Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Gary & Rhinestone's Thread on Burial and Resurrection of Christ

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    Why would you argue that the Jesus “empty tomb narrative is different in kind than the many other 'missing bodies' and 'empty tomb' stories in ancient literature?
    Because the accounts are markedly different. That's why I was referencing Miller's book, not to make any point about the veracity of the empty tomb. Miller's book summarizes a good number of them, and it's pretty clear that they're far from the same thing.

    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    David Hume is generally regarded as one of the most important philosophers to write in English and his “work on miracles” can’t be lightly dismissed. But, I suppose this is irrelevant if you’re going for the “fictive” notion of the empty tomb as per Richard Miller.
    Agreed, which is why I'm not interested in discussing it right now. I'm not a philosopher; I'm a historian. I leave philosophy to people like Craig/Millican/Feser/Davies/Sober/etc.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
      However, I don't have any evidence to show that it is false.
      You have your epistemology, I have mine. When someone tells me I should believe something, I don't need evidence that it's false. Without evidence that it's true, I think I'm justified in withholding belief. And if it also seems prima facie unlikely, I think I'm justified in suspecting that it's false.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
        Assuming that the creed was originally formulated as evidence for the resurrection . . . .
        What could that assumption be based on?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by psstein View Post
          Because the accounts are markedly different. That's why I was referencing Miller's book, not to make any point about the veracity of the empty tomb. Miller's book summarizes a good number of them, and it's pretty clear that they're far from the same thing.
          Variation in the details of different myths re empty tombs is beside the point. The argument is that this is the way stories were told about exceptional people in that era. The depictions of Jesus in the gospels, indeed in the whole New Testament, are typical of the mythic storytelling style of that period. Everything from Jesus’ miracles to ascending to heaven in a cloud would have been understood fictively. This is Miller’s argument.
          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
            The names in the first list that you offered all post date the resurrection account (whether written or not) of Christianity - if any copying occurred (which is doubtful), it was copied FROM the Christian narratives, NOT by them.
            This is similar to the rationalisation by the early Church of the similarities between Jesus and the far earlier death & resurrection pagan myths. Church Fathers such as Justin Martyr, Tertulian and Irenaus claimed that the similarities were the result of "diabolical mimicry". They accused the devil of "plagiarism by anticipation". They pointed out that the devil had deliberately copied the true story Jesus Christ in advance. This was the devil's attempt to mislead all the naïve and innocent people. Not a strong or convincing argument, I feel.
            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
              What could that assumption be based on?
              Primarily the earliness of it, and the fact that it lists multiple eyewitnesses as though to convince an audience of the fact that Jesus really did die and rise "according to the Scriptures", that is, the creed is confirmation of the Old Testament promises.

              Gerd Ludemann adds, "Paul's way of presenting the material had the primary purpose of providing historical proof of the resurrection. He underlines this by adding verse 6b, implying that those who were still skeptical about what they have heard could ask the witnesses directly, since most of them were still alive. In addition, the expression 'at one time' in verse 6a is probably meant to intensify the objectivity, because in Paul's opinion more than five hundred witnesses could hardly all have been deluded."

              Why, for what reason do you think the creed was formulated?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                Primarily the earliness of it, and the fact that it lists multiple eyewitnesses as though to convince an audience of the fact that Jesus really did die and rise "according to the Scriptures", that is, the creed is confirmation of the Old Testament promises.

                Gerd Ludemann adds, "Paul's way of presenting the material had the primary purpose of providing historical proof of the resurrection. He underlines this by adding verse 6b, implying that those who were still skeptical about what they have heard could ask the witnesses directly, since most of them were still alive. In addition, the expression 'at one time' in verse 6a is probably meant to intensify the objectivity, because in Paul's opinion more than five hundred witnesses could hardly all have been deluded."

