Happy Easter, everyone!
Happy Easter, everyone!
Happy Easter, everyone!
Which Easter?
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 07:00:41 -0700, Kalkidas <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
Happy Easter, everyone!
Which Easter? ><https://www.rd.com/article/easter-on-different-sunday-every-year/> >*************************************
The decision as to when to celebrate Easter—and whether or not it
should coincide with Passover—was a topic hashed out between bishops
at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. A more standardized calendar, the >Gregorian one, was established in the 16th century under Pope Gregory
XIII, and that’s the internationally accepted civic calendar that most
of the world follows today. Orthodox Christians, however, still follow
the Julian calendar, the previous one created by Julius Caesar in 46
BC, meaning that Easter falls between April 4 and May 8 for them. >**************************************
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 07:00:41 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
Happy Easter, everyone!Which Easter? <https://www.rd.com/article/easter-on-different-sunday-every-year/> *************************************
The decision as to when to celebrate Easter—and whether or not it
should coincide with Passover—was a topic hashed out between bishops
at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. A more standardized calendar, the Gregorian one, was established in the 16th century under Pope Gregory
XIII, and that’s the internationally accepted civic calendar that most
of the world follows today. Orthodox Christians, however, still follow
the Julian calendar, the previous one created by Julius Caesar in 46
BC, meaning that Easter falls between April 4 and May 8 for them. **************************************
--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
You reckon you know better?
Kalkidas wrote:
Happy Easter, everyone!
There is a lot of evidence for the first. The second ... pure faith. Happy Easter!
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 07:51:35 -0700 (PDT), Abner
<abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kalkidas wrote:
Happy Easter, everyone!
There is a lot of evidence for the first. The second ... pure faith. Happy Easter!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
'Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and
biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his nonexistence as effectively refuted.[7][9][48][49][50] Robert M.
Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[51]
Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent
years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the
non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have
not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."[9] Richard A. Burridge states, "There are
those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination,
that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know
any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."[48][35]:
24–26'
You reckon you know better?
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 07:51:35 -0700 (PDT), Abner
<abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kalkidas wrote:
Happy Easter, everyone!
There is a lot of evidence for the first. The second ... pure faith. Happy Easter!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
'Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and
biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his nonexistence as effectively refuted.[7][9][48][49][50] Robert M.
Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[51]
Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent
years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the
non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have
not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."[9] Richard A. Burridge states, "There are
those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination,
that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know
any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."[48][35]:
24–26'
You reckon you know better?
Martin Harran wrote:
You reckon you know better?
None of that does anything to establish that Jesus Christ is still alive. *That* is pure faith. Plenty of people who once existed are not still alive ...
I have no objection to people having faith that Jesus is still alive, but Kalkidas came out swinging with a claim of faith as if it was a claim of truth and I tweaked his nose about it fairly gently IMO.
Happy Easter to you too!
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 8:40:15?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 07:51:35 -0700 (PDT), Abner
<abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kalkidas wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Happy Easter, everyone!
There is a lot of evidence for the first. The second ... pure faith. Happy Easter!
'Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and
biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his
nonexistence as effectively refuted.[7][9][48][49][50] Robert M.
Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his
perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[51]
Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent
years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the
non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have
not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant,
evidence to the contrary."[9] Richard A. Burridge states, "There are
those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination,
that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know
any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."[48][35]:
2426'
You reckon you know better?
You seem to have misread the post.
The first statement, for which there is plenty of evidence, was "Charles Darwin still dead." The second statement, which requires pure faith, was "Jesus Christ still alive." There was no denial of the historical Jesus.
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 18:59:47 -0700 (PDT), Abner
<abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
You reckon you know better?
None of that does anything to establish that Jesus Christ is still alive. *That* is pure faith. Plenty of people who once existed are not still alive ...
I have no objection to people having faith that Jesus is still alive, but Kalkidas came out swinging with a claim of faith as if it was a claim of truth and I tweaked his nose about it fairly gently IMO.
I've just commented to Bill Rogers that it depends on what one means
by "alive" and that Jesus is still "alive" to millions of Christians.
Kalki is actually wrong, however, in a different way. Christians
believe that Jesus passed through death into a new form of life but
they also believe that the same thing happens to all humans. Darwin is therefore still "alive" in the same sense that Jesus is.
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 7:00:15 PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 07:00:41 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:>>
Happy Easter, everyone!Which Easter?>
<https://www.rd.com/article/easter-on-different-sunday-every-year/>>
*************************************> The decision as to when to
celebrate Easter—and whether or not it> should coincide with
Passover—was a topic hashed out between bishops> at the Council of
Nicea in 325 AD. A more standardized calendar, the> Gregorian one, was
established in the 16th century under Pope Gregory> XIII, and that’s
the internationally accepted civic calendar that most> of the world
follows today. Orthodox Christians, however, still follow> the Julian
calendar, the previous one created by Julius Caesar in 46> BC, meaning
that Easter falls between April 4 and May 8 for them.>
**************************************>> --> You're entitled to your
own opinions.> You're not entitled to your own facts.
Yup, we are off for holidays on Corfu next week - we thought we are
clever and travel the week after Easter to avoid the travel chaos. Unfortunately we had forgotten that Greece is of course using the
orthodox calendar... And just for fun, we come back as a result, via Heathrow, on the day of the coronation. So that will all be great fun.
jillery wrote:
Which Easter?
There was an incredible storm that showered candy everywhere ... it was obviously a Nor'Easter!
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 18:07:18 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:If you wish, you can define "alive" so that Jesus is "alive." Virtually any statement can be made true if you are willing to define the terms it contains in the right way. Indeed if you want to define "alive" as "remembered by some living person", then
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 8:40:15?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 07:51:35 -0700 (PDT), Abner
<abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kalkidas wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Happy Easter, everyone!
There is a lot of evidence for the first. The second ... pure faith. Happy Easter!
'Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and
biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his
nonexistence as effectively refuted.[7][9][48][49][50] Robert M.
Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his
perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[51]
Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent
years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the
non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have
not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant,
evidence to the contrary."[9] Richard A. Burridge states, "There are
those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination,
that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know
any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."[48][35]:
24–26'
You reckon you know better?
You seem to have misread the post.
The first statement, for which there is plenty of evidence, was "Charles Darwin still dead." The second statement, which requires pure faith, was "Jesus Christ still alive." There was no denial of the historical Jesus.Fair enough, I was taking 'first' and 'second' as referring to the
people rather than their state. Anyway, that takes us back to one of
your regular points - what do we mean by someone being "alive"? Jesus
is certainly alive to me and millions of other Christians.
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 9:00:16?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:lots of biologically dead people are alive, including many who became biologically dead thousands of years ago.
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 18:07:18 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"If you wish, you can define "alive" so that Jesus is "alive." Virtually any statement can be made true if you are willing to define the terms it contains in the right way. Indeed if you want to define "alive" as "remembered by some living person", then
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 8:40:15?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:Fair enough, I was taking 'first' and 'second' as referring to the
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 07:51:35 -0700 (PDT), Abner
<abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kalkidas wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Happy Easter, everyone!
There is a lot of evidence for the first. The second ... pure faith. Happy Easter!
'Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and
biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his
nonexistence as effectively refuted.[7][9][48][49][50] Robert M.
Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his
perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[51]
Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent
years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the
non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have
not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant,
evidence to the contrary."[9] Richard A. Burridge states, "There are
those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination,
that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know
any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."[48][35]:
2426'
You reckon you know better?
You seem to have misread the post.
The first statement, for which there is plenty of evidence, was "Charles Darwin still dead." The second statement, which requires pure faith, was "Jesus Christ still alive." There was no denial of the historical Jesus.
people rather than their state. Anyway, that takes us back to one of
your regular points - what do we mean by someone being "alive"? Jesus
is certainly alive to me and millions of other Christians.
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:15:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:then lots of biologically dead people are alive, including many who became biologically dead thousands of years ago.
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:16:48 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 9:00:16?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 18:07:18 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"If you wish, you can define "alive" so that Jesus is "alive." Virtually any statement can be made true if you are willing to define the terms it contains in the right way. Indeed if you want to define "alive" as "remembered by some living person",
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 8:40:15?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:Fair enough, I was taking 'first' and 'second' as referring to the
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 07:51:35 -0700 (PDT), Abner
<abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kalkidas wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Happy Easter, everyone!
There is a lot of evidence for the first. The second ... pure faith. Happy Easter!
'Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and
biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his
nonexistence as effectively refuted.[7][9][48][49][50] Robert M.
Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his >> >> >> perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[51]
Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent
years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the
non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have >> >> >> not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, >> >> >> evidence to the contrary."[9] Richard A. Burridge states, "There are >> >> >> those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, >> >> >> that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know >> >> >> any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."[48][35]:
2426'
You reckon you know better?
You seem to have misread the post.
The first statement, for which there is plenty of evidence, was "Charles Darwin still dead." The second statement, which requires pure faith, was "Jesus Christ still alive." There was no denial of the historical Jesus.
people rather than their state. Anyway, that takes us back to one of
your regular points - what do we mean by someone being "alive"? Jesus
is certainly alive to me and millions of other Christians.
Christians believe that Jesus overcame death and returned to life. ItWell, sure, and that's the kind of alive Jesus the belief in which requires pure faith, as Abner said in the first place.
was clearly a different life from what we generally experience - he
was able to appear and disappear at will and pass through walls yet
there were still physical elements to him such as eating with his
disciples and inviting Thomas to insert his fingers into his (Jesus's)
wounds. That's a lot more than just alive in people's memories.
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:16:48 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:then lots of biologically dead people are alive, including many who became biologically dead thousands of years ago.
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 9:00:16?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 18:07:18 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"If you wish, you can define "alive" so that Jesus is "alive." Virtually any statement can be made true if you are willing to define the terms it contains in the right way. Indeed if you want to define "alive" as "remembered by some living person",
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 8:40:15?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:Fair enough, I was taking 'first' and 'second' as referring to the
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 07:51:35 -0700 (PDT), Abner
<abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kalkidas wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Happy Easter, everyone!
There is a lot of evidence for the first. The second ... pure faith. Happy Easter!
'Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and
biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his
nonexistence as effectively refuted.[7][9][48][49][50] Robert M.
Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his >> >> perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[51]
Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent
years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the
non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have >> >> not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, >> >> evidence to the contrary."[9] Richard A. Burridge states, "There are >> >> those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, >> >> that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know >> >> any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."[48][35]:
24–26'
You reckon you know better?
You seem to have misread the post.
The first statement, for which there is plenty of evidence, was "Charles Darwin still dead." The second statement, which requires pure faith, was "Jesus Christ still alive." There was no denial of the historical Jesus.
people rather than their state. Anyway, that takes us back to one of
your regular points - what do we mean by someone being "alive"? Jesus
is certainly alive to me and millions of other Christians.
Christians believe that Jesus overcame death and returned to life. ItWell, sure, and that's the kind of alive Jesus the belief in which requires pure faith, as Abner said in the first place.
was clearly a different life from what we generally experience - he
was able to appear and disappear at will and pass through walls yet
there were still physical elements to him such as eating with his
disciples and inviting Thomas to insert his fingers into his (Jesus's) wounds. That's a lot more than just alive in people's memories.
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:23:10 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:then lots of biologically dead people are alive, including many who became biologically dead thousands of years ago.
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:15:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:16:48 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 9:00:16?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 18:07:18 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"If you wish, you can define "alive" so that Jesus is "alive." Virtually any statement can be made true if you are willing to define the terms it contains in the right way. Indeed if you want to define "alive" as "remembered by some living person",
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 8:40:15?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:Fair enough, I was taking 'first' and 'second' as referring to the
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 07:51:35 -0700 (PDT), Abner
<abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kalkidas wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Happy Easter, everyone!
