Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[William]

Agreed entirely. Consider this. You won't see me going to the natural science section arguing against evolution. Why?

Because I do not study that topic. It has no interest to me. It does not matter whatsoever to me.

But if I wanted to argue it, what would I do? I'd go get the best books on both sides of the argument and really study them.

Christians around here? Many of us know the arguments for what we believe, but we also know the arguments against what we believe and we strive to know them better than the other side does.

I typically also avoid going into forums of topics I have no interest in.

I strive to know more as well. You seem to be implying that one should withhold an opinion until they've crossed an imaginary line of study, and study not merely in regard to the bible itself, but in regard to some collection of other books. If this is your position, then what line and which books?

This is your forum, so if you feel it has certain prerequisites outside of interest in the bible and having read the bible, then what are these prerequisites?

[Apologiaphoenix]

I typically also avoid going into forums of topics I have no interest in.

I strive to know more as well. You seem to be implying that one should withhold an opinion until they've crossed an imaginary line of study, and study not merely in regard to the bible itself, but in regard to some collection of other books. If this is your position, then what line and which books?

This is your forum, so if you feel it has certain prerequisites outside of interest in the bible and having read the bible, then what are these prerequisites?

This isn't my forum. People whose names are in red are the owners here. There is no rule about requirements to discuss, but I am saying read some of the best scholarly material that you can find. If you're not familiar at least with it, then hold off. I have also not said you have to read specific names. I've instead given the qualifications of a scholar and said "Now go to it."

[psstein]

Those are very vague generalities. Basically: Jesus lived; was a preacher; got on the wrong side of the Jewish authorities; the Jews asked the Romans to kill him, which they did; shortly after his death his followers believed he had been raised from the dead.

I'm not a mythicist so I don't need to be convinced that Jesus was a real human being. I need evidence he was a god. You don't need to believe in miracles or in gods to believe any of the above. It is the miracle claims of Christianity which are disputed by most skeptics. See the post below. It is very long, but in my opinion, blows Keneer and his "miracles" out of the water.

Obviously, I didn't provide the exact specifics. We happen to know quite a bit about Jesus' general activity and life during his public ministry. With form criticism and source criticism, it's also fairly easy to figure out what specifically goes back to Jesus and what doesn't. Embellishments are often quickly sighted.

I really fail to see how that post "blows Keener out of the water." Keener's is attacking Hume's circular argument. There are insufficient eyewitnesses only if you ignore the eyewitnesses. He's not arguing for the veracity of miracles; he's simply saying there's more to it than Hume's argument. You have to read the book rather than just go off of blog posts and talks. I've listened to talks and completely disagreed with the people giving them. I've read their published work later and conceded they have a point.

There are other, largely philosophical issues with that post, and it would require a discussion far beyond the scope of this thread. The worst is "religious faith is antithetical to reason."

I'll quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (my denomination's Articles of Faith): "Our Holy Mother, the Church, teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be knwon with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason" (CCC 36).

[Apologiaphoenix]

Obviously, I didn't provide the exact specifics. We happen to know quite a bit about Jesus' general activity and life during his public ministry. With form criticism and source criticism, it's also fairly easy to figure out what specifically goes back to Jesus and what doesn't. Embellishments are often quickly sighted.

I really fail to see how that post "blows Keener out of the water." Keener's is attacking Hume's circular argument. There are insufficient eyewitnesses only if you ignore the eyewitnesses. He's not arguing for the veracity of miracles; he's simply saying there's more to it than Hume's argument. You have to read the book rather than just go off of blog posts and talks. I've listened to talks and completely disagreed with the people giving them. I've read their published work later and conceded they have a point.

There are other, largely philosophical issues with that post, and it would require a discussion far beyond the scope of this thread. The worst is "religious faith is antithetical to reason."

I'll quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (my denomination's Articles of Faith): "Our Holy Mother, the Church, teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be knwon with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason" (CCC 36).

Favor the Thomistic arguments?

[Gary]

Investigating the New Testament record made it clear enough: Those who preach a false Christ will not get any backing from God (the seven sons of Sceva as a good example). When a false doctrine is preached, the true Christ isn't being preached.

As to anecdotal evidence - eye-witness reports are not included in the definition.

ETA
As to what people of other faiths may or may not be able to achieve is not related to actively preaching a false Christ. I have no doubt that adherents of at least a few other religions would be able to produce miracles.

