a way to *prove* that these guys were not God's spokesmen, could the respective religions have actually survived past their preliminary stages, especially when we place them in 1st century Roman and Jewish society?

To summarize my point, if Jesus was just another Man claiming to be a prophet who lived and died, then the rise of early Christianity would have been no different than the rise of the other religions, at least as far as testable and untestable claims are concerned. However, Christianity was based on testable claims, most importantly, of course, Christ's resurrection. The disciples knew and witnessed the facts(barring, of course, some kind of mass hallucination), and certainly many of the early converts could have checked, and an understanding of the times suggests would have checked, many of the facts. Of course, when it comes to the darkness, the resurrected saints, the guard at the tomb, etc., the dates of the gospels once again become important. I think the bottom line is that Christianity and many of the claims surrounding it could have been disproven, which is not the case for the other examples you mention, as near as I can tell.

I think we need to recognize that there are two different arguments going on here. The original argument (in your last couple of posts) was formulated something like this:

1. Early converts to Christianity were facing the prospect of much suffering.
2. People would be unlikely to suffer for a religion unless they had ironclad proof of its authenticity.
3. People DID convert to Christianity.
4. Therefore, the converts must have had ironclad proof of its authenticity.

However, I have demonstrated, and you seem to have agreed, that the history of religion offers many examples of people suffering for their faith in the absence of ironclad proof of its authenticity. So it appears that the suffering of early converts is not persuasive support for Christianity's validity. Now you seem to be backing off that point and switching gears to argue something like this:

1. Christianity made claims that were testable and falsifiable.
2. If Christianity made false claims, potential converts would've tested them and found out.
3. People DID convert to Christianity.
4. Therefore, Christianity's testable claims must've been upheld.

Unfortunately, I think both premises (1) and (2) can be called into question. Let's start with (2). I have to begin by returning to my old gripe about the general lack of critical thinking (in any age). Even if Christianity did make testable claims, we have no way of knowing that they were tested by those who actually converted. Certainly, SOME people would've tested the claims, but how do we know those were not the ones who rejected Christianity? Again a WILLINGNESS to test claims must be considered. Do you think the Heaven's Gate members would've tested their leader's claims, even if such testing was available? I don't think we can put that much faith in their critical thinking skills. Of course, I may be underestimating the average ANE person's inclination towards paranormal investigation, but somehow I don't think so.

But there is a more foundational issue to be questioned, and that is premise (1). Were the claims of early Christianity so easily falsified? I'd like to start by putting the miracles surrounding Jesus' death aside, since (even if we grant your pre-70 AD gospel dates) these could've been introduced later when the church already had a decent base of believers and such claims would not be as easy to check. Also, we might wonder if the gospels were primarily used for evangelization in the early days--it seems possible that their purpose was more for validation and posterity among the early Christians. In any case, we are left with the core claims that Jesus died on the cross, was buried, rose on the third day and appeared to his disciples. But how would one go about investigating this? Let's assume that rez is TRUE, and run through an investigation scenario.

A couple years after the rez, Peter preaches Christianity to a guy, Randi (I know, nice Jewish name), outside Jerusalem. Randi thinks Peter's story is suspect. So he decides to investigate. He enters Jerusalem and starts asking some questions. He verifies that, yes, a religious leader named Jesus was crucified a couple of years ago. He seeks out some of the disciples that Peter named as his fellow witnesses, and they assure him that Jesus rose from the dead. So then he seeks out the Jewish temple authorities, and inquires of them. They tell Randi that Jesus' disciples stole his body. The authorities then bring forward the tomb guards who corroborate this story. Now having exhausted the witnesses, Randi asks to see the body of Jesus. But, of course, the Jewish priests can't produce it because they say the disciples stole it, and the disciples say it ascended to heaven. When all is said and done, Randi has two conflicting reports and no way to falsify either claim.

Yet, what if the the disciples really did steal the body and rez was FALSE? How would the investigative scenario go under those circumstances? Exactly the same, and that's the problem. There is still no way to falsify the rez claims, at least in any meaningful sense. There'd still be an empty tomb. There'd still be no body to examine. There'd still be a handful of Jesus' followers claiming rez appearances. There'd still be guards and temple authorities accusing the disciples of body snatching. So we're back to square one.

WinAce

May 7th 2003, 03:37 PM

Today @ 01:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=90154#post90154)
jpholding:

Sound bites kick rear, man.

Yeah, dude.

citizenkyle

May 7th 2003, 04:50 PM

KingDavid8:
However, the earliest Christians who suffered persecution claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus for themselves, or at least had hundreds or thousands of people verifying that they saw Him, which more than exceeds most people's standards of proof.

David,

You might check out my last post to Wildcat as much of that is relevant with regards to your comments. As for your suggestion that "hundreds or thousands of people" verified the risen Jesus, are you basing this on anything other than Paul's report in 1 Cor. 15?

citizenkyle

May 7th 2003, 05:25 PM

mattbballman19:
The question, then, is why it is not so that your advocation of your spiritual experience is not decisive, at least in some cases? Or, if you disagree that this is physical evidence at all, why not?

An eyewitness account is definitely NOT physical evidence. Physical evidence includes things like ruins, pottery, photographs, fossils, ossuaries, etc. Things you can put your hands on and examine with your own eyes.

mattbballman19:
Also, with regard to your statement on claims lacking scientific verification being thereby disposed into the inclination of disbelief, I would simply say that I find this a soft version of verificationism, which was so prevalent in the early 20th century. I call it the soft version (hereafter SVOV), because of the strong version (hereafter STVOV) went further than mere inclination of disbelief to the idea that the proposition was meaningless. I think that it can be said that both SVOV and STVOV fail in similar ways. I think it can said that STVOV fails, because of, what I call, a logical self-refutation; namely, it's affirmation cannot logically co-exist with the philosophy under-lying that affirmation. I may be wrong, but SVOV seems to be improbable (as opposed to impossible), because it's affirmation seeks to make improbable the truth that is affirmed. Since your proposition is one which does not meet the requirements of scientific verification, then one is obligated (by the truth of your metaphysics) to hold that since your 'truth of your metaphysics' does not meet the quota of scientific verification, you should not only be inclinded to disbelieve the 'truth of your metaphysics', but also the specific qualification of scientific verification as a necessary condition for metaphysical research.

The types of claims that can be scientifically verified are obviously limited. One cannot scientifically verify non-empirical positions like philosophical and emotional claims-- for instance, how would one scientifically verify that I love my wife? So, when I say, "If someone makes a claim which does not agree with common experience, and cannot be scientifically verified, I am inclined to disbelieve it, " I am only talking about empirical claims that could, in theory, be scientifically verified.

mattbballman19:
But it still seems that my requested revision of your evidence requirements was satisfied. For the quota of that I am willing to relax the standards to decisive physical evidence and/or multiple independent attestation , was qualified with that which corresponds to our common experience. The latter was not part of the quota. It seems now that the former is fallaciously restricted to the latter, because no matter what physical evidence and/or multiple attestation we discover, your philosophy of metaphysics will always trash supernatural conclusions, since they are so defined, by you, as that which is against common experience.

No, I do not automatically trash supernatural conclusions. I simply require stricter evidentiary standards for the supernatural than for claims which correspond to common experience. I'll bet you do too.

mattbballman19:
It might, but it also might not. But I don't see how your reason supports your thesis. I don't see how 'such likenesses' being 'widespread in a small enough time frame with relation to the supposed existence of a person' is a necessary condition for the existence of that sufficient condition. It is still logically possible for the above to be true and yet there not be the construction of a coin with the given leader's portrait chisled in the surface.

Right. That's why I said it is NOT a necessary condition.

mattbballman19

May 7th 2003, 10:32 PM

An eyewitness account is definitely NOT physical evidence. Physical evidence includes things like ruins, pottery, photographs, fossils, ossuaries, etc. Things you can put your hands on and examine with your own eyes.

Oh ok. My rational was along the lines of the following: The eyewitness is physical, the propositions emenating from the eyewitness are valid since their source is found in a physical object, therefor eyewitness testimony is physical evidence. So, if it can be said that physical evidence is that which you can put your hands on and examine with your own eyes, then the eyewitness, and anything eminating from that source, passes those requirements. The only problem that I can see with this is with regard to eyewitness living in the distant past. My immediate retort is that the existence of these physical eyewitness is recorded on a source which is, in itself, physical. So, in effect, the truth-value of the spiritual experience could be communicated via physical evidence.

When you listed examples of physical evidence (pottery etc . . .), you seemed to be equating archeology with physical evidence. If the above is valid, then it would seem that it is only a sub-set of the class that is physical evidence. But I could be being ad-hoc with this new addition.

The types of claims that can be scientifically verified are obviously limited. One cannot scientifically verify non-empirical positions like philosophical and emotional claims-- for instance, how would one scientifically verify that I love my wife? So, when I say, "If someone makes a claim which does not agree with common experience, and cannot be scientifically verified, I am inclined to disbelieve it, " I am only talking about empirical claims that could, in theory, be scientifically verified.

So the revision would include: 'If someone makes an empirical claim which does not agree with common experience etc. . .' This is different, and a little more consistent. And would you say that the only way in which historical claims of the supernatural could be believeable is if there were sufficient physical evidence? Since historical claims, supernatural or not, cannot be empirically verified.

No, I do not automatically trash supernatural conclusions. I simply require stricter evidentiary standards for the supernatural than for claims which correspond to common experience. I'll bet you do too.

This statement was made in the context of what I thought you meant by If someone makes a claim which does not agree with common experience, and cannot be scientifically verified, I am inclined to disbelieve it, but now that you qualified the kind of claim to be empirical, the trashing of supernatural conclusions seems rather superfluous.

And yes, I would agree with you on the 'more strictness' of the evidence of those things which are contrary to the way nature ordinarily runs.

Right. That's why I said it is NOT a necessary condition.

I wasn't talking about the necessary condition not being needed with regard to the existence of King X. You stated a necessary condition , if such likenesses were widespread in a small enough time frame with relation to the supposed existence of a person, for the sufficient condition, King X starts appearing on coinage at the same time as King X supposedly reigned which is, you agree, not a necessary condition for the existence of King X. Since I can imagine logically possible counter-example/situation where it is true that such likenesses were widespread in a small enough time frame with relation to the supposed existence of a person and, at the same time, it not being the case that King X starts appearing on coinage at the same time as King X then it is no longer a necessary condition, since it is no longer true in all possible worlds. I can imagine a possible world where the antecedent is true, and the consequent false, and, therefore, invalidate the necessity of the alleged necessary condition of the sufficient condition.

matt

KingDavid8

May 7th 2003, 11:09 PM

Yesterday @ 09:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=90360#post90360)
citizenkyle:

David,

You might check out my last post to Wildcat as much of that is relevant with regards to your comments. As for your suggestion that "hundreds or thousands of people" verified the risen Jesus, are you basing this on anything other than Paul's report in 1 Cor. 15?

It's based on that for the most part, though I suppose I should have just stuck with "hundreds" (my bad). It's also based on Acts 1 & 2, and the fact that a mere handful of people seeing Him wouldn't likely convince very many people, especially in the area where the resurrected Jesus was supposed to have appeared.

David

Wildcat

May 8th 2003, 03:26 AM

CitizenKyle: I think we need to recognize that there are two different arguments going on here. The original argument (in your last couple of posts) was formulated something like this:

1. Early converts to Christianity were facing the prospect of much suffering.
2. People would be unlikely to suffer for a religion unless they had ironclad proof of its authenticity.
3. People DID convert to Christianity.
4. Therefore, the converts must have had ironclad proof of its authenticity.

However, I have demonstrated, and you seem to have agreed, that the history of religion offers many examples of people suffering for their faith in the absence of ironclad proof of its authenticity. So it appears that the suffering of early converts is not persuasive support for Christianity's validity. Now you seem to be backing off that point and switching gears to argue something like this:

1. Christianity made claims that were testable and falsifiable.
2. If Christianity made false claims, potential converts would've tested them and found out.
3. People DID convert to Christianity.
4. Therefore, Christianity's testable claims must've been upheld.

Wildcat: This is what I've basically been arguing all along. By using just the 1st set of standards outlined, I might as well argue that Christian martyrs TODAY prove its veracity since there wouldn't be much of a difference except that we're comparing the rise of Christianity as opposed to the maintenance of it. Although perhaps I did not make it clear enough in the midst of our stretched-out debate, my position is that Christianity would not have survived from its most primitive stages had these testable phenomena been falsifiable. Allow me to illustrate. If I tell you that Mr. X is a prophet of God, you cannot prove whether or not I'm correct just based on this information. This seemed to have been the case with such alleged prophets as Mohammad and Joseph Smith. However, if I tell you that Mr. X is a prophet of God, and an apologetic is that he rose from his grave, and you go to the grave and find that Mr. X is still there, then my claim has been falsified. It would be much more difficult to start a new religion with such claims being falsified, which would have been quite easy to do. This is particularly the case when the whole religion itself is based on whether or not Mr. X actually rose from the grave. I apologize for the confusion, but my premise all along was that the movement would have died out had these claims been falsifiable.

CitizenKyle: Unfortunately, I think both premises (1) and (2) can be called into question. Let's start with (2). I have to begin by returning to my old gripe about the general lack of critical thinking (in any age). Even if Christianity did make testable claims, we have no way of knowing that they were tested by those who actually converted.

Wildcat: Just a quick question first: How would you personally reconcile that the disciples made such claims which could have so easily backfired on them, especially the "unnecessary" claims like the resurrected saints, 3 hours of darkness, etc.?

Secondly, JPH makes a VERY convincing case(in TIF) that, in that kind of society and in that particular time and situation, these claims would have been checked. We can always claim otherwise since we weren't there, but such a claim would seem to go against what we know about that culture, particularly since the Jewish authorities would have undoubtedly utilized anything they could have to check the movement. Any that would not have critically accepted the claims of the disciples would likely have been confronted by those that DID check the claims. More on that below....

CitizenKyle: Certainly, SOME people would've tested the claims, but how do we know those were not the ones who rejected Christianity? Again a WILLINGNESS to test claims must be considered.

Wildcat: When a new movement is being preached that could result in one being disowned, losing one's inheritance, being persecuted, the possibility of death always hanging over one's head, and not to mention concerns about one's eternal destiny, and in a collectivistic society which would have done everything possible to falsify any "lofty claims" made about the religious Founder and events surrounding His life(and in this case, death), it seems inconceivable that this movement would have survived, let alone flourished, in Judaea(or anywhere in the Roman Empire for that matter, but particularly Judaea--and I haven't even tapped into the many other factors that would have been problematic that JPH discusses in TIF). It could be possible that Jewish boy X uncritically accepted the claims, but I'd say in that particular culture that his family, friends, and colleagues would have been glad to check those claims for him, if you know what I mean. Let me put it this way. If you had a son or a daughter who you felt was being swayed into a religion that could/would have resulted in an abandonment of certain key religious and cultural values that you hold very dear, a plethora of social problems, and in your mind, a dubious change in eternal residence, would you not have checked the objective claims for them? Furthermore, the authorities, as alluded to before, would have likely had a hand in demonstrating publicly any false claims that were being made. It seems unlikely that too many uncritical acceptees, in light of these factors, would not have at some point been confronted with any exposed falsehoods.

Although I'm not sure whether or not there is a true parallel of massive numbers of people converting to ANY religion in the face of such issues as those that surrounded Christianity's inception, objective claims or no, I find it unlikely that you'd have too many uncritical converts to begin with because of the very factors just discussed, especially at that time and in that location.

CitizenKyle: Do you think the Heaven's Gate members would've tested their leader's claims, even if such testing was available?
I don't think we can put that much faith in their critical thinking skills. Of course, I may be underestimating the average ANE person's inclination towards paranormal investigation, but somehow I don't think so.

Wildcat: Yes I would think that the Heaven's Gate members, especially those considering joining the movement, would test the claims if applicable. I can see a charismatic leader leading people down a false path, but when that leader makes claims that are easily demonstrated to be false it seems inconceivable that people would join the movement, save a few, and emphasis on the word "few", mentally ill people(in one way or another). For instance, let's say that the leader claimed that the spaceship that they would be flying in(I hope I have the right movement here) was located in a giant cave 20 miles away. Then, a few people went to this cave and found that there was no ship. Would they have joined the movement? In 1st century Palestine, it appears likely that not only would they have not joined, but they would have been more than happy to spread the news of the ship's absence to the laity.

CitizenKyle: But there is a more foundational issue to be questioned, and that is premise (1). Were the claims of early Christianity so easily falsified? I'd like to start by putting the miracles surrounding Jesus' death aside, since (even if we grant your pre-70 AD gospel dates) these could've been introduced later when the church already had a decent base of believers and such claims would not be as easy to check.

Wildcat: Why would they have not been easy to check, as long as we're talking pre-70 A.D.?

CitizenKyle: Also, we might wonder if the gospels were primarily used for evangelization in the early days--it seems possible that their purpose was more for validation and posterity among the early Christians. In any case, we are left with the core claims that Jesus died on the cross, was buried, rose on the third day and appeared to his disciples. But how would one go about investigating this? Let's assume that rez is TRUE, and run through an investigation scenario.

A couple years after the rez, Peter preaches Christianity to a guy, Randi (I know, nice Jewish name), outside Jerusalem. Randi thinks Peter's story is suspect. So he decides to investigate. He enters Jerusalem and starts asking some questions. He verifies that, yes, a religious leader named Jesus was crucified a couple of years ago. He seeks out some of the disciples that Peter named as his fellow witnesses, and they assure him that Jesus rose from the dead. So then he seeks out the Jewish temple authorities, and inquires of them. They tell Randi that Jesus' disciples stole his body. The authorities then bring forward the tomb guards who corroborate this story. Now having exhausted the witnesses, Randi asks to see the body of Jesus. But, of course, the Jewish priests can't produce it because they say the disciples stole it, and the disciples say it ascended to heaven. When all is said and done, Randi has two conflicting reports and no way to falsify either claim.

Yet, what if the the disciples really did steal the body and rez was FALSE? How would the investigative scenario go under those circumstances? Exactly the same, and that's the problem. There is still no way to falsify the rez claims, at least in any meaningful sense. There'd still be an empty tomb. There'd still be no body to examine. There'd still be a handful of Jesus' followers claiming rez appearances. There'd still be guards and temple authorities accusing the disciples of body snatching. So we're back to square one.

Wildcat: This is a good point I believe. My premise is that Christianity, unlike other religions(of which I'm aware at least), was subject to objective, rather than simply subjective, scrutiny. The empty tomb is one such objective test, and according to your scenario, the tomb is empty. Christianity passes one of those tests. The Jewish polemic in this case does indeed provide an escape route. If there were no escape routes, then we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. :-) This brings us back to the question of whether or not the disciples stealing the body, or swoon theory, or whatever, is feasible. In light of the factors, which I won't go into since it may be tangential, the alternatives that I've seen are virtually impossible, especially the "disciples stealing the body" idea.

By the way CK, who do you like....Spurs or Lakers?

Wildcat.

mattbballman19

May 8th 2003, 10:10 PM

Hey Kyle,

I already responded to you above, but I felt that I needed to post an additional response for extra thoughts that were coming to my mind.

If your only contention is that it is difficult to assess and evaluate contemporary miracle claims of the type of faith healing, you'll get no argument from me. But the Christian apologetic is not contingent on contemporary miracles, as the Bible itself admits would wane as history progresses. What is disturbing from a pegagogical standpoint is your pronouncement that "I am making physical evidence and/or independent attestation necessary conditions for the discovery of the supernatural." On the surface it has a ring of truth about it for all of us. But this is always a curious maxim because it typically amounts to saying "No amount of evidence would ever convince me." In fact, many physical events and entities (as well as abstract ones) aren't given this incredible condition for persuasiveness. Many theories that are accepted as probably true are contingent on a priori evidences and analytical truths. For example, the occurrence of the Big Bang is not an event that would ever match your criteria -- and we're just talking about a natural occurrence here! I think this "special" condition, which incidently has no warrant or reasons for why it should be a necessary condition for accepting supernatural claims, is just a mask for saying that no amount of evidence would ever be sufficient. If Jesus appeared to you with the wounds in his hands, what's to say that you wouldn't really think that "My friend is playing a practical joke on me" or "I must be dreaming." For most disciplines, testability and firsthand evidences aren't necessary criteria for vindicating theories. Why impose this standard on Jesus and not for Socrates? If the answer is because one of these characters is supernatural, then one has trapped herself into circular reasoning -- assuming what needs to be proven.

matt

citizenkyle

May 9th 2003, 02:23 AM

mattbballman19:
Oh ok. My rational was along the lines of the following: The eyewitness is physical, the propositions emenating from the eyewitness are valid since their source is found in a physical object, therefor eyewitness testimony is physical evidence. So, if it can be said that physical evidence is that which you can put your hands on and examine with your own eyes, then the eyewitness, and anything eminating from that source, passes those requirements. The only problem that I can see with this is with regard to eyewitness living in the distant past. My immediate retort is that the existence of these physical eyewitness is recorded on a source which is, in itself, physical. So, in effect, the truth-value of the spiritual experience could be communicated via physical evidence.

Hmmm. I must say I have never heard such a definition of "physical evidence" and I'm afraid that isn't what I had in mind. A written report can only be "decisive, physical evidence" that people wrote in such a time, in such a language, in such a style. It can never be "decisive physical evidence" that the events reported actually happened. But it IS an attestation and if we can get multiple, independent ones--well, then we have something.

mattbballman19:
So the revision would include: 'If someone makes an empirical claim which does not agree with common experience etc. . .' This is different, and a little more consistent. And would you say that the only way in which historical claims of the supernatural could be believeable is if there were sufficient physical evidence?

Or, multiple independent attestation.

mattbballman19:
I wasn't talking about the necessary condition not being needed with regard to the existence of King X. You stated a necessary condition , if such likenesses were widespread in a small enough time frame with relation to the supposed existence of a person, for the sufficient condition, King X starts appearing on coinage at the same time as King X supposedly reigned which is, you agree, not a necessary condition for the existence of King X. Since I can imagine logically possible counter-example/situation where it is true that such likenesses were widespread in a small enough time frame with relation to the supposed existence of a person and, at the same time, it not being the case that King X starts appearing on coinage at the same time as King X then it is no longer a necessary condition, since it is no longer true in all possible worlds. I can imagine a possible world where the antecedent is true, and the consequent false, and, therefore, invalidate the necessity of the alleged necessary condition of the sufficient condition.

You lost me. I give up. :smile: All I am saying is that if someone can present coins, portraits, statues, etc. of a person, I am strongly inclined to believe they existed. However, I am not disinclined to believe a person existed just because they are no such likenesses, since, until recently, few people could afford the expense of commissioning a likeness. That's all.

BTW, thanks for all your comments, Matt. I am enjoying our conversation.

DBoone

May 9th 2003, 03:20 AM

< Extant copies of the new testament? Huh? Where? The complete new testament? This is patently false. >

You're right. But they do have extant copies of portions of the NT that support the earlier datings:

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7547/ntmss.html

http://www.flash.net/~thinkman/dialogue/discuss/canon1.htm

'William Foxwell Albright, who one of the world's foremost biblical archeologists said: "We can already say emphatically That there is no longer any solid basis for dating any of the Books of the New Testament after about AD80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today."' (McDowell, Evidence That Demands A Verdict, p.62-63)

Also see below for the answers to your question and more:

http://www.rae.org/bibref.html

One thing i can say is thanks for giving me something to research. Now I know why Christians provide so many links - because the homework on this stuff was done years ago. Why does the skeptic so tenaciously cling to such old dead arguments?

mattbballman19

May 9th 2003, 10:03 AM

Hmmm. I must say I have never heard such a definition of "physical evidence" and I'm afraid that isn't what I had in mind.

When I constructed the definition, I had in mind your definition that physical evidence is the Things you can put your hands on and examine with your own eyes.

A written report can only be "decisive, physical evidence" that people wrote in such a time, in such a language, in such a style.

Ah. I think I was qualifying eyewitnesses and documents on which eyewitnesses recorded their supposed happenings as being physical evidence only; not decisive physical evidence. The decisivness can only be decided when the information documented is proven to be accurate. Would you say that this accuracy is determined through the other branch of your evidential quota: multiple attestation? If so, then I think this would be the only way to rescue my definition of physical evidence from its circular aim to accomplish decisivness.

But it IS an attestation and if we can get multiple, independent ones--well, then we have something.

What would you say is your qualifications for being sufficient evidence from the stand-point of multiple, independent attestation? (from a Biblical perspective).

You lost me. I give up.

I hate when I do that. :doh: It stinks, because I don't think there is an easier way to say it. :teeth: The good thing is that I see your point, and I agree with it, it's just that my ambiguous point was, sort of, operating on a different level, which was a little irrelevant to our discussion.

All I am saying is that if someone can present coins, portraits, statues, etc. of a person, I am strongly inclined to believe they existed.

I agree with this in that inclination is proffered, as opposed to what I thought you meant, decisivness. Exp: The Mona Lisa, apart from surrounding evidential context, would incline me to believe in her existence. But then when your criteria intervenes (independent/multiple attestation), then it can trump the present physical evidence from inclination, to disinclination.

BTW, thanks for all your comments, Matt. I am enjoying our conversation.

Yea dude, me too! :cool: If ya get time, check out the first post previous to this one by me, for some additional thoughts that I had.

Take care, man.

matt

Goochdad

May 9th 2003, 11:18 AM

DBoone,

So we've gone from your claim of having actual copies of the NT from "30 or 40 years after the events" to some guy's opinion on when the documents might have been written? Excuse me if I'm not very impressed.

My point still stands. The earliest complete NT we have dates to 300 years after the events. If you have incontrovertible evidence that the gospels were written in the first century, then present it. Otherwise, you're just presenting opinions.

jpholding

May 9th 2003, 11:51 AM

Today @ 04:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92029#post92029)
Goochdad:

My point still stands. The earliest complete NT we have dates to 300 years after the events. If you have incontrovertible evidence that the gospels were written in the first century, then present it. Otherwise, you're just presenting opinions.

Hmm. Provide me with incontrovertible evidence that Tactius wrote his Annals in the early second century. Explain at the same time how the criteria you use do not show us that the Gospels were written in the first century. By number of copies and attestation Tacitus is way behind the NT. Earlest complete copy we have on him dates I think to the 11th century. Best wishes! :smile:

Goochdad

May 9th 2003, 11:54 AM

Today @ 10:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92075#post92075)
jpholding:

Hmm. Provide me with incontrovertible evidence that Tactius wrote his Annals in the early second century. Explain at the same time how the criteria you use do not show us that the Gospels were written in the first century. By number of copies and attestation Tacitus is way behind the NT. Earlest complete copy we have on him dates I think to the 11th century. Best wishes! :smile:

So Tacitus might have been written later, or by someone else. Big deal. Why should I care?

jpholding

May 9th 2003, 11:59 AM

Today @ 04:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92079#post92079)
Goochdad:

So Tacitus might have been written later, or by someone else. Big deal. Why should I care?

So you talk big, and then dodge the questions asking you to support your point of view. :brow:

Big surprise. :rofl:

Goochdad

May 9th 2003, 12:03 PM

How am I dodging the question? Because I didn't answer the way you wanted me to? Oh, boo hoo, watch me cry for jpholding. I thought you were the great apologist for the historicity of the gospels? Came to answer because DBoone can't, huh? And the best you can do is try to shift the burden of proof onto me, for the historicity of Tacitus? My answer was completely honest. I don't give a rat's patootie whether Tacitus is accurate history.

Let me know when you can defend the historicity of your NT documents, and I'll respond.

jpholding

May 9th 2003, 12:26 PM

Dear Poochdad,

How am I dodging the question? Because I didn't answer the way you wanted me to?

You didn't answer it AT ALL, though I suppose at iidb.org, "I don't care" passes as a viable answer from someone sitting on the throne looking down his nose and tossing sound bites at the peasants. :rofl:

Oh, boo hoo, watch me cry for jpholding. I thought you were the great apologist for the historicity of the gospels?

You got it. Which is why you're crying, eh? :rofl:

Came to answer because DBoone can't, huh?

99 out of 100 can't. They are rather busy with jobs and such. You know how it is. You're one of them.

And the best you can do is try to shift the burden of proof onto me, for the historicity of Tacitus?