There is a lot of evidence for the first. The second ... pure faith. Happy Easter!
'Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and >> >> >> biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his >> >> >> nonexistence as effectively refuted.[7][9][48][49][50] Robert M.
Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his
perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[51] >> >> >> Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent >> >> >> years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the
non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have
not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant,
evidence to the contrary."[9] Richard A. Burridge states, "There are
those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination,
that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know
any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."[48][35]: >> >> >> 24–26'
You reckon you know better?
You seem to have misread the post.
The first statement, for which there is plenty of evidence, was "Charles Darwin still dead." The second statement, which requires pure faith, was "Jesus Christ still alive." There was no denial of the historical Jesus.
people rather than their state. Anyway, that takes us back to one of >> >> your regular points - what do we mean by someone being "alive"? Jesus >> >> is certainly alive to me and millions of other Christians.
If you want to avoid special pleading, then you will need to use the same standard of evidence for other striking claims, the ascension of Mohammed, the Virgin Birth, bigfoot, ancient aliens building the pyramids, etc, for example. If the existence ofMore pertinently, he said there is no evidence of Jesus being alive. IChristians believe that Jesus overcame death and returned to life. ItWell, sure, and that's the kind of alive Jesus the belief in which requires pure faith, as Abner said in the first place.
was clearly a different life from what we generally experience - he
was able to appear and disappear at will and pass through walls yet
there were still physical elements to him such as eating with his
disciples and inviting Thomas to insert his fingers into his (Jesus's)
wounds. That's a lot more than just alive in people's memories.
would dispute that. The Gospel accounts, for example, are evidence.
You and he might not want to accept the validity of that evidence but
that doesn't change the fact that it is evidence.
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:40:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:then lots of biologically dead people are alive, including many who became biologically dead thousands of years ago.
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:23:10 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:15:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:16:48 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 9:00:16?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 18:07:18 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"If you wish, you can define "alive" so that Jesus is "alive." Virtually any statement can be made true if you are willing to define the terms it contains in the right way. Indeed if you want to define "alive" as "remembered by some living person",
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 8:40:15?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:Fair enough, I was taking 'first' and 'second' as referring to the
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 07:51:35 -0700 (PDT), Abner
<abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kalkidas wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Happy Easter, everyone!
There is a lot of evidence for the first. The second ... pure faith. Happy Easter!
'Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and >> >> >> >> biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his >> >> >> >> nonexistence as effectively refuted.[7][9][48][49][50] Robert M.
Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his
perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[51] >> >> >> >> Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent >> >> >> >> years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the
non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have
not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant,
evidence to the contrary."[9] Richard A. Burridge states, "There are
those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination,
that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know
any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."[48][35]: >> >> >> >> 2426'
You reckon you know better?
You seem to have misread the post.
The first statement, for which there is plenty of evidence, was "Charles Darwin still dead." The second statement, which requires pure faith, was "Jesus Christ still alive." There was no denial of the historical Jesus.
people rather than their state. Anyway, that takes us back to one of >> >> >> your regular points - what do we mean by someone being "alive"? Jesus >> >> >> is certainly alive to me and millions of other Christians.
somebody making a claim is evidence for that claim, then there are no claims for which evidence is entirely lacking. You may counter that as the number of people making the claim increases, the evidence is proportionately stronger, so because more peopleIf you want to avoid special pleading, then you will need to use the same standard of evidence for other striking claims, the ascension of Mohammed, the Virgin Birth, bigfoot, ancient aliens building the pyramids, etc, for example. If the existence ofMore pertinently, he said there is no evidence of Jesus being alive. IChristians believe that Jesus overcame death and returned to life. ItWell, sure, and that's the kind of alive Jesus the belief in which requires pure faith, as Abner said in the first place.
was clearly a different life from what we generally experience - he
was able to appear and disappear at will and pass through walls yet
there were still physical elements to him such as eating with his
disciples and inviting Thomas to insert his fingers into his (Jesus's)
wounds. That's a lot more than just alive in people's memories.
would dispute that. The Gospel accounts, for example, are evidence.
You and he might not want to accept the validity of that evidence but
that doesn't change the fact that it is evidence.
In would say that if you want to make a non-faith based claim about a proposed event involving a historical religious figure, for example the physical resurrection of Jesus, then you need to apply the same standards of evidence to that claim as youwould apply to miraculous claims in Homer, or the Koran, or Herodotus, or the Gita. In my view, that means that while there is abundant evidence that lots of people believed and believe in the resurrection, there is no evidence for the resurrection
But there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 11:36:45 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:, then lots of biologically dead people are alive, including many who became biologically dead thousands of years ago.
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:40:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:23:10 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:15:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:16:48 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 9:00:16?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> >> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 18:07:18 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:If you wish, you can define "alive" so that Jesus is "alive." Virtually any statement can be made true if you are willing to define the terms it contains in the right way. Indeed if you want to define "alive" as "remembered by some living person"
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 8:40:15?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 07:51:35 -0700 (PDT), AbnerFair enough, I was taking 'first' and 'second' as referring to the >> >> >> people rather than their state. Anyway, that takes us back to one of
<abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kalkidas wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Happy Easter, everyone!
There is a lot of evidence for the first. The second ... pure faith. Happy Easter!
'Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and
biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his
nonexistence as effectively refuted.[7][9][48][49][50] Robert M. >> >> >> >> Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his
perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[51]
Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent
years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the
non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have
not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant,
evidence to the contrary."[9] Richard A. Burridge states, "There are
those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination,
that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know
any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."[48][35]:
24–26'
You reckon you know better?
You seem to have misread the post.
The first statement, for which there is plenty of evidence, was "Charles Darwin still dead." The second statement, which requires pure faith, was "Jesus Christ still alive." There was no denial of the historical Jesus.
your regular points - what do we mean by someone being "alive"? Jesus
is certainly alive to me and millions of other Christians.
somebody making a claim is evidence for that claim, then there are no claims for which evidence is entirely lacking. You may counter that as the number of people making the claim increases, the evidence is proportionately stronger, so because more peopleIf you want to avoid special pleading, then you will need to use the same standard of evidence for other striking claims, the ascension of Mohammed, the Virgin Birth, bigfoot, ancient aliens building the pyramids, etc, for example. If the existence ofMore pertinently, he said there is no evidence of Jesus being alive. IChristians believe that Jesus overcame death and returned to life. It >> >> was clearly a different life from what we generally experience - heWell, sure, and that's the kind of alive Jesus the belief in which requires pure faith, as Abner said in the first place.
was able to appear and disappear at will and pass through walls yet
there were still physical elements to him such as eating with his
disciples and inviting Thomas to insert his fingers into his (Jesus's) >> >> wounds. That's a lot more than just alive in people's memories.
would dispute that. The Gospel accounts, for example, are evidence.
You and he might not want to accept the validity of that evidence but
that doesn't change the fact that it is evidence.
would apply to miraculous claims in Homer, or the Koran, or Herodotus, or the Gita. In my view, that means that while there is abundant evidence that lots of people believed and believe in the resurrection, there is no evidence for the resurrectionIn would say that if you want to make a non-faith based claim about a proposed event involving a historical religious figure, for example the physical resurrection of Jesus, then you need to apply the same standards of evidence to that claim as you
Well, I'd agree with Abner, that the quality of the evidence for Jesus resurrection is poor enough that few would accept it were it not for it representing the desired conclusion. There's always a debate on how conclusive evidence is, if you are willingBut there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.So effectively, you get into a debate on how conclusive or reliable
the evidence is. Not much different really from a courtroom where
there is no conclusive *forensic* evidence and both sides will argue
whether conclusions can be drawn from *circumstantial* evidence. The
point is that it is an evidence-based argument, not just "pure faith"
as Abner claimed.
Well, I'd agree with Abner, that the quality of the evidence for Jesus resurrection is poor enough that few would accept it were it not for it representing the desired conclusion.
There's always a debate on how conclusive evidence is, if you are willing to call "a bunch of people say X" evidence for X.
In that case, all claims have evidence to support, because at the very least the claimant supports the claim.
So I'd say, yeah, you need pure faith.
Which, more or less goes along with Jesus' alleged words to Thomas
"Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 11:36:45 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:, then lots of biologically dead people are alive, including many who became biologically dead thousands of years ago.
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:40:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:23:10 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:15:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:16:48 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 9:00:16?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> >> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 18:07:18 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:If you wish, you can define "alive" so that Jesus is "alive." Virtually any statement can be made true if you are willing to define the terms it contains in the right way. Indeed if you want to define "alive" as "remembered by some living person"
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 8:40:15?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 07:51:35 -0700 (PDT), AbnerFair enough, I was taking 'first' and 'second' as referring to the >> >> >> people rather than their state. Anyway, that takes us back to one of
<abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kalkidas wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Happy Easter, everyone!
There is a lot of evidence for the first. The second ... pure faith. Happy Easter!
'Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and
biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his
nonexistence as effectively refuted.[7][9][48][49][50] Robert M. >> >> >> >> Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his
perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[51]
Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent
years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the
non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have
not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant,
evidence to the contrary."[9] Richard A. Burridge states, "There are
those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination,
that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know
any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."[48][35]:
24–26'
You reckon you know better?
You seem to have misread the post.
The first statement, for which there is plenty of evidence, was "Charles Darwin still dead." The second statement, which requires pure faith, was "Jesus Christ still alive." There was no denial of the historical Jesus.
your regular points - what do we mean by someone being "alive"? Jesus
is certainly alive to me and millions of other Christians.
somebody making a claim is evidence for that claim, then there are no claims for which evidence is entirely lacking. You may counter that as the number of people making the claim increases, the evidence is proportionately stronger, so because more peopleIf you want to avoid special pleading, then you will need to use the same standard of evidence for other striking claims, the ascension of Mohammed, the Virgin Birth, bigfoot, ancient aliens building the pyramids, etc, for example. If the existence ofMore pertinently, he said there is no evidence of Jesus being alive. IChristians believe that Jesus overcame death and returned to life. It >> >> was clearly a different life from what we generally experience - heWell, sure, and that's the kind of alive Jesus the belief in which requires pure faith, as Abner said in the first place.
was able to appear and disappear at will and pass through walls yet
there were still physical elements to him such as eating with his
disciples and inviting Thomas to insert his fingers into his (Jesus's) >> >> wounds. That's a lot more than just alive in people's memories.
would dispute that. The Gospel accounts, for example, are evidence.
You and he might not want to accept the validity of that evidence but
that doesn't change the fact that it is evidence.
would apply to miraculous claims in Homer, or the Koran, or Herodotus, or the Gita. In my view, that means that while there is abundant evidence that lots of people believed and believe in the resurrection, there is no evidence for the resurrectionIn would say that if you want to make a non-faith based claim about a proposed event involving a historical religious figure, for example the physical resurrection of Jesus, then you need to apply the same standards of evidence to that claim as you
But there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.So effectively, you get into a debate on how conclusive or reliable
the evidence is. Not much different really from a courtroom where
there is no conclusive *forensic* evidence and both sides will argue
whether conclusions can be drawn from *circumstantial* evidence. The
point is that it is an evidence-based argument, not just "pure faith"
as Abner claimed.
Happy Easter, everyone!https://twitter.com/gnuman1979/status/1645496989365280782?s=20
I've just commented to Bill Rogers that it depends on what one means
by "alive" and that Jesus is still "alive" to millions of Christians.
Kalki is actually wrong, however, in a different way. Christians
believe that Jesus passed through death into a new form of life but
they also believe that the same thing happens to all humans. Darwin is therefore still "alive" in the same sense that Jesus is.
