Constructive criticism - Minimal facts method

[GioD]

Last reply to Shuny.

I do not necessarily consider the events individually. They can be considered individually or collectively as probably having Natural Causes without changing the argument.

Well you still haven't proposed a single explanation that accounts for all the facts naturally. You complained about their individual significance without thinking about their collective significance, and that's it.

You have failed to demonstrate how these events cannot be probably explained by natural causes. Still waiting on this . . .

Hmm... isn't it a fallacy to make somebody prove a negative? Or is it only a fallacy when we make Shunyadragon prove the negative?

Besides, how many times do I have to point out I wasn't arguing against a naturalistic explanation in principle?

The belief in the physical Resurrection itself is based on the testimony of the gospels, and not Paul.

I clearly demonstrated above that Paul assumes physicality.

The gospels are not reliably first hand testimony of the events in the life of Jesus. They are at least a generation or more removed from the events of the life of Jesus, and the three synoptic gospels are not independent sources.

It's not as clear-cut as you like it to be. Temporal removal is irrelevant and there is an abundance of evidence at least one was written by an eyewitness.

I believe you are cobbling events and testimony to come up with a conclusion that is not directly related to the event of the Resurrection itself, which becomes a problem of the Fallacy of Composition. For example the historical fact that Jesus was crucified simply indicates the accepted way historians agree he died, and shares no direct link to the claim that jesus physically Resurrected.

Again, this isn't the fallacy of composition because I don't appeal to their individual traits to argue for the collective having the same trait. I never argued that the collective was not naturally explicable because the single events were not naturally explicable (they could very well be individually explicable and that wouldn't change my position).

[Doug Shaver]

Uhmm both true. Isn't that obvious?

Not to me, it isn't.

[sp1ke0kill3r]

Not to me, it isn't.

Why's that?

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=GioD;3429988]Last reply to Shuny. [quote]

OK

Well you still haven't proposed a single explanation that accounts for all the facts naturally. You complained about their individual significance without thinking about their collective significance, and that's it.

Single explanation - Natural causes. Other than that the accounts have different basis in nature and would not have the same explanation, though all probably are of natural cause. some are simple physical events, others testimony of events.

Hmm... isn't it a fallacy to make somebody prove a negative? Or is it only a fallacy when we make Shunyadragon prove the negative?

Not trying to prove the negative in any way concerning the above. Simply all the accounts probably have natural explanations.

Besides, how many times do I have to point out I wasn't arguing against a naturalistic explanation in principle?

Than you have no argument to present that the Resurrection is probably a historical event.

I clearly demonstrated above that Paul assumes physicality.

No you made an assertion. Paul did not describe physicality in the testimony.

It's not as clear-cut as you like it to be. Temporal removal is irrelevant and there is an abundance of evidence at least one was written by an eyewitness.

None are known to be written by eyewitnesses. Some may assert it so, but there is evidence that this is the case.

Again, this isn't the fallacy of composition because I don't appeal to their individual traits to argue for the collective having the same trait. I never argued that the collective was not naturally explicable because the single events were not naturally explicable (they could very well be individually explicable and that wouldn't change my position).

I can easily appeal to them collectively as having a natural explanation including the claim of Resurrection.

[sp1ke0kill3r]

First of all there is absolutely no dispute that the criterion of multiple attestation can be applied to claims in Paul's work with the Gospels and Acts. A strong case can be made for the latter's reliability and this is actually part of the MFM.