                Why, for what reason do you think the creed was formulated?
                Unfortunately, a lot of the "eyewitnessing" was done by people who had spiritual visionary experiences that didn't necessarily have anything to do with reality. In regards to the group appearances, the word ὤφθη (Greek - ōphthē) may only indicate a mass ecstatic worship experience like people today have in church who pray, sing, or speak in tongues together. This type of experience doesn't rely on sensory perception. They could have just "felt the presence" of Jesus instead of physically seeing him. This interpretation is made more probable considering Second Temple Judaism was a visionary culture and that Paul places his "vision" alongside the "appearances" to the others without making a distinction.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
                  Unfortunately, a lot of the "eyewitnessing" was done by people who had spiritual visionary experiences that didn't necessarily have anything to do with reality. In regards to the group appearances, the word ὤφθη (Greek - ōphthē) may only indicate a mass ecstatic worship experience like people today have in church who pray, sing, or speak in tongues together. This type of experience doesn't rely on sensory perception. They could have just "felt the presence" of Jesus instead of physically seeing him. This interpretation is made more probable considering Second Temple Judaism was a visionary culture and that Paul places his "vision" alongside the "appearances" to the others without making a distinction.
                  Yes, I'm totally aware that this is the view you hold. You never waste an opportunity to repeat it. It really has nothing at all to do with the question Doug asked me though.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                    Yes, I'm totally aware that this is the view you hold. You never waste an opportunity to repeat it. It really has nothing at all to do with the question Doug asked me though.
                    You quote mined Ludemann. I had to respond since he basically makes the same point I made in his book. The point about the group appearances being somehow "better evidence" for the Resurrection collapses once you take into consideration that these were spiritual encounters and not necessarily objective physical ones.
                    Last edited by RhinestoneCowboy; 07-23-2017, 01:56 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
                      You quote mined Ludemann. I had to respond since he basically makes the same point I made in his book. The point about the group appearances being somehow "better evidence" for the Resurrection collapses once you take into consideration that these were spiritual encounters and not necessarily objective physical ones.
                      No, I didn't quote mine Ludemann. Doug wanted to know what the assumption (that the 1st Corinthian creed was formulated as evidence for the resurrection) was based on. The Ludemann quote answers that question regardless of whether one believes that the appearances Paul is referring to are physical or visions (Ludemann believes that the disciples experienced grief induced visions that they misinterpreted as physical manifestations). In fact, I quoted Ludemann specifically because he's skeptical of the physical resurrection to demonstrate that this is a view accepted even by skeptics.

                      Comment


                      • That's fair but there was no mention of Ludemann's skeptical view in your original quote. He goes on to say that Paul thought all the visions were like his own. You obviously didn't use that part.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
                          That's fair but there was no mention of Ludemann's skeptical view in your original quote.
                          Doug's been a poster here for a very long time. I posted what I did knowing that Doug is aware that Ludemann is a skeptic.

                          Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
                          He goes on to say that Paul thought all the visions were like his own. You obviously didn't use that part.
                          What does that have to do with the question, "What could that assumption be based on?" ("that" being the assumption that "the creed was originally formulated as evidence for the resurrection").

                          Comment


                          • It's just an important point that needs to be made in regards to transparency. It reminded me of the same dishonest tactic that WLC uses in his debates. "According to the esteemed German scholar and skeptic Gerd Ludemann, it can be taken as historically certain that the disciples had experiences of Jesus after his death."

                            Not so fast, Billy. Doesn't Ludemann think those "experiences" were based on bereavement hallucinations that didn't necessarily have anything to do with reality?

                            WLC: "Uh.....well....yes....but I didn't want the people that I'm pandering to to know that."

                            If Craig made Ludemann's actual view known to the audience then the argument loses its force. He's banking on most people not being familiar with critical scholarship and that's how I originally took your quote. Sorry if I was mistaken.

                            On a side note, it can also be taken as historically certain that people have "seen" Elvis after his death. However, I don't see anyone using that as evidence for Elvis' resurrection.
                            Last edited by RhinestoneCowboy; 07-23-2017, 06:06 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
                              It's just an important point that needs to be made in regards to transparency. It reminded me of the same dishonest tactic that WLC uses in his debates. "According to the esteemed German scholar and skeptic Gerd Ludemann, it can be taken as historically certain that the disciples had experiences of Jesus after his death."

                              Not so fast, Billy. Doesn't Ludemann think those "experiences" were based on bereavement hallucinations that didn't necessarily have anything to do with reality?

                              WLC: "Uh.....well....yes....but I didn't want the people that I'm pandering to to know that."

                              If Craig made Ludemann's actual view known to the audience then the argument loses its force. He's banking on most people not being familiar with critical scholarship and that's how I originally took your quote. Sorry if I was mistaken.

                              On a side note, it can also be taken as historically certain that people have "seen" Elvis after his death. However, I don't see anyone using that as evidence for Elvis' resurrection.
                              It's been my experience that no one really has a problem with this sort of thing except rabid skeptics. When you read Biblical scholarship you come across scholars, both critical and conservative, who highlight points from those on the other side of the ideological divide all the time to emphasize a point. It'a way of saying, "even this scholar who doesn't agree with my conclusion cedes this point". I mean, that's the reason Craig emphasizes that Ludemann is a "skeptic". I don't know anyone who would leave a WLC debate, and says, "well golly, that Gerd Ludemann must be one heck of a Christian". Pretty sure I remember seeing you citing or mentioning a scholar or two in the past that agreed with a particular point you were attempting to make, but likely did not agree with your conclusion.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                                Why, for what reason do you think the creed was formulated?
                                For the same reason Christians have formulated all the other creeds they have had over the past 2,000 years: to tell other Christians what they'd better believe if they want to be real Christians.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                159 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                426 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X