I'd say while this is a possible reading of the Gospel, it's theologically somewhere between the least satisfying and the massively blasphemous. As all attempts to naturalise religion inevitably are. What it leads to is the interpretation of theresurrection as a vulgar zombie-apocalypse, that positively gets in the way of spiritual or redemptive (in Tilllich's sense) interpretation, and also creates conflicts with other passages of the text, in particular, Luke 24 13-16.
I would agree with you that as a matter of terminology, even extremely weak evidence is still evidence. I'd go even further and would argue that even evidence that later turned out to be misleading is evidence, (I remember some discussions with John Hon this, where we disagreed on that point)
But apart from coming in degrees, the type of evidence that we use in court has also a range of other properties that you would not necessarily want in a religious context. One is the one Bill alluded to - it requires consistency in application, and I'd add, it inevitably gives you then a scale that allows comparisons. So it inevitably leads to statements of the form "The evidence for the resurrection is weaker, or at best as strong as, that for XYZ" where given what we are dealing here with more or
But I think it is worse than that. Nothing is just "evidence" observations are evidence for or against a theory, and have to be evaluated with these two conflicting theories in mind, Which for instance for the observation of the empty grave means thatit can't really distinguish between a supernatural resurrection and simp grave robbery (they produce the same expected observation. The reports of having seen Jesus fare a bit better, ( we grant here that they are genuine eyewitness reports and leave
b) even if granted that he had really died, why only so few people saw Jesus, andTreating the Gospel as a mere physical eyewitness account leads inevitably to the physical resurrection reading, which was a comparative latecomer: "Theologically speaking, it is a rationalization of the resurrection event, interpreting it with physical
c) even worse, why , as Luke indicates, some of those who should have identified him did not.
So once treated like ordinary evidence, it becomes inevitably subject to testing against other evidence (or the lack of it) .
So in exchange for treating the Gospels as "ordinary evidence", you only get an extremely weakly supported, part contradicted, theologically least palatable. Tillich's classification is helpful here even if one does not adopt his preferred solution.
physical body occupying a specific place Immediately the absurd question arises: what happened to the molecules which comprise the corpse ofman has become now "The Church", not any longer an individual (hence Luke, unrecognisable for some, at least temporarily), ecstatic and experiential rather than descriptive-factual.
Jesus of Nazaret. In this question, the mere absurdity becomes almost blasphemy."
And what you lose are the much more theologically rewarding readings of the text, the spiritual interpretation (which I'd say is by now mainstream) . And of course also Tillich's reading as restitution, which I always thought the most compelling:
"This theory concerning the event which underlies the symbol of Resurrection dismisses physical as well as spiritualistic literalism.
[...] and places at the center of its analysis the religious meaning of the Resurrection for the disciples (and their followers), in contrast to
their previous state of negativity and despair. This view is the ecstatic confirmation of the indestructible unity of the New Being and
its bearer, Jesus of Nazareth. In eternity they belong together. In contrast to the physical, the spiritualistic, and the psychological
theories concerning the Resurrection event, one could call this the "restitution theory". According to it, the Resurrection is the
restitution of Jesus as Christ, a restitution which is rooted in the personal unity between Jesus and God and in the impact of this unity on
the minds of the apostles."
With other words, the Gospels do not report a set of massively ambiguous observations, something done through the physical senses and subject to its limitations, but a profound life-changing experience of a transformation of a relationship - Christ-the-
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 18:59:47 -0700 (PDT), Abner
<abnerinfinity@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
You reckon you know better?
None of that does anything to establish that Jesus Christ is still alive. *That* is pure faith. Plenty of people who once existed are not still alive ...
I have no objection to people having faith that Jesus is still alive, but Kalkidas came out swinging with a claim of faith as if it was a claim of truth and I tweaked his nose about it fairly gently IMO.
I've just commented to Bill Rogers that it depends on what one means
by "alive" and that Jesus is still "alive" to millions of Christians.
Kalki is actually wrong, however, in a different way. Christians
believe that Jesus passed through death into a new form of life but
they also believe that the same thing happens to all humans. Darwin is >therefore still "alive" in the same sense that Jesus is.
Happy Easter to you too!
Happy hioliday to you :)
PS I was hoping to write about fine tuning today, in continuation of what I wrote to Burkhard
on the "steady state theory" thread, but I got very involved in two other forums today,
and this is my only Usenet post of today. I'll try for tomorrow late afternoon.
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 5:55:17?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:person", then lots of biologically dead people are alive, including many who became biologically dead thousands of years ago.
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 11:36:45 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:40:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:23:10 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:15:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:16:48 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 9:00:16?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 18:07:18 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:If you wish, you can define "alive" so that Jesus is "alive." Virtually any statement can be made true if you are willing to define the terms it contains in the right way. Indeed if you want to define "alive" as "remembered by some living
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 8:40:15?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 07:51:35 -0700 (PDT), AbnerFair enough, I was taking 'first' and 'second' as referring to the >> >> >> >> people rather than their state. Anyway, that takes us back to one of
<abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kalkidas wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Happy Easter, everyone!
There is a lot of evidence for the first. The second ... pure faith. Happy Easter!
'Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and
biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his
nonexistence as effectively refuted.[7][9][48][49][50] Robert M. >> >> >> >> >> Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his
perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[51]
Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent
years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the
non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have
not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant,
evidence to the contrary."[9] Richard A. Burridge states, "There are
those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination,
that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know
any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."[48][35]:
24-26'
You reckon you know better?
You seem to have misread the post.
The first statement, for which there is plenty of evidence, was "Charles Darwin still dead." The second statement, which requires pure faith, was "Jesus Christ still alive." There was no denial of the historical Jesus.
your regular points - what do we mean by someone being "alive"? Jesus
is certainly alive to me and millions of other Christians.
of somebody making a claim is evidence for that claim, then there are no claims for which evidence is entirely lacking. You may counter that as the number of people making the claim increases, the evidence is proportionately stronger, so because moreIf you want to avoid special pleading, then you will need to use the same standard of evidence for other striking claims, the ascension of Mohammed, the Virgin Birth, bigfoot, ancient aliens building the pyramids, etc, for example. If the existenceMore pertinently, he said there is no evidence of Jesus being alive. IChristians believe that Jesus overcame death and returned to life. It >> >> >> was clearly a different life from what we generally experience - heWell, sure, and that's the kind of alive Jesus the belief in which requires pure faith, as Abner said in the first place.
was able to appear and disappear at will and pass through walls yet
there were still physical elements to him such as eating with his
disciples and inviting Thomas to insert his fingers into his (Jesus's) >> >> >> wounds. That's a lot more than just alive in people's memories.
would dispute that. The Gospel accounts, for example, are evidence.
You and he might not want to accept the validity of that evidence but
that doesn't change the fact that it is evidence.
would apply to miraculous claims in Homer, or the Koran, or Herodotus, or the Gita. In my view, that means that while there is abundant evidence that lots of people believed and believe in the resurrection, there is no evidence for the resurrection
In would say that if you want to make a non-faith based claim about a proposed event involving a historical religious figure, for example the physical resurrection of Jesus, then you need to apply the same standards of evidence to that claim as you
Well, I'd agree with Abner, that the quality of the evidence for Jesus resurrection is poor enough that few would accept it were it not for it representing the desired conclusion.So effectively, you get into a debate on how conclusive or reliable
But there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.
the evidence is. Not much different really from a courtroom where
there is no conclusive *forensic* evidence and both sides will argue
whether conclusions can be drawn from *circumstantial* evidence. The
point is that it is an evidence-based argument, not just "pure faith"
as Abner claimed.
There's always a debate on how conclusive evidence is, if you are willing to call "a bunch of people say X" evidence for X. In that case, all claims have evidence to support, because at the very least the claimant supports the claim. So I'd say, yeah,you need pure faith.
Which, more or less goes along with Jesus' alleged words to Thomas "Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 10:55:17 PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:then lots of biologically dead people are alive, including many who became biologically dead thousands of years ago.
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 11:36:45 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:40:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:23:10 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:15:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:16:48 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 9:00:16?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 18:07:18 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" >>>>>>>> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
If you wish, you can define "alive" so that Jesus is "alive." Virtually any statement can be made true if you are willing to define the terms it contains in the right way. Indeed if you want to define "alive" as "remembered by some living person",On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 8:40:15?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 07:51:35 -0700 (PDT), AbnerFair enough, I was taking 'first' and 'second' as referring to the >>>>>>>> people rather than their state. Anyway, that takes us back to one of >>>>>>>> your regular points - what do we mean by someone being "alive"? Jesus >>>>>>>> is certainly alive to me and millions of other Christians.
<abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kalkidas wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Happy Easter, everyone!
There is a lot of evidence for the first. The second ... pure faith. Happy Easter!
'Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and >>>>>>>>>> biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his >>>>>>>>>> nonexistence as effectively refuted.[7][9][48][49][50] Robert M. >>>>>>>>>> Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his >>>>>>>>>> perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[51] >>>>>>>>>> Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent >>>>>>>>>> years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the
non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have
not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant,
evidence to the contrary."[9] Richard A. Burridge states, "There are >>>>>>>>>> those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, >>>>>>>>>> that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know
any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."[48][35]: >>>>>>>>>> 24–26'
You reckon you know better?
You seem to have misread the post.
The first statement, for which there is plenty of evidence, was "Charles Darwin still dead." The second statement, which requires pure faith, was "Jesus Christ still alive." There was no denial of the historical Jesus.
of somebody making a claim is evidence for that claim, then there are no claims for which evidence is entirely lacking. You may counter that as the number of people making the claim increases, the evidence is proportionately stronger, so because moreIf you want to avoid special pleading, then you will need to use the same standard of evidence for other striking claims, the ascension of Mohammed, the Virgin Birth, bigfoot, ancient aliens building the pyramids, etc, for example. If the existenceMore pertinently, he said there is no evidence of Jesus being alive. I >>>> would dispute that. The Gospel accounts, for example, are evidence.Christians believe that Jesus overcame death and returned to life. It >>>>>> was clearly a different life from what we generally experience - he >>>>>> was able to appear and disappear at will and pass through walls yet >>>>>> there were still physical elements to him such as eating with hisWell, sure, and that's the kind of alive Jesus the belief in which requires pure faith, as Abner said in the first place.
disciples and inviting Thomas to insert his fingers into his (Jesus's) >>>>>> wounds. That's a lot more than just alive in people's memories.
You and he might not want to accept the validity of that evidence but
that doesn't change the fact that it is evidence.
would apply to miraculous claims in Homer, or the Koran, or Herodotus, or the Gita. In my view, that means that while there is abundant evidence that lots of people believed and believe in the resurrection, there is no evidence for the resurrection
In would say that if you want to make a non-faith based claim about a proposed event involving a historical religious figure, for example the physical resurrection of Jesus, then you need to apply the same standards of evidence to that claim as you
resurrection as a vulgar zombie-apocalypse, that positively gets in the way of spiritual or redemptive (in Tilllich's sense) interpretation, and also creates conflicts with other passages of the text, in particular, Luke 24 13-16.So effectively, you get into a debate on how conclusive or reliable
But there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.
the evidence is. Not much different really from a courtroom where
there is no conclusive *forensic* evidence and both sides will argue
whether conclusions can be drawn from *circumstantial* evidence. The
point is that it is an evidence-based argument, not just "pure faith"
as Abner claimed.
I'd say while this is a possible reading of the Gospel, it's theologically somewhere between the least satisfying and the massively blasphemous. As all attempts to naturalise religion inevitably are. What it leads to is the interpretation of the
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 15:52:03 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:person", then lots of biologically dead people are alive, including many who became biologically dead thousands of years ago.
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 5:55:17?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 11:36:45 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:40:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:23:10 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:15:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:16:48 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 9:00:16?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 18:07:18 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" >> >> >> >> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:If you wish, you can define "alive" so that Jesus is "alive." Virtually any statement can be made true if you are willing to define the terms it contains in the right way. Indeed if you want to define "alive" as "remembered by some living
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 8:40:15?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:Fair enough, I was taking 'first' and 'second' as referring to the
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 07:51:35 -0700 (PDT), Abner
<abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kalkidas wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Happy Easter, everyone!