while the criterion of multiple[ better referred to as independent] attestation "can be applied to claims in Paul's work with the Gospels and Acts", the question is whether its application yields certain results. Since you assert that Paul can be supplemented by the gospels and Acts , which are not a part of MFM, it's entirely relavant to discuss their content particularly that which relates to Paul's testimony in the very part of Corinthians you are citing.
i dont see any independent attestation to Paul's conversion experience or even to his receipt of said creed. Are you going to deny these experiences
are mentioned in his " reporting of an early creed to the Corinthians" ? You can't make a claim that Paul can be supplemented by the gospels and Acts then reject an examination of those very sources; particularly when it relates directly to the substance of his testimony. Further, the question of whether Paul saw a risen Jesus- "revealed to me" or had some epiphany "revealed in me" goes directly to the question of whether his testimony carries any weight: If he didn't see a risen Jesus he's not an eyewitness; If Paul didn't see a risen Jesus, then he can not independently corroborate the disciples testimony. Even the supplemental Acts is unsure of what Paul experienced. those who might independently attest to Paul's experience strangely disappear. Neither Matthew, Mark or Luke mention Paul so I'm not sure how they could supplement him and since Mathew and Luke rely on Mark, I'm not sure how you can believe they're independent. Finally, stating that a strong case can be made - something I doubt you can do- is not the same as making that case. if you can't make such a case- and again I doubt you can or know how to- then your assessmentof said case, is worthless

[/QUOTE]The rest of your post was irrelevant, I made clear I was talking about Paul's reporting of an early creed to the Corinthians, not anything else.[/QUOTE]

irrelavant how? it relates directly to the substance of his "reporting of an early creed to the Corinthians"

[Doug Shaver]

Uhmm both true. Isn't that obvious?

Not to me, it isn't.

Why's that?

Because I don't know what you mean.

[GioD]

irrelavant how? it relates directly to the substance of his "reporting of an early creed to the Corinthians"

Because, even if Paul's actual experience was ahistorical, that doesn't change the fact that he is reporting remarkably early attestations to the key facts of the resurrection.

[technomage]

Because, even if Paul's actual experience was ahistorical, that doesn't change the fact that he is reporting remarkably early attestations to the key facts of the resurrection.

More accurate to say "reporting remarkably early attestations to the key beliefs of the resurrection." To assert them as "facts" is an unproven assumption.

[GioD]

More accurate to say "reporting remarkably early attestations to the key beliefs of the resurrection." To assert them as "facts" is an unproven assumption.

True, true, investigating them is something to work on. :tounge:

[sp1ke0kill3r]

Because I don't know what you mean.

You don't know what night and day are ore are you not sure of their status as facts?

[sp1ke0kill3r]

Because, even if Paul's actual experience was ahistorical, that doesn't change the fact that he is reporting remarkably early attestations to the key facts of the resurrection.

I don't see how Paul's actual experience could be ahistorical.
And who said he wasn't reporting remarkably early beliefs? Was that ever a point in contention? I for one said " willing to believe Paul met with the disciples and is a good source for the substance of their conversations" [post #66] yet it's precisely Paul's testimony that is in question.
if Price is right First Corinthian 15;3-11 is full of interpolations and I would add useless data: the mysterious 500.
As William O. Walker points out:

"...the surviving text of the Pauline letters is the text promoted by the historical winners in the theological and ecclesiastical struggles of the second and third centuries... In short, it appears likely that the emerging Catholic leadership in the churches 'standardized' the text of the Pauline corpus in the light of 'orthodox' view and practices, suppressing and even destroying all deviant texts and manuscripts. Thus it is that we have no manuscripts dating from earlier than the third century; thus it is that all of the extant manuscripts are remarkably similar in most of their significant features; and thus it is that the manuscript evidence can tell us nothing about the state of the Pauline literature prior to the third century." (sounds like a naturalistic explanation to me)

[GioD]

if Price is right First Corinthian 15;3-11 is full of interpolations and I would add useless data: the mysterious 500.

Price is blatantly wrong.

As William O. Walker points out:

Walker just showed he had no idea what he was talking about. Let's see the problems:

1) There is not one iota of reliable textual or paleographic evidence that Paul taught something unorthodox.
2) "Historical winners" is nothing but a term neo-Gnostics and skeptics like to use to whine when something they don't like is in the Canon. It doesn't matter who won, it matters who is true, and there is no evidence whatsoever that the unorthodox interpretations were correct.
3) The Catholic Church didn't destroy any manuscripts. They ordered the destruction of Arius' works but that is it. The lack of 1st century manuscripts is simply due to wear and tear.
4) The idea that we need the text of the first century manuscripts to tell what the letters actually said is asinine.
5) Walker cries "conspiracy" to explain that every 2nd and 3rd century Pauline letter teaches orthodox views of Christianity. Such a conspiracy, however, would be impossible to enact by any means of the time.