Yep. Exposing your lack of a methodology and use of sound bites in place of arguments is just what I'm after when it is all that there is. :thumb:

My answer was completely honest. I don't give a rat's patootie whether Tacitus is accurate history.

Then you gave no answer at all -- at least, none that was any less relevant or of value. You may as well have just burped for us.

Maybe you did. :rofl:

Let me know when you can defend the historicity of your NT documents, and I'll respond.

Been there. Done that. Written whole articles about it, which is the point. By every standard of secular documents, the NT is way ahead of the game in terms of attestation. Internal evidence. Inside-dcoument attribution. Number and date of copies. If you think not, explain why. Too much to ask, I know.

Darkness to skulk in ===========> Thataway. :rofl:

Goochdad

May 9th 2003, 12:30 PM

(YAWN)

Still waiting for a reply with actual content...I'm sure I'll be waiting a while.

jpholding

May 9th 2003, 12:47 PM

I know, you NEED a reply with content. :rofl:

Sound Bite City: 50 miles.

Goochdad

May 9th 2003, 01:34 PM

Yeah, keep up your grade-school version of tu quoque, jpholding. That really impresses people, I'm sure.

Anyway, as it stands, DBoone's claims of early dating of the gospels, and your lame attempt to buttress his claims, have fallen flat without a shred of support.

Dancing banana for me! :yipee:

DBoone

May 9th 2003, 04:06 PM

Goochdad-
You didn't actually refute my posting. All you did was say that you don't share the scholar's opinion. I hope you've done half of the work that he's done in providing an apology for this issue, but it really doesn't appear that way. Whenever the Christian refers to some documentation the skeptic thinks it's considered a strong argument to simply plug his ears and yell "I DON'T BELIEVE IT! IDON'T BELIEVE IT!"

You're really going to have to do better than that. So tell us, what kernel of evidence you have in your brief glossing of the issue of Biblical scholarship that you wish to prop up against the avalanche of lifetime achievement that William Foxwell Albright has on the subject?

jpholding

May 9th 2003, 04:07 PM

The shoe fits, Poochy. Wear it:

Loud mouth who won't justify his sound bite. :rofl:

Goochdad

May 9th 2003, 04:21 PM

DBoone, presenting a 'scholar's opinion' doesn't count for historical evidence.

Look at where you started with this. You tossed out some claim that there are extant copies of the NT documents from only 30 or 40 years after the supposed events. Then you admit that was wrong, and present one scholar's opinion on when the documents *might* have been written.

You threw out that assertion, and apparently believed it as fact, and had never even checked on the accuracy! You're a Christian, and you never even researched the early history of your religion? The mind boggles at the easy willingness of so many people to accept an ancient human sacrifice superstition, based on...what? I still haven't figured out what you DO base it on, if you haven't researched the founding of the religion.

There are no copies of the documents from that time. There is no attestation from any other record from that time that reports the existence of the gospels.

The burden of proof is on YOU, pal. Presenting the opinion of one scholar doesn't make for a case.

I'll be completely honest with you--I actually think the gospels all DO date to the late first century, although John might well date to a few decades into the 2nd century. My original point was that your claim of extant first century NT documents was false. You did admit that error (thank you :smile: ) but then went on to claim that the gospels all date to before 80 CE. My 2nd point was that this claim can't be substantiated very well either. Scholars make claims that vary widely. I can present the opinion of other scholars who claim later dating. And then where do we end up?

We end up with most Christians arguing in a circle--the resurrection is accurately recorded in the gospels, and the gospels must be accurate because the resurrection is true. Again, I don't share in your presupposition.

jpholding

May 9th 2003, 04:28 PM

Scholars make claims that vary widely. I can present the opinion of other scholars who claim later dating. And then where do we end up?

No, you can't. Which is why you avoid me like the plague.

I listed four areas where the NT is superior OR equal in every aspect to secular counterparts:

1) Internal evidence.
2) Inside-dcoument attribution.
3) Number of copies
4) date of copies

If these standards are failrly applied, then the Gospels are better off than any other document and the tests point to a first century date and authorship attributed to their named authors.

You can only dispute this by:

1) showing that they are NOT superior or equal to other docs;
2) Explaining why, even if they are, it does not matter.

"I don't care" is not an answer.

On your back. :rofl:

Goochdad

May 9th 2003, 05:10 PM

No, you can't. Which is why you avoid me like the plague.

You flatter yourself. I don't avoid you, I just find you really boring and puerile. As for scholars who disagree on pre-80 dating of the gospels, Robert Kysar is just one example. Peter Kirby's excellent site quotes him regarding the gospel of John, I'm sure you know the way to the site:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html

I listed four areas where the NT is superior OR equal in every aspect to secular counterparts:

1) Internal evidence.
2) Inside-dcoument attribution.
3) Number of copies
4) date of copies

You did? Where? In this thread? I've just looked at every post you've made since you started whining at me, and I see nothing that even vaguely looks like the above list.

OK, now you've made the claim, back it up. I could claim that the Toldoth Yeshua provides the best internal consistency of any ancient document, but it would be silly to do so without actually backing it up with an argument.

[

You can only dispute this by:

1) showing that they are NOT superior or equal to other docs;
2) Explaining why, even if they are, it does not matter.

I don't care is exactly the right anwer to an argument that has nothing to support it but empty assertion.

jpholding

May 9th 2003, 06:46 PM

You flatter yourself. I don't avoid you, I just find you really boring and puerile.

You avoid me, and invent rationalizations to do so. Plain and simple.

As for scholars who disagree on pre-80 dating of the gospels, Robert Kysar is just one example. Peter Kirby's excellent site quotes him regarding the gospel of John,

Then bring it forward, bad boy. :rofl: Oh, links are verboten. Did you forget? I'll give you a chance to use it, no worries.

You did? Where? In this thread? I've just looked at every post you've made since you started whining at me, and I see nothing that even vaguely looks like the above list.

By now, my third or fourth message back. It was not in list form the first time.

OK, now you've made the claim, back it up. I could claim that the Toldoth Yeshua provides the best internal consistency of any ancient document, but it would be silly to do so without actually backing it up with an argument.

IOW you have no contrary data and are posturing. But let's test your mettle. Let's start with just one of the four, internal attestation.

Put simply, every copy of every Gospel that has the first page has, "The Gospel According to..." and the author, from every copy that exists. The data is unequivocal and unanimous. There are no copies with no name attached, or with a different one attached than there is supposed to be.

Note that the earliest copies are 3rd-4th century offering such testimony. For secular documents the same level of data comes far later. Tacitus' Annals -- I will not use TY because it does not even name an author -- is only attested internally by the very first sentence, just like the Gospels. The earliest copy we have of it is somewhere between 10th and 12th century.

Now then:

1. Can you contradict any of this?
2. Can you deny that if the data is treated equitably, the internal attestation points to the traditional authorial attributions of the Gospels, for if it does not, then i.e., Tacitus' data is also worthless?

You have the option otherwise of denying that such internal attestation constitutes evidence in any case, in which place, you set yourself against those who DO use it as evidence -- which includes historians. But at least you will be consistent.

I don't care is exactly the right anwer to an argument that has nothing to support it but empty assertion.

Nothing you know of, you mean, which is why you illicitly shift the burden of proof even AFTER front-loading with sound bites. :rofl:

External attestation next, if you survive. :brow:

citizenkyle

May 10th 2003, 02:53 PM

To Wildcat:

Rather than allowing our responses to keep growing longer with each counter-response, I've decided to try and get down to brass tacks and determine the crux of our issue.

Ultimately, you are asserting that the early Christians made testable, verifiable claims, and that those claims would've been tested by converts. There are three premises involved here:

1. Early Christians made such claims.
2. Those claims were, indeed, verifiable.
3. Converts would've tested the claims.

On premise (3), I think we've come to standstill. I think history has
demonstrated that there has always been an abundance of people ready to believe all manner of absurdities based on shoddy evidence or none at all. At least enough people to start a religion. OTOH, you seem to think people deserve more credit than that--or at least ANE people. We probably can't go any
further with this, although if you know of any good books which demonstrate the critical, investigative nature of ANE peoples, I would be interested to hear of them.

So, on to premise (1). This one calls for some speculation. For starters, the dates of the Gospels become important here. That is a point of contention between us, but I believe you date them in the 60s AD. So, even if we go with your dates, the first record we have of the claims comes three decades or so after the events. And we cannot know whether the gospels accurately reflected the evangelistic teachings at the time when they were
written. So, it is possible that many of those claims were not made by the early evangelists. I think it can even be argued that there is no clear evidence that a physical rez was taught by the early evangelists, but I won't go that far here. I am willing to grant that the following claims were made by the early evangelists:

a) The empty tomb.
b) Appearances to the women and the eleven disciples.
c) Maybe the torn veil and the three hours of darkness.
d) Maybe the angels.
e) Also, we know that Paul was claiming appearances to "over 500" around 50 AD, but we have no way of telling whether this was claimed prior to that.

That brings us to premise (2). Were the above claims verifiable in a meaningful sense? IOW, even if the rez happened could an investigator looking into things a few years after the events confidently conclude a supernatural rez from verification of the claims? Let's look at them one by one:

a) An investigator could seek the tomb and look inside. Presumably, he would not find Jesus' body in there. But there are many ways to get a body out of tomb besides resurrection. Never placed there to begin with, moved to the criminals' graveyard, stolen body, a survived Jesus escaped, etc. So this is inconclusive.

b) An investigator could interview the disciples and the women. But the investigator could not be certain whether they were lying (conspiracy) or mistaken (survival/hallucination). So this is inconclusive.

c) An investigator could inquire at the temple as to whether the veil was torn or not. I'm treading on uncertain ground here, because I am not terribly familiar with the circumstances of the Jewish temple. How many people would've been likely to witness the veil tearing? Were they likely to replace the veil immediately? Were they likely to deny the veil had been torn in the first place? Depending on the answers to those questions, it seems possible that the tearing was viewed by a handful of Jewish authorities who quickly replaced the veil and denied the incident (although obviously someone would've had to leak it). If this is the case, then an investigator is faced with the temple authorities accusing the disciples of lying, with the disciples accusing the authorities of a cover up. So this is inconclusive.

The three hours of darkness are a little more problematic. After a few decades one might be able to get away with claiming an eclipse that didn't happen, but in the early years this would be a tough sell. But perhaps an eclipse DID occur around the time of Jesus' death--likely not the same day, and almost certainly not in the time frame suggested by the gospels, but thereabouts. In this case, the early evangelists could hijack the eclipse for their own purposes (perhaps even moving the claimed day of Jesus' crucifixion to coincide with the eclipse). I don't know what kind of astronomical records were kept at this time or what access an investigator would have to them, but presumably he would have to rely on his own (or others) memories of an eclipse. In the case outlined above, there would be a genuine memory of an eclipse around that time. As to whether it coincided perfectly with the crucifixion, one would have to dig a little deeper, either finding independent witnesses to the crucifixion or some official record of criminal executions (of which I also don't know what kind were kept, or what the access would've been). In any case, I doubt many would do the requisite work required for such an investigation, especially if they were convinced by other "proofs"--the empty tomb, the appearances, et al.

d) This is the same situation as in (b), except with even less witnesses. Again, perjured testimony remains a viable option, so this is inconclusive.

e) An investigator has nothing to go on here, since Paul does not give the names or locations of any of the 500. One could speculate that an investigator would ask Paul for names and locations, but we have no way of knowing whether Paul would divulge such information, or whether he would even claim to know it. IOW, Paul could say, "Oh, there were a bunch of fishermen in Galilee, some farmers outside of Capernum, etc." So this is definitely inconclusive.

Thus, when all is said and done, our thorough investigator has little more than an empty tomb and a handful of testimonies from the grassroots members of the cause. Which is really no different than we'd expect if the rez DIDN'T happen.

Wildcat

May 10th 2003, 05:33 PM

Hi again CK. Thank you for the response.

CitizenKyle: On premise (3), I think we've come to standstill. I think history has demonstrated that there has always been an abundance of people ready to believe all manner of absurdities based on shoddy evidence or none at all. At least enough people to start a religion. OTOH, you seem to think people deserve more credit than that--or at least ANE people. We probably can't go any
further with this, although if you know of any good books which demonstrate the critical, investigative nature of ANE peoples, I would be interested to hear of them.

Wildcat: I don't have a book title, but IMO, nothing has been demonstrated that even remotely parallels the rise of Christianity. You have clearly shown where people are willing to believe all sorts of wild claims, but I still don't see a historical demonstration of this in light of testable claims(I'll get to this later). Plus, I have not seen any examples of people converting to a religion or other movement(that actually survived) that would have required the people to give up as much as what early converts to Christianity did. Let's not forget the collectivistic culture as well. I'm not saying that there would not have been uncritical conversions, but with as much opposition that Christianity received, it is still unlikely that any uncritical converts would not have, at some point, been confronted with someone who WAS critical of the claims and checked them. Unless you are able to dispute JPH's scholarship on the culture and customs that prevailed in that day, it seems very unlikely that Christianity could have survived with falsifiable claims. I hope that you can see my point. If the disciples had preached something that was entirely subjective both to their audiences and themselves(and this latter point is VERY important), then I'd be more inclined to agree that your parallels have some substance. Of course, even with that, I'm not sure that the suffering and social stigmas labeled on early followers of Jesus could be matched by the rise of any other *new* religion, particularly movements that lasted beyond a few years or less(contra examples like David Koresh's movement). At any rate, a religion where it was preached that Jesus lived and died and people should follow Him because he was a "Good Guy" would lend more credence to your assertion it seems, but this is not what we have.

CitizenKyle: I think it can even be argued that there is no clear evidence that a physical rez was taught by the early evangelists, but I won't go that far here.

Wildcat: Okay, but I felt it important to note that arguing for a spiritual resurrection seems to be an extremely unlikely position. The data we have indicates that a spiritual resurrection in those days to the Jews would have been about as meaningful as a square circle to us. Check this out if you haven't already: http://www.tektonics.org/physrez.html

Now, let's move on to your examination of A-E.

For A, the empty tomb, as I had indicated in the last message, there are escape routes. However, my point is that there was an empty tomb, one test passed.

CitizenKyle: b) An investigator could interview the disciples and the women. But the investigator could not be certain whether they were lying (conspiracy) or mistaken (survival/hallucination). So this is inconclusive.

Wildcat: True, and of course, that is where we have to decide the feasibility of such positions.

CitizenKyle: c) An investigator could inquire at the temple as to whether the veil was torn or not. I'm treading on uncertain ground here, because I am not terribly familiar with the circumstances of the Jewish temple. How many people would've been likely to witness the veil tearing? Were they likely to replace the veil immediately? Were they likely to deny the veil had been torn in the first place? Depending on the answers to those questions, it seems possible that the tearing was viewed by a handful of Jewish authorities who quickly replaced the veil and denied the incident (although obviously someone would've had to leak it). If this is the case, then an investigator is faced with the temple authorities accusing the disciples of lying, with the disciples accusing the authorities of a cover up. So this is inconclusive.

Wildcat: Hmmm....well, this was on the Passover so there should have been plenty of people in town and in the Temple. So, it seems doubtful that the Jewish authorities would have been the only ones to see the occurrence. I do agree with you that the Jewish authorities probably would have tried to fix the problem ASAP, so the veracity of the event may have indeed rested on eyewitness testimony, of which I believe there may have been hundreds, perhaps thousands.

CitizenKyle: The three hours of darkness are a little more problematic. After a few decades one might be able to get away with claiming an eclipse that didn't happen, but in the early years this would be a tough sell. But perhaps an eclipse DID occur around the time of Jesus' death--likely not the same day, and almost certainly not in the time frame suggested by the gospels, but thereabouts. In this case, the early evangelists could hijack the eclipse for their own purposes (perhaps even moving the claimed day of Jesus' crucifixion to coincide with the eclipse).

Wildcat: I think this is what Carrier proposes as well. Again, however, there would have been between hundreds of thousands and millions of people witness the event, especially since it fell on Passover. Certainly, even 3-4 decades later there would have been enough eyewitnesses to remember that day as to whether or not the darkness actually occurred.

You could be correct about people not wanting to look up the records of when the alleged eclipse did occur, but my argument remains that even just a few of the "right people" doing so would have been enough to start a problem for the movement since the nonChristians would have certainly been eager to check the movement.

For D, I submit my same answer as in B.

CitizenKyle: e) An investigator has nothing to go on here, since Paul does not give the names or locations of any of the 500. One could speculate that an investigator would ask Paul for names and locations, but we have no way of knowing whether Paul would divulge such information, or whether he would even claim to know it. IOW, Paul could say, "Oh, there were a bunch of fishermen in Galilee, some farmers outside of Capernum, etc." So this is definitely inconclusive.

Wildcat: I think the mentioning of the 500 would have been more of a detriment to the movement had Paul not been able to deliver some actual witnesses, one way or another. Such an excuse would have likely been considered a cop-out then just like it would be today. Paul, by mentioning witnesses, would give the opposition a great amount of opportunity to pressure Paul into producing at least quite a few of them by name. If he could not, of course, you know that charges of fabrication would have been made against Paul, or more likely, against those that originally formulated the creed(more below on this).

Oh one more point that I missed:

CitizenKyle: e) Also, we know that Paul was claiming appearances to "over 500" around 50 AD, but we have no way of telling whether this was claimed prior to that.

Wildcat: We do not have a way of knowing, but to suggest that this creed is any older than about 7 years of Christ's resurrection seems to be going WAY against the tide of NT scholarship. Many even suggest between 2-4 years.

CitizenKyle: Thus, when all is said and done, our thorough investigator has little more than an empty tomb and a handful of testimonies from the grassroots members of the cause. Which is really no different than we'd expect if the rez DIDN'T happen.

Wildcat: Did you notice that you just answered your assertion made long ago as to why everybody did not convert if the events are actual? :-)

Anyway, you are, for the most part correct, with the exception that I believe that there were far greater than a few eyewitnesses to many of the events, not only the post-rez. appearances. The question that remains is whether or not the various escape routes that you posed have any merit. To me they do not. Indeed, the authorities accused the disciples of stealing, but this does not explain their motives for starting the movement in the first place. The other alternatives seem just as unlikely. Plus, if we do not throw the book of Acts just totally out the window, and there seems to be no good reason to do so(all biases aside), there simply does not seem to be a need for the disciples to go back and add things(like the 3 hours of darkness, resurrected saints, temple veil ripping, etc.) since the movement was flourishing without the claims. Doing so would have clearly given the opposition something to hinder the movement that they did not previously have. Again, it is a matter of motives, or lack thereof, that would make claims of a resurrection as well as some of these other events unlikely if they were not true. That's all for now.

By the way, you never answered my question: Spurs or Lakers? :-)

Wildcat.

citizenkyle

May 10th 2003, 05:57 PM

mattbballman19:
If your only contention is that it is difficult to assess and evaluate contemporary miracle claims of the type of faith healing, you'll get no argument from me.

My contention is that it is difficult to assess and evaluate ALL miracles claims because our data is usually woefully insufficient.

mattbballman19:
What is disturbing from a pegagogical standpoint is your pronouncement that "I am making physical evidence and/or independent attestation necessary conditions for the discovery of the supernatural." On the surface it has a ring of truth about it for all of us. But this is always a curious maxim because it typically amounts to saying "No amount of evidence would ever convince me."

That’s not true. The criteria is very strict, but I don’t think it is unnecessarily so. There are ways to meet it. For instance, the Mormons could actually produce their Golden Plates recording Jesus’ visit to the Americas immediately following the rez, that would be an independent attestation that would leave no room for any conclusion other than Jesus’ supernatural abilities.

And clearly we need a standard of some kind. You agreed in an earlier post that we should be more critical of extraordinary events than normal ones. So if my criteria is unfair, what standard would you suggest?

mattbballman19:
In fact, many physical events and entities (as well as abstract ones) aren't given this incredible condition for persuasiveness. Many theories that are accepted as probably true are contingent on a priori evidences and analytical truths. For example, the occurrence of the Big Bang is not an event that would ever match your criteria -- and we're just talking about a natural occurrence here!

The Big Bang explains many of the physical features of the universe which are not explainable (or not well explained) by any other model. Thus, we can say that there is decisive physical evidence in its favor.

mattbballman19:
I think this "special" condition, which incidently has no warrant or reasons for why it should be a necessary condition for accepting supernatural claims, is just a mask for saying that no amount of evidence would ever be sufficient. If Jesus appeared to you with the wounds in his hands, what's to say that you wouldn't really think that "My friend is playing a practical joke on me" or "I must be dreaming."

That is an excellent point. We must constantly ask ourselves , “Am I really being fair in my reasoning or am I simply seeking to support my position at any cost?” That question applies to Skeptics and Christians alike. Being human means we sometimes are blinded by our need to be right. All we can do is strive to be aware of that tendency and do our best to judge whether we are falling prey to it.

mattbballman19:
For most disciplines, testability and firsthand evidences aren't necessary criteria for vindicating theories. Why impose this standard on Jesus and not for Socrates?

But the same standard is applied. I would not accept supernatural events attributed to Socrates any easier than I would those attributed to Jesus. Actually, Socrates is an interesting example because historians consider much of what was attributed to Soc as invention by Plato. With Jesus, OTOH, most of the non-supernatural stuff is given the benefit of the doubt.

Vorkosigan

May 10th 2003, 07:03 PM

Been there. Done that. Written whole articles about it, which is the point. By every standard of secular documents, the NT is way ahead of the game in terms of attestation. Internal evidence. Inside-dcoument attribution. Number and date of copies. If you think not, explain why. Too much to ask, I know.

The NT has the best attestation? A ridiculous idea, unethical, ethnocentric, and even by its own biased lights, highly inaccurate. Let's unpack this claim and see what it really means.

First off, any original document is automatically better-attested than anything in the NT. Ancient documents in the original abound. The greatest textual "validity" would be for those texts which we have direct from the author's hand -- letters, purchase orders, and other mundanities from papyrus hoards, or diaries and numerous other documents yanked from ancient tombs in China. Any letter of the mundane "bring home two loaves of bread with you" found at Oxyrhynchus would destroy anything in the NT for textual reliability. Ditto for the dozens of diaries and other documents pulled out of the ground in China, or the millions of characters inscribed in various ways across the Old World.

Let's hop over to China for a moment.

Database of Ancient Chinese Manuscripts (http://humanities.uchicago.edu/depts/easian/earlychina/research_resources/databases/early_chinese_manuscripts/)

There are many pages; it is simply a giant catalog of certain ancient Chinese manuscripts and other texts. Here is a typical entry:

Serial Number: 029
Site: III.26 Hunan, Changsha shi, Zidanku (ammunition dump), tomb no. 1
(73ChangziM1, of a c. 40 year old man, a shidafu of the 1st rank?;
disturbed)
Report: Wenwu 1974,2
Discovery date: 1973.05
Period: -375 to -270?: Middle to late Warring States Chu (dated through stylistic comparison) 15ED
Whereabouts: Metropolitan Museum, New York
Distribution:
Total pieces: 1
Total graphs: 904

Consider this entry from the database:

Serial Number: 002
Site: I.02 Henan, Wenxian, Wude zhen, Xizhangji, 124 sacrificial pits
Report: Wenwu1983,3
Discovery date: 1930, 1935, 1942, 1980-1982
Period: -497: Late Springs and Autumns Jin (many pieces dated to 16th January -497)
Whereabouts: Henan Provincial Institute of Cultural Artefacts, Zhengzhou; Qinyang mengshu: Archaeological Institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing
Distribution:
Total pieces: 10,000
Total graphs: 300,000

Note that the actual day of inscription is known for many of the pieces. These would mostly be divination and funerary items, probably inscribed on shells, bamboo, ceramics and wood.

I haven't even begun to discuss the thousands of finds of inscriptions on bronze, sometimes as long as chapters on books, or the quality of the finds. For example, the 20,000 tablets uncovered at Chuyen contain 75 documents in the original format, all complete or near complete. A Chin tomb at Mawangtui yielded 1100 bamboo tablets, all legal documents. The Western Han tomb at Lin-i gave up 4490 documents on military classics. There's simply nothing like it in the West.

As for later attestation and number of manuscripts, there's simply no comparison. For example, of the several dozen sutras, charms and portraits printed in Hangchow in the tenth century by the monk Yen-shou, 400,000 copies are known to us. I could list more, but don't see the point. Suffice to say that volume printing was a hallmark of medieval China.

The Chinese also put their various religious corpii (corpuses?) on stone many times. The Confucian classics were inscribed seven times, the first around 180, and the last 1791-94. The Buddhists also did this a couple of times, inscribing four million characters on 7,000 stone steles in a four hundred year effort beginning in 605. As did the Taoists, also beginning in the seventh century. Individual emperors also did that, inscribing steles with the accomplishments of their reign. The religious texts were inscribed to prevent corruption in transmission.

Joseph Needham, writing in 1986, noted:

Since the end of the 19th century, no fewer than 40,000 tablets of bamboo and wood have been uneartherd from various locations in China. [lists several major sites]...all documents from Loulan belong to the Chin dynasty [3rd century]. These tablets include official documents, private letters, calendars, lexicons for beginners, laws and statutes, medical prescriptions, literary texts, and miscellaneous records. [lists numerous other finds]..and some 20,000 wooden tablets dated from c. -119 to +26, from Chu-yen in Kansu.

Now, obviously such numbers and quality blows away anything found in the NT. And if you feel like qualifying that by saying "well, that's in the East" let's recall that treaty made by the Egyptians and the Hittites long before Paul and James cursed our world with their dream of a mad eschatological savior god. There are thousands of similar inscriptions throughout the remains of numerous empires across the ancient world, not to mention surviving original documents in a variety of media.

The situation in China is very different from the West, where the ancient manuscripts were transmitted, and in many cases in the West we have a medieval copy, as with Tacitus, of a manuscript almost a thousand years old. Imagine finding the DSS or Oxyrhynchus not once but every time you cracked open a Chinese tomb. The Chinese manuscripts were written on wooden tablets and simply lasted longer.

Additionally, we shouldn't forget that printing, and textual analysis both began in the East long before they began in the West. So the earliest surviving printed original documents would represent much better "attestation" than anything in the NT.

In sum, such claims on attestation and age are pure ethnocentricity, as far as China is concerned. For any particular superlative (most, earliest, more precisely dated, broadest set of topics, most copies of a single document) ancient China is by far the leader.

But let's see what this nonsense claim about attestation really boils down to. It consists of defining "attestation" in such a way -- transmitted texts -- that only the Bible can win. It's the usual unethical Christian claim, a claim deliberately designed to give the NT some kind of halo of hoary authority. It's mere propaganda.

So let's face a few facts: the monkish copy machine was nothing but a form of group madness, half-blind celibates practicing their writing skills by practicing thought control on themselves through copying only approved works over and over again. The sheer madness of committing so much precious time and effort to making 6,000 or 10,000 or 24,000 copies of the same 27 books, when so much was lost or destroyed over the years, ought to daunt anyone who thinks that this effort somehow redounds to the credit of the NT. It doesn't. The monks were doubly damned; first for the destruction of learning they engendered in the Old and New World, and second, for wasting their energy and talent mindlessly making copies of the same document over and over like robots in a factory where the owner has gone home and forgotten to turn off the machines, when so much was crying out for preservation and is now lost.

The really ironic thing about this nonsense claim is that the number of copies decreases, not increases, "attestation." This is because as copies multiply errors creep in; while the variety of documents ensures preservation of both error and different readings of the same text. Additionally, the existence of "lines" or "families" of manuscripts implies that the NT never had any "attestation" -- it was a mess from early on. Certainly Acts and its 10% larger Western version hint at this. Thanks to the multiple copies, we know that things were moved around, deleted, redacted and otherwise messed with. What we have is a deliberate creation of men and women who were seeking to create scriptural validity for their theological and political positions.

Far from being well-attested, all evidence indicates that the NT has been extensively edited, redacted and modified to create its current version. When it's all said and done, the fidelity of 13th century copyists is irrelevant if second century editors hacked up the gospels, cutting out some parts and moving others to other gospels, while other redactors were hard at work making massive insertions in John, etc. Thousands of copies of fiction are, alas, still fiction.