There is a lot of evidence for the first. The second ... pure faith. Happy Easter!
'Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and
biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his
nonexistence as effectively refuted.[7][9][48][49][50] Robert M.
Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his
perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[51]
Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent
years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the
non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have
not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant,
evidence to the contrary."[9] Richard A. Burridge states, "There are
those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination,
that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know
any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."[48][35]:
24-26'
You reckon you know better?
You seem to have misread the post.
The first statement, for which there is plenty of evidence, was "Charles Darwin still dead." The second statement, which requires pure faith, was "Jesus Christ still alive." There was no denial of the historical Jesus.
people rather than their state. Anyway, that takes us back to one of
your regular points - what do we mean by someone being "alive"? Jesus
is certainly alive to me and millions of other Christians.
of somebody making a claim is evidence for that claim, then there are no claims for which evidence is entirely lacking. You may counter that as the number of people making the claim increases, the evidence is proportionately stronger, so because moreIf you want to avoid special pleading, then you will need to use the same standard of evidence for other striking claims, the ascension of Mohammed, the Virgin Birth, bigfoot, ancient aliens building the pyramids, etc, for example. If the existenceMore pertinently, he said there is no evidence of Jesus being alive. I >> >> would dispute that. The Gospel accounts, for example, are evidence.Christians believe that Jesus overcame death and returned to life. ItWell, sure, and that's the kind of alive Jesus the belief in which requires pure faith, as Abner said in the first place.
was clearly a different life from what we generally experience - he >> >> >> was able to appear and disappear at will and pass through walls yet >> >> >> there were still physical elements to him such as eating with his >> >> >> disciples and inviting Thomas to insert his fingers into his (Jesus's)
wounds. That's a lot more than just alive in people's memories.
You and he might not want to accept the validity of that evidence but >> >> that doesn't change the fact that it is evidence.
would apply to miraculous claims in Homer, or the Koran, or Herodotus, or the Gita. In my view, that means that while there is abundant evidence that lots of people believed and believe in the resurrection, there is no evidence for the resurrection
In would say that if you want to make a non-faith based claim about a proposed event involving a historical religious figure, for example the physical resurrection of Jesus, then you need to apply the same standards of evidence to that claim as you
Well, I'd agree with Abner, that the quality of the evidence for Jesus resurrection is poor enough that few would accept it were it not for it representing the desired conclusion.So effectively, you get into a debate on how conclusive or reliable
But there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.
the evidence is. Not much different really from a courtroom where
there is no conclusive *forensic* evidence and both sides will argue
whether conclusions can be drawn from *circumstantial* evidence. The
point is that it is an evidence-based argument, not just "pure faith"
as Abner claimed.
A couple of problems with that. First of all, you and Abner are
effectively behaving in much the same way as you describe there - your rejection of the Resurrection is not based on any contrary evidence
you have, you are coming to a conclusion that supports your existing
views about Christ.
Secondly, I don't think that "the desired conclusion" stands up to
scrutiny in regard to the Disciples. It is clear from the Gospels that
the disciples did not really grasp what Jesus foretold about his death
and Resurrection and were totally taken aback by his reappearance; we
can see that in the women who went to the tomb and ran from it in
terror, the disciples refusing to believe Mary of Magdala when she
told them that he had appeared to her and Thomas refusing to believe
the other disciples after Jesus appeared to them. They did not expect
Jesus to reappear in physical form and initially struggled to believe
it when it happened.
you need pure faith.There's always a debate on how conclusive evidence is, if you are willing to call "a bunch of people say X" evidence for X. In that case, all claims have evidence to support, because at the very least the claimant supports the claim. So I'd say, yeah,
Of course one needs faith but faith and evidence are not mutually
exclusive. The stories in the Gospel are not *conclusive* evidence but
they are *supporting* evidence. I'll say a bit more about that in a
reply to Burkhard because I'm interested to hear his arguments from a legal/judicial perspective.
Which, more or less goes along with Jesus' alleged words to Thomas "Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 15:52:03 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:person", then lots of biologically dead people are alive, including many who became biologically dead thousands of years ago.
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 5:55:17?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 11:36:45 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:40:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:23:10 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:15:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:16:48 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 9:00:16?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 18:07:18 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" >> >> >> >> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:If you wish, you can define "alive" so that Jesus is "alive." Virtually any statement can be made true if you are willing to define the terms it contains in the right way. Indeed if you want to define "alive" as "remembered by some living
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 8:40:15?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:Fair enough, I was taking 'first' and 'second' as referring to the
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 07:51:35 -0700 (PDT), Abner
<abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kalkidas wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Happy Easter, everyone!
There is a lot of evidence for the first. The second ... pure faith. Happy Easter!
'Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and
biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his
nonexistence as effectively refuted.[7][9][48][49][50] Robert M.
Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his
perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[51]
Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent
years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the
non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have
not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant,
evidence to the contrary."[9] Richard A. Burridge states, "There are
those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination,
that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know
any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."[48][35]:
24-26'
You reckon you know better?
You seem to have misread the post.
The first statement, for which there is plenty of evidence, was "Charles Darwin still dead." The second statement, which requires pure faith, was "Jesus Christ still alive." There was no denial of the historical Jesus.
people rather than their state. Anyway, that takes us back to one of
your regular points - what do we mean by someone being "alive"? Jesus
is certainly alive to me and millions of other Christians.
of somebody making a claim is evidence for that claim, then there are no claims for which evidence is entirely lacking. You may counter that as the number of people making the claim increases, the evidence is proportionately stronger, so because moreIf you want to avoid special pleading, then you will need to use the same standard of evidence for other striking claims, the ascension of Mohammed, the Virgin Birth, bigfoot, ancient aliens building the pyramids, etc, for example. If the existenceMore pertinently, he said there is no evidence of Jesus being alive. I >> >> would dispute that. The Gospel accounts, for example, are evidence.Christians believe that Jesus overcame death and returned to life. ItWell, sure, and that's the kind of alive Jesus the belief in which requires pure faith, as Abner said in the first place.
was clearly a different life from what we generally experience - he >> >> >> was able to appear and disappear at will and pass through walls yet >> >> >> there were still physical elements to him such as eating with his >> >> >> disciples and inviting Thomas to insert his fingers into his (Jesus's)
wounds. That's a lot more than just alive in people's memories.
You and he might not want to accept the validity of that evidence but >> >> that doesn't change the fact that it is evidence.
would apply to miraculous claims in Homer, or the Koran, or Herodotus, or the Gita. In my view, that means that while there is abundant evidence that lots of people believed and believe in the resurrection, there is no evidence for the resurrection
In would say that if you want to make a non-faith based claim about a proposed event involving a historical religious figure, for example the physical resurrection of Jesus, then you need to apply the same standards of evidence to that claim as you
A couple of problems with that. First of all, you and Abner areWell, I'd agree with Abner, that the quality of the evidence for Jesus resurrection is poor enough that few would accept it were it not for it representing the desired conclusion.So effectively, you get into a debate on how conclusive or reliable
But there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.
the evidence is. Not much different really from a courtroom where
there is no conclusive *forensic* evidence and both sides will argue
whether conclusions can be drawn from *circumstantial* evidence. The
point is that it is an evidence-based argument, not just "pure faith"
as Abner claimed.
effectively behaving in much the same way as you describe there - your rejection of the Resurrection is not based on any contrary evidence
you have, you are coming to a conclusion that supports your existing
views about Christ.
Secondly, I don't think that "the desired conclusion" stands up to
scrutiny in regard to the Disciples. It is clear from the Gospels that
the disciples did not really grasp what Jesus foretold about his death
and Resurrection and were totally taken aback by his reappearance; we
can see that in the women who went to the tomb and ran from it in
terror, the disciples refusing to believe Mary of Magdala when she
told them that he had appeared to her and Thomas refusing to believe
the other disciples after Jesus appeared to them. They did not expect
Jesus to reappear in physical form and initially struggled to believe
it when it happened.
you need pure faith.There's always a debate on how conclusive evidence is, if you are willing to call "a bunch of people say X" evidence for X. In that case, all claims have evidence to support, because at the very least the claimant supports the claim. So I'd say, yeah,
Of course one needs faith but faith and evidence are not mutually
exclusive. The stories in the Gospel are not *conclusive* evidence but
they are *supporting* evidence. I'll say a bit more about that in a
reply to Burkhard because I'm interested to hear his arguments from a legal/judicial perspective.
Which, more or less goes along with Jesus' alleged words to Thomas "Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 12:30:17?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:person", then lots of biologically dead people are alive, including many who became biologically dead thousands of years ago.
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 15:52:03 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 5:55:17?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 11:36:45 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:40:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:23:10 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:15:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:16:48 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 9:00:16?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 18:07:18 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" >> >> >> >> >> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:If you wish, you can define "alive" so that Jesus is "alive." Virtually any statement can be made true if you are willing to define the terms it contains in the right way. Indeed if you want to define "alive" as "remembered by some living
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 8:40:15?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:Fair enough, I was taking 'first' and 'second' as referring to the
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 07:51:35 -0700 (PDT), Abner
<abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kalkidas wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Happy Easter, everyone!
There is a lot of evidence for the first. The second ... pure faith. Happy Easter!
'Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and
biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his
nonexistence as effectively refuted.[7][9][48][49][50] Robert M.
Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his
perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[51]
Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent
years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the
non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have
not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant,
evidence to the contrary."[9] Richard A. Burridge states, "There are
those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination,
that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know
any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."[48][35]:
24-26'
You reckon you know better?
You seem to have misread the post.
The first statement, for which there is plenty of evidence, was "Charles Darwin still dead." The second statement, which requires pure faith, was "Jesus Christ still alive." There was no denial of the historical Jesus.
people rather than their state. Anyway, that takes us back to one of
your regular points - what do we mean by someone being "alive"? Jesus
is certainly alive to me and millions of other Christians.
existence of somebody making a claim is evidence for that claim, then there are no claims for which evidence is entirely lacking. You may counter that as the number of people making the claim increases, the evidence is proportionately stronger, soIf you want to avoid special pleading, then you will need to use the same standard of evidence for other striking claims, the ascension of Mohammed, the Virgin Birth, bigfoot, ancient aliens building the pyramids, etc, for example. If theMore pertinently, he said there is no evidence of Jesus being alive. I >> >> >> would dispute that. The Gospel accounts, for example, are evidence.Christians believe that Jesus overcame death and returned to life. ItWell, sure, and that's the kind of alive Jesus the belief in which requires pure faith, as Abner said in the first place.
was clearly a different life from what we generally experience - he >> >> >> >> was able to appear and disappear at will and pass through walls yet >> >> >> >> there were still physical elements to him such as eating with his >> >> >> >> disciples and inviting Thomas to insert his fingers into his (Jesus's)
wounds. That's a lot more than just alive in people's memories.
You and he might not want to accept the validity of that evidence but >> >> >> that doesn't change the fact that it is evidence.
you would apply to miraculous claims in Homer, or the Koran, or Herodotus, or the Gita. In my view, that means that while there is abundant evidence that lots of people believed and believe in the resurrection, there is no evidence for the resurrection
In would say that if you want to make a non-faith based claim about a proposed event involving a historical religious figure, for example the physical resurrection of Jesus, then you need to apply the same standards of evidence to that claim as
A couple of problems with that. First of all, you and Abner areWell, I'd agree with Abner, that the quality of the evidence for Jesus resurrection is poor enough that few would accept it were it not for it representing the desired conclusion.So effectively, you get into a debate on how conclusive or reliable
But there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.
the evidence is. Not much different really from a courtroom where
there is no conclusive *forensic* evidence and both sides will argue
whether conclusions can be drawn from *circumstantial* evidence. The
point is that it is an evidence-based argument, not just "pure faith"
as Abner claimed.
effectively behaving in much the same way as you describe there - your
rejection of the Resurrection is not based on any contrary evidence
you have, you are coming to a conclusion that supports your existing
views about Christ.