[Doug Shaver]

You don't know what night and day are ore are you not sure of their status as facts?

I don't know what you mean when you (1) assign truth values to them and then (2) assert that they constitute a contradiction.

[Tassman]

And how much of that do we have for Caesar's Crossing the Rubicon?

Quite a lot actually! Caesar describes in his book “The Civil War” the journey from Ravenna to Ariminum and we know that they are directly connected by a major road which crosses the Rubicon. Unlike Jesus, we have Caesar’s actual words and writing about this and much else, plus multitudinous evidence of his deeds from independent historians plus archeological evidence plus coins, statures and busts etc. We have none of this for Jesus.

Not as many Jews were Hellenized at Paul's time as you'd like us to think. Right now this is simply an naked assertion.

It is demonstrably wrong to claim that the Jews were unique and did not lose their identity. The early success of Christianity was precisely because it appealed to Hellenized Jews. Even conservative scholar Martin Hengel claims that the Hellenistic and Jewish cultures had become so intertwined by the time of Jesus, that there really was no difference between the "Jewish" and the "Greek" cultures – certainly not among the educated class to which Paul belonged.

No, that's because in the "enhancement theory" the body is completely changed by God. This is different from your interpretation, however, because it still has physical continuity with the old body.

Carrier's interpretation is forced. Josephus is referring to what Paul does - one body that is enhanced and transformed by God during the process of resurrection.

Josephus clearly describes his views in his 'Jewish War', 'Jewish Antiquities' and elsewhere. Many Hellenized Jews like Josephus believed that the resurrection was when the earthly body of flesh is left behind and a new, superior body rises to eternal life. And it is evidently Paul's view as well.

It's not "reanimated" but resurrected. The very emphasis on resurrection as a term was because the body, while still having physical continuity with its old self, was enhanced and transformed by God. Plus this is the best way to make sense of the passage in light of 1 Cor 15:42. In addition, I was looking through Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God last night and found this:

The Resurrection of the Son of God (p.350)

[W]hen Paul discusses pneumatika in chapter 12 [of Corinthians], these 'spiritual gifts' are certainly not 'spiritual' in the sense of 'non-physical', but involve in most cases the operation of the Spirit precisely on aspects of one's physicality...

© source where applicable

The evidence does not support the “enhancement theory”, or the notion that a physical body disappeared from the tomb or that there was an empty tomb – or even a tomb of any sort. The notion of an empty tomb and a fleshly resurrection is a late development.

Actually, Bishop Wright wrote the following referring to Moule’s exposition of Jesus’ spiritual resurrection: “Though Moule is no doubt right that Paul can envisage here the possibility of 'exchange' (i.e. losing one body, getting another one) rather than 'addition', as in 1 Corinthians 15, we should not lose sight of the fact that even if such an 'exchange' were to take place the new body would be more than the present one.” (N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God).

In short, Wright admits that Moule's understanding of Paul in 1 Cor 15 can be validly interpreted that way, although it's not his favored interpretation. As for the “new body being “more than the present one” this is compatible with the new incorruptible spiritual body compared with the corruptible old body.

So now you have to explain "spiritual" meaning non-physical in light of
1) The comparison's predecesor on corruptibility, and
2) "spiritual gifts" ("spiritual" is the same word in Greek here) in chapter 12.



All of these are explained by the enhancement theory. And Paul does imply the Empty Tomb too.



Another problem: Why would they want to switch to a physical resurrection? They wouldn't win converts.

Everything Paul writes is compatible with Jesus’ corpse remaining on earth to decay. It cannot be maintained that Paul knew of, or believed in, a missing corpse. There is insufficient evidence to support this notion and no reason to think it likely given the prevailing Hellenized culture at the time.

Also, no one is arguing that there was a cynical “switch to a physical resurrection”, merely that oral embellishments tend to be increasingly exaggerated as they pass from person-to-person, especially in an era when ‘miracles and magic’ were commonly accepted.

[seanD]

if Price is right First Corinthian 15;3-11 is full of interpolations and I would add useless data: the mysterious 500.

What is your evidence for that?