Vorkosigan

famousGandalf7

May 10th 2003, 07:42 PM

04-24-2003 @ 02:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77142#post77142)
Alien:Let's say an alien race contacts us and reveals that they have been hanging around the Earth for millenia, unknown to us. Their science and technology is immensely more advanced than ours. They tell us that everything in the Bible of a miraculous nature is true .... but they made it happen (or appear to happen) using their superior (but not supernatural) technology. To prove this, they stage a demonstration where they repeat any "miracle" that we ask for. They show us how they put the "future knowledge" into the minds of the prophets with their super hypno-ray and demonstrate how they undetectably forced events to comply with prophesy. They then give us the knowledge and we find that we can repeat what they did, independant of them. Well, I have an even more profound question. What if this happened. No, seriously. The earth seems to be gearing up for it. The media hype is already there. Headlines about having alien babies are still very popular. The super-natural is real, even though 'modern' man might discount it, having faith in science. We Christians are going to be taken off this planet in an instant, in a moment. The world will think it is madness, and when someone shows up, saying they are from another planet and they are ready to take volunteers to their planet, many are going to march straight into hell.

Now the world is not going to see that these 'creatures' are demons, until it is too late. This sounds like a plot for a Hollywood movie, but I believe it is the 'master plan' of Satan, and will work, in a limited fashion. I also believe that even during the Great Tribulation that there will be many with the Seal of God on their lives who will not be fooled by the Anti-Christ or any tricks of the devil. :angel:

Goochdad

May 11th 2003, 09:11 PM

Sigh, where to start with such puerile nonsense that bsholding tosses out?

I presented a solid reference to a scholar who dates John well after the 80CE date that Dboone was trying to defend, and Holding prattles:

Then bring it forward, bad boy. Oh, links are verboten. Did you forget? I'll give you a chance to use it, no worries.

Links are verboten? ROFL!! You’re an utter hypocrite. When have you ever complained about your pet creationists on TW, when they toss out AIG links in virtually every post? That was really hilarious. Thanks for the laugh! Go read the link I provided. You said I couldn’t provide a scholar who argues for later dating, and I did just that. Now quit crying and making up posting rules as you go along.

When I pointed out to BSHolding that he seems to have pulled his recent list out of some foul orifice, he equivocates:

By now, my third or fourth message back. It was not in list form the first time.

Utter nonsense. You came in here and tossed out some nonsense about Tacitus, and made no argument at all. OK, now you’ve presented it. I’ll let you keep your fantasies about when you actually made an argument.

Then BSHolding actually tries to sound intelligent:

IOW you have no contrary data and are posturing. But let's test your mettle. Let's start with just one of the four, internal attestation.

Put simply, every copy of every Gospel that has the first page has, "The Gospel According to..." and the author, from every copy that exists. The data is unequivocal and unanimous. There are no copies with no name attached, or with a different one attached than there is supposed to be.

Note that the earliest copies are 3rd-4th century offering such testimony. For secular documents the same level of data comes far later. Tacitus' Annals -- I will not use TY because it does not even name an author -- is only attested internally by the very first sentence, just like the Gospels. The earliest copy we have of it is somewhere between 10th and 12th century.

Now then:

1. Can you contradict any of this?
2. Can you deny that if the data is treated equitably, the internal attestation points to the traditional authorial attributions of the Gospels, for if it does not, then i.e., Tacitus' data is also worthless?

You have the option otherwise of denying that such internal attestation constitutes evidence in any case, in which place, you set yourself against those who DO use it as evidence -- which includes historians. But at least you will be consistent.

Is that actually supposed to be an argument for the historical soundness of the gospels? You’re kidding, right?

Vorkosigan has very nicely demonstrated that the gospels don’t come anywhere close to the attestation of huge numbers of Chinese historical documents. And the Chinese documents are from the same time period. So Western history has an extremely poor level of documentation (no thanks to Christian book-burning, cf Acts 19:19). So is that supposed to mean that the gospels, which have slightly better attestation than some other Western documents, are sound history? Of course not. Any grade schooler could see that isn’t a reasonable conclusion. But it seems to be your argument. Ah, well, I’ll deal with that lame piece of reasoning anyway.

You seem to be assuming that Tacitus, or any other secular historical document, is accepted a priori as sound history, no matter what it describes. Thus, you present a false dichotomy between the gospels and secular history. This dichotomy is utterly false because of the following reasons:

[list=1]
Any historian will examine a claim made by a document and consider whether it has attestation from other sources, and whether the claim is reasonable or fantastic. Since we’re discussing Tacitus, we can use an example from his Histories, Book IV, where he describes Vespasian curing a blind man and a man with a withered hand, simply by applying his own spit. (http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/tacitusc/histries/chap17.htm ) Are you going to try to tell me that all historians accept this story at face value? Suetonius relates the same tale. Does this mean that it is an actual historical event, that Vespasian cured a blind man with his spit? Of course not. And don’t whine about a ‘presupposition against the supernatural’. You have a double standard. You presuppose the supernatural when examining one particular set of ancient myths, and no other. Excuse me if I’m not impressed.
The gospels contain their own problems, that early attestation won’t fix at all. How do you account for the last half of John chapter 18, where Jesus is being tried by Pilate? There weren’t any eyewitnesses there! How did John record this? Jesus was crucified right after this. If you’re going to try to claim that Jesus divinely inspired the gospel writers in cases like this, then you’re making a circular argument. You’re trying to claim that Christianity is true based on the ‘sound history’ in the gospels, and then claiming the gospels are inspired because Christianity is true. There are far more problems with the gospels, and their internal contradictions, or in some cases, their contradictions with several secular historians. Examples are the date of the nativity in Luke (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html); the entire character of Pilate as portrayed in the gospels vs the Pilate of Josephus; the utter silliness of Matthew 21:7, which has Jesus riding on two donkeys at once (as Crossan so aptly put it, a clear case of “prophecy historicized”); the glaringly obvious error of the conflicting genealogies. You'll try to toss out some silly explanations for all of these, but the standard AIG explanations are nothing but special pleading. If a contradiction such as the genealogies was present in secular historical documents, neither genealogy would be accepted as historical, period. [/list=1]

If that’s the best start you can make to an argument for the gospels, then you’re even more lame than I thought. You seem to be arguing that the gospels must be true, because there are copies with the supposed writers names on them from 300 years after the events? Whoa. Wanna buy a bridge in Manhattan? :rofl:

Once again, a dancing banana for me!

:yipee:

This is SO easy!

jpholding

May 12th 2003, 12:10 PM

Whatsamatter, Vork? Still smarting from when I caught you posting misleading data before? :brow:

The NT has the best attestation? A ridiculous idea, unethical, ethnocentric, and even by its own biased lights, highly inaccurate. Let's unpack this claim and see what it really means.

:zzz:

Calm down and take a powder. The circle of comparison is PUBLIC historical documents, not letters from home,charms, or purchase orders -- no one is out recopying those and creating issues of textual criticism or authorship. You could also whine about Egyptian inscriptions in temples or the inscription mentioning Pilate. That's not part of the circle of works being compared.

So tell us as well, did you just debunk the reliability of Tacitus and Josephus and show us that we can't be sure who wrote them? :rofl:

Nice strawman, but admittedly very informative.

But let's see what this nonsense claim about attestation really boils down to. It consists of defining "attestation" in such a way -- transmitted texts -- that only the Bible can win.

Oh, that's a good one. What other definition of "attestation" do you have for such documents and what Christian started the conspiracy to make sure the Bible would "win" and how did they convince i.e. Taciteans to go along with it? BTW how many of those funerary inscriptions name an author?

It's the usual unethical Christian claim, a claim deliberately designed to give the NT some kind of halo of hoary authority. It's mere propaganda.

:zzz:

I know, Vork, you're just p.o.'d because I embarrassed you. Nice try, though.

So let's face a few facts: the monkish copy machine was nothing but a form of group madness, half-blind celibates practicing their writing skills by practicing thought control on themselves through copying only approved works over and over again.

Did Sauron write this bigoted piece for you? How many actually were blind, may I ask? You have opthamological stats for the day? Also, how does "blindness" have any relevance here? Do you have something against blind people? Are you bigoted against the visually impaired and those who choose a life of celibacy? Hate Mother Teresa, do we?

Thought control, yeesh! :rofl: Someone sure got hit by the collection plate at church. How about some psych profiles to prove it and differentiate it from earnest and sincere, psychologically healthy dedication? Or was that just you mouthing off with hot air? (No -- let me guess....)

The sheer madness of committing so much precious time and effort to making 6,000 or 10,000 or 24,000 copies of the same 27 books, when so much was lost or destroyed over the years,

Yep, too bad, the pagans were not interested enough to do the job. Seems that they were just meeting the demands for readable copies, Vork. Why not complain that they print 6 million copies of the latest novel and only 35 of the geology textbooks?

ought to daunt anyone who thinks that this effort somehow redounds to the credit of the NT. It doesn't.

Er, that makes sense. Motives of the copyists somehow affects quality of evidence. So if I prove that copiers of Tactius were deaf and had psych problems, that proves what?

The really ironic thing about this nonsense claim is that the number of copies decreases, not increases, "attestation." This is because as copies multiply errors creep in; while the variety of documents ensures preservation of both error and different readings of the same text.

Duh ah :duh: that's why we have "textual criticism". No, Vorky: when it comes to distance, it increases ability to discern what was in the original, which is not "attestation" in terms of my discussion here (authorial). Did you share this news with Bruce Metzger and secular textual critics, who would love more copies of Tacitus?

Additionally, the existence of "lines" or "families" of manuscripts implies that the NT never had any "attestation" -- it was a mess from early on.

:zzz: again. Do tell textual critics aboout these wondrous new insights of yours.

Certainly Acts and its 10% larger Western version hint at this.

Why? And just one book out of 27 hints at a mess for all 27? Tell us what secrets that extra 10% beholds for changing Christianity. I know I am crushed by the news of what hours Paul taught in the lecture hall of Tyrannus.

What we have is a deliberate creation of men and women who were seeking to create scriptural validity for their theological and political positions.

What we have is you sucking up Bart Ehrman whole. Give us an example of how this happened. Make it three and put a stop to the generalizing. You get rather tiresome when you repeat yourself 50 different ways.

Goochdad

May 12th 2003, 12:18 PM

Scans BSHoldings latest rant, looking for one shred of refutation of anything Vork said.

Nope. Just as I thought, another attempt at moving goalposts around, and nothing else even remotely worthwhile. Typical.

jpholding

May 12th 2003, 12:24 PM

In barks Poochdad, let's throw him a bone, too:

Sigh, where to start with such puerile nonsense that bsholding tosses out?

Try actually answering it. :rofl:

Links are verboten? ROFL!! You’re an utter hypocrite. When have you ever complained about your pet creationists on TW, when they toss out AIG links in virtually every post?

Shrug. I have not seen it, sorry. I don't go into the Biology thread. Meanwhile you still evade bringing the data here, which is just fine. :rofl: If you think I have made up the rules, ask a mod.

Utter nonsense. You came in here and tossed out some

Top of page 9, Goofdad.

Is that actually supposed to be an argument for the historical soundness of the gospels? You’re kidding, right?

No, Goofdad, it is an argument for the authorial attestation of the Gospels. Burn that strawman in another county where you can take advantage of the more liberal liquor laws you need to get in the right frame of mind. :rofl:

Vorkosigan has very nicely demonstrated that the gospels don’t come anywhere close to the attestation of huge numbers of Chinese historical documents.

No, actually, he burned a strawman of a different species, per my answer.

So Western history has an extremely poor level of documentation (no thanks to Christian book-burning, cf Acts 19:19).

You object to people burning their OWN books? As an aside, if you are foolish enough to play the general "book burning" card I will reply that:

1) The pagans were doing the same to opposition faiths -- it was SOP.
2) The old "Christians burned the great lit" canard is stale as week old bread.

Any grade schooler could see that isn’t a reasonable conclusion. But it seems to be your argument.

No, you just have reading difficulties. Try again. :lol: You keep on with this "sound history" strawman which isn't even close to my point. I'm just dealing with AUTHORIAL ATTESTATION, Poochie. You can;t read well, but I should have known that when you forgot where I first posted my list.

Are you going to try to tell me that all historians accept this story at face value? Suetonius relates the same tale. Does this mean that it is an actual historical event, that Vespasian cured a blind man with his spit? Of course not.

Of course it could. Why not? Just because you hate miracles? Scuse me -- I have no "double standard" but you are exceedingly presumptuous.

How do you account for the last half of John chapter 18, where Jesus is being tried by Pilate? There weren’t any eyewitnesses there!

Duh ah,

1) The resurrected Jesus.
2) Members of Pilate's entourage.
3) Friendly Sanhedrin members like Joseph who checked after the fact.

Try again.

the entire character of Pilate as portrayed in the gospels vs the Pilate of Josephus;

What's wrong with it? It's the same Pilate we see in Philo and Josephus. If this is how ignorant you are, no wonder you're ticked.

the utter silliness of Matthew 21:7, which has Jesus riding on two donkeys at once (as Crossan so aptly put it, a clear case of “prophecy historicized”);

Clear, nay. Your imagination. The plural referent is to the clothes, not the donkeys. But I do agree Jesus did it intentionally to fulfill Zech.

the glaringly obvious error of the conflicting genealogies.

:zzz: Same old story. hen you finish hurling elephants I'll introduce you to some info about ancient genealogies. Pick one of these topics and keep your elephant at home. I do not use AiG but Biblical scholars.

If a contradiction such as the genealogies was present in secular historical documents, neither genealogy would be accepted as historical, period.

Wrong, swami. Here's something to chew on: "In any given society, genealogies may function in more than one of the three spheres...it would be possible for a society to have a number of apparently conflicting genealogies, each of which could be considered accurate in terms of its function." So sorry, wrong number.

Once again, a dancing banana for me!

To stick in your ear. I'll also get you some reading glasses and some matches to burn more straw. It always is easy when you don't pay attention.

Nope. Just as I thought, another attempt at moving goalposts around, and nothing else even remotely worthwhile

I.e., you have no actual answer. Typical.

Rashbam

May 12th 2003, 04:42 PM

This debate seems a bit silly to me, although it is fun to watch the invective fly. Surely the New Testament has overwhelming manuscript support - far more than any other western document. (I'll defer to Vorkosigan on ancient Chinese manuscripts, but nothing can negate the fact that the NT has immense manuscript support.) Of course, the earliest complete NT mss date to the fifth century, some books (e.g. Mark) have very poor support prior to the fourth century, the NT traditions exclude other ancient Christian ones (e.g. the gnostics), etc.

What does excellent manuscript support say about the historicity of the canonical gospels? After the NT, the next best attested ancient western text is the Iliad, with about 650 extant ancient copies or fragments thereof. Less impressive than the thousands of fairly early NT fragments, but remarkable nonetheless. Does the strong manuscript support for Homer really mean that Achilles dragged Hector's body thrice around the tomb of Menoetius's son? After all, we know that there was a Troy - Schliemann excavated it.

That Christianity proved far more compelling a worldview than anything which came out of the Iliad is beyond cavil. It spiritually empowered people who were socially and economically oppressed. It evoked a vivid model of personal salvation - one that was readily within the grasp of anyone. To deny that Christianity must be considered sui generis is foolish. Still, none of this mitigates against the conclusion that the gospel hagiographies are largely "historical fictions," to use a modern term.

Vorkosigan

May 12th 2003, 06:09 PM

G: Vorkosigan has very nicely demonstrated that the gospels don’t come anywhere close to the attestation of huge numbers of Chinese historical documents.

JP: No, actually, he burned a strawman of a different species, per my answer.

LOL. Nice try, JP.

jpholding

May 12th 2003, 07:46 PM

Yesterday @ 11:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94674#post94674)
Vorkosigan:

G: Vorkosigan has very nicely demonstrated that the gospels don’t come anywhere close to the attestation of huge numbers of Chinese historical documents.

JP: No, actually, he burned a strawman of a different species, per my answer.

LOL. Nice try, JP.

Nice non-answer, Vork. :thumb: I knew I could count on ya!

Rashbam: Agreed as noted that mss support does not equate with historicity; nor indeed does firm auhtorial attestation. Why certain persons burn this straw man I cannot say. But it is surely obvious that POOR mss. support would cause howls that would never even allow us to reach issues of historicity?

One hurdle at a time, I say. :smile:

Rashbam

May 12th 2003, 08:49 PM

JP, I'm not sure why modest or even poor manuscript support would necessarily mitigate against historicity, especially if confirmation/corroboration could be found in other sources (e.g. intersecting but independent documents, archaeology, historical geography, etc.).

In my experience it is overwhelmingly the conservative proponents of Christianity who misuse and misinterpret the data on manuscript support. Their mistake is, as you yourself have said, to naively equate manuscript support with historicity. They'll say things like, "there are 24,000 ancient copies of the New Testament, the earliest dating to 125 A.D.," confusing fragments and copies, unaware of what exactly it is that allegedly dates to ca. 125 CE (i.e. the extremely fragmentary Rylands papyrus, p52), completely unaware of the sparse ms support prior to the fourth century, etc. I imagine that many pastors and priests are guilty of regurgitating such unqualified "gee-whiz" factoids to their congregations when they choose to wax scholarly in their Sunday sermons.

At any rate, it is quite rare indeed to find anyone who is wholly dismissive of NT manuscript support - rare because the position is so manifestly untenable. Vorkosigan's point that most of us have a very western-oriented point of view here is well-taken, though as I said it does not diminish the NT in any regard.

Goochdad

May 12th 2003, 09:24 PM

OK, BSholding, since that's the only argument you've even offered so far, the "authorial attestation" claim, to wit:

Put simply, every copy of every Gospel that has the first page has, "The Gospel According to..." and the author, from every copy that exists. The data is unequivocal and unanimous. There are no copies with no name attached, or with a different one attached than there is supposed to be.

Let's deal with that. You asked me if I could contradict any of that. The answer is a clear yes. Every copy of Matthew and Luke that survives, says "Gospel according to Matthew" or "Gospel according to Luke", respectively, but these manuscripts contain virtually the entire "Gospel according to Mark" therein. So who is the author? Mark? Matthew? Luke?

You may deny the claim (supported by most NT scholars) that Mark is the earliest of the three, and the writers of Matthew and Luke copied Mark. Maybe you think that Mark copied part of Matthew. But if you try to claim that Mark isn't contained nearly verbatim in both Matthew and Luke, then you'll quite appropriately be a laughingstock.

So there goes your claim of authorial attestation. Next?

Like I said, this is SO easy!

:yipee:

Archimedes

May 13th 2003, 01:47 AM

Hello.

Goochdad & jpholding: could you please stop calling each other "bsholding" and "goofdad"? This is an interesting discussion, but I find the namecalling a little bit bothersome not to mention irrelevant to the topic at hand. I'm sure you are old friends and don't really mean to offend each other, but could you at least try refrain from it to the benefit of us watching from the sidelines? Thank you.

:dunce:

Vorkosigan

May 13th 2003, 05:09 AM

Nice non-answer, Vork. :thumb: I knew I could count on ya!

I'm still patiently waiting for you to point out the strawmen in my post. Can't answer what isn't there. I note you've now gone two posts without addressing anything I said.

But it is surely obvious that POOR mss. support would cause howls that would never even allow us to reach issues of historicity?

Surely it is obvious that "poor" is a value laden term of no particular meaning. What would you consider "poor" manuscript support?

Vorkosigan

ACFaith.Com

May 13th 2003, 06:44 AM

But if you try to claim that Mark isn't contained nearly verbatim in both Matthew and Luke, then you'll quite appropriately be a laughingstock.

Matthew has close to 90% of mark whereas Luke only has about 65% of Mark. So Mark is not repeated "nearly verbatim" in Luke unless you think Luke used a shorter version of Mark. That is possible since Gospel composition was a fluid process but that is not the obvious meaning of what you wrote.

Someone said Mark has poor MSS attestation as well. There may not be any early manuscripts but since both Matthew and Luke used Mark any early witnesses to GMatthew and GLuke both serve as early witnesses to GMark.

Vinnie

GakuseiDon

May 13th 2003, 06:50 AM

Today @ 06:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95023#post95023)
Archimedes:

Hello.

Goochdad & jpholding: could you please stop calling each other "bsholding" and "goofdad"? This is an interesting discussion, but I find the namecalling a little bit bothersome not to mention irrelevant to the topic at hand. I'm sure you are old friends and don't really mean to offend each other, but could you at least try refrain from it to the benefit of us watching from the sidelines? Thank you.

:dunce:

Yes, I'm afraid I agree with you, Archimedes. I don't think the odd zinger is a problem - almost a requirement at times! But the constant minor name insulting comes across as puerile, and detracts from some of the good debates around here.

Debate like you would at the pub. Here, the first one's on me! :cheers:

Goochdad

May 13th 2003, 07:37 AM

Archimedes:

I would be quite happy to debate in a more civil tone, but holding seems to think it is the only way that he can post. He seems to think he has a cheering crowd on the sidelines or something, who enjoys his spewage.

I know, I know, seems sort of silly to say "he started it", but he did. I hadn't insulted DBoone or called him names at all, yet Holding seemed to think it was necessary to jump in with the insults. Well, if that is how he wants to approach it, I'll deal it right back at him.

I would be more than happy to return to a civil tone, if Holding did the same.

Regards,

-Kelly

Goochdad

May 13th 2003, 07:38 AM

Vinnie:

You're right, thanks for the correction.

-Kelly

Socrates

May 13th 2003, 07:59 AM

Gooch:I would be quite happy to debate in a more civil tone, but holding seems to think it is the only way that he can post. He seems to think he has a cheering crowd on the sidelines or something, who enjoys his spewage. :whack: Poor baby -- as usual, these misotheists are immune to the vitriol they dish out to others, but can't take it in return :poke:

ACFaith.Com

May 13th 2003, 08:24 AM

Debate like you would at the pub. Here, the first one's on me!

You want me to smash a bottle over someone's head? :huh:

;)

Vinnie

jpholding

May 13th 2003, 02:32 PM

JP, I'm not sure why modest or even poor manuscript support would necessarily mitigate against historicity,

The argument goes that if you can't be sure what was said, you can't even begin to evaluate historcity. Maybe you wouldn't make that sort of argument, but you seem more intelligent than most I have encountered. :smile:

In my experience it is overwhelmingly the conservative proponents of Christianity who misuse and misinterpret the data on manuscript support.

We obviously have different experiences, then. :smile: I wonder if you have heard of Acharya S. But I have never had a pastor mention such a thing myself.

jpholding

May 13th 2003, 02:38 PM

In rides Gooch, on that same ass as before,

Every copy of Matthew and Luke that survives, says "Gospel according to Matthew" or "Gospel according to Luke", respectively, but these manuscripts contain virtually the entire "Gospel according to Mark" therein. So who is the author? Mark? Matthew? Luke?

HUH????? :rofl:

That made no sense at all and doesn't even address the matter at hand.

REGARDLESS of who was used as a source -- whether you adhere to a Q hypothesis or a Griesbach hypothesis -- makes no more difference than that Tactitus or Josphus (which they did) in terms of who put the final product together and who is attested as doing so.

You may deny the claim (supported by most NT scholars) that Mark is the earliest of the three, and the writers of Matthew and Luke copied Mark.

Most scholars don't bother to re-evaluate the data and just follow nose to tail. In the 70s a consortium of secular scholars looked things over and declared Griesbach the most plausible literary theory. An oral tradition specialist said oral tradition could easily account for the similarities. But it's irrelevant, as noted.

So there goes your claim of authorial attestation. Next?

Next, make an actually relevant point. That was a banana skin. It's always easy to just throw up in ignorance.

jpholding

May 13th 2003, 02:43 PM

I'm still patiently waiting for you to point out the strawmen in my post. Can't answer what isn't there.

Can't answer what you won't admit, either. :rofl: I made it quite clear. You invalidly widened the playing field. Books like Texts and Transmission don't concern themselves with things like the Pilate inscription. I had a clear context I was operating in: public documents that have endured multiple copies.

What would you consider "poor" manuscript support?

1 copy of a 1st century work dated only to the 16th century would be a good example.

Rashbam

May 13th 2003, 03:51 PM

What would you consider "poor" manuscript support?

1 copy of a 1st century work dated only to the 16th century would be a good example.

The earliest extant fragments of Josephus' Antiquities are from the 11th century. Does that mean our received text of Josephus is unreliable?

I'm not familiar with "Acharya S." What did he (she?) say about NT manuscript support?

jpholding

May 13th 2003, 07:48 PM

Yesterday @ 08:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95469#post95469)
Rashbam:

The earliest extant fragments of Josephus' Antiquities are from the 11th century. Does that mean our received text of Josephus is unreliable?

I'm not familiar with "Acharya S." What did he (she?) say about NT manuscript support?

I don't think that would make Josephus unreliable, no.

Acharya (a she) goes for the sort of idea that we can speculate about all manner of textual forgeries otherwise not in evidence; that it is all a trick of power seeking priests, etc. I am much happier if you do not know who she is. :smile: But if you are feeling sadomasochistic I will PM you an URL.

Elvis Rehnquist

May 14th 2003, 02:04 AM

Evangel sez:
nothing short of jesus's body would even make me doubt him. even then it could be a deception by the devil.

Very impressive standard of evidence you got there.

Would you consider stipulating to one more appropriate for Planet Earth?

Elvis Rehnquist

May 14th 2003, 02:18 AM

DBoone sez:
<snip snap>
(McDowell, Evidence That Demands A Verdict, p.62-63)

Just curious: Is this nincompoop (McDowell, that is) what passes for "authority" around here ?

Rashbam

May 14th 2003, 02:23 AM

I see. So this Acharya S. character would be the skeptical antipode of hypercredulous types like Josh MacDowell.

Elvis Rehnquist

May 14th 2003, 02:26 AM

Rashbam sez:
I see. So this Acharya S. character would be the skeptical antipode of hypercredulous types like Josh MacDowell.

Dunno. I don't have my spectrometer on me.

But I know not too many "skeptics," as you would say, place much stock in Ms. S.

Wildcat

May 14th 2003, 02:47 AM

Croc Dundee,

"You may deny the claim (supported by most NT scholars) that Mark is the earliest of the three, and the writers of Matthew and Luke copied Mark."

JP: Most scholars don't bother to re-evaluate the data and just follow nose to tail. In the 70s a consortium of secular scholars looked things over and declared Griesbach the most plausible literary theory. An oral tradition specialist said oral tradition could easily account for the similarities. But it's irrelevant, as noted.

Hmmm....so which do you posit came first?

G'day mate.

jpholding

May 14th 2003, 10:37 AM

Rashbam:

Rather than McDowell, I would say Jack Chick would parallel Acharya S. I would parallel McDowell on the atheist side with maybe Joseph Wheless.

Dumbski:

Lucky you! I hear from that crowd more than enough. :smile:

Wildcat:

From the data I see the following order:

1) Aramaic Matthew
2) Mark
3) Luke
4) Greek Matthew
5) John

Though 4 and 5 could be reversed if John was written before 70.

Elvis Rehnquist

May 14th 2003, 11:39 AM

[Edit: nm; my misunderstanding.]

Mandalorious

May 14th 2003, 07:45 PM

05-13-2003 @ 12:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95119#post95119)
Socrates:

Gooch:I would be quite happy to debate in a more civil tone, but holding seems to think it is the only way that he can post. He seems to think he has a cheering crowd on the sidelines or something, who enjoys his spewage. :whack: Poor baby -- as usual, these misotheists are immune to the vitriol they dish out to others, but can't take it in return :poke:

Ah, didn't you hear the guy say that JP Holding started it?

Yeah right...I've seen some of the articles on AIG and you have no right to talk. See here (http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp).

Many are familiar with Talk.Origins, counted among the top pro-evolution sites on the Internet. Most of the people running it are ostensibly atheistic._ Many had a Christian upbringing and are using evolution as a pseudo-intellectual justification for their apostasy._ But they realise that rank atheism is repugnant to many, so they publish articles claiming that you can believe in God and evolution._ It’s quite a sight to see people, known personally to us as rabidly hostile to Christianity, yet who are eager to assure inquirers that many Christians accept evolution._ It reminds me of Lenin’s strategy of cultivating useful idiots in the West, who were too gullible to realise that they were undermining their own foundations._ See also The Skeptics and their Churchian Allies This guy runs off at the mouth, doesn't he? Name calling, guilt by association (bringing up Lenin), and accusations of manipulation. You can tell, this guy is an unbiased scientist with no axe to grind, and no agenda! :ahem: You could learn a lot from him, Socrates!

Fortunately there's a rebuttal here (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/henke/krh-floodnonsense.html), but for this thread, that's neither here nor there.