Sorry, it's not symmetrical, much as you might wish it to be so. You are once again applying a standard in the case of the resurrection which you would probably not be willing to generalize.
What I mean is this - you demand that Abner and I find evidence against the resurrection,
presumably evidence beyond the simple observation that death has very widely been observed to be irreversible. You would perhaps argue that, well, that's irrelevant to any specific case, we would need specific evidence that resurrection was impossible,rather than just that it was very rare. That's a move you can make. But then you must apply that move to any number of claims which you, or at least most people, would consider so improbable as to be not worth entertaining. Where's the evidence that
And just to be clear, this is unrelated to my conclusions about Jesus. When I was a Christian I was just as fully convinced that there was no credible evidence for Jesus' resurrection as I am now. It's just that back then I believed in the resurrectionin spite of the lack of evidence. Like all those people who, unlike Thomas, are blessed "because they have not seen and yet believe."
one in the minds of people decades or centuries after the events, including people in the present. We have a much better chance at understanding what conclusions they desire than we do at trying to figure out the state of mind of peole thousands of years
Secondly, I don't think that "the desired conclusion" stands up to
scrutiny in regard to the Disciples. It is clear from the Gospels that
the disciples did not really grasp what Jesus foretold about his death
and Resurrection and were totally taken aback by his reappearance; we
can see that in the women who went to the tomb and ran from it in
terror, the disciples refusing to believe Mary of Magdala when she
told them that he had appeared to her and Thomas refusing to believe
the other disciples after Jesus appeared to them. They did not expect
Jesus to reappear in physical form and initially struggled to believe
it when it happened.
What written records there are are from decades after the reported events and are generally at least second hand, so they are not an obvious reflection of what anyone thought in the days immediately after the crucifixion. The "desired conclusion" is the
you need pure faith.There's always a debate on how conclusive evidence is, if you are willing to call "a bunch of people say X" evidence for X. In that case, all claims have evidence to support, because at the very least the claimant supports the claim. So I'd say, yeah,
Of course one needs faith but faith and evidence are not mutually
exclusive. The stories in the Gospel are not *conclusive* evidence but
they are *supporting* evidence. I'll say a bit more about that in a
reply to Burkhard because I'm interested to hear his arguments from a
legal/judicial perspective.
Which, more or less goes along with Jesus' alleged words to Thomas "Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 10:10:57 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:person", then lots of biologically dead people are alive, including many who became biologically dead thousands of years ago.
On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 12:30:17?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 15:52:03 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 5:55:17?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 11:36:45 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:40:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:23:10 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:15:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:16:48 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" >> >> >> >> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 9:00:16?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 18:07:18 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"If you wish, you can define "alive" so that Jesus is "alive." Virtually any statement can be made true if you are willing to define the terms it contains in the right way. Indeed if you want to define "alive" as "remembered by some living
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 8:40:15?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:Fair enough, I was taking 'first' and 'second' as referring to the
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 07:51:35 -0700 (PDT), Abner
<abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kalkidas wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Happy Easter, everyone!
There is a lot of evidence for the first. The second ... pure faith. Happy Easter!
'Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and
biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his
nonexistence as effectively refuted.[7][9][48][49][50] Robert M.
Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his
perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[51]
Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent
years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the
non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have
not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant,
evidence to the contrary."[9] Richard A. Burridge states, "There are
those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination,
that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know
any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."[48][35]:
24-26'
You reckon you know better?
You seem to have misread the post.
The first statement, for which there is plenty of evidence, was "Charles Darwin still dead." The second statement, which requires pure faith, was "Jesus Christ still alive." There was no denial of the historical Jesus.
people rather than their state. Anyway, that takes us back to one of
your regular points - what do we mean by someone being "alive"? Jesus
is certainly alive to me and millions of other Christians.
existence of somebody making a claim is evidence for that claim, then there are no claims for which evidence is entirely lacking. You may counter that as the number of people making the claim increases, the evidence is proportionately stronger, soIf you want to avoid special pleading, then you will need to use the same standard of evidence for other striking claims, the ascension of Mohammed, the Virgin Birth, bigfoot, ancient aliens building the pyramids, etc, for example. If theMore pertinently, he said there is no evidence of Jesus being alive. IChristians believe that Jesus overcame death and returned to life. It
was clearly a different life from what we generally experience - he
was able to appear and disappear at will and pass through walls yet
there were still physical elements to him such as eating with his
disciples and inviting Thomas to insert his fingers into his (Jesus's)
wounds. That's a lot more than just alive in people's memories. >> >> >> >Well, sure, and that's the kind of alive Jesus the belief in which requires pure faith, as Abner said in the first place.
would dispute that. The Gospel accounts, for example, are evidence. >> >> >> You and he might not want to accept the validity of that evidence but
that doesn't change the fact that it is evidence.
you would apply to miraculous claims in Homer, or the Koran, or Herodotus, or the Gita. In my view, that means that while there is abundant evidence that lots of people believed and believe in the resurrection, there is no evidence for the resurrection
In would say that if you want to make a non-faith based claim about a proposed event involving a historical religious figure, for example the physical resurrection of Jesus, then you need to apply the same standards of evidence to that claim as
A couple of problems with that. First of all, you and Abner areWell, I'd agree with Abner, that the quality of the evidence for Jesus resurrection is poor enough that few would accept it were it not for it representing the desired conclusion.So effectively, you get into a debate on how conclusive or reliable
But there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.
the evidence is. Not much different really from a courtroom where
there is no conclusive *forensic* evidence and both sides will argue >> >> whether conclusions can be drawn from *circumstantial* evidence. The >> >> point is that it is an evidence-based argument, not just "pure faith" >> >> as Abner claimed.
effectively behaving in much the same way as you describe there - your
rejection of the Resurrection is not based on any contrary evidence
you have, you are coming to a conclusion that supports your existing
views about Christ.
Sorry, it's not symmetrical, much as you might wish it to be so. You are once again applying a standard in the case of the resurrection which you would probably not be willing to generalize.
What I mean is this - you demand that Abner and I find evidence against the resurrection,A quick response due to time pressures but just to make clear that I
am NOT asking, let alone *demanding*, that you and Abner produce any
such evidence - that would be asking you to prove a negative which
would be nonsensical.. I'm simply making the point that your decision
to discard the Gospel accounts is based on a worldview, not an
evidential basis.
I will respond in more detail later.rather than just that it was very rare. That's a move you can make. But then you must apply that move to any number of claims which you, or at least most people, would consider so improbable as to be not worth entertaining. Where's the evidence that
presumably evidence beyond the simple observation that death has very widely been observed to be irreversible. You would perhaps argue that, well, that's irrelevant to any specific case, we would need specific evidence that resurrection was impossible,
resurrection in spite of the lack of evidence. Like all those people who, unlike Thomas, are blessed "because they have not seen and yet believe."And just to be clear, this is unrelated to my conclusions about Jesus. When I was a Christian I was just as fully convinced that there was no credible evidence for Jesus' resurrection as I am now. It's just that back then I believed in the
the one in the minds of people decades or centuries after the events, including people in the present. We have a much better chance at understanding what conclusions they desire than we do at trying to figure out the state of mind of peole thousands of
Secondly, I don't think that "the desired conclusion" stands up to
scrutiny in regard to the Disciples. It is clear from the Gospels that
the disciples did not really grasp what Jesus foretold about his death
and Resurrection and were totally taken aback by his reappearance; we
can see that in the women who went to the tomb and ran from it in
terror, the disciples refusing to believe Mary of Magdala when she
told them that he had appeared to her and Thomas refusing to believe
the other disciples after Jesus appeared to them. They did not expect
Jesus to reappear in physical form and initially struggled to believe
it when it happened.
What written records there are are from decades after the reported events and are generally at least second hand, so they are not an obvious reflection of what anyone thought in the days immediately after the crucifixion. The "desired conclusion" is
yeah, you need pure faith.There's always a debate on how conclusive evidence is, if you are willing to call "a bunch of people say X" evidence for X. In that case, all claims have evidence to support, because at the very least the claimant supports the claim. So I'd say,
Of course one needs faith but faith and evidence are not mutually
exclusive. The stories in the Gospel are not *conclusive* evidence but
they are *supporting* evidence. I'll say a bit more about that in a
reply to Burkhard because I'm interested to hear his arguments from a
legal/judicial perspective.
Which, more or less goes along with Jesus' alleged words to Thomas "Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 10:10:57 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:person", then lots of biologically dead people are alive, including many who became biologically dead thousands of years ago.
On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 12:30:17?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 15:52:03 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 5:55:17?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 11:36:45 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:40:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:23:10 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:15:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:16:48 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" >> >> >> >> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 9:00:16?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 18:07:18 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"If you wish, you can define "alive" so that Jesus is "alive." Virtually any statement can be made true if you are willing to define the terms it contains in the right way. Indeed if you want to define "alive" as "remembered by some living
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 8:40:15?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:Fair enough, I was taking 'first' and 'second' as referring to the
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 07:51:35 -0700 (PDT), Abner
<abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kalkidas wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Happy Easter, everyone!
There is a lot of evidence for the first. The second ... pure faith. Happy Easter!
'Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and
biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his
nonexistence as effectively refuted.[7][9][48][49][50] Robert M.
Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his
perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[51]
Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent
years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the
non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have
not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant,
evidence to the contrary."[9] Richard A. Burridge states, "There are
those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination,
that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know
any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."[48][35]:
24-26'
You reckon you know better?
You seem to have misread the post.
The first statement, for which there is plenty of evidence, was "Charles Darwin still dead." The second statement, which requires pure faith, was "Jesus Christ still alive." There was no denial of the historical Jesus.
people rather than their state. Anyway, that takes us back to one of
your regular points - what do we mean by someone being "alive"? Jesus
is certainly alive to me and millions of other Christians.
existence of somebody making a claim is evidence for that claim, then there are no claims for which evidence is entirely lacking. You may counter that as the number of people making the claim increases, the evidence is proportionately stronger, soIf you want to avoid special pleading, then you will need to use the same standard of evidence for other striking claims, the ascension of Mohammed, the Virgin Birth, bigfoot, ancient aliens building the pyramids, etc, for example. If theMore pertinently, he said there is no evidence of Jesus being alive. IChristians believe that Jesus overcame death and returned to life. It
was clearly a different life from what we generally experience - he
was able to appear and disappear at will and pass through walls yet
there were still physical elements to him such as eating with his
disciples and inviting Thomas to insert his fingers into his (Jesus's)
wounds. That's a lot more than just alive in people's memories. >> >> >> >Well, sure, and that's the kind of alive Jesus the belief in which requires pure faith, as Abner said in the first place.
would dispute that. The Gospel accounts, for example, are evidence. >> >> >> You and he might not want to accept the validity of that evidence but
that doesn't change the fact that it is evidence.
you would apply to miraculous claims in Homer, or the Koran, or Herodotus, or the Gita. In my view, that means that while there is abundant evidence that lots of people believed and believe in the resurrection, there is no evidence for the resurrection
In would say that if you want to make a non-faith based claim about a proposed event involving a historical religious figure, for example the physical resurrection of Jesus, then you need to apply the same standards of evidence to that claim as
A couple of problems with that. First of all, you and Abner areWell, I'd agree with Abner, that the quality of the evidence for Jesus resurrection is poor enough that few would accept it were it not for it representing the desired conclusion.So effectively, you get into a debate on how conclusive or reliable
But there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.
the evidence is. Not much different really from a courtroom where
there is no conclusive *forensic* evidence and both sides will argue >> >> whether conclusions can be drawn from *circumstantial* evidence. The >> >> point is that it is an evidence-based argument, not just "pure faith" >> >> as Abner claimed.
effectively behaving in much the same way as you describe there - your
rejection of the Resurrection is not based on any contrary evidence
you have, you are coming to a conclusion that supports your existing
views about Christ.