Once again you are making the logical error of Begging the Question: You are using the testimony in question (the four anonymous gospels) as evidence for the validity of the claims of the very same testimony. Your argument falls apart when we look at actual evidence: Christians have the same morbidity and mortality rates as non-Christians. Christians do NOT have lower rates of illness or death than persons of other religions or even atheists. Therefore, claims that persons who follow sound Christian teaching are more likely to experience a miracle than those who do not is proven false.

[psstein]

None of the apostles believed jesus had come back to life until they saw him for themselves, despite being told by eyewitnesses.

Some reasons why eyewitnesses aren't ironclad evidences:

http://www.innocenceproject.org/free...ons-nationwide
http://news.sciencemag.org/policy/20...ientists-weigh

If you're going to use this line of reasoning, you ought to read Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.

[William]

This isn't my forum. People whose names are in red are the owners here. There is no rule about requirements to discuss, but I am saying read some of the best scholarly material that you can find. If you're not familiar at least with it, then hold off. I have also not said you have to read specific names. I've instead given the qualifications of a scholar and said "Now go to it."

you seem to implying that I havent read any. I have. If you ask me for a bibliography, I'm afraid I wouldnt be able to offer much, as I just didnt keep track of my studies. I still read now as well, but a slower pace with all else going on. books, articles and what have you, and since I'm out of middle school, I know how to look at credentials and I know what value peer review adds to any work.

and if this isnt worthy of your time to hold discussions related to the bible, then I'll let you have another chance to offer your own personal prerequisites. I'd hate for someone with your education to be burdened with having to discuss too much with laymen. I am kinda poking fun, but really out of good nature. and really, if you dont want to discuss any further unless I've read more to your liking, then please, offer a list. I'll leave you guys alone until I get through them - but i stay quite busy so it would be awhile.

but look at this as well, religion and miracles exist in the world. So whatever sources you may suggest also exist in a world where we have countless experts in the sciences. We have histories that are filled with mythologies that were once believed valid, and examples of others who believed wrongly about things, and many examples of eyewitness testimonies being completely wrong.

so these "counter points" are also valid.

We know that dead people stay dead. We have all sorts of data backing that up. And this is understandable for all of us. If anyone came up to you and said that some dead guy came back to life, i would think we'd all be very skeptical, and seriously doubt any of us would hold it at 50/50 until we confirmed that there was someone who claimed to be an eyewitness.

So with the bible let's say that we have 5 sources for the Resurrection, Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. They all seem to agree that there was a Resurrection. A Resurrection isn't the same as claiming that someone crossed a river or fought in a war; this is more like 5 people claiming to have been abducted by aliens - a Resurrection is counter to natural law, so it couldn't be expected that anyone should take it without any skepticism.

Paul says that there were 500 other witnesses, but since there's reason to be skeptical that dead men come back to life and fly, it becomes reasonable to be skeptical of Paul's 500 claim. Why doesn't he name the? Could be giving a random round number merely in a effort to add credibility? But it could be true, albeit still a very big claim. And Paul was evidently called a liar as he made efforts to refute that allegation. Was he a liar?

and then we take the 4 gospels. They do agree that there was a Resurrection, but then their stories part ways in the details - where the angels met them, who spoke to the angles, where Jesus met them, and who spoke to him, how many people and who did what first or at what time... you can say they're insignificant details to larger claim, but this is exactly how conspirators are caught. The major details were worked out,

1 "Okay, we were here all night and ordered in and watched TV."

2 "Got It."

then under interrogation or when writing their memoir decades later,

1 "we stayed home all night, watching Magnum PI and eating Pizza."

2 "We stayed in all evening watching some old movie and ordered Chinese."

these contradictions mean something. maybe they're just off only on those details, but it typically makes either's testimony entirely untrustworthy as no one can say what else they're off on, or whether any actually did any of that. Right? This is fairly obvious.

So when all 4 gospels differ in the details and Paul doesn't even give any, where does our confidence reside? in whom can we trust? It could very well be that all of them heard a story enough times that they each wrote from a memory of hearsay and not actual witness, which is why the major details are right and all the others are off.

"well, back then no one would lie," except people lie. They always have, so we cant say that they do not or that they did not.