And AIG says that Christianity brought the people out (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_13august2001.asp) of the dark ages?? Here's a reading (http://www.geocities.com/iconoclastes.geo/victims.html) for you. Some more here (http://www.geocities.com/iconoclastes.geo/shame.html).

One of the guys in that later list is Martin Luther, the guy that AIG had claimed as one of their own: a "dyed-in the wool creationist" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4067.asp).

Well, the AIG people can have him. Wait'll you read what Luther says in the previous link!!

stevencarrwork

May 15th 2003, 07:00 AM

05-12-2003 @ 05:10 PM
jpholding:

Certainly Acts and its 10% larger Western version hint at this.

Why? And just one book out of 27 hints at a mess for all 27? Tell us what secrets that extra 10% beholds for changing Christianity. I know I am crushed by the news of what hours Paul taught in the lecture hall of Tyrannus.

What we have is a deliberate creation of men and women who were seeking to create scriptural validity for their theological and political positions.

What we have is you sucking up Bart Ehrman whole. Give us an example of how this happened. Make it three and put a stop to the generalizing. You get rather tiresome when you repeat yourself 50 different ways.

I love this rebuttal of Holding's. It is just one book out of 27. Doesn't he mean one inspired book out of 27, that is virtually his only history of the very earliest happenings?

'One book out of 27' - Christians love to quote the fact that one book out of 66 (Isaiah) was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls with a text very close to what we read today. Can you say double standards? To get even one out of 66, they have to ignore the other manuscripts found which have different text types to the Masoretic.

As for Holding's attack on Ehrman, people should read 'The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture' and compare the scholarship with Holding's articles of childish abuse, misrepresentation and double-talk.

If Holding wants some examples of texts altered for doctrinal reasons, he could try http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli2.htm

jpholding

May 15th 2003, 02:25 PM

In rides Stevie PWS Carr, still looking for his thumb,

I love this rebuttal of Holding's. It is just one book out of 27. Doesn't he mean one inspired book out of 27, that is virtually his only history of the very earliest happenings?

Irrelevant, Stevie. And begs the question of what inspiration constitutes. Hint: Only moderns like you think it means robotics. :rofl:

'One book out of 27' - Christians love to quote the fact that one book out of 66 (Isaiah) was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls with a text very close to what we read today. Can you say double standards?

Only if *I* am one who makes a big deal over it, Stevie -- and I don't.

As for Holding's attack on Ehrman, people should read 'The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture' and compare the scholarship with Holding's articles of childish abuse, misrepresentation and double-talk.

Nothing like specifics from Stevie. I happen to have a copy at my feet, from the library. Why not issue a challenge in the CQ to discuss some of his arguments with me?

Or do you prefer to run like a yellow dog as you did from the rez body debate and the debate with Dee Dee? :poke:

If Holding wants some examples of texts altered for doctrinal reasons, he could try http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli2.htm

Tut tut. URLs are illegal, you know that. Bring some here and start a new thread. They're all either overplayed or no big deal.

Your new boss says GET THAT EHRMAN BOOK OUT OF THE GREASE TRAP!

Ethos

May 15th 2003, 07:39 PM

Truth be told, as it is and as it has been and ever shall be, until the coming of the Son of man,

There is no proof, It is simply too abstract a subject to be proved true or false, many have tried, all have failed.
All we can have is faith (or lack thereof for the empiristic, pessimistic brood, God rest their souls).
The only proof that I have is the eternal peace that lieth in my heart and my soul since our first introduction (me and God's). And my will to be a better person every day only to be more pleasing in his sight.
But, as substantial as that truth may be for me, it still is only a personal proof, there is no factual evidence to be found to support it. It is simply my own private pragmatism, that I share with other TRUE Christians of the faith.
God really rest our souls!! Amen!

Wildcat

May 15th 2003, 11:50 PM

Socrates: Poor baby -- as usual, these misotheists are immune to the vitriol they dish out to others, but can't take it in return ”

Mandal: Ah, didn't you hear the guy say that JP Holding started it?

Wildcat: I wonder if this is actually true or not. I don't know JPH's history of "bad blood" with any of these skeptics, but from what I've seen JPH only responds in a "hostile" manner to others who have actually "started it." Otherwise, I don't see why he'd be so courteous to other skeptics like Joe Alward and Kyle Gerkin, each of which themselves seem to write with a friendly demeanor.

Mandal: This guy runs off at the mouth, doesn't he? Name calling, guilt by association (bringing up Lenin), and accusations of manipulation. You can tell, this guy is an unbiased scientist with no axe to grind, and no agenda! You could learn a lot from him, Socrates!

Wildcat: I have to agree with you. The author of that article shouldn't have called Isaacs a pseudo-scientist and resort to other such insults. Of course, atheists also are certainly guilty at times of unprovoked insults and ad hominem. Usually when this is done, probably from both sides, it indicates an underlying frustration and insecurity of one's response/rebuttal. Otherwise, the author(s) should be satisfied with simply attacking the argument(s) rather than the person(s).

Wildcat.

mattbballman19

May 17th 2003, 12:55 AM

Kyle,

Sorry for the wait. School and work are draining. :poke:

(i) To say that all miracle claims have "woefully insufficient" is to beg the question.

(ii) Your example of the Mormon plates is interesting because that is precisely the sort of confirmation we have of [what I deem to be] credible historical events (i.e., the empty tomb and eyewitness testimony). The resurrection has physical evidence (the tomb) and independent attestation (the layers of eyewitness testimony). But this only shows that physical evidence and independent attestation are sufficient conditions for truth and not necessary conditions.

(iii) Of the various Big Bang models, which does one choose? None of them are based on any physical evidence or independent attestation. The point of the counterexample here is that not all truths are based on your criteria. Hence, your criteria are not necessary conditions for truth. More interestingly, what physical evidence or independent attestation do we have to think that only physical evidence and independent attestation are the means to truth?

(iv) Finally, the Socrates example shows exactly why such criteria seems to be motivated by bias rather than objectivity. Why should one reject the evidences for the supernatural elements of Jesus whilst accepting the non-supernatural elements? The answer seems to be that all supernatural events must be ruled out -- something that is not proven by your criteria. We can learn something from Socrates. The reason why some elements of Socrates are rejected is on historical grounds, not on the grounds you set out. But most historians accept at least some of what Plato says about Socrates, particularly on those points that Plato responds to which are not mentioned by any other writer. But, again, this is neither independent attestation nor physical evidence.

I have laid out what I believe to be proper criteria for justifying historical descriptions. If an explanation, whether supernatural or not, fails to meet the criteria then it is to be rejected. If it meets the criteria, then it is to be accepted. Whether the explanation is supernatural in character or not is irrelevant since I can't find any reason to assume that all supernatural explanations are bad ones.

matt

Wildcat

May 17th 2003, 10:43 AM

Matt: (ii) Your example of the Mormon plates is interesting because that is precisely the sort of confirmation we have of [what I deem to be] credible historical events (i.e., the empty tomb and eyewitness testimony). The resurrection has physical evidence (the tomb) and independent attestation (the layers of eyewitness testimony). But this only shows that physical evidence and independent attestation are sufficient conditions for truth and not necessary conditions.

Wildcat: Hi Matt. I've enjoyed reading your exchanges with Kyle, although at times, you've been over my head. :-) I agree about the independent attestation. I mentioned in a previous post with Kyle that the conversions of James and Paul represent independent attestation, seemingly the kind he is seeking, since we would not expect any non-Christian to confirm the veracity of the resurrection(for the same reason that no non-Christian today would do so--with perhaps a few rare exceptions like Pinchas Lapide, who justifies his rejection of Christianity by claiming that Jesus was only the gentile Messiah). Interestingly, the account of Josephus is rejected as a later Christian interpolation *because* he seemingly is affirming some of the Gospel events, including the resurrection and appearances. I haven't done my homework on that particular reference, but since he remained a non-Christian, such skepticism in this case is warranted, IMO.

Wildcat.

Jezz

May 17th 2003, 12:05 PM

I think this has been a good thread, for the most part.

I have one comment, which I want to direct at Kyle.

Kyle, you have asserted in various places your skepticism that the historical facts supporting the resurrection (eg empty tomb, etc) would have been checked out by the early Christians, while it was still possible to check them out. You have backed up this skepticism with evidence of the gullibility of people in various cults in more recent history.

JP, Wildcat et al have argued that in a collectivist society such as the ANE (where everyone's business was everyone's business), these sorts of claims most certainly would have been checked out. This alone didn't seem to convince you, so you still hold to your "gullibility" thesis, and argue that the claims probably wouldn't have been checked out.

That's the summary. Now here' s the point that I wanted to make: In the cults you refer to in which gullibility was necessary for the cult to flourish, there are generally two traits in common of claims made by their founders:

1. Their claims are untestable, or
2. For claims that are testable, the cult members are actively discouraged from testing them out.

I think the analogy of a spacecraft in a cave has been used in this thread somewhere. Let's go with that example. This claim is testable. However, in order for the cult to flourish, the leaders would actively discourage the members from going to the cave to check it out - perhaps by not revealing the cave location, or by threatening them with expulsion from the cult if a member tries to check it out. The Jehovah's Witnesses tend to function in this way - anyone who questions the authority of the Watchtower organisation is cast out.

Now, let's compare this with the early Christian apologists: They made testable claims, and they didn't discourage people from checking them out. But they went even further than this - they actively encouraged people to check them out:

1 Thessalonians 5.21: " Test everything. Hold on to the good."

...and they praised people who did check things out:

Acts 17:11 "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

So, if the early apologists were trying to rely on gullibility to recruit people into their fledgling cult, they were certainly going the wrong way about it! Doesn't this seem more like the actions of people who were trying to discourage gullibility, rather than rely on it to attract members?

(Note: If JP Holding happens to be reading this post, perhaps this qualifies as a new point to add to "The Impossible Faith" article? An example of something that Christianity did wrong, and yet survived anyway? :smile:)

Wildcat

May 17th 2003, 01:28 PM

Jezz: Now, let's compare this with the early Christian apologists: They made testable claims, and they didn't discourage people from checking them out. But they went even further than this - they actively encouraged people to check them out:

1 Thessalonians 5.21: " Test everything. Hold on to the good."

...and they praised people who did check things out:

Acts 17:11 "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

So, if the early apologists were trying to rely on gullibility to recruit people into their fledgling cult, they were certainly going the wrong way about it! Doesn't this seem more like the actions of people who were trying to discourage gullibility, rather than rely on it to attract members?

Wildcat: Aye, and let's not forget about implicit references to the empty tomb found in Acts 2:24-32 and 13:29-31.

:cheers:

These are certainly not the kinds of proclamations one would want to make to enemies of the faith if Christ's tomb was occupied.

Wildcat.

mattbballman19

May 21st 2003, 11:51 PM

I can't believe I'm talking to the THE Wildcat. Just kidding. It's just that I've read your articles (and continue to read your articles) on tektonics for a couple years now, I think, and I think their great!

Thanks for your encouragement!!

I've enjoyed reading your exchanges with Kyle, although at times, you've been over my head. :-)

Maybe not the subject matter, but the my poor ability to translate what I'm trying to say into intelligible communication. I'm still working on it. :teeth:

I mentioned in a previous post with Kyle that the conversions of James and Paul represent independent attestation, seemingly the kind he is seeking, since we would not expect any non-Christian to confirm the veracity of the resurrection

Your speaking of the existence of that particular independent attestation as that being recorded in the work of Josephus? If so, then I'd agree. Kyle maybe promoting the conjunction of physical evidence with that of independent attestation in virtue of which his quota must be reached. But, from what I said in the previous post, I think this is unwarranted. I'm still sort of misty on Kyle's definition of 'physical evidence' though. Maybe Kyle wants to maintain the independent attestation be of such a sort that it contains no hints of biasness and/or whatever. I have no justification for coming to the conclusion of Josephus being bias (in a way that would destructive to him recording accurate history). Bias towards the truth maybe. I think I need to do some more homework. ;-)

Interestingly, the account of Josephus is rejected as a later Christian interpolation *because* he seemingly is affirming some of the Gospel events, including the resurrection and appearances.

This seems completely unjustified. It seems possible that Josephus could be affirming some of the gospel events out of his concern for recording good ole' history. I absolutely see no reason for this move.

I haven't done my homework on that particular reference, but since he remained a non-Christian, such skepticism in this case is warranted

I personally don't even think that homework on your end is needed yet. I think it the burden of proof is on the critic here. And until that justification is provided then we are warranted in believing Josephus to be recording those specifics in apparent agreement with that information contained in the gospels. I maybe wrong though.

matt

jpholding

May 22nd 2003, 02:46 PM

Jezz:

That probably would make for an expansion on point #13. Please collect any thoughts and send them to me by PM or email if oyu would.

Matt:

No mail from you yet.... :huh:

Wildcat

May 23rd 2003, 12:35 AM

Matt: I can't believe I'm talking to the THE Wildcat. Just kidding. It's just that I've read your articles (and continue to read your articles) on tektonics for a couple years now, I think, and I think their great!

Wildcat: Thank you for the encouragement! It is greatly appreciated. Did you notice the most recent additions to my last one? It was uploaded a few days ago. Also be on the look-out for newer additions in the next couple of weeks or so as this is, for now, an on-going project. My next task is to respond to my opponent's Messianic diatribes. I'm grateful to JPH for publishing those articles. He's been a tremendous help. :smile:

By the way J.P., if you're reading this, the link to Glenn Miller's Trinity series needs to be corrected(the 4th "here" of 5 near the bottom).

Matt: Maybe not the subject matter, but the my poor ability to translate what I'm trying to say into intelligible communication. I'm still working on it.

Wildcat: I don't know. Some of it is really deep and requires slow reading, but that's good actually. You and Kyle are having an intelligent argument on the subject.

Matt: Your speaking of the existence of that particular independent attestation as that being recorded in the work of Josephus?

Wildcat: Actually no. I believe that the Gospels represent 4 independent witnesses, but Kyle does not count this as independent since the writers were all in the same inner circle, or at least held the same beliefs. He is saying that a work authored by say, Pontius Pilate, would represent independent attestation. However, my argument is that the conversion of skeptics/enemies like Paul and James represents this, and maybe even to a stronger degree than that of someone like Pontius Pilate or Josephus would have been! The only difference is that both of our subjects became Christians, but that's the point--we wouldn't expect a nonChristian to affirm the resurrection for obvious reasons.

Matt: If so, then I'd agree. Kyle maybe promoting the conjunction of physical evidence with that of independent attestation in virtue of which his quota must be reached. But, from what I said in the previous post, I think this is unwarranted. I'm still sort of misty on Kyle's definition of 'physical evidence' though. Maybe Kyle wants to maintain the independent attestation be of such a sort that it contains no hints of biasness and/or whatever.

Wildcat: This I think would be impossible for the reasons discussed in my previous statement. If Pontius Pilate, for instance, wrote about Christ's resurrection, then this would be added, nonChristian attestation. However, the question then would be, if he believed in the resurrection, why did he not convert? Afterall, Christianity is proven to be absolutely true or absolutely false with the truth of what happened on Easter Sunday and beyond. Ironically, as I pointed out, the alleged affirmation of Josephus of these events automatically casts doubt on the quality of the source by believers and unbelievers alike since Josephus, as far as we know, did not convert. On the other hand, we have Paul who was certainly more of an unlikely convert then both Josephus and Pontius Pilate who DID convert. He obviously somehow came to believe in the resurrection and represents an independent witness to the veracity of the event.

Matt: This seems completely unjustified. It seems possible that Josephus could be affirming some of the gospel events out of his concern for recording good ole' history. I absolutely see no reason for this move.

Wildcat: That's true I think in regards to Christ's general miracles, but a question mark seems to arise on the resurrection because of what we discussed in the above segments. If he did not believe in the resurrection(which seems to be a good conclusion based on the fact that he did not convert), then he probably would not report it as history either. However, it may be likely that he would say that the disciples *claimed* to see the risen Christ.

Matt: I personally don't even think that homework on your end is needed yet. I think it the burden of proof is on the critic here. And until that justification is provided then we are warranted in believing Josephus to be recording those specifics in apparent agreement with that information contained in the gospels. I maybe wrong though.

Wildcat: It is true that the burden of proof would be on those that try to disprove something that is written. I know that Jeff Lowder and JP Holding have each done extensive pieces on the reference, neither of which I have read in full. Like I said, I haven't done any homework on this particular reference.

Thanks again for the kind words. I look forward to the next round. By the way, if you ever have any questions on the content of those articles(or anything else for that matter), don't hesitate to send me an e-mail--you can get it at the links underneath the article titles.

Wildcat.

mattbballman19

May 23rd 2003, 12:36 AM

Wildcat, I thought more about what you said.

it's not that I don't think independent attestation is a bad criterion at all, it is just that it is not a necessary criterion. Independent attestation is a good tool in historical studies and serves its purpose well.

Regarding Josephus, only the Testimonium Flavianum is called into question. Josephus refers to Jesus elsewhere (Jew. Antiq. 20:200). But the Testimonium is not said to be inauthentic, just colored with Christian language probably by Christian copyists. One Arabic manuscript around the 500's shows the Testimonium as not having the "Christianized" language modern copies have. And there are other factors that point to its authenticity such as the word "tribe" (which is not a Christian designation) and "a wise man" (which no Christian would have said for it falls short of "Lord"), not to mention linguistic ties to the surrounding passages. But no one thinks that Josephus should be used to validate the resurrection because his original language either didn't contain "For he appeared to them the third day alive again, the divine prophets having spoken these things and a myriad of other marvels concerning him" or it contained a version of it such as "It was said that he appeared to them the third day . . ." Josephus is only valuable with respect to other elements of Jesus' life and death.

HOLDING, guess what! I got the envelope back in the mail today. I forgot to put a darn stamp on the letter.:duh: I can be so stupid sometimes.:dunce: Anyway, I'll get that into ASAP!

matt

mattbballman19

May 23rd 2003, 12:41 AM

Thanks again for the kind words. I look forward to the next round. By the way, if you ever have any questions on the content of those articles(or anything else for that matter), don't hesitate to send me an e-mail--you can get it at the links underneath the article titles.

Sounds good. :smile:

Wildcat

May 23rd 2003, 12:48 AM

Ha ha. It appears that we were on here at the same time.

Matt: it's not that I don't think independent attestation is a bad criterion at all, it is just that it is not a necessary criterion. Independent attestation is a good tool in historical studies and serves its purpose well.

Wildcat: I agree with this, but I think you and I agree that there is plenty of independent attestation for the resurrection data.

Matt: But no one thinks that Josephus should be used to validate the resurrection because his original language either didn't contain "For he appeared to them the third day alive again, the divine prophets having spoken these things and a myriad of other marvels concerning him" or it contained a version of it such as "It was said that he appeared to them the third day . . ."

Wildcat: Has this been determined by textual criticism? Again, I haven't delved into this particular issue too deeply.

Matt: Josephus is only valuable with respect to other elements of Jesus' life and death.

Wildcat: Then I think we are in agreement about this particular source. The only place I personally would be skeptical of this reference is in the affirmation of the resurrection data.

Thanks again.

By the way, what's it like to live in Myrtle Beach? I use to go there with my family every year, but nowadays the lodging is so expensive. It is a really nice vacation spot. :cool:

Wildcat.

mattbballman19

May 23rd 2003, 08:54 PM

I agree with this, but I think you and I agree that there is plenty of independent attestation for the resurrection data.

Yep!:cheers:

Has this been determined by textual criticism?

Yep! :cheers:

By the way, what's it like to live in Myrtle Beach? I use to go there with my family every year, but nowadays the lodging is so expensive. It is a really nice vacation spot. :cool:

It's crazy! They're doing all kinds of construction on Highway 501 and new buildings and malls and other tourist traps (no offense :teeth:). I guess due to the increased popularity of this joint, business owners are uping the prices in their facilities. But overall there is more good than bad here. I've lived here since I was 4, so the excitement that the beach should bring is pretty much dulled. But I still like it!:smile:

take care

matt

citizenkyle

May 28th 2003, 04:54 PM

Hello all.

Those who have been following this thread since the beginning may have noticed that I've been MIA as of late. Happily, my wife and I became the proud parents of another baby boy recently. Not so happily, he was born with respiratory complications and spent his first week of life in the Nursery ICU. Which is why I have been out of commission for a couple of weeks. Fortunately, Tyson is now home and doing quite well. So, I can try to catch up on Tweb. :smile:

Wildcat and Matt: I will try to pick up where our conversations left off, but forgive me if my train of thought is a little off track. :smile:

citizenkyle

May 28th 2003, 05:34 PM

Wildcat, the following is the last part of your most recent post directed to me (it's several pages back). I'm working towards a summation of our positions.

Anyway, you are, for the most part correct, with the exception that I believe that there were far greater than a few eyewitnesses to many of the events, not only the post-rez. appearances. The question that remains is whether or not the various escape routes that you posed have any merit. To me they do not. Indeed, the authorities accused the disciples of stealing, but this does not explain their motives for starting the movement in the first place. The other alternatives seem just as unlikely. Plus, if we do not throw the book of Acts just totally out the window, and there seems to be no good reason to do so(all biases aside), there simply does not seem to be a need for the disciples to go back and add things(like the 3 hours of darkness, resurrected saints, temple veil ripping, etc.) since the movement was flourishing without the claims. Doing so would have clearly given the opposition something to hinder the movement that they did not previously have. Again, it is a matter of motives, or lack thereof, that would make claims of a resurrection as well as some of these other events unlikely if they were not true. That's all for now.

It appears that our main disagreement is over the number of witnesses to the events. But I think you will concur that we only have a handful of non-anonymous witnesses--namely the members of Jesus' inner circle. From the standpoint of historical evidence, I think that is a signficant point.

But anyway, it appears you agree that the claims I credit to the early evangelists (listed below) could have been manufactured even if the rez didn't happen.

a) The empty tomb.
b) Appearances to the women and the eleven disciples.
c) Maybe the torn veil and the three hours of darkness.
d) Maybe the angels.
e) Also, we know that Paul was claiming appearances to "over 500" around 50 AD, but we have no way of telling whether this was claimed prior to that.

If that is the case, then even a person who launched a thorough critical investigation (of which I doubt there were many) could not conclude with much confidence that Christianity was true. Such evidence would certainly not win the $1 million James Randi prize. :smile:

So, essentially, you are left with statements to the effect that you can't imagine what the disciples motivation would've been in manufacturing such evidence. I certainly can't give a definitive answer to that question--I can only speculate. But that unanswered question seems a rather flimsy basis for the belief system to which you've dedicated your life.

citizenkyle

May 28th 2003, 06:01 PM

(i) To say that all miracle claims have "woefully insufficient" is to beg the question.

According to my standards of evidence, MOST, if not all, miracle claims are supported by insufficient evidence.

(ii) Your example of the Mormon plates is interesting because that is precisely the sort of confirmation we have of [what I deem to be] credible historical events (i.e., the empty tomb and eyewitness testimony). The resurrection has physical evidence (the tomb) and independent attestation (the layers of eyewitness testimony). But this only shows that physical evidence and independent attestation are sufficient conditions for truth and not necessary conditions.

They are certainly not necessary conditions for TRUTH. For example, an alien spaceship could land in an empty field, sit there for a couple of hours, and then take off again leaving no trace of physical evidence, and have no eyewitness to attest to it. It would be TRUE, but there is no way I would believe it without decisive physical evidence and/or multiple independent attestation. So, those are NOT necessary conditions for truth, but they ARE necessary condition to convince me of of truth.

Incidentally, the rez does not meet these conditions (in my view). Yes, the empty tomb is physical evidence, but it is not DECISIVE--in that the body could've been stolen, moved, etc. And the eyewitness testimony all comes from members of Jesus' inner circle, making it non-independent.

(iii) Of the various Big Bang models, which does one choose? None of them are based on any physical evidence or independent attestation.

You don't think the Big Bang is based on physical evidence? Why do you not consider observation of cosmic expansion acceleration rates, star ages, galaxy ages, abundance of properly aged radioactive elements, microwave background radiation, etc. to be physical evidence?

(iv) Finally, the Socrates example shows exactly why such criteria seems to be motivated by bias rather than objectivity. Why should one reject the evidences for the supernatural elements of Jesus whilst accepting the non-supernatural elements?

Because supernatural events require better evidence than non-supernatural events. At least in order to convince me. All things being equal, I am inclined to give non-supernatural events to benefit of the doubt. This is not bias, it's just critical thinking.

I have laid out what I believe to be proper criteria for justifying historical descriptions.

I can't seem to locate where you laid out such criteria. Would you mind reproducing it for me?

jpholding

May 28th 2003, 06:10 PM

Kyle,

Good to hear the newborn is on the go...didn't something like that also happen with the first child? Or was that someone else?

citizenkyle

May 28th 2003, 06:47 PM

Just to jump in with a point regarding Wildcat and Matt's discussion...

Matt: Your speaking of the existence of that particular independent attestation as that being recorded in the work of Josephus?

Wildcat: Actually no. I believe that the Gospels represent 4 independent witnesses, but Kyle does not count this as independent since the writers were all in the same inner circle, or at least held the same beliefs. He is saying that a work authored by say, Pontius Pilate, would represent independent attestation. However, my argument is that the conversion of skeptics/enemies like Paul and James represents this, and maybe even to a stronger degree than that of someone like Pontius Pilate or Josephus would have been! The only difference is that both of our subjects became Christians, but that's the point--we wouldn't expect a nonChristian to affirm the resurrection for obvious reasons.

Kyle: Paul's conversion does not attest to a physical rez since Paul was converted by a vision, not a physical body. As for James, we do not know if his conversion followed a physical appearance (and certainly do not have him attesting to that fact) . And to suggest that NOTHING could've converted James except a physical appearance is stretching credulity quite liberally.

Your point about not expecting non-Christians to affirm the rez has some merit. After all, anyone who witnessed to rez and was converted would be a Christian and therefore non-independent (according to me). But it's not quite that bad. First off, if there were lots of non-anonymous witnesses from outside the inner circle of Jesus' ministry, it would look much better in terms of attestation. As well, if we had non-Christians reporting the miracles surrounding Jesus' death (but explaining them away in some other terms) that could count as attestation. Indeed, the Jewish polemic about the stolen body DOES count as attestation of the empty tomb. But, of course, to be totally independent, we would need something like the Mormon plates.

citizenkyle

May 28th 2003, 06:56 PM

jpholding:
Good to hear the newborn is on the go...didn't something like that also happen with the first child? Or was that someone else?

Must have been someone else. My first child had no breathing problems. He did have a minor birth defect (hypospadia--look it up on google if you want to know), but that was corrected by surgery.

Anyway, good to see you again JP. Maybe we can start TIF 2 one of these days. :smile:

KingDavid8

May 28th 2003, 08:50 PM

Today @ 06:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=110442#post110442)
citizenkyle:

First off, if there were lots of non-anonymous witnesses from outside the inner circle of Jesus' ministry, it would look much better in terms of attestation.

People like Mark and Luke, perhaps?

As well, if we had non-Christians reporting the miracles surrounding Jesus' death (but explaining them away in some other terms) that could count as attestation.

I forget the details, but wasn't there a pagan source for the 3-hour darkness? Thallus, perhaps? Someone help me out here.

David

Wildcat

May 28th 2003, 09:41 PM

Hi Kyle. It is good to see that you're back. Congratulations on the new birth. I'm glad that everything went well at the NICU.

Thanks also for the responses. I will respond shortly.

King David: I forget the details, but wasn't there a pagan source for the 3-hour darkness? Thallus, perhaps? Someone help me out here.

Wildcat: Yes, and in the reference there is a mention by Phlegon of the exact time period(the three hours) of when it occurred. Glenn Miller I think even mentions that Origen records where pagans tried to rationalize away the darkness as well rather than denying it. Africanus, who is quoting Thallus in the text in question, mentions the earthquake too.

Wildcat.

:wink:

Wildcat

May 28th 2003, 10:37 PM

CitizenKyle: It appears that our main disagreement is over the number of witnesses to the events. But I think you will concur that we only have a handful of non-anonymous witnesses--namely the members of Jesus' inner circle. From the standpoint of historical evidence, I think that is a signficant point.

Wildcat: I think that appears to be the case. However, I believe we'd be going against the data to suggest that many of these events(the darkness, veil ripping, etc.) did not have between hundreds and hundreds of thousands of witnesses, depending on the event(e.g. the post-rez. appearances-500; darkness/veil ripping-hundreds of thousands).