Sorry, it's not symmetrical, much as you might wish it to be so. You are once again applying a standard in the case of the resurrection which you would probably not be willing to generalize.
What I mean is this - you demand that Abner and I find evidence against the resurrection,A quick response due to time pressures but just to make clear that I
am NOT asking, let alone *demanding*, that you and Abner produce any
such evidence - that would be asking you to prove a negative which
would be nonsensical.. I'm simply making the point that your decision
to discard the Gospel accounts is based on a worldview, not an
evidential basis.
I will respond in more detail later.
rather than just that it was very rare. That's a move you can make. But then you must apply that move to any number of claims which you, or at least most people, would consider so improbable as to be not worth entertaining. Where's the evidence thatpresumably evidence beyond the simple observation that death has very widely been observed to be irreversible. You would perhaps argue that, well, that's irrelevant to any specific case, we would need specific evidence that resurrection was impossible,
resurrection in spite of the lack of evidence. Like all those people who, unlike Thomas, are blessed "because they have not seen and yet believe."And just to be clear, this is unrelated to my conclusions about Jesus. When I was a Christian I was just as fully convinced that there was no credible evidence for Jesus' resurrection as I am now. It's just that back then I believed in the
the one in the minds of people decades or centuries after the events, including people in the present. We have a much better chance at understanding what conclusions they desire than we do at trying to figure out the state of mind of peole thousands of
Secondly, I don't think that "the desired conclusion" stands up to
scrutiny in regard to the Disciples. It is clear from the Gospels that
the disciples did not really grasp what Jesus foretold about his death
and Resurrection and were totally taken aback by his reappearance; we
can see that in the women who went to the tomb and ran from it in
terror, the disciples refusing to believe Mary of Magdala when she
told them that he had appeared to her and Thomas refusing to believe
the other disciples after Jesus appeared to them. They did not expect
Jesus to reappear in physical form and initially struggled to believe
it when it happened.
What written records there are are from decades after the reported events and are generally at least second hand, so they are not an obvious reflection of what anyone thought in the days immediately after the crucifixion. The "desired conclusion" is
yeah, you need pure faith.There's always a debate on how conclusive evidence is, if you are willing to call "a bunch of people say X" evidence for X. In that case, all claims have evidence to support, because at the very least the claimant supports the claim. So I'd say,
Of course one needs faith but faith and evidence are not mutually
exclusive. The stories in the Gospel are not *conclusive* evidence but
they are *supporting* evidence. I'll say a bit more about that in a
reply to Burkhard because I'm interested to hear his arguments from a
legal/judicial perspective.
Which, more or less goes along with Jesus' alleged words to Thomas "Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 10:55:17?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:person", then lots of biologically dead people are alive, including many who became biologically dead thousands of years ago.
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 11:36:45 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:40:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:23:10 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:15:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:16:48 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 9:00:16?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 18:07:18 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:If you wish, you can define "alive" so that Jesus is "alive." Virtually any statement can be made true if you are willing to define the terms it contains in the right way. Indeed if you want to define "alive" as "remembered by some living
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 8:40:15?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 07:51:35 -0700 (PDT), AbnerFair enough, I was taking 'first' and 'second' as referring to the >> >> >> >> people rather than their state. Anyway, that takes us back to one of
<abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kalkidas wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Happy Easter, everyone!
There is a lot of evidence for the first. The second ... pure faith. Happy Easter!
'Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and
biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his
nonexistence as effectively refuted.[7][9][48][49][50] Robert M. >> >> >> >> >> Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his
perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[51]
Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent
years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the
non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have
not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant,
evidence to the contrary."[9] Richard A. Burridge states, "There are
those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination,
that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know
any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."[48][35]:
24-26'
You reckon you know better?
You seem to have misread the post.
The first statement, for which there is plenty of evidence, was "Charles Darwin still dead." The second statement, which requires pure faith, was "Jesus Christ still alive." There was no denial of the historical Jesus.
your regular points - what do we mean by someone being "alive"? Jesus
is certainly alive to me and millions of other Christians.
of somebody making a claim is evidence for that claim, then there are no claims for which evidence is entirely lacking. You may counter that as the number of people making the claim increases, the evidence is proportionately stronger, so because moreIf you want to avoid special pleading, then you will need to use the same standard of evidence for other striking claims, the ascension of Mohammed, the Virgin Birth, bigfoot, ancient aliens building the pyramids, etc, for example. If the existenceMore pertinently, he said there is no evidence of Jesus being alive. IChristians believe that Jesus overcame death and returned to life. It >> >> >> was clearly a different life from what we generally experience - heWell, sure, and that's the kind of alive Jesus the belief in which requires pure faith, as Abner said in the first place.
was able to appear and disappear at will and pass through walls yet
there were still physical elements to him such as eating with his
disciples and inviting Thomas to insert his fingers into his (Jesus's) >> >> >> wounds. That's a lot more than just alive in people's memories.
would dispute that. The Gospel accounts, for example, are evidence.
You and he might not want to accept the validity of that evidence but
that doesn't change the fact that it is evidence.
would apply to miraculous claims in Homer, or the Koran, or Herodotus, or the Gita. In my view, that means that while there is abundant evidence that lots of people believed and believe in the resurrection, there is no evidence for the resurrection
In would say that if you want to make a non-faith based claim about a proposed event involving a historical religious figure, for example the physical resurrection of Jesus, then you need to apply the same standards of evidence to that claim as you
So effectively, you get into a debate on how conclusive or reliable
But there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.
the evidence is. Not much different really from a courtroom where
there is no conclusive *forensic* evidence and both sides will argue
whether conclusions can be drawn from *circumstantial* evidence. The
point is that it is an evidence-based argument, not just "pure faith"
as Abner claimed.
I'd say while this is a possible reading of the Gospel, it's theologically somewhere between the least satisfying and the massively blasphemous.
As all attempts to naturalise religion inevitably are.
What it leads to is the interpretation of the resurrection as a vulgar zombie-apocalypse, that positively gets in the way of spiritual or redemptive (in Tilllich's sense) interpretation, and also creates conflicts with other passages of the text, inparticular, Luke 24 13-16.
I would agree with you that as a matter of terminology, even extremely weak evidence is still evidence. I'd go even further and would argue that even evidence that later turned out to be misleading is evidence, (I remember some discussions with John Hon this, where we disagreed on that point)
But apart from coming in degrees, the type of evidence that we use in court has also a range of other properties that you would not necessarily want in a religious context. One is the one Bill alluded to - it requires consistency in application, and I'dadd, it inevitably gives you then a scale that allows comparisons. So it inevitably leads to statements of the form "The evidence for the resurrection is weaker, or at best as strong as, that for XYZ" where given what we are dealing here with more or
But I think it is worse than that. Nothing is just "evidence" observations are evidence for or against a theory, and have to be evaluated with these two conflicting theories in mind, Which for instance for the observation of the empty grave means thatit can't really distinguish between a supernatural resurrection and simp grave robbery (they produce the same expected observation.
The reports of having seen Jesus fare a bit better, ( we grant here that they are genuine eyewitness reports and leave aside for the purpose of this analysis the possibility that they are later inventions, additions, misunderstandings and misreportingetc). So we read them ex hypothesis as "bare observations" - but now we really have a badly evidenced zombie walking around, because that physical reading is the only one the reported observations would be evidence for. With the additional problems
between a resurrection theory and one where his death was just misdiagnosed, which would be the much more natural explanationTreating the Gospel as a mere physical eyewitness account leads inevitably to the physical resurrection reading, which was a comparative latecomer: "Theologically speaking, it is a rationalization of the resurrection event, interpreting it with physical
b) even if granted that he had really died, why only so few people saw Jesus, and
c) even worse, why , as Luke indicates, some of those who should have identified him did not.
So once treated like ordinary evidence, it becomes inevitably subject to testing against other evidence (or the lack of it) .
So in exchange for treating the Gospels as "ordinary evidence", you only get an extremely weakly supported, part contradicted, theologically least palatable. Tillich's classification is helpful here even if one does not adopt his preferred solution.
physical body occupying a specific place Immediately the absurd question arises: what happened to the molecules which comprise the corpse of
Jesus of Nazaret. In this question, the mere absurdity becomes almost blasphemy."
And what you lose are the much more theologically rewarding readings of the text, the spiritual interpretation (which I'd say is by now mainstream) . And of course also Tillich's reading as restitution, which I always thought the most compelling:
"This theory concerning the event which underlies the symbol of Resurrection dismisses physical as well as spiritualistic literalism.
[...] and places at the center of its analysis the religious meaning of the Resurrection for the disciples (and their followers), in contrast to
their previous state of negativity and despair. This view is the ecstatic confirmation of the indestructible unity of the New Being and
its bearer, Jesus of Nazareth. In eternity they belong together. In contrast to the physical, the spiritualistic, and the psychological
theories concerning the Resurrection event, one could call this the "restitution theory". According to it, the Resurrection is the
restitution of Jesus as Christ, a restitution which is rooted in the personal unity between Jesus and God and in the impact of this unity on
the minds of the apostles."
With other words, the Gospels do not report a set of massively ambiguous observations, something done through the physical senses and subject to its limitations, but a profound life-changing experience of a transformation of a relationship - Christ-the-man has become now "The Church", not any longer an individual (hence Luke, unrecognisable for some, at least temporarily), ecstatic and experiential rather than descriptive-factual.
On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 4:35:17?AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:resurrection as a vulgar zombie-apocalypse, that positively gets in the way of spiritual or redemptive (in Tilllich's sense) interpretation, and also creates conflicts with other passages of the text, in particular, Luke 24 13-16.
I'd say while this is a possible reading of the Gospel, it's theologically somewhere between the least satisfying and the massively blasphemous. As all attempts to naturalise religion inevitably are. What it leads to is the interpretation of the
on this, where we disagreed on that point)
I would agree with you that as a matter of terminology, even extremely weak evidence is still evidence. I'd go even further and would argue that even evidence that later turned out to be misleading is evidence, (I remember some discussions with John H
d add, it inevitably gives you then a scale that allows comparisons. So it inevitably leads to statements of the form "The evidence for the resurrection is weaker, or at best as strong as, that for XYZ" where given what we are dealing here with more or
But apart from coming in degrees, the type of evidence that we use in court has also a range of other properties that you would not necessarily want in a religious context. One is the one Bill alluded to - it requires consistency in application, and I'
it can't really distinguish between a supernatural resurrection and simp grave robbery (they produce the same expected observation. The reports of having seen Jesus fare a bit better, ( we grant here that they are genuine eyewitness reports and leave
But I think it is worse than that. Nothing is just "evidence" observations are evidence for or against a theory, and have to be evaluated with these two conflicting theories in mind, Which for instance for the observation of the empty grave means that
between a resurrection theory and one where his death was just misdiagnosed, which would be the much more natural explanationTreating the Gospel as a mere physical eyewitness account leads inevitably to the physical resurrection reading, which was a comparative latecomer: "Theologically speaking, it is a rationalization of the resurrection event, interpreting it with physical
b) even if granted that he had really died, why only so few people saw Jesus, and
c) even worse, why , as Luke indicates, some of those who should have identified him did not.
So once treated like ordinary evidence, it becomes inevitably subject to testing against other evidence (or the lack of it) .