"but there are embarrassing details," except a crucifixion isnt be argued against, and women who are on there way to care for a dead body isnt embarrassing, and they allegedly weren't trusted so then the men went to verify becoming witnesses, so is that really embarrassing? and regardless, not many doubt that women may have seen something.

"but there's an empty tomb," which proves an empty tomb and no more is evidence for a resurrected body that any empty to grave today and nor does a missing body from ascension into heaven.

"but people believed it and they would have known better," and people of all times, and even today, believe in all sorts if nonsense, right?

"but people wouldn't die for a lie," and who did? Who died that had the chance to recant in order to save their lives? and we have martyrs of other religions as well, which no more proves their religion, than martyrs of Christ prove christ.

"It's the only thing that answers all the questions," except it's not. There are other documented cases of mass miracles. There are documented cases of mistaken identities, where family members believed a stranger living with them was dear family member, documented cases of people being fooled by all manner of things, as well as many scientific and personal reasons to remain doubtful.

[Gary]

Funny thing this cartoon universe premise. As if the concept of God creating the universe is predicated on the idea of a cartoonist creating a cartoon world, instead of the other way around. GG WP.

That is not what the author said. He is making a comparison not alleging that one is based on the other.

[Gary]

Seems to me that he thinks Calvinist (or maybe just Hyper-Calvinst) teachings are the sine qua non of all Christian teachings.



Well - that's an interesting interpretation.

Oh - well - Martin Luther said: that makes it right then. Would this be the same Martin Luther who saw fit, when he translated the Bible, to alter Ephesians 2:8 and declared, "James was an epistle of straw that had "nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it."? Despite having knowingly altered Ephesians 2:8, he then could not understand why (his version of) that verse and James 2:20-24 could not be reconciled. Small wonder his contempt for reason.

Yes, only those silly Lutherans placed faith (superstition) above reason.

[psstein]

Favor the Thomistic arguments?

Absolutely, if you have the Catechism of the Catholic Church, read paragraph 32. The Thomistic arguments are the best arguments for the existence of God.

This is also why, as much as I respect WLC, I only think one or two of his arguments actually work.

[Gary]

Gary's blow to Keener's 2 volume work is not his own in-depth review of Keener's work, it's not even a blog post reviewing that work, it's a review of a snippet of an interview with Keener briefly speaking on skepticism of miracles.

Yeah, using the word "fact" a dozen times (as though Keener isn't interested in the facts) really blew him out of the water.

The point of the author's article is that Keener is asking his readers to believe in miracles based on eyewitness testimony not based on facts (evidence). Does Keener hire independent, unbiased scientists and physicians to investigate the claims of a miracle or does he simply accept the testimony of the "eyewitnesses"? The author is saying that eye witness testimony is valuable, but is not as good as the evidence itself. Eye witness testimony should not be accepted as fact, especially if it contradicts reason. If five hundred people claim to have seen the dead but resurrected Abraham Lincoln strolling the streets of Peoria, we should NOT accept their "eyewitness testimony" as fact. We should examine the evidence as their claim defies reason.

[William]

If you're going to use this line of reasoning, you ought to read Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.

thanks for the suggestion, I will add it to my list.

is there something wrong with my line of reasoning, or is there any reason I should not use it?

[psstein]

With regards to what Psstein said about the resurrection being the best explanation of the data, while we disagree on secondary details, I thoroughly agree with the primary point. I don't think any other explanation really comes close to the explanatory power of the resurrection hypothesis. We have to get into things like aliens and conspiracies and such.

That's more or less my stance as well. I think there are other possible alternatives, but they don't have the same explanatory power. The hallucination leading to the empty tomb is almost a sort of provincialism and presentism. I think Wright's treatment in Chapter 18 of the Resurrection of the Son of God is damning to the hallucination hypothesis.

[psstein]

thanks for the suggestion, I will add it to my list.

is there something wrong with my line of reasoning, or is there any reason I should not use it?

No, I'm merely suggesting you read Bauckham's argument against your position.

[Gary]

There are no other gods, only demons masquerading as such. As supernatural beings, however, they can perform miracles.

So how do you know that the miracles alleged by Keneer were not ALL performed by demons? How can you be sure that the resurrection appearances were not all perpetrated by demons? How do you know that Satan isn't behind all of it to steer people away from God's true faith: orthodox Judaism??