CitizenKyle: But anyway, it appears you agree that the claims I credit to the early evangelists (listed below) could have been manufactured even if the rez didn't happen.

a) The empty tomb.
b) Appearances to the women and the eleven disciples.
c) Maybe the torn veil and the three hours of darkness.
d) Maybe the angels.
e) Also, we know that Paul was claiming appearances to "over 500" around 50 AD, but we have no way of telling whether this was claimed prior to that.

Wildcat: Well, anything is possible I suppose. They could have been manufactured, but I think the probability of that is very low given the data. Even the Jesus-mythers may possibly be correct--maybe a probability of something like 1 in 10^whatever power. Given the data, I just cannot think of a reasonable explanation other than a resurrection. Even if I accepted your odds of one of the alternatives being 1 in a few thousand, it'd still be intellectually suicidal for me to accept an alternative explanation. How many people would bet on something with odds of occurrence being less than 1 in 1,000 chance of happening, barring an inside tip? For those such as yourself, I suppose the anti-supernaturalistic bias would be this inside tip?

CitizenKyle: If that is the case, then even a person who launched a thorough critical investigation (of which I doubt there were many) could not conclude with much confidence that Christianity was true. Such evidence would certainly not win the $1 million James Randi prize.

Wildcat: I disagree completely. I believe many did undertake such an investigation, and I think this is a good explanation for the high proportion of the financially elite that converted. Plus, and sorry for being so repetitive, but I think it is warranted in this case, the social data suggests that many investigations would have been undertaken. It would be my educated guess that the investigators would have done the same thing as we are doing today essentially, although possibly with even more compelling data: Is the tomb empty? Are there eyewitnesses of the veil ripping? Etc. If these tests are passed, the next step the investigator would have to take is to determine how feasible the charge that the disciples stole the body would be, how feasible that the "eclipse" was coincidental in coinciding with Christ's crucifixion, how reliable the eyewitnesses are, etc. In no trial can we be absolutely certain that someone is guilty, even if that person claims to be guilty. We just weigh the evidence and determine the feasibility of alternatives.

CitizenKyle: So, essentially, you are left with statements to the effect that you can't imagine what the disciples motivation would've been in manufacturing such evidence. I certainly can't give a definitive answer to that question--I can only speculate. But that unanswered question seems a rather flimsy basis for the belief system to which you've dedicated your life.

Wildcat: Well, first of all, the resurrection data is simply one of many reasons that I believe in the veracity of Christianity from an objective standpoint. I believe there exists a convergence of evidence. For that matter, unlike many, I'm not totally sure that the resurrection data and the data of the miracles surrounding the crucifixion and resurrection is what I personally find most compelling. However, given the data that we have on the resurrection, I have not received a satisfactory answer for WHY the disciples would have fabricated such events(darkness, ripped veil) to an already flourishing movement, why hundreds of witnesses who allegedly witnessed a resurrection would fabricate such an event that would bring them loads of trouble, and probably dozens of them martyrdom, and simply the extreme improbability of getting away with those kinds of fabrications in a collectivistic society(remember Kyle, it would have been MUCH more difficult to get away with something like that then than it would be now). I also have not seen a historical example that truly parallels the rise of Christianity in the circumstances we are discussing. You mentioned some statistical odds in your debate with JPH, but to statistically evaluate TIF you'd have to go through JPH's list of 17 factors and assign values of the likelihood of Christianity surviving(if it made false claims) in light of each factor. I figure the number we'd end up with would have quite a few zeros after it. Actually, when I think about these factors, I'd find the rejection of Christianity to certainly be a much flimsier position than accepting it.

Finally, I guess I should make a note on the use of evidence since you talked about my personal dedication to Christianity. While I believe apologetics is Biblical, and important, it is ultimately God's work in my life and the positive changes that He has wrought in me as to how I know that Christianity is true. Obviously, I did not use that in this debate(nor would I in any other debate on objective data) since it would only have value to myself, but since you semi-challenged me personally, I thought I'd mention this. Also, while God I feel has given us compelling intellectual reasons for believing in Him in various arenas, I must add that the God of the Bible wants us to come to Him primarily because of a recognition of our spiritual, not intellectual, needs. J.P. Moreland in "The Case for Christ" sums it best:

"....First, I'm not saying, 'Just trust your experience.' I'm saying, 'Use your mind calmly and weigh the evidence, and then let experience be a confirming piece of evidence.' Second, if what this evidence points to is true-that is, if all these lines of evidence really do point to the resurrection of Jesus-the evidence itself begs for an experiential test."

"The experiential test is, 'He's still alive, and I can find out by relating to him.' If you were on a jury and heard enough evidence to convince you of someone's guilt, it wouldn't make sense to stop short of the final step of convicting him. And for people to accept the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus and not take the final step of testing it experientially would be to miss where the evidence is ultimately pointing." (Strobel 256)

Christianity is still a *faith,* but a faith I feel that is intellectually sound as well.

Wildcat.

Wildcat

May 28th 2003, 11:09 PM

Kyle: Paul's conversion does not attest to a physical rez since Paul was converted by a vision, not a physical body. As for James, we do not know if his conversion followed a physical appearance (and certainly do not have him attesting to that fact) . And to suggest that NOTHING could've converted James except a physical appearance is stretching credulity quite liberally.

Wildcat: On Paul, that is true. Of course, then we'd have to assess the feasibility of Paul converting to a religion that he despised if he did not have an authentic vision, not to mention claiming to have this vision with a couple of eyewitnesses present. As for James, are you claiming that the James of I Corinthians 15:7 is a different James than the one in question? Or are you sticking with your beliefs in the possibility of a spiritual rez? If that's the case, we've hit that wall again.

CitizenKyle: Your point about not expecting non-Christians to affirm the rez has some merit. After all, anyone who witnessed to rez and was converted would be a Christian and therefore non-independent (according to me). But it's not quite that bad. First off, if there were lots of non-anonymous witnesses from outside the inner circle of Jesus' ministry, it would look much better in terms of attestation. As well, if we had non-Christians reporting the miracles surrounding Jesus' death (but explaining them away in some other terms) that could count as attestation. Indeed, the Jewish polemic about the stolen body DOES count as attestation of the empty tomb. But, of course, to be totally independent, we would need something like the Mormon plates.

Wildcat: As I had mentioned on the post responding to King David, there is strong evidence, thanks to the work of Miller, that there was VERY WIDESPREAD rationalizations of the darkness occurring in ancient circles, and not denials of it occurring. I think Origen and certainly Africanus attest to this. That would include the earthquake as well. Also, I saw a small piece by Miller that provides some interesting, *indirect* evidence of the veil-ripping incident. This latter piece would not be compelling in itself, but is still quite interesting.

If you are looking for absolute evidence, Kyle, I'm afraid that it will not ever be there for you unless you do as J.P. Moreland suggests and give Jesus an "experiential try." I feel that if God wanted us to have absolute evidence, He'd do something like sit visibly on a giant throne in the sky. Then, however, serving Him would be by compulsion. Absolute evidence would also be a form of compulsion, IMO. God gives us more evidence than we need, IMO, to establish a solid, intellectual foundation for our faith, but He still wants us to ultimately recognize His existence through nature(Romans 1), and *seek* a relationship with Him because of a recognition of our spiritual needs(Matthew 11:28).

By the way, my cats have recently signed a couple of 7'2" giants for the upcoming season. Looking good for next year. :wink:

Wildcat.

Ethos

May 28th 2003, 11:17 PM

And if the first part is valid, then the second part would have to be, to fill the holes in the first part, right? Anyway, go to!

http://www.baseinstitute.org/Sinai_1.html

Ethos

May 28th 2003, 11:20 PM

Kyle,
I am soo glad everything worked out okay with your baby! Congratulations! You must be so proud!

Wildcat

May 28th 2003, 11:21 PM

Triphicus, thank you so much for your kind note.

God bless you too. :smile:

Wildcat.

Wildcat

May 28th 2003, 11:50 PM

By the way J.P., have you seen your latest reviewer of "Mormon Defenders"? I wasn't aware that Spong and Mack represented the general tide of NT scholarship? :teeth:

Wildcat.

jpholding

May 29th 2003, 10:34 AM

Kyle: Yes, that was you I was remembering. I recalled that there was some problem, but not what it was.

Wildcat: You mean the Amazon review by "Pointless"? :rofl:

Jezz

May 29th 2003, 10:52 AM

Wildcat:
Wildcat: Yes, and in the reference there is a mention by Phlegon of the exact time period(the three hours) of when it occurred. Glenn Miller I think even mentions that Origen records where pagans tried to rationalize away the darkness as well rather than denying it. Africanus, who is quoting Thallus in the text in question, mentions the earthquake too.
The internet is a wonderful thing...

Did a search for "Phlegon", this is what I found:

http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/hist/phlegon.html
http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/hist/thallus.html

Unfortunately we don't actually have copies of Phlegon's or Thallus' work - we've only got references to them by Christian apologists of the time. But I think the evidence is certainly better than nothing... if only we had copies of Phlegon's work...

This one is useful, for example:

"Phlegon mentioned the eclipse which took place during the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus and no other (eclipse); it is clear that he did not know from his sources about any (similar) eclipse in previous times . . . and this is shown by the historical account of Tiberius Caesar." De. opif. mund. II21

The writers (both Origen and Philopon recorded this) claim that Tiberius Caesar's own historical accounts made reference to the strange eclipse. Would they really be making false claims about public documents written by famous people? For that matter, would he be making false claims about a strange eclipse, when anyone in the land would have remembered it? Who wouldn't remember the sun going out? Can the fact that apologists made reference to such an event, and people still believed them, be explained away by gullibility?

Wildcat

May 29th 2003, 10:53 AM

JP: You mean the Amazon review by "Pointless"?

Wildcat: Aye. At least his biases didn't result in him giving you a bad review. Still, I wonder how someone could be misinformed to the point where one would think that ideas that would make even the Jesus Seminar cringe is representative of general NT scholarship.

Wildcat.

Wildcat

May 29th 2003, 10:57 AM

Hey Jezz,

Thanks for the info.! Go on to Glenn Miller's site and look up Thallus. His research on it is very thought-provoking. Also, at Tekton, you can type in "Thallus" and see a piece we did in collating the arguments of Miller and Carrier(a skeptical piece) on Africanus's reference. Overall, the positive data seems to be by far the strongest, IMO.

Wildcat.

citizenkyle

May 29th 2003, 11:14 AM

Hey KingDavid,

People like Mark and Luke, perhaps?

Mark and Luke would certainly be considered part of Jesus' inner circle.

I forget the details, but wasn't there a pagan source for the 3-hour darkness? Thallus, perhaps?

That is something I need to research a little better. However, I have acknowledged that the occurence of an eclipse is a strong possibility. Where I am skeptical is that the eclipse coincided precisely with Jesus crucifixion. Indeed, I don't think it would've even had to occur on the same day as the crucifixion, in order to be effectively hijacked by later Christians. But I will look into this matter in greater detail.

citizenkyle

May 29th 2003, 11:17 AM

I am soo glad everything worked out okay with your baby! Congratulations! You must be so proud!

Thank you, Triphicus. We are elated that he is home safe and sound.

Wildcat

May 29th 2003, 02:12 PM

CitizenKyle: Mark and Luke would certainly be considered part of Jesus' inner circle.

Wildcat: They would be? Even though they were not disciples? I was assuming that you mean Christ's 11 disciples primarily when you speak of the "inner circle." At any rate, I believe their testimony represents attestation outside of what I would define as Christ's "inner circle," particularly Luke since he claims, or at least strongly implies, at the beginning of his work to have evaluated the various eyewitness testimonies. This strongly suggests that he utilized multiple sources. Since Mark received his info. primarily from Peter, an argument of him representing independent attestation, outside of the fact that he converted, MAY be more difficult to defend--any thoughts on that JP, or anyone else?

Wildcat.

citizenkyle

May 30th 2003, 01:42 PM

Hey Wildcat.

Wildcat: I think that appears to be the case. However, I believe we'd be going against the data to suggest that many of these events(the darkness, veil ripping, etc.) did not have between hundreds and hundreds of thousands of witnesses, depending on the event(e.g. the post-rez. appearances-500; darkness/veil ripping-hundreds of thousands).

Hmmm. Since 1 Cor. 15 is all the data we have on the 500, I don't think it's too outrageous to go against that. As for hundreds of thousands witnessing the veil ripping, I'm not sure about that either. I'm hesitant to express a strong opinion here because I am really quite ignorant of the temple layout and customs, but I have some questions. Where was the veil located? Inside the temple? If so, how many people could've actually fit in the area where they would be positioned to see the veil? Was the veil open to public viewing? How quickly was the veil replaced? These questions must be answered before we can make any sort of estimate on the number of witnesses. Even then, hundreds of thousands seems adsurdly high, since even if the veil was in the middle of an open field, it's unlikely that more than a few hundred in a jostling crowd could get a view of it being ripped. Although, if it was left on display for a long time, I suppose hundreds of thousands could check out the aftermath.

Wildcat: Well, anything is possible I suppose. They could have been manufactured, but I think the probability of that is very low given the data. Even the Jesus-mythers may possibly be correct--maybe a probability of something like 1 in 10^whatever power. Given the data, I just cannot think of a reasonable explanation other than a resurrection. Even if I accepted your odds of one of the alternatives being 1 in a few thousand, it'd still be intellectually suicidal for me to accept an alternative explanation. How many people would bet on something with odds of occurrence being less than 1 in 1,000 chance of happening, barring an inside tip? For those such as yourself, I suppose the anti-supernaturalistic bias would be this inside tip?

It's funny you mention odds, because I must ask, what are the odds that a man would be resurrected from the dead? You might say that they are very good when that man is God incarnate. But that just begs the question: what are the odds that, out of all the men who have claimed godhood, Jesus was actually legit? As a betting man, I'll let the naturalitic explanations ride.

Wildcat: I disagree completely. I believe many did undertake such an investigation, and I think this is a good explanation for the high proportion of the financially elite that converted. Plus, and sorry for being so repetitive, but I think it is warranted in this case, the social data suggests that many investigations would have been undertaken. It would be my educated guess that the investigators would have done the same thing as we are doing today essentially, although possibly with even more compelling data: Is the tomb empty? Are there eyewitnesses of the veil ripping? Etc. If these tests are passed, the next step the investigator would have to take is to determine how feasible the charge that the disciples stole the body would be, how feasible that the "eclipse" was coincidental in coinciding with Christ's crucifixion, how reliable the eyewitnesses are, etc. In no trial can we be absolutely certain that someone is guilty, even if that person claims to be guilty. We just weigh the evidence and determine the feasibility of alternatives.

Ok. Suppose you are a random citizen of Ephesus a decade or so after Jesus' death. One day a guy wanders into town named Paul. He tells you all about the messiah named Jesus Christ who was God and proved it by his resurrection from the dead. Sounds intriguing, and you have a few sesterces to your name, so you swing down to Jerusalem to check things out. You are able to trackdown a handful of Jesus' disciples who assure you that he was rezzed and they saw it with their own eyes. On the other hand, various other people suggest to you that the disciples are deluded or running a hoax. You take a trip by the empty tomb, but that doesn't tell you much. Some prostitute there claims that she saw some angels by the tomb after the rez, but you're not too sure of her sanity. The disciples you speak to also circulate some stories about a 3 hour darkness, and you do remember an eclipse a while back, but can't pinpoint the date.

That is realistically the kind of investigation one could undertake. Are you teling me that would be enough to convince you of the veracity of the rez?

Wildcat: Well, first of all, the resurrection data is simply one of many reasons that I believe in the veracity of Christianity from an objective standpoint. I believe there exists a convergence of evidence. For that matter, unlike many, I'm not totally sure that the resurrection data and the data of the miracles surrounding the crucifixion and resurrection is what I personally find most compelling.

Fair enough, I suppose I was being presumptuous. I apologize.

However, given the data that we have on the resurrection, I have not received a satisfactory answer for WHY the disciples would have fabricated such events(darkness, ripped veil) to an already flourishing movement,

Surely you've seen tall tales grow before. Adding mythic trappings to an event is not uncommon. And if the movement was already flourishing it would not be terribly risky to do so. Even if a few people called the evangelists out on their fabrications, I'll bet that had little effect on the believers. Look at how little effect skeptics today have on believers of all stripes (UFOologists, psychic watchers, etc).

why hundreds of witnesses who allegedly witnessed a resurrection would fabricate such an event that would bring them loads of trouble, and probably dozens of them martyrdom,

This is a bit of an unjustified extrapolation on the scant basis of 1 Cor. 15. We have no idea who any of the 500 were, or what might have happened to them.

Finally, I guess I should make a note on the use of evidence since you talked about my personal dedication to Christianity. While I believe apologetics is Biblical, and important, it is ultimately God's work in my life and the positive changes that He has wrought in me as to how I know that Christianity is true. Obviously, I did not use that in this debate(nor would I in any other debate on objective data) since it would only have value to myself, but since you semi-challenged me personally, I thought I'd mention this. Also, while God I feel has given us compelling intellectual reasons for believing in Him in various arenas, I must add that the God of the Bible wants us to come to Him primarily because of a recognition of our spiritual, not intellectual, needs.

That's cool. It's just not for me.

"....First, I'm not saying, 'Just trust your experience.' I'm saying, 'Use your mind calmly and weigh the evidence, and then let experience be a confirming piece of evidence.' Second, if what this evidence points to is true-that is, if all these lines of evidence really do point to the resurrection of Jesus-the evidence itself begs for an experiential test."

That brings up a question. Suppose I feel the evidence for Christianity is strong enough to give it an experiential test. But after that test, I feel no particular closeness to God, and do not feel that he has wrought any positive changes in my life. Would I then be justified in rejecting Christianity?

Wildcat

May 30th 2003, 04:17 PM

Hi Kyle. How are things going with your newest family member?

CitizenKyle: Hmmm. Since 1 Cor. 15 is all the data we have on the 500, I don't think it's too outrageous to go against that.

Wildcat: I guess it is a matter of opinion in which we may have to agree to disagree. Here are some reasons that I'm persuaded that the creed is vastly significant. Since this was a creed that Paul had said that he had received, it is reasonable to assert that it goes back before his letter to the Corinthians. Most scholars tell us between 2-12 years. I haven't done much research on it, but since it is considered a creed the data suggests that it was in widespread use by the disciples well before Paul sent it to Corinth. JPH told me once on an e-mail that it was probably a "training tool" for initial converts as well. With the early date, in a collectivistic society, I do know that one had certainly better not mention 500 witnesses and be unable to produce.

CitizenKyle: As for hundreds of thousands witnessing the veil ripping, I'm not sure about that either. I'm hesitant to express a strong opinion here because I am really quite ignorant of the temple layout and customs, but I have some questions.

Wildcat: Yeah I maybe should have qualified that remark somewhat better. I maintain the hundreds of thousands for the darkness and included the veil in the same parentheses although it is possible the latter was held to just thousands, possibly even hundreds if the guards were crafty enough, but since they were unable to hide it from the Gospel writers, I'd say closer to the former.

CitizenKyle: Where was the veil located? Inside the temple? If so, how many people could've actually fit in the area where they would be positioned to see the veil? Was the veil open to public viewing?

Wildcat: I'm honestly not too familiar with the Temple's construction either, but the outside of the veil should have been seen by at least some on the inside. It was inside the temple, I'd say as many as hundreds were in the Temple when the event occurred, but the reason I inflate the number to thousands(at least), and quite reasonably, IMO, is that word would have gotten out and many would have gone in to "check it out." How many this number could be multiplied by is dependent on how quickly the authorities could have done something about it.

CitizenKyle: It's funny you mention odds, because I must ask, what are the odds that a man would be resurrected from the dead? You might say that they are very good when that man is God incarnate. But that just begs the question: what are the odds that, out of all the men who have claimed godhood, Jesus was actually legit? As a betting man, I'll let the naturalitic explanations ride.

Wildcat: This is where our respective biases come to play I believe. I believe that Christ's resurrection confirms His claim to Deity rather than trying to determine the odds in advance. Of course, then the skeptic is presented with the Trilemma if he/she tries to argue that Jesus was wrong about His claim to Deity as well, but that's another story. I think though, it is my position, to evaluate the odds after an occurrence and not presume that anything is impossible in advance. Let me give you a "for-instance." Consider the example I mentioned earlier about the friend's father who was healed at the touch of the anointing oil by the preacher. If I were to guess up front what the odds of the cancer that had enveloped him was simply going to disappear on the touch, then I'd be safe to bet against it. However, now that he WAS cured, I evaluate the data, which is that the man was dying of cancer, he claimed to have had a "sheet" lifted from him on the touch of the oil, he told the doctors before they even tested him that the cancer was gone, and the doctors confirmed it by running tests on him though they were perplexed at what happened, and can only conclude that a miracle happened.

What are the odds, I ask myself, that a cancer that is widespread enough to kill the man, would go completely into remission just within seconds? The same is true with Christ's resurrection and the data supporting it. Now, someone such as yourself would still be skeptical, but I personally do not see any reason to be skeptical if God exists. The presence of miracles, like Christ's resurrection, IMO, prove that God exists. I think it is only fair in debates if the atheist considers the *possibility* that God exists, and hence miracles possibly exist if the data is powerful enough, and contrarily the Christian considers the *possiblity* that God does not exist. A truly open person should not make any assumptions in this particular regard or the wall is up before the debate begins. Of course, we've talked about your particular reasons for an anti-supernaturalistic bias, but this begs a few questions.

CitizenKyle: Ok. Suppose you are a random citizen of Ephesus a decade or so after Jesus' death. One day a guy wanders into town named Paul. He tells you all about the messiah named Jesus Christ who was God and proved it by his resurrection from the dead. Sounds intriguing, and you have a few sesterces to your name, so you swing down to Jerusalem to check things out. You are able to trackdown a handful of Jesus' disciples who assure you that he was rezzed and they saw it with their own eyes. On the other hand, various other people suggest to you that the disciples are deluded or running a hoax. You take a trip by the empty tomb, but that doesn't tell you much. Some prostitute there claims that she saw some angels by the tomb after the rez, but you're not too sure of her sanity. The disciples you speak to also circulate some stories about a 3 hour darkness, and you do remember an eclipse a while back, but can't pinpoint the date.

Wildcat: By the way, I personally have studied the darkness and I believe the data indicates that one could have pinpointed the hours. It may have even been in the public archives. Plus, it seems that we'd have more people, as you suggested, denying it coincided with the crucifixion rather than rationalizing it away as an eclipse. A good place to start would be the web if you're interested. Carrier and Miller have done pieces on it and we have a collation on Tekton.

CitizenKyle: That is realistically the kind of investigation one could undertake. Are you teling me that would be enough to convince you of the veracity of the rez?

Wildcat: If I only had the data that you mentioned, I'm not sure, even though denying it would present me only with a "conspiracy theory" scenario against the disciples which wouldn't make sense because of other factors we've discussed. I'd definitely go to the Temple, or at least, ask eyewitnesses, perhaps on the next Passover(or whatever), if the events truly happened that particular year. I'd ask for the names of some of the 500, etc. This data was apparently compelling to many, even in Jerusalem where all of these events are said to have transpired. Plus, there are the other factors as well not related to the crucifixion and resurrection miracles that would need to be checked.

CitizenKyle: Fair enough, I suppose I was being presumptuous. I apologize.

Wildcat: No problem.

>>However, given the data that we have on the resurrection, I >>have not received a satisfactory answer for WHY the disciples >>would have fabricated such events(darkness, ripped veil) to an >>already flourishing movement,

CitizenKyle: Surely you've seen tall tales grow before. Adding mythic trappings to an event is not uncommon.

Wildcat: Within 20-60 years? In as much as I'm aware, it usually requires a century or longer after the eyewitnesses are dead.

CitizenKyle: And if the movement was already flourishing it would not be terribly risky to do so.

Wildcat: Although pointless. I think that this claim would have more veracity if it was derived, say, from one of the apocryphal gospels, or some other source well after any eyewitnesses would have been dead(say, circa 150 A.D. or so).

CitizenKyle: Even if a few people called the evangelists out on their fabrications, I'll bet that had little effect on the believers. Look at how little effect skeptics today have on believers of all stripes (UFOologists, psychic watchers, etc).

Wildcat: Well, as we have been saying, UFOologists and psychic watchers in most cases do not have to endure the same kind of problems as the early Christians did. Plus, I still think we're talking about untestable claims with the examples you mentioned. A skeptic could say, "Look, there haven't been any UFO sightings for decades"(or whatever), but that doesn't negate any past sightings that may have occurred or the hope for future sightings. In addition, I'm not sure that being called out on fabrications that are demonstrable would be untroublesome like you suggest. Remember the type of society and the domino effect that this would most certainly have caused.

>>why hundreds of witnesses who allegedly witnessed a >>resurrection would fabricate such an event that would bring >>them loads of trouble, and probably dozens of them >>martyrdom,

CitizenKyle: This is a bit of an unjustified extrapolation on the scant basis of 1 Cor. 15. We have no idea who any of the 500 were, or what might have happened to them.

Wildcat: Well, we know for sure that for 12 of them this was the case, so maybe one dozen instead of dozens. This is more than enough for me to be impressed. You are correct that we don't know who the 500 were, but given that 11 of 12 disciples were martyred, I don't think it is a stretch to suggest perhaps that a few dozen of the 500 suffered the same fate. That is a very generous proportion as well given the proportion of disciples that were martyred. And, of course, as noted earlier, I would consider the evidence from the creed far from scant.

CitzenKyle: That brings up a question. Suppose I feel the evidence for Christianity is strong enough to give it an experiential test. But after that test, I feel no particular closeness to God, and do not feel that he has wrought any positive changes in my life. Would I then be justified in rejecting Christianity?

Wildcat: Well, of course, that is a loaded question since I believe that nobody is justified in rejecting it. There are plenty of variables in this as well. Are you truly sincere? Do you want to change? Did you give it enough time? Are you rejecting Christ or Christianity(because perhaps of hypocrites)? Did you give it up because of something bad that happened? I personally believe that the evidential value of personal change lies only with that person. However, as I had mentioned, I only brought that up since I felt semi-challenged by your comment.

Take care.

Wildcat.

jpholding

May 31st 2003, 03:21 PM

Hey Bud,

Not much I can add to what Wildcat is offering :thumb: but I had to say something to this:

That brings up a question. Suppose I feel the evidence for Christianity is strong enough to give it an experiential test. But after that test, I feel no particular closeness to God, and do not feel that he has wrought any positive changes in my life. Would I then be justified in rejecting Christianity?

No -- and for a reason that may surprise you, though not from me. That whole expectation of closeness, etc. is a modern invention of our individiualist society. All this about "a personal relationship with Jesus" is modern -- it's not in the NT and was not part of early evangelism.

Plus knowing you as I do I don't suspect you'd have much to change. :thumb: After all, if Ted Bundy converts it's different than if Gandhi does. One does not convert to become different, but because the evidence compels their conclusion. Unfortunately for far too many that "evidence" is little more than a feeling as they walk down the aisle. It is saving faith, I think, but not very useful in the long run.

citizenkyle

May 31st 2003, 07:16 PM

JP: No -- and for a reason that may surprise you, though not from me. That whole expectation of closeness, etc. is a modern invention of our individiualist society. All this about "a personal relationship with Jesus" is modern -- it's not in the NT and was not part of early evangelism.

So then, would you disagree with Wildcat about the importance of an experiential test, and instead advocate belief on the basis of the evidence alone?

citizenkyle

May 31st 2003, 07:36 PM

Kyle: Paul's conversion does not attest to a physical rez since Paul was converted by a vision, not a physical body. As for James, we do not know if his conversion followed a physical appearance (and certainly do not have him attesting to that fact) . And to suggest that NOTHING could've converted James except a physical appearance is stretching credulity quite liberally.

Wildcat: On Paul, that is true. Of course, then we'd have to assess the feasibility of Paul converting to a religion that he despised if he did not have an authentic vision, not to mention claiming to have this vision with a couple of eyewitnesses present.

Yes, but how can we trust Paul to distinguish an authentic vision from an inauthentic one?

As for James, are you claiming that the James of I Corinthians 15:7 is a different James than the one in question?

No, I assume it's the same one. What I am saying is that we do not know if James' conversion was a result of the appearance, or if he converted beforehand. I am also saying that we do not have James attesting to the appearance, but rather Paul attesting to it for him.