So in exchange for treating the Gospels as "ordinary evidence", you only get an extremely weakly supported, part contradicted, theologically least palatable. Tillich's classification is helpful here even if one does not adopt his preferred solution.
the-man has become now "The Church", not any longer an individual (hence Luke, unrecognisable for some, at least temporarily), ecstatic and experiential rather than descriptive-factual.physical body occupying a specific place Immediately the absurd question arises: what happened to the molecules which comprise the corpse of
Jesus of Nazaret. In this question, the mere absurdity becomes almost blasphemy."
And what you lose are the much more theologically rewarding readings of the text, the spiritual interpretation (which I'd say is by now mainstream) . And of course also Tillich's reading as restitution, which I always thought the most compelling:
"This theory concerning the event which underlies the symbol of Resurrection dismisses physical as well as spiritualistic literalism.
[...] and places at the center of its analysis the religious meaning of the Resurrection for the disciples (and their followers), in contrast to
their previous state of negativity and despair. This view is the ecstatic confirmation of the indestructible unity of the New Being and
its bearer, Jesus of Nazareth. In eternity they belong together. In contrast to the physical, the spiritualistic, and the psychological
theories concerning the Resurrection event, one could call this the "restitution theory". According to it, the Resurrection is the
restitution of Jesus as Christ, a restitution which is rooted in the personal unity between Jesus and God and in the impact of this unity on
the minds of the apostles."
With other words, the Gospels do not report a set of massively ambiguous observations, something done through the physical senses and subject to its limitations, but a profound life-changing experience of a transformation of a relationship - Christ-
And not just Luke. There's the Emmaus Road story in John, and Mark 16:12, where Jesus appears "in another form", and John 20:14 where Mary Magdalene does not recognize resurrected Jesus. I actually find all those instances of not recognizing theresurrected Jesus as some kind of evidence that the story was not made up out of whole cloth and that it is reporting an intense psychological experience following a traumatic loss.
It would have been perfectly easy, had the thing just been invented entirely, just to make everybody recognize Jesus and feel his wounds to be sure.
On 4/11/23 1:34 AM, Burkhard wrote:, then lots of biologically dead people are alive, including many who became biologically dead thousands of years ago.
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 10:55:17?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 11:36:45 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:40:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:23:10 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:15:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:16:48 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 9:00:16?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 18:07:18 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" >>>>>>>>> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
If you wish, you can define "alive" so that Jesus is "alive." Virtually any statement can be made true if you are willing to define the terms it contains in the right way. Indeed if you want to define "alive" as "remembered by some living person"On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 8:40:15?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 07:51:35 -0700 (PDT), AbnerFair enough, I was taking 'first' and 'second' as referring to the >>>>>>>>> people rather than their state. Anyway, that takes us back to one of >>>>>>>>> your regular points - what do we mean by someone being "alive"? Jesus >>>>>>>>> is certainly alive to me and millions of other Christians.
<abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kalkidas wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Happy Easter, everyone!
There is a lot of evidence for the first. The second ... pure faith. Happy Easter!
'Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and >>>>>>>>>>> biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his >>>>>>>>>>> nonexistence as effectively refuted.[7][9][48][49][50] Robert M. >>>>>>>>>>> Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his
perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[51] >>>>>>>>>>> Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent >>>>>>>>>>> years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the
non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have
not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant,
evidence to the contrary."[9] Richard A. Burridge states, "There are
those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination,
that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know
any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."[48][35]: >>>>>>>>>>> 2426'
You reckon you know better?
You seem to have misread the post.
The first statement, for which there is plenty of evidence, was "Charles Darwin still dead." The second statement, which requires pure faith, was "Jesus Christ still alive." There was no denial of the historical Jesus.
of somebody making a claim is evidence for that claim, then there are no claims for which evidence is entirely lacking. You may counter that as the number of people making the claim increases, the evidence is proportionately stronger, so because moreIf you want to avoid special pleading, then you will need to use the same standard of evidence for other striking claims, the ascension of Mohammed, the Virgin Birth, bigfoot, ancient aliens building the pyramids, etc, for example. If the existenceMore pertinently, he said there is no evidence of Jesus being alive. I >>>>> would dispute that. The Gospel accounts, for example, are evidence.Christians believe that Jesus overcame death and returned to life. It >>>>>>> was clearly a different life from what we generally experience - he >>>>>>> was able to appear and disappear at will and pass through walls yet >>>>>>> there were still physical elements to him such as eating with his >>>>>>> disciples and inviting Thomas to insert his fingers into his (Jesus's) >>>>>>> wounds. That's a lot more than just alive in people's memories.Well, sure, and that's the kind of alive Jesus the belief in which requires pure faith, as Abner said in the first place.
You and he might not want to accept the validity of that evidence but >>>>> that doesn't change the fact that it is evidence.
would apply to miraculous claims in Homer, or the Koran, or Herodotus, or the Gita. In my view, that means that while there is abundant evidence that lots of people believed and believe in the resurrection, there is no evidence for the resurrection
In would say that if you want to make a non-faith based claim about a proposed event involving a historical religious figure, for example the physical resurrection of Jesus, then you need to apply the same standards of evidence to that claim as you
resurrection as a vulgar zombie-apocalypse, that positively gets in the way of spiritual or redemptive (in Tilllich's sense) interpretation, and also creates conflicts with other passages of the text, in particular, Luke 24 13-16.So effectively, you get into a debate on how conclusive or reliable
But there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.
the evidence is. Not much different really from a courtroom where
there is no conclusive *forensic* evidence and both sides will argue
whether conclusions can be drawn from *circumstantial* evidence. The
point is that it is an evidence-based argument, not just "pure faith"
as Abner claimed.
I'd say while this is a possible reading of the Gospel, it's theologically somewhere between the least satisfying and the massively blasphemous. As all attempts to naturalise religion inevitably are. What it leads to is the interpretation of the
[snip more worthy text]
There's also the problem that claiming an evidence-based belief in
religion raises issues of hypocrisy. The evidence for Jesus'
resurrection is no better than that for the divine inspiration of the
Qur'an or the divinity of Rama, and is roughly on par with evidence for
a thousand or so other gods, not to mention leprechauns, bunyips, Santa
at the North Pole, etc.
Why, then, choose to believe just a highly
limited set of such religions?
On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 1:40:17?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:person", then lots of biologically dead people are alive, including many who became biologically dead thousands of years ago.
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 10:10:57 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 12:30:17?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 15:52:03 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 5:55:17?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 11:36:45 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:40:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:23:10 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:15:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:16:48 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" >> >> >> >> >> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 9:00:16?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 18:07:18 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"If you wish, you can define "alive" so that Jesus is "alive." Virtually any statement can be made true if you are willing to define the terms it contains in the right way. Indeed if you want to define "alive" as "remembered by some living
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 8:40:15?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:Fair enough, I was taking 'first' and 'second' as referring to the
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 07:51:35 -0700 (PDT), Abner
<abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kalkidas wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Happy Easter, everyone!
There is a lot of evidence for the first. The second ... pure faith. Happy Easter!
'Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and
biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his
nonexistence as effectively refuted.[7][9][48][49][50] Robert M.
Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his
perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[51]
Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent
years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the
non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have
not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant,
evidence to the contrary."[9] Richard A. Burridge states, "There are
those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination,
that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know
any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."[48][35]:
24-26'
You reckon you know better?
You seem to have misread the post.
The first statement, for which there is plenty of evidence, was "Charles Darwin still dead." The second statement, which requires pure faith, was "Jesus Christ still alive." There was no denial of the historical Jesus.
people rather than their state. Anyway, that takes us back to one of
your regular points - what do we mean by someone being "alive"? Jesus
is certainly alive to me and millions of other Christians.
existence of somebody making a claim is evidence for that claim, then there are no claims for which evidence is entirely lacking. You may counter that as the number of people making the claim increases, the evidence is proportionately stronger, soIf you want to avoid special pleading, then you will need to use the same standard of evidence for other striking claims, the ascension of Mohammed, the Virgin Birth, bigfoot, ancient aliens building the pyramids, etc, for example. If theMore pertinently, he said there is no evidence of Jesus being alive. IChristians believe that Jesus overcame death and returned to life. It
was clearly a different life from what we generally experience - he
was able to appear and disappear at will and pass through walls yet
there were still physical elements to him such as eating with his
disciples and inviting Thomas to insert his fingers into his (Jesus's)
wounds. That's a lot more than just alive in people's memories. >> >> >> >> >Well, sure, and that's the kind of alive Jesus the belief in which requires pure faith, as Abner said in the first place.
would dispute that. The Gospel accounts, for example, are evidence. >> >> >> >> You and he might not want to accept the validity of that evidence but
that doesn't change the fact that it is evidence.
you would apply to miraculous claims in Homer, or the Koran, or Herodotus, or the Gita. In my view, that means that while there is abundant evidence that lots of people believed and believe in the resurrection, there is no evidence for the resurrection
In would say that if you want to make a non-faith based claim about a proposed event involving a historical religious figure, for example the physical resurrection of Jesus, then you need to apply the same standards of evidence to that claim as
on the basis of the evidence. I think that is not terribly different than demanding proof of a negative, but suit yourself.A quick response due to time pressures but just to make clear that IA couple of problems with that. First of all, you and Abner areWell, I'd agree with Abner, that the quality of the evidence for Jesus resurrection is poor enough that few would accept it were it not for it representing the desired conclusion.So effectively, you get into a debate on how conclusive or reliable
But there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.
the evidence is. Not much different really from a courtroom where
there is no conclusive *forensic* evidence and both sides will argue >> >> >> whether conclusions can be drawn from *circumstantial* evidence. The >> >> >> point is that it is an evidence-based argument, not just "pure faith" >> >> >> as Abner claimed.
effectively behaving in much the same way as you describe there - your
rejection of the Resurrection is not based on any contrary evidence
you have, you are coming to a conclusion that supports your existing
views about Christ.
Sorry, it's not symmetrical, much as you might wish it to be so. You are once again applying a standard in the case of the resurrection which you would probably not be willing to generalize.
What I mean is this - you demand that Abner and I find evidence against the resurrection,
am NOT asking, let alone *demanding*, that you and Abner produce any
such evidence - that would be asking you to prove a negative which
would be nonsensical.. I'm simply making the point that your decision
to discard the Gospel accounts is based on a worldview, not an
evidential basis.
In that case your claim is this - if someone rejects a claim for lack of convincing positive evidence in support of the claim and in the absence of definitive contrary evidence against the claim, then they can only do so on the basis of a worldview, not
In any case, my decision to decision to reject the Gospel accounts, unlike your decision to accept them, is based on evidence, not a prior commitment to a worldview (well, except to the worldview that evidence matters). Here's what the difference is.as is possible, consistent about accepting claims backed by evidence that meets that standard, and rejecting those that don't.
I have a standard of evidence for accepting claims. I apply that standard to all claims, regardless of what they are, whether they are claims about Jesus, about Homer, about Bigfoot, about economics, virology, secular history or whatever. I am, as far
You, on the other hand, have standards of evidence that vary based on whether the claim is important to your religion or not.
The same loose standards of evidence which lead you to accept the resurrection based on the gospel accounts should, by rights lead you to accept many claims of events you almost certainly consider incredible. If I were to adopt your standards ofevidence, then I would be unable to reject any number of extraordinary and implausible claims, for example the claim that you are an apostate Catholic who assiduously hides his apostasy.
The whole problem only arises because you seem to want evidence to support your faith.
The whole point of faith is that it does not need supporting evidence, apart from your own subjective experience of faith itself.