Wildcat: As I had mentioned on the post responding to King David, there is strong evidence, thanks to the work of Miller, that there was VERY WIDESPREAD rationalizations of the darkness occurring in ancient circles, and not denials of it occurring. I think Origen and certainly Africanus attest to this. That would include the earthquake as well.

I have been looking into this over the last few days. Admittedly, I am no expert on this matter, but from reading Miller, Carrier and your comparison, it appears there are just too many ambiguities involved in JA's reference to Thallus to consider it STRONG evidence. In my estimation, the main two problems are these:

1. Despite Miller's assertion to the contrary, it does not appear certain at all that Thallus was tying the eclipse he mentioned to the death of Christ. Surely, JA was doing so, but this connection could've easily been contrived.

2. Even if Thallus was tying the eclipse to Christ, we are completely unaware of the context. IOW, Thallus could've easily been saying something like the following: "Christians report a three hour darkness coinciding with crucifixion of their Christ. I doubt this story, but if true, it was assuredly just a coincidental eclipse." That would fit perfectly with JA's criticism of Thallus' eclipse assessment.

By the way, my cats have recently signed a couple of 7'2" giants for the upcoming season. Looking good for next year. :wink:

Ah, the optimistic mantra of the sports fan--next year, next year... :smile:

citizenkyle

May 31st 2003, 08:21 PM

CitizenKyle: Mark and Luke would certainly be considered part of Jesus' inner circle.

Wildcat: They would be? Even though they were not disciples?

Oops! When I wrote Mark, I was thinking of Matthew. Of course, that still doesn't explain my boneheaded inclusion of Luke in the inner circle. However, my initial point still stands. The point was this:

"...if there were lots of non-anonymous witnesses from outside the inner circle of Jesus' ministry, it would look much better in terms of attestation."

KingDavid replied that Mark and Luke would be such examples. But Mark and Luke didn't witness the events they describe (or at least there is no reason to suppose that they did), but rather would've heard about them from the inner circle. So the non-anonymous WITNESSSES all came from Jesus' inner circle.

citizenkyle

May 31st 2003, 08:49 PM

Hey Wildcat.

Hi Kyle. How are things going with your newest family member?

Great. He is an angel-baby so far. Although I do realize that human-angel hybrids are unBiblical. :smile:

Wildcat: I guess it is a matter of opinion in which we may have to agree to disagree. Here are some reasons that I'm persuaded that the creed is vastly significant. Since this was a creed that Paul had said that he had received, it is reasonable to assert that it goes back before his letter to the Corinthians. Most scholars tell us between 2-12 years. I haven't done much research on it, but since it is considered a creed the data suggests that it was in widespread use by the disciples well before Paul sent it to Corinth. JPH told me once on an e-mail that it was probably a "training tool" for initial converts as well. With the early date, in a collectivistic society, I do know that one had certainly better not mention 500 witnesses and be unable to produce.

I guess I'm just not convinced that a collectivistic society equals a critical society. Have you read Carrier's "Kooks and Quacks in the Roman Empire"?

Wildcat: I'm honestly not too familiar with the Temple's construction either, but the outside of the veil should have been seen by at least some on the inside. It was inside the temple, I'd say as many as hundreds were in the Temple when the event occurred, but the reason I inflate the number to thousands(at least), and quite reasonably, IMO, is that word would have gotten out and many would have gone in to "check it out." How many this number could be multiplied by is dependent on how quickly the authorities could have done something about it.

We've got a lot of unknowns here. Anyone else here have more specific info on the location of the veil, the layout/dimensions of the temple, and the customs for viewing the veil? What about the likelihood that the torn veil would be rapidly replaced? Anyone?

Wildcat: This is where our respective biases come to play I believe. I believe that Christ's resurrection confirms His claim to Deity rather than trying to determine the odds in advance. Of course, then the skeptic is presented with the Trilemma if he/she tries to argue that Jesus was wrong about His claim to Deity as well, but that's another story. I think though, it is my position, to evaluate the odds after an occurrence and not presume that anything is impossible in advance. Let me give you a "for-instance." Consider the example I mentioned earlier about the friend's father who was healed at the touch of the anointing oil by the preacher. If I were to guess up front what the odds of the cancer that had enveloped him was simply going to disappear on the touch, then I'd be safe to bet against it. However, now that he WAS cured, I evaluate the data, which is that the man was dying of cancer, he claimed to have had a "sheet" lifted from him on the touch of the oil, he told the doctors before they even tested him that the cancer was gone, and the doctors confirmed it by running tests on him though they were perplexed at what happened, and can only conclude that a miracle happened.

Unfortunately, that sort of reasoning leads itself to the error of "counting the hits and ignoring the misses". IOW, how many cancer victims have been annointed or "touched" only to perish from cancer anyway? When only one out of thousands actually gets healed, it is careless to reason backwards from the healing and attribute it to the annointing.

I think it is only fair in debates if the atheist considers the *possibility* that God exists, and hence miracles possibly exist if the data is powerful enough, and contrarily the Christian considers the *possiblity* that God does not exist.

Fair enough. I agree.

Wildcat: Within 20-60 years? In as much as I'm aware, it usually requires a century or longer after the eyewitnesses are dead.

Perhaps not if the eyewitneses are adding the trappings.

Wildcat: Well, as we have been saying, UFOologists and psychic watchers in most cases do not have to endure the same kind of problems as the early Christians did.

That's not the point. The point is that many believers are skeptic-proof. They just don't care what damning data skeptics have--they are going to believe regardless.

Wildcat: Well, we know for sure that for 12 of them this was the case, so maybe one dozen instead of dozens.

Do we know that for sure? I thought we only had Peter's confirmed martyrdom, and the rest were merely traditions of the Church. Am I wrong here?

mattbballman19

May 31st 2003, 11:28 PM

Yo Kyle!

Wildcat and Matt: I will try to pick up where our conversations left off, but forgive me if my train of thought is a little off track. :smile:

No problemo! Forgive me for not getting to this sooner. I have been caught up in studying for a philosophy test for this summer class that I'm taking. It's quite intensive if you know what I mean.:read: But, anyway, welcome back! Let us diveth back into the issueth.:teeth:

(i) To say that something is "woefully insufficient" is just a reflection of personal conviction, so there isn't more to add here.

(ii) If your anti-supernatural criteria are necessary conditions for you to accept something, all the worse for that criteria. Secondly, the empty tomb evidence constitutes decisive power in favor of the resurrection being an explanation. Now, it is not that the resurrection is considered in a void, but that the resurrection far surpasses any rival naturalistic explanations. Moreover, there is no motive for stealing Jesus' body because the Jews didn't believe in the isolated resurrection of any single individual. For them to concoct something (and the jaded view that the disciples stole the body is just a conspiracy theory) like a resurrection contradicts Jewish beliefs about the afterlife. According to the criterion of embarrassment and the criterion of dissimilarity, the resurrection stands strong in the historian's technique.

(iii) My query about the Big Bang was not about the fact of the Big Bang itself, but the Big Bang models -- e.g., Inflation, Vacuum Fluctuations, Quantum Models, etc... None of these theories have any physical evidence that prefers one over another. These theories are postulated out of the sheer need to address cosmological anomalies such as the flatness and horizon problems. But the absence of physical evidence does not mean that none of them are true. However, the presence of any physical evidence for one of them might be sufficient to render one true.

(iv) That we should prefer naturalistic events to supernatural ones ceteris paribus I completely agree. But when all naturalistic explanations fail and a supernaturalistic explanations better passes the historian's criteria, then there is no reason to reject the supernatural explanation. All I'm arguing for is that supernatural explanations should not be ruled out because they are supernatural explanations.

matt

Jezz

June 1st 2003, 12:53 AM

citizenkyle:
It's funny you mention odds, because I must ask, what are the odds that a man would be resurrected from the dead? You might say that they are very good when that man is God incarnate. But that just begs the question: what are the odds that, out of all the men who have claimed godhood, Jesus was actually legit? As a betting man, I'll let the naturalitic explanations ride.
A simple question Kyle:

Why is the resurrection not a naturalistic explanation? How do you define "naturalism" in a way that objectively excludes the resurrection as an explanation? I've tried - every definition either forces you to use a subjective judgement about what's supernatural, or forces you to use a definition of "natural" that doesn't exclude the resurrection. I suggest you try this little exercise for yourself.

Ok. Suppose you are a random citizen of Ephesus a decade or so after Jesus' death. One day a guy wanders into town named Paul. He tells you all about the messiah named Jesus Christ who was God and proved it by his resurrection from the dead. Sounds intriguing, and you have a few sesterces to your name, so you swing down to Jerusalem to check things out. You are able to trackdown a handful of Jesus' disciples who assure you that he was rezzed and they saw it with their own eyes. On the other hand, various other people suggest to you that the disciples are deluded or running a hoax. You take a trip by the empty tomb, but that doesn't tell you much. Some prostitute there claims that she saw some angels by the tomb after the rez, but you're not too sure of her sanity. The disciples you speak to also circulate some stories about a 3 hour darkness, and you do remember an eclipse a while back, but can't pinpoint the date.

That is realistically the kind of investigation one could undertake. Are you teling me that would be enough to convince you of the veracity of the rez?
Suppose Paul also points out places in the OT where Jesus' resurrection was actually predicted, hundreds or thousands of years earlier. An example is Psalm 22, which contains a pretty accurate description of a crucifiction. Not only was this Psalm written before Jesus' crucifiction, it was written hundreds of years before the first crucifiction.

This is another example of the "convergence of evidence" that Wildcat is talking about.

Surely you've seen tall tales grow before. Adding mythic trappings to an event is not uncommon. And if the movement was already flourishing it would not be terribly risky to do so. Even if a few people called the evangelists out on their fabrications, I'll bet that had little effect on the believers. Look at how little effect skeptics today have on believers of all stripes (UFOologists, psychic watchers, etc).
In how many of those sects did their own leaders encourage them to be skeptical? Modern sects today only survive because their leaders both don't make testable claims, and discourage testing of those claims that are testable. And even then, they don't last long - even when the external pressure against them is mainly intellectual (compared with the early Christians, who were subjected to shame and physical torture). The early Christian leaders encouraged people to be skeptical and testing of their claims. Your analogy to modern-day sects doesn't hold, for these reasons.

That's cool. It's just not for me.
This is actually what your position boils down to.

There is always an alternative explanation for any given set of observations. Any time someone provides evidence of a round Earth to a flat-Earther, they find an alternative explanation (no matter how strained). The only real reason they do so is because a round Earth is "just not for them".

But let's look at the big picture:

-There has been a lot of evidence brought forward in this thread that supports a resurrection.
-There is a lot more evidence that supports a resurrection that hasn't been brought forward in this thread.
-The only piece of evidence that you have against the resurrection is the observation that it has never happened before or since.

But using "it's never happened before" as a reason is not really evidence. If this was an argument, then Christianity has another piece of evidence backing it up - namely, no religion has started up before or since under such impossible conditions before, and survived...

Jezz

June 1st 2003, 03:33 AM

citizenkyle:
I have been looking into this over the last few days. Admittedly, I am no expert on this matter, but from reading Miller, Carrier and your comparison, it appears there are just too many ambiguities involved in JA's reference to Thallus to consider it STRONG evidence. In my estimation, the main two problems are these:

1. Despite Miller's assertion to the contrary, it does not appear certain at all that Thallus was tying the eclipse he mentioned to the death of Christ. Surely, JA was doing so, but this connection could've easily been contrived.
There are some problems with your explain-away of this data.

-You have ignored JA's reference to Phlegon:
"Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth--manifestly that one of which we speak." We learn that Phlegon recorded two facts:
1. The total eclipse occured at a full moon. This is sufficient to establish that it was not a normal total eclipse, which always happens at the time of a new moon (as JA himself noted).
2. The total eclipse occured lasted for three hours. This, too, is sufficient to establish that it was not a normal total eclipse (as the educated of the time would probably have known).
3. Phlegon puts the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar.

The Phlegon account is also supported by this quote in one of Origen's works:
"Phlegon mentioned the eclipse which took place during the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus and no other (eclipse); it is clear that he did not know from his sources about any (similar) eclipse in previous times . . . and this is shown by the historical account of Tiberius Caesar." De. opif. mund. II21

Note that according to this quote, Phelgon mentioned no eclipses other than the special three-hour one. clearly he thought it significantly different from normal occurrences.

Interestingly, this quote also implies that Tiberius Caesar himself recorded the event.

Now the Bible records the same time-of-day/duration for the eclipse. It also records that the crucifixion happened at Passover (which is celebrated at a full moon). And it records that it happened in the time of Tiberius Caesar - again in agreement with Phlegon. Unless you want to conclude that there were two such anomalous eclipses, both during the reign of Tiberius Caesar, you'll have to conclude that they are referring to the same eclipse. Therefore, we have an extra-biblical reference confirming a strange eclipse during the reign of Tiberius Caesar.

-There remains the question of whether or not the strange eclipse happened on some day other than Jesus' crucifixion, and the early Christians created the connection. If this was the case, then for the story to be accepted as evidence, people would have to forget the real date that the darkness occurred. You asserted that this is a possibility in an earlier post. However, I fail to see how this could be the case. The Bible associates the event with the celebration of Passover - the most important festival in the Jewish calendar. I must admit, I cannot remember the exact dates of any of the eclipses I have seen. But I can say for a fact that none of them happened on Christmas Day. Therefore, if I read a newspaper article that claimed a total eclipse happened during my lifetime on a Christmas Day in a city in which I was living at the time, then I would know that that account was false. And you wouldn't have to be particularly educated to know that.

So, even if the Biblical account referred to a normal total eclipse (which it seems it wasn't), I find it impossible to accept that the connection (at least down to the date) was contrived. If it was, any Jew (and many a Gentile) of the time would have known it was wrong. I therefore think it very safe to say that the Gospels could not have made up the fact that the strange eclipse occurred at Passover.

-So I have established that the eclipse must have happened at the Passover. However, there still remains the question of whether or not the eclipse occurred in the same year that the Gospels claimed. Well, I mentioned above that I cannot remember the exact date on which any of the eclipses I have observed actually happened. However, I can remember the year in which they occurred. And none of these were even special eclipses, or coinciding with special dates - I am sure that if an unsual (ie, 3 hour, full moon) eclipse happened on a special day (ie, Passover), I would be more inclined to remember the exact year in which it happened. I find it very hard to believe that anyone would be wrong in remembering the year - certainly, they wouldn't be more than a year or two out. I think, therefore, it is safe to conclude that the Gospels couldn't have contrived the connection to the year of the eclipse.

-It is also worth noting that (to my knowledge) modern astronomical knowledge proves that there was no total eclipse anywhere near Jerusalem anywhere near the time of Jesus' resurrection. We therefore know that this wasn't a normal total eclipse to which a connection was contrived.

Putting all of the above together, I find it impossible to conclude that the connection between the crucifixion and the strange eclipse could have been contrived.

There is also the fact of the Bible requiring a coincidence, not only of a strange eclipse, but also earthquakes. These would have been widely felt, and not something prone to being forgotten by people in the region. If I was skeptical of the newspaper article that claimed a strange eclipse happened on Christmas Day that I couldn't remember, how much more skeptical would I be if it claimed there was an eclipse and an earthquake, and I could remember neither?

Quite simply, the story is not one that lends itself to the explanation of "fabrication".

2. Even if Thallus was tying the eclipse to Christ, we are completely unaware of the context. IOW, Thallus could've easily been saying something like the following: "Christians report a three hour darkness coinciding with crucifixion of their Christ. I doubt this story, but if true, it was assuredly just a coincidental eclipse." That would fit perfectly with JA's criticism of Thallus' eclipse assessment.
-I don't think it's possible that anyone could have reasonably denied an eclipse taking place, or claimed that an eclipse happened if one didn't. I thus find it hard to believe that Thallus could have been denying altogether than an eclipse happened around that time - if he was, he would have known for certain that it didn't occur. Why then, would he feel a need for proposing an alterative explanation of an event that he knew for certain did not occur? It seems to me that Thallus was not denying that an eclipse took place - at most, Thallus could have been disputing the reported timing of the eclipse.

-However, JA does not appear to dispute whatever time Thallus attributed to the eclipse. If Thallus had associated any other time with the eclipse than Passover, surely he would have disputed that too (given that he's gone to the effort of disputing his explanation), or simply not used Thallus as a source at all? This is especially so, given that JA relies on the fact that the eclipse occured at a full moon in order to make his case. Why would he have relied on this to make his argument if Thallus had contradicted the timing of the eclipse, thereby rendering his argument meaningless?

-It is quite possible that Thallus wrote something along the lines of "it was assuredly just a coincidental eclipse". However, as I pointed out above (and as JA pointed out himself), it cannot have been a coincidental eclipse if it happened at a full moon. The fact that Thallus felt a need to explain it away with a flimsy excuse, indicates that the unusual eclipse did occur.

Wildcat

June 1st 2003, 05:06 PM

Hello all. It's good to see that the board has still been sizzling. I'm just going to make a couple of brief comments for now and then I have to hit the books, the secular books that is. This Wednesday kicks off a stretch of 4 exams in 4.5 weeks that remain for the year(and that's just for one course!) and I have plenty of studying to do, plus I'm using spare time updating one of my articles and engaging in a quite lengthy e-mail convo with an Ahmadiyya. Hence my posts during that time will be few and far in between, but I'll try to keep up as best I can. Look for responses this Wednesday.

CitizenKyle: Great. He is an angel-baby so far. Although I do realize that human-angel hybrids are unBiblical.

Wildcat: That's great to hear. :thumb: I know you must be proud of him and your wife.

JPH: No -- and for a reason that may surprise you, though not from me. That whole expectation of closeness, etc. is a modern invention of our individiualist society. All this about "a personal relationship with Jesus" is modern -- it's not in the NT and was not part of early evangelism.

Wildcat: I find this intriguing. If you'll notice in my response to Kyle, I mainly see what I find to be evidential value in certain changes that needed to be made in my life that I felt were problems, especially one I have in mind that I felt was too great to be overcome on my own. I found this change came very rapidly when I decided to depend more on God to help me solve the problem than just myself. While I take note of the changes as well as other events I deem to be of perhaps significance wrought by God, I am not one who feels the "closeness" you talk about like the "Spirit filling the room" and other such instances many Christians report. More below....

JPH: Plus knowing you as I do I don't suspect you'd have much to change. After all, if Ted Bundy converts it's different than if Gandhi does. One does not convert to become different, but because the evidence compels their conclusion. Unfortunately for far too many that "evidence" is little more than a feeling as they walk down the aisle. It is saving faith, I think, but not very useful in the long run.

Wildcat: Given that most Christians would probably not even know what the word "Apologetics" is nowadays, would you not agree, that for some reason, most who convert to Christianity do so for philosophical reasons and/or a desire for a relationship with God? This may be an unanswerable and even a rhetorical question, but I'm interested in how you personally account for the change and the phenomena of "Spirit-filled rooms."

One other quick note: I've been reading WLC's "Reasonable Faith" lately. Do you agree with him that apologetics should be ministerial rather than magisterial? He makes some good arguments, such as, "What if a person rejects Christianity because of a poor apologetic? Would his rejection of it be justifiable to God?" Of course, the obvious answer it seems would be to not base a decision on one, or even a few, poor debates, but he raises an interesting point nonetheless.

This is more of a "just curious" inquiry.

Wildcat.

chsalvia

June 1st 2003, 05:40 PM

Debates about the historicity of the resurrection are always fascinating but futile. Christians are so convinced that the data given in the Gospels amounts to absolute solid proof of the event. Skeptics are sure that the data is worthless.

The funny thing is, I personally never even looked to the resurrection as a means of becoming Christian. Well...of course, I'm not Christian...I'm a skeptic. But the resurrection never impressed me that much. For me, were I to become Christian, it would be because I am truly in love with Christ's teachings. That, and the fact that I find such high aesthetic quality in the Bible as a whole that I'm often inclined to just wonder over it. That's probably why I'm not as harsh on the Bible as some skeptics, who gripe over incorrect taxonomy or the value of Pi.

I'm guessing the resurrection is the focal point of Christian apologetics because Paul stated that without the resurrection, Christian faith is in vain.

The correct answer, however, to the original message in this thread, should be no - there is nothing that could remove the faith of a Christian IF they are truly Christian. Because if they are Christian they have received the Holy Spirit, and are "chosen", and so there faith is supernaturally protected.

Then again, since I don't believe in the Holy Spirit, I'd say that people in this age, with all the religious views available and all the scientific data out there, either have a disposition to believe in Christianity, or they don't. Of course, a Christian might smugly reply, "No, I have a disposition to believe in facts!" Ah...yes. Of course.

We're all looking at the same evidence here for the resurrection- a whole lot of witnesses from a long time ago. If that's not enough to convince you, it never will be - and if that convinces you, then you'll probably remain convinced. As for me, the resurrection is not an historical fact. I've considered it inside and out, and that is my conclusion. But who knows...maybe I'll change my mind some day, God willing.

DBoone

June 2nd 2003, 10:24 AM

Overall, I might have agreed with chsalvia in my pre-christian days. I was far more attracted to the teachings of Jesus than the power of Jesus. But then a funny thing happened... I woke up one night to the sense the presence of the Holy Spirit in my room. I had gone to church a few times before this night, and had always discounted the tug of the Holy Spirit on my heart as a product of group dynamics, but here was something that I had noe explanation for: just me and God, one-on-one, no one else there to define the experience for me, but knowing in my heart that this was an experience I would neither be able to question or forget for the rest of my life. So life throws these little cross-roads at us, and the decision you make at that moment determines your life everafter. I decided that I was going to be honest with myself and with God at that moment, and I made a covenant with God thru Jesus. 22 yrs later, I find the mercies of God new every morning, all His promises to be trustworthy, and my love for Him grows stronger than ever. Am I livin' on Easy Street? No way. Is God with me like He promised? Definitely.

jpholding

June 2nd 2003, 10:43 AM

Hey folks:

Kyle: So then, would you disagree with Wildcat about the importance of an experiential test, and instead advocate belief on the basis of the evidence alone?

I would certainly regard evidential issues as supreme and experiential as a much lower priority. To what extent I don't know and I don't consider it important enough to think about. Either way you won't find experiential tests anywhere in the NT (other than to the extent that evidence can be "experienced" -- i.e., speaking in tongues, perhaps). Thus as well:

Wildcat: I find this intriguing. If you'll notice in my response to Kyle, I mainly see what I find to be evidential value in certain changes that needed to be made in my life that I felt were problems, especially one I have in mind that I felt was too great to be overcome on my own.

In an article that may soon appear in the CRJ I make the point that such experience CAN be appealed to AS evidence. But I point out that such use of behavior as evidence is a modern phenomenon. It should be used with care if used at all.

Wildcat: Given that most Christians would probably not even know what the word "Apologetics" is nowadays,

They think it means, "I am sorry I am a Christian." No joke.

would you not agree, that for some reason, most who convert to Christianity do so for philosophical reasons and/or a desire for a relationship with God?

Yes -- a desire to fill a void is a way I may put it. I know little or nothing of the phenomenon you referred to; as for the change, I think it follows from Semitic Totality that it's a matter of "as a man thinks, so he is." If you really do believe in Jesus, you will look at the world a certain way and your behavior will mirror what you think.

One other quick note: I've been reading WLC's "Reasonable Faith" lately. Do you agree with him that apologetics should be ministerial rather than magisterial? He makes some good arguments, such as, "What if a person rejects Christianity because of a poor apologetic? Would his rejection of it be justifiable to God?" Of course, the obvious answer it seems would be to not base a decision on one, or even a few, poor debates, but he raises an interesting point nonetheless.

Ages ago I might have agreed with Craig; now I am not so sure. Yes of course your observation beyond that is correct. We here certainly have a lifetime of experience; beyond that as well many persons engage what one writer has called "permissive ignorance" -- they willfully decide not to look further, and that is their choice. I consider the likes of FTill to be one of this sort. Kyle manifestly is not.

citizenkyle

June 2nd 2003, 12:16 PM

Hey Matt.

(ii) If your anti-supernatural criteria are necessary conditions for you to accept something, all the worse for that criteria.

I don't think demanding extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims is anti-supernatural.

Secondly, the empty tomb evidence constitutes decisive power in favor of the resurrection being an explanation.

No, it's not decisive. It would only be decisive if there were NO OTHER explanations for an empty tomb besides a rez. But surely you don't wish to assert that an empty tomb automatically equals a rez. You may think it's the BEST explanation, but it would have to be the ONLY one in order for it to constitute decisive physical evidence. That's what I mean by "decisive" anyway.

(iii) My query about the Big Bang was not about the fact of the Big Bang itself, but the Big Bang models -- e.g., Inflation, Vacuum Fluctuations, Quantum Models, etc... None of these theories have any physical evidence that prefers one over another. These theories are postulated out of the sheer need to address cosmological anomalies such as the flatness and horizon problems.

I'm not really familiar with the varying models, so I can't comment on whether you're suggestion that there is no physical evidence to prefer one over another. But that appears irrelevant, given that you seem to agree with me that there IS physical evidence in favor of preferring the Big Bang over non-Big Bang models.

(iv) That we should prefer naturalistic events to supernatural ones ceteris paribus I completely agree. But when all naturalistic explanations fail and a supernaturalistic explanations better passes the historian's criteria, then there is no reason to reject the supernatural explanation.

What is the "historian's criteria"? Can you spell it out?

citizenkyle

June 2nd 2003, 01:06 PM

Hey Jezz.

Why is the resurrection not a naturalistic explanation? How do you define "naturalism" in a way that objectively excludes the resurrection as an explanation?

This is actually something I've been thinking about lately. I wouldn't say that naturalism, as I define it, objectively excludes the rez as an explanation. In fact, I have decided to try and get away from the terms "supernatural" and "naturalistic". Rather, I consider the rez to be a paranormal event. By paranormal, I mean, "an occurence which falls WAY outside the course of normal events." This does not exclude the rez in any way, but does justify my demand for extraordinarily powerful evidence in support of it.

Suppose Paul also points out places in the OT where Jesus' resurrection was actually predicted, hundreds or thousands of years earlier. An example is Psalm 22, which contains a pretty accurate description of a crucifiction. Not only was this Psalm written before Jesus' crucifiction, it was written hundreds of years before the first crucifiction.

This is another example of the "convergence of evidence" that Wildcat is talking about.

Okay. Without getting into a tangent on prophecy, I will just say that kind of thing impresses me about as much as Nostradamus. I would call it reaching.

In how many of those sects did their own leaders encourage them to be skeptical?

Can you give me some examples from scripture where the leaders encourage congregations to be skeptical of the specific paranormal claims they were atributing to Jesus (not Paul and the Bereans stuff)? Or places where congregations were encouraged to launch an investigation of the paranormal events? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just curious to see all the examples.

Modern sects today only survive because their leaders both don't make testable claims, and discourage testing of those claims that are testable.

I'm not so sure you've successfully encapsulated all the sociological reasons why religious movements usually fail in that one sentence. In fact, I think that's probably a small part of it, since most people don't show an inclination to investigate testable claims even when they are made. But we are playing pop-sociology here.

This is actually what your position boils down to.

That not entirely fair given the context of my "It's just not for me" statement. The statement was made with regards to Wildcat's testimony of personal experience as a convincing reason for his accepting Christ.

There is always an alternative explanation for any given set of observations. Any time someone provides evidence of a round Earth to a flat-Earther, they find an alternative explanation (no matter how strained). The only real reason they do so is because a round Earth is "just not for them".

Yes, of course. And naturally you realize this can apply equally well to Christians who can always find a way to harmonize the Bible and the observable universe (no matter how strained). Any person with enough conviction can find a way to justify their belief system in the face of contrary evidence.

But let's look at the big picture:

-There has been a lot of evidence brought forward in this thread that supports a resurrection.
-There is a lot more evidence that supports a resurrection that hasn't been brought forward in this thread.

But the bigger question remains: Is that evidence sufficient to support the rez as the best explanation? You say "yes", I say "no".

-The only piece of evidence that you have against the resurrection is the observation that it has never happened before or since.

But using "it's never happened before" as a reason is not really evidence. If this was an argument, then Christianity has another piece of evidence backing it up - namely, no religion has started up before or since under such impossible conditions before, and survived...

But that's actually a very good argument. In fact, that why JP has built one of his cornerstone papers, The Impossible Faith on that very principle.

citizenkyle

June 2nd 2003, 03:05 PM

Hey Jezz.

There are some problems with your explain-away of this data.

-You have ignored JA's reference to Phlegon:

Introducing Phlegon only introduces more ambiguities. Three main problems:

1. Phlegon wrote in the 140s AD, long after all eyewitnesses to the event were dead. It is imminently plausible that he was uncritically borrowing from the Christian story.

2. Eusebius quotes Phlegon verbatim as follows,

"the sun was eclipsed, Bithynia was struck by an earthquake, and in the city of Nicaea many buildings fell,"

and

"Now, in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad [32 AD], a great eclipse of the sun occurred at the sixth hour [noon] that excelled every other before it, turning the day into such darkness of night that the stars could be seen in heaven, and the earth moved in Bithynia, toppling many buildings in the city of Nicaea."

Clearly, there is no mention of Jesus in this context. Note also that Phlegon does not record the eclipse at full moon or as lasting three hours. I suppose you could argue that Eusebius was using a different Phlegon quote than JA, but since Eusebius is explicitly talking about the rez, it would be quite odd for him to bypass the more apt quote. From the actual Phlegon quote, we see that the earthquake is not in Jerusalem but Bithynia (too far away for the quake to be felt at the crucifixion), and that the location of the eclipse is not specific, but there is the implication that it was in Bithynia as well (which means the eclipse could not have been seen more than partially in Jerusalem).

3. There is some evidence suggesting that JA's reference to Phlegon was a later interpolation.

We learn that Phlegon recorded two facts:
1. The total eclipse occured at a full moon. This is sufficient to establish that it was not a normal total eclipse, which always happens at the time of a new moon (as JA himself noted).

2. The total eclipse occured lasted for three hours. This, too, is sufficient to establish that it was not a normal total eclipse (as the educated of the time would probably have known).

As I pointed out, as far as the actual Phlegon quotes are concerned, he did not record the eclipse occurring at a full moon or lasting three hours.

chsalvia

June 2nd 2003, 03:18 PM

I think we're at the point where it's almost boring to listen to the reasons for and against the resurrection. I think however, we should advance our dialogues a bit by moving away from things like counter-explanations for the empty tomb.

Modern apologetics is not based any longer, (except among simplistic apologists) on the idea that there is no good explanation other than a resurrection for the empty tomb. That sort of argumentation is forcing us to think "inside the box." That is, inside the framework of the Gospels.

Biblical criticism has advanced or devolved (depending on your opinion) beyond that. Now, skeptics don't babble about swoon theories or disciple conspiracies - skeptics are saying that in all likelihood none of these stories ever happened. There was no empty tomb. Some go farther and say there was no crucifixion, and some go to the extreme and say Jesus didn't exist.

Why do they insist none of this happened? Because the only evidence we have for these fanatastic stories is the Gospels themselves. Christians like to emphasize how the Gospels are actually FOUR documents, thus confirming one another, and they also like to point out the development of the Christian movement itself. Most Christians believe the Christian movement is inexplicable without the impetus of an actual resurrection.

The skeptical response to this is that the four Gospel documents had a common literary or oral source or sources, and so they are not independent documents. An independent source would be, say, a comment by Philo that perhaps he met a fellow Jew in Alexandria who had just been to Jerusalem for Passover, where there was this crazy man who was said to be a prophet from Nazareth but was crucified and resurrected.

That would be a completely independent source. Should we expect to find such confirmation in first century literature? That is a very subjective issue, and I'm not sure. I hate arguments from silence. But the fact is, we only have the Gospels to go by, and that's just not enough for skeptics - it's just not enough for me, especially when my entire belief system and worldview is at stake.

Am I afraid to change my beliefs from agnosticism to full-fledged Christianity? Honestly - yes. I am. But no more than a Christian would probably be afraid to relinquish their hope of salvation. So we all have our motives.

One thing I can say - in all the ancient world there has not been a better moral example than Jesus Christ, even though most of his teaching is connected with an eschatology I don't believe in. It would be a shame if he never existed.

citizenkyle

June 2nd 2003, 04:56 PM

Hey Chsalvia.

Biblical criticism has advanced or devolved (depending on your opinion) beyond that. Now, skeptics don't babble about swoon theories or disciple conspiracies - skeptics are saying that in all likelihood none of these stories ever happened. There was no empty tomb. Some go farther and say there was no crucifixion, and some go to the extreme and say Jesus didn't exist.

I don't think a majority of Biblical skeptics argue that there was no empty tomb. And I'm positive that very few claim there was no crucifixion. Unless you date the gospels very late, it would be difficult to see how the early Christians could pass off such blatant lies. Unless you think the early Christian movement was also mostly mythical.

FirstSunday33ad

June 2nd 2003, 04:58 PM

One thing I can say - in all the ancient world there has not been a better moral example than Jesus Christ, even though most of his teaching is connected with an eschatology I don't believe in. It would be a shame if he never existed.

Your post is very well written and cuts to the heart of the question, but it is this last paragraph that sparked my interest. This, for me, is the axle on which the wheel turns. Why was Jesus “a better moral example”?

Ignoring for the moment the resurrection, what can we conclude about Jesus of Nazareth? For starters we must admit that such a man must have lived. There is no reasonable or convincing evidence that his story was the product of fiction. This is no small point and it is the one most often ignored by those who say Jesus was a myth. Had a character called Jesus been spun out of competing mythologies and the religions of the day, we would have some evidence of his development. There would be no reason to create such a character and then suppress all knowledge of this creation, nor could such a suppression been so completely effective. Further, having been created, there would be no reason for those who chose to follow this allegory to change him from “hero of fiction” to living man.

The common objection that if the above is true, then we must accept that other “god-men” must have been real as well, is hollow as there is a possibility that these other “god-men” actually were real heros, kings and conquerors who over a dozen centuries became Zeus, Osiris or Hercules. In other words, it makes greater logical sense to see a belief starting from a tangible reality and moving towards a myth, than a myth moving towards reality.

So what kind of man was Jesus? It is also reasonable to assume that his character was close to what was portrayed in the Gospels. Firstly, Jesus must have made a remarkable impression on his followers as they willingly carried on his work with tireless devotion after he was gone. They worshipped him as god and went to their deaths rather than deny this belief. They abandoned the religious beliefs of their fathers and people, making themselves outcasts. So it is safe to say that Jesus must have been a charismatic, influential leader who inspired devotion.

That being the case, we should be able to say that the circumstances of his birth and early life are also more likely truth than fiction. By that I mean in Bethlehem to a carpenter and his wife, raised according to the Law, poor but highly intelligent. It is also a safe assumption that he left home at the age of 30, was baptized by John and later gathered his earliest followers from John’s followers. These are safe assumptions simply because there would be no reason to invent them had they not been true. Further, the people knew John and they knew his disciples. To make the claim that Jesus was greater than John when they had never even met would have brought severe reprisals for no worthwhile reason.

We can also be confident about the length of time that Jesus taught and the places he travelled. Had Jesus lived longer or travelled further a field his followers would have certainly recorded these facts. There would be no reason for them to mention only the first 40 months of his preaching and then jump over to his death.

As to his death; it would have been a ridiculous assertion to make that their leader had been crucified when he had not been. It would be akin to Communists declaring Marx was hanged as a murderer when he actually died in his bed. Crucifixion was a “cursed” death to the Jews. It was the worst way a Jew could be executed. Jesus’ followers would be unlikely to even admit that this event had happened let alone invent it.

So stopping here, we are left with a number of questions. How could a poor carpenter, with a temple education, who never traveled far, never wrote a book, never led an army, taught for 3 and a half years, founded no schools and died a cursed death not only be recognized as “a better moral example” but even be remembered 10 years after his death? So much so that his followers declared him god and eventually became the religion of Rome? This is made even more puzzling if you accept as fact the assertions that he did not say everything accredited to him. In that case we are left with a name, an empty suit of cloths and a shameful death – and no explanation as to why Jesus became accepted as god incarnate.

DBoone

June 2nd 2003, 05:00 PM

If you believe enough to follow Jesus as a teacher, that's a good place to start. "Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good." As you learn about Jesus' teachings you will learn about Jesus. Then you can decide if you want to follow Him or not. Have you thought of attending a local church, maybe their Bible study? That's a great way to get your feet wet, because all questions are welcome, even the challenging ones. I found my early experiences as a non-christian in church to be very positive, people were genuinely friendly and didn't look down on me because I wasn't a believer.

citizenkyle

June 2nd 2003, 06:13 PM

Hey 1stSunday:

That being the case, we should be able to say that the circumstances of his birth and early life are also more likely truth than fiction. By that I mean in Bethlehem to a carpenter and his wife, raised according to the Law, poor but highly intelligent. It is also a safe assumption that he left home at the age of 30, was baptized by John and later gathered his earliest followers from John’s followers. These are safe assumptions simply because there would be no reason to invent them had they not been true.

This is just a nitpick, since I generally agree with the above, but there was a reason to invent a Bethlehem birth--in order to have Jesus fulfill OT messianic prophecy. Outside of Matthew and Luke, we have no reason not to just assume Jesus was born in Nazareth, since that is clearly where he grew up.

Jezz

June 3rd 2003, 10:43 AM

citizenkyle:
Why is the resurrection not a naturalistic explanation? How do you define &quot;naturalism&quot; in a way that objectively excludes the resurrection as an explanation?

This is actually something I've been thinking about lately. I wouldn't say that naturalism, as I define it, objectively excludes the rez as an explanation. In fact, I have decided to try and get away from the terms "supernatural" and "naturalistic". Rather, I consider the rez to be a paranormal event. By paranormal, I mean, "an occurence which falls WAY outside the course of normal events." This does not exclude the rez in any way, but does justify my demand for extraordinarily powerful evidence in support of it.
This is something I've thought for a long time. The term "supernatural" is such a loaded term that tends to cause people to jump to the conclusion "it didn't happen", before even evaluating the evidence. Thus I tend to avoid using it too.

Okay. Without getting into a tangent on prophecy, I will just say that kind of thing impresses me about as much as Nostradamus. I would call it reaching.
Oh, I completely agree for the most part. Most of the prophecies that Matthew refers to don't seem like prophecies to me, living in a different time and place. I certainly wouldn't consider them evidence. But I think there are one or two of them that are worth considering. Not conclusive, of course, but all part of that convergence that Wildcat is talking about.

In how many of those sects did their own leaders encourage them to be skeptical?

Can you give me some examples from scripture where the leaders encourage congregations to be skeptical of the specific paranormal claims they were atributing to Jesus (not Paul and the Bereans stuff)? Or places where congregations were encouraged to launch an investigation of the paranormal events? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just curious to see all the examples.
No exhortations to check out specific events. Just exhortations to check out stuff in general. There is of course the reference to the Bereans in Acts that you are already familiar with (did you not want to hear it again because it wasn't convincing, or because you were already familiar with it?) Here are a few others:

1 Thessalonians 5:12: Test everything. Hold on to the good. I see no reason to think that "everything" didn't include the stories that the apostles were telling them. (This passage seems to be related to that passage in Acts.)

John 10:37-38 Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father. Here we see that Jesus didn't everyone to take him at his word - he encourages them to check out his miracles as proof.

The "prophet test" in Deuteronomy encouraged people to check up on the claims of prophets - if ever a prophet missed a prophecy, then that was to be taken as proof that they were not a true prophet.

More generally - every time God or Jesus was asked legitmately for proof (ie, not for selfish reasons), he did not rebuke the person, but provided them with the evidence they sought (eg, Jesus re-appearing to the doubting Thomas). The entire Bible seems to engender a skeptical attitude to extravagent claims (I mean, the Pharisees didn't even believe Jesus even after seeing his miracles). There is certainly nothing in the Bible that would discourage people from checking them out - and it seems the prevailing attitude was to encourage this behaviour.

Modern sects today only survive because their leaders both don't make testable claims, and discourage testing of those claims that are testable.

I'm not so sure you've successfully encapsulated all the sociological reasons why religious movements usually fail in that one sentence.
I wasn't trying to describe all the reasons they fail - I was only trying to state a single, sufficient condition that would cause one to fail. I'm aware that there are other things that would cause a religious movement to fail (of course, JP lists a whole bunch in TIF). Unless you know of an example of a modern sect that survived despite encouraging people to investigate their testable (but false) claims, then my point stands.

This is actually what your position boils down to.

That not entirely fair given the context of my "It's just not for me" statement. The statement was made with regards to Wildcat's testimony of personal experience as a convincing reason for his accepting Christ.
Yeah, sorry. Actually, getting back to the context - I reckon I disagree with Wildcat on this one - I don't think the "experiential test" would work. If you're only believing on a "trial basis", then you're not really believing, and hence you can't really expect to get the experience. You either believe Jesus rose from the dead or you don't - there's not much room for middle ground.

Yes, of course. And naturally you realize this can apply equally well to Christians who can always find a way to harmonize the Bible and the observable universe (no matter how strained). Any person with enough conviction can find a way to justify their belief system in the face of contrary evidence.
I agree with your statement up until the point where you imply (though not stated directly) that there is contrary evidence to Christianity. As far as I can see, there is no positive evidence contrary to the resurrection, beyond the claim "it hasn't happened before".

Some examples of necessary positive evidence were given way back in the beginnings of this thread. Some thoughts pulled from my head: evidence that the universe was infinitely old (as was indeed believed by the majority of scientists before the early 1960s), or that Jesus' body was recovered after the crucifixion, or that somebody actually saw the disciples take it (that is, someone other than those who were supposedly asleep when it happened... :wink:). The best any anti-Christian position has ever done is postulate alternative explanations such as these, and never brought forward any positive evidence to back them up. If they could, this would indeed constitute contrary evidence to Christianity. But as it stands, the best a non-Christian can do is try and explain-away the evidence for the Christian position, because they have none of their own to bring forward. More on this below.

But using &quot;it's never happened before&quot; as a reason is not really evidence. If this was an argument, then Christianity has another piece of evidence backing it up - namely, no religion has started up before or since under such impossible conditions before, and survived...

But that's actually a very good argument. In fact, that why JP has built one of his cornerstone papers, The Impossible Faith on that very principle.
Well, ok - it's a good argument when there is no contrary evidence. But, the fact remains, it's the only piece of positive evidence against Christianity. And it's easily countered by noting that, if it's a valid argument, then a myth of the magnitude of Christianity has never happened either. After throwing those two arguments against each other to cancel each other out, the rest of the "evidence" against Christianity is not really evidence, but attempts to undermine the Christian evidence through special pleading. It seems to me that Christian vs non-Christian arguments, it is always the Christian position that has the upper hand, the non-Christian has no evidence of their own to offer and is forced to try and re-interpret the evidence that the Christians bring forward. I mean, consider the progress of this thread - it's entitled "Evidence that Christianity is false?", yet beyond the first page or so it's been all about "Evidence that Christianity is true" or "Why the evidence for Christianity is not convincing". Evidence that Christianity is false just does not seem to exist.

This reminds me a lot about the flat-Earthers, now that I think about it. The only piece of evidence that flat-Earthers have is "it looks flat". Arguments between flat-Earthers and round-Earthers from there always consist of the round-Earther presenting evidence, and the flat-Earther trying to explain it away - just as this present argument between Christians and non-Christians has progressed. :wink:

Jezz

June 3rd 2003, 12:15 PM

Hey Kyle.

Introducing Phlegon only introduces more ambiguities. Three main problems:

1. Phlegon wrote in the 140s AD, long after all eyewitnesses to the event were dead. It is imminently plausible that he was uncritically borrowing from the Christian story.
That would seem to go against Miller's deduction that JA was a thorough historian.

2. Eusebius quotes Phlegon verbatim as follows,

"the sun was eclipsed, Bithynia was struck by an earthquake, and in the city of Nicaea many buildings fell,"

and

"Now, in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad [32 AD], a great eclipse of the sun occurred at the sixth hour [noon] that excelled every other before it, turning the day into such darkness of night that the stars could be seen in heaven, and the earth moved in Bithynia, toppling many buildings in the city of Nicaea."

Clearly, there is no mention of Jesus in this context. Note also that Phlegon does not record the eclipse at full moon or as lasting three hours. I suppose you could argue that Eusebius was using a different Phlegon quote than JA, but since Eusebius is explicitly talking about the rez, it would be quite odd for him to bypass the more apt quote.
If Eusebius really is quoting verbatim from Phlegon, I would agree with your assessment here. So I'm curious - what is the evidence that shows Eusebius is quoting verbatim? Not that it matters too much, because even if it is a verbatim quote, there is still a fair bit of ammunition to get out of it... :smile:

From the actual Phlegon quote, we see that the earthquake is not in Jerusalem but Bithynia (too far away for the quake to be felt at the crucifixion), and that the location of the eclipse is not specific, but there is the implication that it was in Bithynia as well (which means the eclipse could not have been seen more than partially in Jerusalem).
These two conclusions are of course assuming that the darkness and the earthquakes were not both global events. But I'll leave that for now, because that's begging the question. (How far away are Jerusalem and Bithynia, btw - it has some bearing on the eclipse calcuations)

But even if your analysis of Phlegon is correct, you've merely swapped one set of problems for a new set.

For eclipse references for the first century, check out:
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEcat/SE0001-0100.html

1. There was no normal total eclipse in 32 AD anywhere in the world (two partials only - neither near the Near East, as far as I can tell). In fact, if you examine the eclipse table, you'll notice that there weren't any total eclipses anywhere near the Near East in the period from 20-40 AD, with the exception of the eclipse on 24th of November, 29AD (see here for a map of its path: http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhistory/SEplot/SE0029Nov24T.gif).
2. Eusebius records the same start time for the eclipse that Luke does, lending weight to the fact that they are recording the same event (this depends a little on the distance between Bithynia and Jerusalem). It is also worth noting that if this is correct, then it can't have been referring to the 29AD eclipse, because that eclipse would have happened a lot later in the day than noon.
3. Eusebius records that it "was a great eclipse that excelled any other". The only way I can see "excelling any other" making any sense was if it referred to an eclipse that lasted much longer than any other. If you look at the above link, you'll find that the totality of an eclipse was never longer than about 6m30s. Given that they didn't have accurate time-keeping measures (sundials don't work too well during an eclipse... :wink:), the eclipse must have been significantly longer than 6 minutes for them to know that it was a long eclipse. Three hours would be long enough (granted less could suffice, but probably not much less than 20 minutes). In the 29AD eclipse, in contrast (the only one in the time period that was in the region), the totality lasted only 1m59s - "a great eclipse to excell all others" would not seem like an accurate description of such an eclipse.

So even from the Eusebius quote, it seems that it wasn't a normal eclipse being recorded. And it was recorded about the same year as the Gospel account, and at the same time of day.

3. There is some evidence suggesting that JA's reference to Phlegon was a later interpolation.
What is that evidence? Again, it would seem to go against Miller's deduction that JA was a careful historian, but even so there's still stuff there you need to explain-away.

As I pointed out, as far as the actual Phlegon quotes are concerned, he did not record the eclipse occurring at a full moon or lasting three hours.
Even assuming that is the case, Eusebius shows that Phlegon recorded enough facts about it to make it a very strange event.

I also note that you completely glossed over my points regarding the fact that the early Christians associated the "fake" or "contrived" eclipse with the most important festival in Jerusalem. Which I find especially interesting, given the comment you made to Chsalvia:

Kyle to Chsalvia:
I don't think a majority of Biblical skeptics argue that there was no empty tomb. And I'm positive that very few claim there was no crucifixion. Unless you date the gospels very late, it would be difficult to see how the early Christians could pass off such blatant lies. Unless you think the early Christian movement was also mostly mythical.

How can you argue that the Christians couldn't have passed of the crucifixions as blatant lies on the one hand, yet argue that they made an even more blatant lie about an eclipse? There were many more witnesses to the eclipse than to the crucifixion - pretty much everyone in Jerusalem (assuming that the darkness was localised, which it may not have been). And despite an earlier assertion, they would remember the date, because it was at such an important time in the Jewish calendar.

I'll make the point again - if there was a three-hour darkness commencing around noon on New Year's Day at any time in your life, would you ever forget the fact that it happened on New Year's Day? Conversely, if I came up to you today and told you that there was such an eclipse 20 years ago, would you believe me if you couldn't remember it happening? Now, I know that you think the early Christians were just gullible (and perhaps you don't stop at just the early Christians... :wink:), but do you really think that anyone could be that gullible? :smile:

chsalvia

June 3rd 2003, 03:27 PM

It seems to me that Christian vs non-Christian arguments, it is always the Christian position that has the upper hand, the non-Christian has no evidence of their own to offer and is forced to try and re-interpret the evidence that the Christians bring forward. I mean, consider the progress of this thread - it's entitled "Evidence that Christianity is false?", yet beyond the first page or so it's been all about "Evidence that Christianity is true" or "Why the evidence for Christianity is not convincing". Evidence that Christianity is false just does not seem to exist.

This reminds me a lot about the flat-Earthers, now that I think about it. The only piece of evidence that flat-Earthers have is "it looks flat". Arguments between flat-Earthers and round-Earthers from there always consist of the round-Earther presenting evidence, and the flat-Earther trying to explain it away - just as this present argument between Christians and non-Christians has progressed.

Heh...that's interesting.

In depends on what kind of "Christian vs. non-Chrisitan" argument you're talking about. If it's Christian versus evolutionist, the entire debate is basically the person who argues for evolution throwing hundreds and hundreds of scientific facts at the Christian, while the Christian constantly tries to explain it away, undermine it somehow, or strainingly reinterpret scripture to accord with it. Other times the Christian succumbs to the sheer might of the facts and simply agrees that perhaps evolution did occur, but the Judeo-Christian God guided it along for some reason. (A view which makes all the universe hilariously incongruent.)

On the other hand, if the "Christian vs. non-Christian" argument is based on historical or social factors rather than scientific factors, the Christian is on safer ground, and sometimes even has the upper had, as you say.

In scientific debates, the naturalistic evolutionist has the upper hand. In philosophical debates the two sides are relatively even. In historical debates it depends...depending on the skill of the debater the Christian can have the upper hand. If the debate is centered around social factors the Christian usually has the upper hand.

For example, if we're debating whether or not the resurrection occurred, and we're mainly discussing the material we have in the Gospels, as well as what we know about other religions and general human behavior, the Christian is on safe ground - because then the Christian is presenting evidence for something which occurred, and the skeptic can only undermine or attempt to weakly refute this evidence.

On the other hand, if the debate is scientific, the skeptic is always superior. In this case, the skeptic can present huge quantities of evidence for evolution and an atheistic universe, whereas the Christian can only weakly undermine this evidence, or try and hide from it by reinterpreting the Bible.

Of course, if the debate is purely philosophical, such as theism versus naturalism, and the issues discussed are mainly metaphysical and subjective, then both sides are on equal ground.

So...it really depends on what playing field you're debating. (Of course, I'm sure you'll disagree with me and tell me the Christian always has the upper hand...but I'm just describing what I observe and believe to be true.)

jpholding

June 3rd 2003, 04:03 PM

Yesterday @ 11:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115307#post115307)
citizenkyle:

This is just a nitpick, since I generally agree with the above, but there was a reason to invent a Bethlehem birth--in order to have Jesus fulfill OT messianic prophecy. Outside of Matthew and Luke, we have no reason not to just assume Jesus was born in Nazareth, since that is clearly where he grew up.

Hmm. Do you suppose that this would also give Mary and Joseph a reason to get to Bethlehem, so that the baby would be born there? :brow:

And hey, I grew up in Orlando and you'd never know my birthplace was Miami.

citizenkyle

June 3rd 2003, 04:17 PM

Hey JP.

Hmm. Do you suppose that this would also give Mary and Joseph a reason to get to Bethlehem, so that the baby would be born there? :brow:

I suppose that's a consideration if we buy into the whole immaculate conception/virgin birth paradigm.

And hey, I grew up in Orlando and you'd never know my birthplace was Miami.

Of course, I'm not saying that because Jesus grew up in Nazareth it logically follows that he must've been born there. But if it weren't for Matthew and Luke, that's probably what we'd all assume.

jpholding

June 3rd 2003, 04:28 PM

Today @ 09:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=116432#post116432)
citizenkyle:

Hey JP.

Hmm. Do you suppose that this would also give Mary and Joseph a reason to get to Bethlehem, so that the baby would be born there? :brow:

I suppose that's a consideration if we buy into the whole immaculate conception/virgin birth paradigm.

Or even if Joe and Mary did? :smile: Seriously, do you regard those as inseperable from the Bethlehem birth?

citizenkyle

June 3rd 2003, 04:53 PM

This is something I've thought for a long time. The term "supernatural" is such a loaded term that tends to cause people to jump to the conclusion "it didn't happen", before even evaluating the evidence. Thus I tend to avoid using it too.

Very good. I hereby renounce my usage of the term "supernatural" in favor of "paranormal".

No exhortations to check out specific events. Just exhortations to check out stuff in general. There is of course the reference to the Bereans in Acts that you are already familiar with (did you not want to hear it again because it wasn't convincing, or because you were already familiar with it?)

More because I don't think it's particularly relevant to what we are discussing, which is an encouragement to check out specific paranormal claims. Checking current teachings against previous scripture is in a different category of criticism.

John 10:37-38 Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father. Here we see that Jesus didn't everyone to take him at his word - he encourages them to check out his miracles as proof.

Presuming John reflects the historical Jesus (which I don't), this is more along the lines of what I'm talking about. But we are concerned more with what Jesus' followers taught after his death.

The "prophet test" in Deuteronomy encouraged people to check up on the claims of prophets - if ever a prophet missed a prophecy, then that was to be taken as proof that they were not a true prophet.

All the Benny Hinn followers need to brush up on that passage, eh? :smile:

More generally - every time God or Jesus was asked legitmately for proof (ie, not for selfish reasons), he did not rebuke the person, but provided them with the evidence they sought (eg, Jesus re-appearing to the doubting Thomas). The entire Bible seems to engender a skeptical attitude to extravagent claims (I mean, the Pharisees didn't even believe Jesus even after seeing his miracles). There is certainly nothing in the Bible that would discourage people from checking them out - and it seems the prevailing attitude was to encourage this behaviour.

I'm still not convinced that critical investigations into the paranormal was the prevailing attitude of the day. I think there was little need to discourage such behavior because so few bothered with it in the first place. Ever read Richard Carrier's "Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire"? It seems to indicate a widely held "magical" world view where paranormal events were imminently believable.

I wasn't trying to describe all the reasons they fail - I was only trying to state a single, sufficient condition that would cause one to fail. I'm aware that there are other things that would cause a religious movement to fail (of course, JP lists a whole bunch in TIF). Unless you know of an example of a modern sect that survived despite encouraging people to investigate their testable (but false) claims, then my point stands.

It stands if both of your premises are correct.
Premise #1: Early Christians made claims that were meaningfully testable. IOW, an empty tomb is testable but doesn't automatically equal a risen Jesus.

Premise #2: Early Christians encouraged people to investigate those claims.

I'm not yet sold on either premise.

Well, ok - it's a good argument when there is no contrary evidence. But, the fact remains, it's the only piece of positive evidence against Christianity.

What other kind of evidence are we supposed to bring forward? According to this thread, there seems to be near universal agreement that producing Jesus' dead body is the only positive evidence that could falsify Christianity. Since it is highly unlikely that we could produce the body of Jesus whether he was rezzed or not, this means Christianity is essentially unfalsifiable (at least from the standpoint of most Christians in this thread).

And it's easily countered by noting that, if it's a valid argument, then a myth of the magnitude of Christianity has never happened either.

Well, for starters, Christianity is only part-myth. :smile: Secondly, that's not a very strong argument, since out of all the myths in existence, some are bound to be more popular than others. And logically, one myth has to be the most popular of all. But the most popular myth is still just a myth.

This reminds me a lot about the flat-Earthers, now that I think about it. The only piece of evidence that flat-Earthers have is "it looks flat". Arguments between flat-Earthers and round-Earthers from there always consist of the round-Earther presenting evidence, and the flat-Earther trying to explain it away - just as this present argument between Christians and non-Christians has progressed. :wink:

Chsalvia has already touched on this point, but this reminds me a lot of creationism. Arguments between creationists and evolutionists always consist of the evolutionist presenting evidence, and the creationist trying to explain it away. Really though, this is not terribly meaningful. After all, the person taking the skeptical position is always doing the explaining away. Creationists are just evolution-skeptics.

citizenkyle

June 3rd 2003, 05:00 PM

Or even if Joe and Mary did? :smile:

Assuming it happened, I imagine they believed it. :smile:

Seriously, do you regard those as inseperable from the Bethlehem birth?

Not necessarily. I guess Matthew and/or Luke could be right, but it's interesting that they give indepedent reasons for getting Mary and Joe to Bethlehem.

Warcraft3

June 3rd 2003, 05:04 PM

chsalvia:
I find your last post to be quite excellent. I do disagree with a few points though as you will see in my response......

Heh...that's interesting.

In depends on what kind of "Christian vs. non-Chrisitan" argument you're talking about. If it's Christian versus evolutionist, the entire debate is basically the person who argues for evolution throwing hundreds and hundreds of scientific facts at the Christian, while the Christian constantly tries to explain it away, undermine it somehow, or strainingly reinterpret scripture to accord with it. Other times the Christian succumbs to the sheer might of the facts and simply agrees that perhaps evolution did occur, but the Judeo-Christian God guided it along for some reason. (A view which makes all the universe hilariously incongruent.)
In general I do agree with this statement. I do not agree that a Theistic Evolution position twists "strangely reinterprets scripture" or "makes the universe hilariously incongruent". From my studies so far I see two things within nature....The appearance of common descent and the appearance of Intelligent Design. Since I see both I entertain the idea that both may indeed be true.

On the other hand, if the "Christian vs. non-Christian" argument is based on historical or social factors rather than scientific factors, the Christian is on safer ground, and sometimes even has the upper had, as you say.
I would generally agree with that statement also.

In scientific debates, the naturalistic evolutionist has the upper hand. In philosophical debates the two sides are relatively even. In historical debates it depends...depending on the skill of the debater the Christian can have the upper hand. If the debate is centered around social factors the Christian usually has the upper hand.
I also think this statement is generally true, although I believe a Theistic Evolutionist has as good an argument (if not better) as a Naturalistic Evolutionist.

For example, if we're debating whether or not the resurrection occurred, and we're mainly discussing the material we have in the Gospels, as well as what we know about other religions and general human behavior, the Christian is on safe ground - because then the Christian is presenting evidence for something which occurred, and the skeptic can only undermine or attempt to weakly refute this evidence.

On the other hand, if the debate is scientific, the skeptic is always superior. In this case, the skeptic can present huge quantities of evidence for evolution and an atheistic universe, whereas the Christian can only weakly undermine this evidence, or try and hide from it by reinterpreting the Bible.

Of course, if the debate is purely philosophical, such as theism versus naturalism, and the issues discussed are mainly metaphysical and subjective, then both sides are on equal ground.

So...it really depends on what playing field you're debating. (Of course, I'm sure you'll disagree with me and tell me the Christian always has the upper hand...but I'm just describing what I observe and believe to be true.)

I also generally agree with these statements as well, although I am personally biased towards the Christians side of the debate.

But all in all I think your post was very well written and very fair. So have some pearls on me.

Russ

citizenkyle

June 3rd 2003, 06:18 PM

Hey Jezz.

That would seem to go against Miller's deduction that JA was a thorough historian.

Not necessarily. For one, if the reference to Phlegon was a later interpolation, it wouldn't reflect upon JA at all. And, if it was actually written by JA, it would just mean that Phlegon wasn't a careful historian. Besides, even thorough historians make mistakes sometimes.

If Eusebius really is quoting verbatim from Phlegon, I would agree with your assessment here. So I'm curious - what is the evidence that shows Eusebius is quoting verbatim?

Oops, I guess it wasn't obvious from the way I presented it. Eusebius actually includes quotation marks to differentiate his text from Phlegon's. I will reproduce the quotes with Eusebius' context below:

Jesus Christ..underwent his passion in the 18th year of Tiberius [32 AD]. Also at that time in another Greek compendium we find an event recorded in these words: "the sun was eclipsed, Bithynia was struck by an earthquake, and in the city of Nicaea many buildings fell." All these things happened to occur during the Lord's passion. In fact, Phlegon, too, a distinguished reckoner of Olympiads, wrote more on these events in his 13th book, saying this: "Now, in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad [32 AD], a great eclipse of the sun occurred at the sixth hour [noon] that excelled every other before it, turning the day into such darkness of night that the stars could be seen in heaven, and the earth moved in Bithynia, toppling many buildings in the city of Nicaea."

These two conclusions are of course assuming that the darkness and the earthquakes were not both global events. But I'll leave that for now, because that's begging the question. (How far away are Jerusalem and Bithynia, btw - it has some bearing on the eclipse calcuations)

Yes, it does have bearing. Bithynia is about 500 miles to the north of Jerusalem.

But even if your analysis of Phlegon is correct, you've merely swapped one set of problems for a new set.

1. There was no normal total eclipse in 32 AD anywhere in the world (two partials only - neither near the Near East, as far as I can tell). In fact, if you examine the eclipse table, you'll notice that there weren't any total eclipses anywhere near the Near East in the period from 20-40 AD, with the exception of the eclipse on 24th of November, 29AD (see here for a map of its path: http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhistory/SEplot/SE0029Nov24T.gif).
2. Eusebius records the same start time for the eclipse that Luke does, lending weight to the fact that they are recording the same event (this depends a little on the distance between Bithynia and Jerusalem). It is also worth noting that if this is correct, then it can't have been referring to the 29AD eclipse, because that eclipse would have happened a lot later in the day than noon.
3. Eusebius records that it "was a great eclipse that excelled any other". The only way I can see "excelling any other" making any sense was if it referred to an eclipse that lasted much longer than any other. If you look at the above link, you'll find that the totality of an eclipse was never longer than about 6m30s. Given that they didn't have accurate time-keeping measures (sundials don't work too well during an eclipse... :wink:), the eclipse must have been significantly longer than 6 minutes for them to know that it was a long eclipse. Three hours would be long enough (granted less could suffice, but probably not much less than 20 minutes). In the 29AD eclipse, in contrast (the only one in the time period that was in the region), the totality lasted only 1m59s - "a great eclipse to excell all others" would not seem like an accurate description of such an eclipse.

Unfortunately, all those points are moot if Phlegon was uncritically borrowing from the Christian tale, which is the one of the hypotheses I am advancing. Also, Phlegon might have his dates wrong and actually be referring to the eclipse in 29AD. If that is the case, then there is something to say with regards to your point that an eclipse "excelling every other" must mean in terms of time. It could also mean in terms of totality, since, as you suggest, the 29AD eclipse was the only total one for that area within a 20 year span.

So even from the Eusebius quote, it seems that it wasn't a normal eclipse being recorded. And it was recorded about the same year as the Gospel account, and at the same time of day.

Maybe not. At least one scholar suspects that "the sixth hour" was a corruption by a later scribe. And even if it wasn't, the total eclipse would only occur at noon in one location. And, of course, Phlegon gives no indication that the location he is speaking of is Jerusalem.

What is that evidence? Again, it would seem to go against Miller's deduction that JA was a careful historian, but even so there's still stuff there you need to explain-away.

According to Richard Carrier's essay "Thallus: An Analysis":

"In Greek, new sentences are marked by certain special words, usually left untranslated, such as MEN or DE or OUN, etc. The Phlegon sentence is not marked. That is like not leaving a period at the end of the preceding sentence. Also, Africanus has just finished attacking Thallus' idea of a solar eclipse, yet here cites Phlegon favorably, who calls it the same exact thing. Moreover, the flow of thought is broken by this sentence. Africanus has begun a rhetorical argument with the phrase "let it be so," which is otherwise interrupted by interjecting a historical note about Phlegon. Remove that sentence (and the added "Clearly this is our eclipse!") and we have a continuous stream of thought that makes more sense. The Phlegon sentence, for all of these reasons, does not belong here.

In fact, the phrase "Clearly this is our eclipse" (literally "clearly this is it") is a telltale sign of an interlinear note by some other scribe. It appears that some copyist was copying or reading this passage in either Africanus or Syncellus and remembered the Phlegon connection, writing it as a note to the side or in between the lines. A later copyist then mistook this marginal note as text to be re-inserted, since, not having erasers, scribes who forgot a line would add it in the margins or between the lines (if they noticed the error at all). This was very common in the transmission of ancient and medieval books. There was no standard rule for distinguishing between added notes and re-inserted text. Both were marked and written the same way, leading to many marginal notes being read as re-inserted text and many lines of re-inserted text being mistook for marginal notes. Without further data, we might say that Syncellus mistook the marginal note of a previous owner of his copy of Africanus, or made the note himself while a later copier of Syncellus mistook it as text, or that the note and the mistake happened entirely before or after the involvement of Syncellus. But since Syncellus immediately follows the Africanus quote with a passage from Eusebius which quotes Phlegon correctly, it is almost certainly the case that the Phlegon passage here was inserted after Syncellus. This is further supported by the extent of the insertion's inaccuracy, which looks more like something that appears in the work of Agapius in the 10th century, or in Michael the Syrian in the 12th century."

How can you argue that the Christians couldn't have passed of the crucifixions as blatant lies on the one hand, yet argue that they made an even more blatant lie about an eclipse?

There are some key differences. For one, I suspect a somewhat late date for the darkness story (early 60s maybe?). Secondly, we have no idea how widespread the darkness story was. It was certainly never mentioned by Paul or even John. For all we know, it was a somewhat isolated tradition at first, and was rarely (if ever) used in evangelism. That would explain why nobody questioned the story. On the contrary, it would be difficult to make a case that the early Christians never mentioned the crucifixion in their evangelism and that the empty tomb was an isolated tradition.

I'll make the point again - if there was a three-hour darkness commencing around noon on New Year's Day at any time in your life, would you ever forget the fact that it happened on New Year's Day? Conversely, if I came up to you today and told you that there was such an eclipse 20 years ago, would you believe me if you couldn't remember it happening?

Actually, I couldn't tell you any of the years in which I saw eclipses. If you told me one occured 20 years ago, I'd probably give you the benefit of the doubt. I suppose I'd be more inclined to remember an eclipse on New Year's day, but I wouldn't swear to you that one never happened in my life with consulting astronomical data first. Maybe I'm unique in this respect.

Now, I know that you think the early Christians were just gullible (and perhaps you don't stop at just the early Christians... :wink:), but do you really think that anyone could be that gullible? :smile:

I don't even stop at Christians. People, in general, are gullible. Hey, even a doughty old skeptic like myself has fallen for trick now and again.

chsalvia

June 3rd 2003, 08:02 PM

I find your last post to be quite excellent. I do disagree with a few points though as you will see in my response......

Thank you. :smile:

In general I do agree with this statement. I do not agree that a Theistic Evolution position twists "strangely reinterprets scripture" or "makes the universe hilariously incongruent". From my studies so far I see two things within nature....The appearance of common descent and the appearance of Intelligent Design. Since I see both I entertain the idea that both may indeed be true.

Hmm...well, I'm not completely atheist. I'm more of an agnostic. I have tossed around the idea of intelligent design or some form of Deism.

I guess my point is that in debates, generally, whenever scientific topics such as evolution or the origin of the universe come up, I find that the Christian side of the argument gets weaker and weaker. Whereas, in debates about things such as the historicity of the Gospels, it is the non-Christians who usually have worse arguments.

This is just something I've observed over time from various internet and personal debates.

I think this happens because within the Christian framework, that is, the Christian worldview, we can incorporate all history, from the beginning of civilization to now. But as soon as we broaden our horizons, that is, add into our debate things that Christianity is mainly unconcerned with, i.e. the origin of the Universe, the fifteen billion years of existence before mankind, the origin of life, cosmology, etc., it becomes more and more difficult to maintain the Christian worldview.

mattbballman19

June 3rd 2003, 10:24 PM

Kyle,

(i) My fear is that "extraordinary evidence" has no referent in that it can allow someone to deny any amount of evidence claiming that it hasn't lived up to the "extraordinary" standard. Typically, it masks one's anti-supernatural bias (e.g., Keith Parsons).

(ii) I do think the empty tomb constitutes decisive evidence in favor of the resurrection hypothesis in that I think that it is conclusive; it does not suggest that it is the only possible explanation -- that's not what "decisive" means.

(iii) Regarding the Big Bang, I already stipulated that physical evidence may be sufficient to warrant accepting some hypothesis in the right circumstances where we might expect to see such evidence (whether it be galaxial redshift or an empty tomb); I simply denied that physical evidence is necessary to warrant some hypothesis (e.g., the Inflationary Model of the Big Bang). So it cannot be a necessary criterion for accepting or rejecting a hypothesis.

(iv) The historian's criteria (inference to the best explanation) are the following:

The best explanation will . . .

1. Have the most explanatory power – make observable data more probable.
2. Have the most explanatory scope – explain a greater variety of the most relevant data.
3. Have the most fecundity – must describe further statements of similar data.
4. Have the most initial plausibility – hypothesis is affirmed by the most accepted truths.
5. Be the least ad hoc – require the fewest suppositions.
6. Be disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs – imply the fewest false statements.
7. Exceed its rival hypotheses in meeting the above conditions.

matt

Jezz

June 4th 2003, 07:19 AM

citizenkyle:
No exhortations to check out specific events. Just exhortations to check out stuff in general. There is of course the reference to the Bereans in Acts that you are already familiar with (did you not want to hear it again because it wasn't convincing, or because you were already familiar with it?)

More because I don't think it's particularly relevant to what we are discussing, which is an encouragement to check out specific paranormal claims. Checking current teachings against previous scripture is in a different category of criticism.
Any reason to suspect that the Bereans comment meant that the Bereans were only checking scripture against scripture, and not against historical fact?

Presuming John reflects the historical Jesus (which I don't), this is more along the lines of what I'm talking about. But we are concerned more with what Jesus' followers taught after his death.
Well, in that case you've put yourself in an interesting dilemma. :smile:

On the one hand, if John's Jesus is not historical, the the quotation from John does not reflect a saying from Jesus, but from one of Jesus' followers. Therefore, the passage does tell us what Jesus' followers were teaching (if it wasn't something they wanted to teach, why invent it and put it on the lips of Jesus?).

On the other hand, if it wasn't a saying of Jesus' followers that were trying to teach, you'll have to admit it was a saying of the historical Jesus.

All the Benny Hinn followers need to brush up on that [prophet test] passage, eh? :smile:
Indeed. :smile:

I'm still not convinced that critical investigations into the paranormal was the prevailing attitude of the day.
Ok, how about this passage: John 9:1-34. It's long, so I'll paraphrase it.

Jesus heals a man born blind. Some of his neighbours/acquaintences see him, but some refuse to believe it was him (skeptical). When he insists, they ask him how his eyes were opened (ie, they were still skeptical). They took him to the Pharisees (still skeptical). The Pharisees ask him how he received his sight (the Pharisees are skeptical and begin a critical investigation). More interrogation. Because of continued skepticism, they send for the man's parents to confirm that he was in fact blind at birth (critical investigation). The parents come and confirm. They send for the man a second time and ask him "What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?" (still skeptical - looking for a naturalistic explanation, ie more critical investigation). The man answers "I have told you already and you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again?" The Pharisees insult him, and say "We are disciples of Moses! We know that God spoke to Moses, but as for this fellow, we don't even know where he comes from." (still skeptical). The man says well, obviously if he can do such miracles, he must be from God. The Pharisees threw him out (still skeptical).

Was that a good enough example of a skeptical attitude and critical examination in the ANE? :wink:

Or how about John 10:24-25:

The Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly."
Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me..."

The Jews are skeptical of Jesus' claim to be Christ (again), and Jesus tells them to investigate his miracles as proof (again).

If you use the "It's John, it's not historical" argument again, then I will use the dilemma again that if this is not indicative of history, then it's indicative of at least one of Jesus' follower's belief of what history should have been.

Of course, there is also the example of the doubting Thomas, showing skepticism and refusing to believe in the resurrection, despite the fact that 10 or more of his closest companions were vouching for it.

If one accepts Mark 16:9-20 (I believe there is some debate about it), we also have several accounts of people being skeptical in vs 11-14.

I could go on, but I won't (for now... :wink:).

I think there was little need to discourage such behavior because so few bothered with it in the first place. Ever read Richard Carrier's "Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire"? It seems to indicate a widely held "magical" world view where paranormal events were imminently believable.
I haven't read that book. But evidentally (from the above excerpts), there were a substantial number of people who didn't believe miracles without substantial proof (and sometimes, even after receiving substantial proof... :smile).

It stands if both of your premises are correct.
Premise #1: Early Christians made claims that were meaningfully testable. IOW, an empty tomb is testable but doesn't automatically equal a risen Jesus.

Premise #2: Early Christians encouraged people to investigate those claims.

I'm not yet sold on either premise.
Fair comment; at least you've agreed that the argument is valid.

What other kind of evidence are we supposed to bring forward? According to this thread, there seems to be near universal agreement that producing Jesus' dead body is the only positive evidence that could falsify Christianity. Since it is highly unlikely that we could produce the body of Jesus whether he was rezzed or not, this means Christianity is essentially unfalsifiable (at least from the standpoint of most Christians in this thread).
It doesn't have to be physical evidence of the dead body (at least, not in my opinion - that would be being inconsistent because there is no physical evidence of the risen body anymore either). It could be documented evidence. If the Pharisees (who were trying to put down the myth) could have accessed the body, they would have done so - probably displayed it in a public place or something for confirmation, and probably written something about it. Surely, someone would have written something about it?

Or if there had been witnesses to the tomb robbing (if indeed that is what happened), and we had solid documented evidence of their testimony.

Either would falsify Christianity. We don't expect conclusive evidence to support the alternative theories (there is no such thing when dealing with history), but how can we, as good historians, give them a serious consideration if there is no evidence (and in the face of evidence consistent with a contrary alternative)?

I can't help but quipping - something that is true is by its nature unfalsifiable. :wink:

Well, for starters, Christianity is only part-myth. :smile: Secondly, that's not a very strong argument, since out of all the myths in existence, some are bound to be more popular than others. And logically, one myth has to be the most popular of all. But the most popular myth is still just a myth.
Yes, but kinda missing the point. As you know, the argument for Christianity is not that there aren't other myths, but none of them started in conditions that were quite so adverse to their development, and in such a short period of time. Even if Christianity were not the most popular "myth", it would still be unique because of this fact alone.

Chsalvia has already touched on this point, but this reminds me a lot of creationism. Arguments between creationists and evolutionists always consist of the evolutionist presenting evidence, and the creationist trying to explain it away. Really though, this is not terribly meaningful. After all, the person taking the skeptical position is always doing the explaining away. Creationists are just evolution-skeptics.
Indeed. I'm not a YEC - I find it a strained interpretation, not just of scientific facts, but of the Bible itself. But that's a topic for another thread.

Wildcat

June 4th 2003, 11:13 AM

Chsalvia: If it's Christian versus evolutionist, the entire debate is basically the person who argues for evolution throwing hundreds and hundreds of scientific facts at the Christian, while the Christian constantly tries to explain it away, undermine it somehow, or strainingly reinterpret scripture to accord with it.

Wildcat: With this exception, I thought that your post seemed well-balanced. I haven't studied the evolution/creation debates so I can't honestly say who has the upper hand. However, I can say that creationists make similar, but opposite, claims that you just made. For example, one creationist said that out of about 200 debates in the last "however many years"(I can't remember the number given) that creationists won the majority of them. Since debates are subjective, I don't know exactly how that conclusion was drawn, and this claim by itself probably means about as much to me as it does to you, but the point is that both sides seem to make, shall we say, lofty claims on what the evidence actually tells us about origins.

Wildcat.

citizenkyle

June 4th 2003, 11:34 AM

Matt,

(i) My fear is that "extraordinary evidence" has no referent in that it can allow someone to deny any amount of evidence claiming that it hasn't lived up to the "extraordinary" standard. Typically, it masks one's anti-supernatural bias (e.g., Keith Parsons).

Ok, but do you agree with the maxim in principle? Or do you think extraordinary claims hould be accepted on the basis of ordinary evidence?

(ii) I do think the empty tomb constitutes decisive evidence in favor of the resurrection hypothesis in that I think that it is conclusive; it does not suggest that it is the only possible explanation -- that's not what "decisive" means.

That's what I mean when I use the term. If you can think of a better term for that purpose, let me know.

(iii) Regarding the Big Bang, I already stipulated that physical evidence may be sufficient to warrant accepting some hypothesis in the right circumstances where we might expect to see such evidence (whether it be galaxial redshift or an empty tomb); I simply denied that physical evidence is necessary to warrant some hypothesis (e.g., the Inflationary Model of the Big Bang). So it cannot be a necessary criterion for accepting or rejecting a hypothesis.

Physical evidence is not necessary to etablish a hypothesis, but it is needed to establish a fact. And I imagine you hold the rez to be more than a hypothesis.

(iv) The historian's criteria (inference to the best explanation) are the following:

The best explanation will . . .

1. Have the most explanatory power – make observable data more probable.
2. Have the most explanatory scope – explain a greater variety of the most relevant data.
3. Have the most fecundity – must describe further statements of similar data.
4. Have the most initial plausibility – hypothesis is affirmed by the most accepted truths.
5. Be the least ad hoc – require the fewest suppositions.
6. Be disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs – imply the fewest false statements.
7. Exceed its rival hypotheses in meeting the above conditions.

Just out of curiosity, where did you extract that criteria from? At a glance, some of the criteria appears a bit vague. Consider #1--how exactly does an explanation make data more probable? Can you give me an example?

As well, the rez hypothesis appears to fail seriously on points 3 and 4. On 3, it can't explain further statements of similiar data since we have no similar data (i.e. other rezzes). On 4, the rez definitely doesn't have the most initial plausibility, since it's an accepted truth that dead men don't rise from their graves.

On point 5, the rez may not need the most suppositions, but it certainly needs one of the greatest magnitude--that being the supposed deity of Jesus.

Jezz

June 4th 2003, 11:59 AM

citizenkyle:
Oops, I guess it wasn't obvious from the way I presented it. Eusebius actually includes quotation marks to differentiate his text from Phlegon's.
Given that the quotation mark didn't come into existence until the 17th or 18th century, I find that very difficult to believe. :wink: The translator put the quotes in.

The existence of quote marks in the translation does not necessarily mean that it was an exact quote. The Bible gives us plenty of examples of this - here is one (from the NIV):
Compare: "Not one of his bones will be broken" (John 19:36b)
with: ...he protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken. (Psalm 34:20)
and:

In fact, I don't think ancient writers often quoted verbatim. They usually paraphrased. In which case, it is eminently plausible (maybe even probable) that Eusebius and JA were both using the same, unaltered passage in an original, uninterpolated copy of Phlegon.

Yes, it does have bearing. Bithynia is about 500 miles to the north of Jerusalem.
Actually, I just found out that it's about 500 miles northwest of Jerusalem, in modern-day Turkey, according to this link: http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/bithynia.htm. This difference is important, as we will see below.

[snip my eclipse points]

Unfortunately, all those points are moot if Phlegon was uncritically borrowing from the Christian tale, which is the one of the hypotheses I am advancing.
Of course, it's always the default skeptical fallback hypothesis. That or "it was a later interpolation by a Christian editor, and they managed to hide all the originals". Any time there is a text that can't be interpreted in a way that doesn't support the resurrection, you fall back to an uncritical borrowing/later interpolation hypothesis (often without proof). (Note: these comments are not aimed at you specifically, in fact they are aimed at you much less than most.) Which is what makes your position an unfalsifiable one. How many unsubstantiated claims of interpolations/uncritical borrowing/invention are you willing to postulate? Have you set yourself an upper limit, or are you willing to postulate an infinite number of them rather than accept that the resurrection occurred? :smile:

Also, Phlegon might have his dates wrong and actually be referring to the eclipse in 29AD.
Actually, now that I have read the entire Eusebius quote, I noted that he was not citing Phlegon twice, but he used some other source for the first quote (identified simply as "another Greek compendium"), and Phlegon for the second. The dates on the two sources apparently agreed that the eclipse was in 32 AD, which was apparently the year of Jesus' death. But I suppose now you'll say that they were merely both borrowing uncritically from Christian sources, or one of them was borrowing uncritically from the other... :wink:

If that is the case, then there is something to say with regards to your point that an eclipse "excelling every other" must mean in terms of time. It could also mean in terms of totality, since, as you suggest, the 29AD eclipse was the only total one for that area within a 20 year span.
Yes, I would agree, except that (as I noted) the 32 AD date seems more solid that I originally thought. In fact, on a second reading of the text, I think there is a clue that supports your interpretation: the subsequent clause in the sentence is "...turning day into such darkness of night that the stars could be seen in heaven..."

At least one scholar suspects that "the sixth hour" was a corruption by a later scribe.
At least two scholars believe that it wasn't a corruption by a later scribe. I win. Gee, this game is easy. :wink:

And even if it wasn't, the total eclipse would only occur at noon in one location. And, of course, Phlegon gives no indication that the location he is speaking of is Jerusalem.
With regard to the first point: this, of course, assumes that it is a normal solar eclipse. If it was in 32 AD, then it wasn't a normal solar eclipse.

If it was actually the 29 AD eclipse, then the eclipse passed through both Jerusalem and Bithynia (and here we see the importance of the distinction between "north" and "northwest"), making the question of location moot. The locations are even close enough together that they probably would have got the eclipse within an hour or so of each other, so a designation of "noon" may have been appropriate in both places. However, I also note that (as far as I can tell from the eclipse map), the eclipse didn't reach Jerusalem until a couple of hours after noon, and Bithynia an hour after that. I am not sure if "three hours after noon" would still be considered "noon" in ANE reckoning - even taking into account their less precise tendencies.

Regarding the second point, a nitpick: Eusebius gives us no indication that the location Phlegon is speaking of is Jerusalem. We don't know for sure if Phlegon (or the other Greek source) did give any indication. Clearly, however, Eusebius thought Phlegon was talking about Jerusalem, otherwise he probably wouldn't have brought it up.

[snip Carrier quote]
Maybe I'm unique, but I thought the passage read quite smoothly as it was (I think the one that I read was translated differently - reading, "- manifestly that one of which we speak.")

But even if correct, Carrier is missing a point, I think. The point is that someone (even if it wasn't JA) recorded those words from Phlegon. There are also works other than those of JA that reference Phlegon.

As for claiming that Eusebius correctly quoted Phlegon and JA didn't, I can't see this as anything but a begged question without confirmation that Eusebius was indeed quoting verbatim from Phlegon. Not to say that such evidence isn't available, but I'm afraid you'll have to do better than point to quotation marks in a translated text.

There are some key differences. For one, I suspect a somewhat late date for the darkness story (early 60s maybe?).
That's still only 30 years after the fact - well within the lifetime of many people who would have seen the eclipse.

Secondly, we have no idea how widespread the darkness story was. It was certainly never mentioned by Paul or even John. For all we know, it was a somewhat isolated tradition at first, and was rarely (if ever) used in evangelism. That would explain why nobody questioned the story.
They probably saw no need to mention it - not in writing, at least. If it actually happened, you'd only have to mention it once in person and people would know what you were talking about (in Jerusalem at least), and you wouldn't have to refer to it again.

On the contrary, it would be difficult to make a case that the early Christians never mentioned the crucifixion in their evangelism and that the empty tomb was an isolated tradition.
Agreed.

Actually, I couldn't tell you any of the years in which I saw eclipses. If you told me one occured 20 years ago, I'd probably give you the benefit of the doubt. I suppose I'd be more inclined to remember an eclipse on New Year's day, but I wouldn't swear to you that one never happened in my life with consulting astronomical data first. Maybe I'm unique in this respect.
I think you are very unique. In fact, I don't really believe you. :smile:

We're talking about a total eclipse here - not merely a partial one (which are no more spectacular than the sun going behind a cloud, for the most part). I find it hard to believe that anyone could forget seeing stars during the middle of the day, or that it was like that for 3 hours, regardless of how long ago it happened (ie, even granting you your 30 years). Especially if it happened on a day of special significance. You may not remember the exact year, but you'd remember roughly (and you'd certainly remember the day if it was an important festival). This isn't even taking into account the fact that some of the educated would have been aware of the impossibility of a normal solar eclipse last for 3 hours or occuring at full moon.

If someone told me that a total solar eclipse happened in my city on New Year's Day 20 years ago, I'd be extremely certain that it didn't happen (especially if it lasted for 3 hours).

Do you remember where you were on Sept 11, 2001? Do you think you will still remember in 2031? You just don't forget events of this magnitude.