And as I said before, when I was a Christian and believed in the resurrection I still did not believe there was evidence for it apart from my own faith. So I really do not think my world view makes any difference, since I had the same view of theevidence for the resurrection whether I was a Christian or an atheist.
impossible, rather than just that it was very rare. That's a move you can make. But then you must apply that move to any number of claims which you, or at least most people, would consider so improbable as to be not worth entertaining. Where's the
I will respond in more detail later.
presumably evidence beyond the simple observation that death has very widely been observed to be irreversible. You would perhaps argue that, well, that's irrelevant to any specific case, we would need specific evidence that resurrection was
resurrection in spite of the lack of evidence. Like all those people who, unlike Thomas, are blessed "because they have not seen and yet believe."
And just to be clear, this is unrelated to my conclusions about Jesus. When I was a Christian I was just as fully convinced that there was no credible evidence for Jesus' resurrection as I am now. It's just that back then I believed in the
the one in the minds of people decades or centuries after the events, including people in the present. We have a much better chance at understanding what conclusions they desire than we do at trying to figure out the state of mind of peole thousands of
Secondly, I don't think that "the desired conclusion" stands up to
scrutiny in regard to the Disciples. It is clear from the Gospels that
the disciples did not really grasp what Jesus foretold about his death
and Resurrection and were totally taken aback by his reappearance; we
can see that in the women who went to the tomb and ran from it in
terror, the disciples refusing to believe Mary of Magdala when she
told them that he had appeared to her and Thomas refusing to believe
the other disciples after Jesus appeared to them. They did not expect
Jesus to reappear in physical form and initially struggled to believe
it when it happened.
What written records there are are from decades after the reported events and are generally at least second hand, so they are not an obvious reflection of what anyone thought in the days immediately after the crucifixion. The "desired conclusion" is
yeah, you need pure faith.There's always a debate on how conclusive evidence is, if you are willing to call "a bunch of people say X" evidence for X. In that case, all claims have evidence to support, because at the very least the claimant supports the claim. So I'd say,
Of course one needs faith but faith and evidence are not mutually
exclusive. The stories in the Gospel are not *conclusive* evidence but
they are *supporting* evidence. I'll say a bit more about that in a
reply to Burkhard because I'm interested to hear his arguments from a
legal/judicial perspective.
Which, more or less goes along with Jesus' alleged words to Thomas "Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 10:50:18?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:resurrection as a vulgar zombie-apocalypse, that positively gets in the way of spiritual or redemptive (in Tilllich's sense) interpretation, and also creates conflicts with other passages of the text, in particular, Luke 24 13-16.
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 05:03:22 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 4:35:17?AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
I'd say while this is a possible reading of the Gospel, it's theologically somewhere between the least satisfying and the massively blasphemous. As all attempts to naturalise religion inevitably are. What it leads to is the interpretation of the
John H on this, where we disagreed on that point)
I would agree with you that as a matter of terminology, even extremely weak evidence is still evidence. I'd go even further and would argue that even evidence that later turned out to be misleading is evidence, (I remember some discussions with
and I'd add, it inevitably gives you then a scale that allows comparisons. So it inevitably leads to statements of the form "The evidence for the resurrection is weaker, or at best as strong as, that for XYZ" where given what we are dealing here with
But apart from coming in degrees, the type of evidence that we use in court has also a range of other properties that you would not necessarily want in a religious context. One is the one Bill alluded to - it requires consistency in application,
that it can't really distinguish between a supernatural resurrection and simp grave robbery (they produce the same expected observation. The reports of having seen Jesus fare a bit better, ( we grant here that they are genuine eyewitness reports and
But I think it is worse than that. Nothing is just "evidence" observations are evidence for or against a theory, and have to be evaluated with these two conflicting theories in mind, Which for instance for the observation of the empty grave means
distinguishTreating the Gospel as a mere physical eyewitness account leads inevitably to the physical resurrection reading, which was a comparative latecomer: "Theologically speaking, it is a rationalization of the resurrection event, interpreting it with physical
between a resurrection theory and one where his death was just misdiagnosed, which would be the much more natural explanation
b) even if granted that he had really died, why only so few people saw Jesus, and
c) even worse, why , as Luke indicates, some of those who should have identified him did not.
So once treated like ordinary evidence, it becomes inevitably subject to testing against other evidence (or the lack of it) .
So in exchange for treating the Gospels as "ordinary evidence", you only get an extremely weakly supported, part contradicted, theologically least palatable. Tillich's classification is helpful here even if one does not adopt his preferred solution.
the-man has become now "The Church", not any longer an individual (hence Luke, unrecognisable for some, at least temporarily), ecstatic and experiential rather than descriptive-factual.physical body occupying a specific place Immediately the absurd question arises: what happened to the molecules which comprise the corpse of
Jesus of Nazaret. In this question, the mere absurdity becomes almost blasphemy."
And what you lose are the much more theologically rewarding readings of the text, the spiritual interpretation (which I'd say is by now mainstream) . And of course also Tillich's reading as restitution, which I always thought the most compelling:
"This theory concerning the event which underlies the symbol of Resurrection dismisses physical as well as spiritualistic literalism.
[...] and places at the center of its analysis the religious meaning of the Resurrection for the disciples (and their followers), in contrast to
their previous state of negativity and despair. This view is the ecstatic confirmation of the indestructible unity of the New Being and
its bearer, Jesus of Nazareth. In eternity they belong together. In contrast to the physical, the spiritualistic, and the psychological
theories concerning the Resurrection event, one could call this the "restitution theory". According to it, the Resurrection is the
restitution of Jesus as Christ, a restitution which is rooted in the personal unity between Jesus and God and in the impact of this unity on
the minds of the apostles."
With other words, the Gospels do not report a set of massively ambiguous observations, something done through the physical senses and subject to its limitations, but a profound life-changing experience of a transformation of a relationship - Christ-
resurrected Jesus as some kind of evidence that the story was not made up out of whole cloth and that it is reporting an intense psychological experience following a traumatic loss.
And not just Luke. There's the Emmaus Road story in John, and Mark 16:12, where Jesus appears "in another form", and John 20:14 where Mary Magdalene does not recognize resurrected Jesus. I actually find all those instances of not recognizing the
Let me get this right. The two disciples on the road to Emmaus were
clearly downbeat and were regarding the Jesus "story" as effectively
over. Are you suggesting that they met a stranger and underwent some
sort of trauma-induced transmogrification which convinced them that
this stranger was actually Christ and converted their sense of
depression into a burning zeal which caused them to immediately return
to Jerusalem?
And you complain that I misrepresent your views?
It would have been perfectly easy, had the thing just been invented entirely, just to make everybody recognize Jesus and feel his wounds to be sure.
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 05:03:22 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:resurrection as a vulgar zombie-apocalypse, that positively gets in the way of spiritual or redemptive (in Tilllich's sense) interpretation, and also creates conflicts with other passages of the text, in particular, Luke 24 13-16.
On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 4:35:17?AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
I'd say while this is a possible reading of the Gospel, it's theologically somewhere between the least satisfying and the massively blasphemous. As all attempts to naturalise religion inevitably are. What it leads to is the interpretation of the
H on this, where we disagreed on that point)
I would agree with you that as a matter of terminology, even extremely weak evidence is still evidence. I'd go even further and would argue that even evidence that later turned out to be misleading is evidence, (I remember some discussions with John
I'd add, it inevitably gives you then a scale that allows comparisons. So it inevitably leads to statements of the form "The evidence for the resurrection is weaker, or at best as strong as, that for XYZ" where given what we are dealing here with more or
But apart from coming in degrees, the type of evidence that we use in court has also a range of other properties that you would not necessarily want in a religious context. One is the one Bill alluded to - it requires consistency in application, and
that it can't really distinguish between a supernatural resurrection and simp grave robbery (they produce the same expected observation. The reports of having seen Jesus fare a bit better, ( we grant here that they are genuine eyewitness reports and
But I think it is worse than that. Nothing is just "evidence" observations are evidence for or against a theory, and have to be evaluated with these two conflicting theories in mind, Which for instance for the observation of the empty grave means
Treating the Gospel as a mere physical eyewitness account leads inevitably to the physical resurrection reading, which was a comparative latecomer: "Theologically speaking, it is a rationalization of the resurrection event, interpreting it with physicalbetween a resurrection theory and one where his death was just misdiagnosed, which would be the much more natural explanation
b) even if granted that he had really died, why only so few people saw Jesus, and
c) even worse, why , as Luke indicates, some of those who should have identified him did not.
So once treated like ordinary evidence, it becomes inevitably subject to testing against other evidence (or the lack of it) .
So in exchange for treating the Gospels as "ordinary evidence", you only get an extremely weakly supported, part contradicted, theologically least palatable. Tillich's classification is helpful here even if one does not adopt his preferred solution.
the-man has become now "The Church", not any longer an individual (hence Luke, unrecognisable for some, at least temporarily), ecstatic and experiential rather than descriptive-factual.physical body occupying a specific place Immediately the absurd question arises: what happened to the molecules which comprise the corpse of
Jesus of Nazaret. In this question, the mere absurdity becomes almost blasphemy."
And what you lose are the much more theologically rewarding readings of the text, the spiritual interpretation (which I'd say is by now mainstream) . And of course also Tillich's reading as restitution, which I always thought the most compelling:
"This theory concerning the event which underlies the symbol of Resurrection dismisses physical as well as spiritualistic literalism.
[...] and places at the center of its analysis the religious meaning of the Resurrection for the disciples (and their followers), in contrast to
their previous state of negativity and despair. This view is the ecstatic confirmation of the indestructible unity of the New Being and
its bearer, Jesus of Nazareth. In eternity they belong together. In contrast to the physical, the spiritualistic, and the psychological
theories concerning the Resurrection event, one could call this the "restitution theory". According to it, the Resurrection is the
restitution of Jesus as Christ, a restitution which is rooted in the personal unity between Jesus and God and in the impact of this unity on
the minds of the apostles."
With other words, the Gospels do not report a set of massively ambiguous observations, something done through the physical senses and subject to its limitations, but a profound life-changing experience of a transformation of a relationship - Christ-
resurrected Jesus as some kind of evidence that the story was not made up out of whole cloth and that it is reporting an intense psychological experience following a traumatic loss.And not just Luke. There's the Emmaus Road story in John, and Mark 16:12, where Jesus appears "in another form", and John 20:14 where Mary Magdalene does not recognize resurrected Jesus. I actually find all those instances of not recognizing the
Let me get this right. The two disciples on the road to Emmaus were
clearly downbeat and were regarding the Jesus "story" as effectively
over. Are you suggesting that they met a stranger and underwent some
sort of trauma-induced transmogrification which convinced them that
this stranger was actually Christ and converted their sense of
depression into a burning zeal which caused them to immediately return
to Jerusalem?
It would have been perfectly easy, had the thing just been invented entirely, just to make everybody recognize Jesus and feel his wounds to be sure.
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 08:30:11 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:resurrection as a vulgar zombie-apocalypse, that positively gets in the way of spiritual or redemptive (in Tilllich's sense) interpretation, and also creates conflicts with other passages of the text, in particular, Luke 24 13-16.
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 10:50:18?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 05:03:22 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 4:35:17?AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
I'd say while this is a possible reading of the Gospel, it's theologically somewhere between the least satisfying and the massively blasphemous. As all attempts to naturalise religion inevitably are. What it leads to is the interpretation of the
John H on this, where we disagreed on that point)
I would agree with you that as a matter of terminology, even extremely weak evidence is still evidence. I'd go even further and would argue that even evidence that later turned out to be misleading is evidence, (I remember some discussions with
and I'd add, it inevitably gives you then a scale that allows comparisons. So it inevitably leads to statements of the form "The evidence for the resurrection is weaker, or at best as strong as, that for XYZ" where given what we are dealing here with
But apart from coming in degrees, the type of evidence that we use in court has also a range of other properties that you would not necessarily want in a religious context. One is the one Bill alluded to - it requires consistency in application,
that it can't really distinguish between a supernatural resurrection and simp grave robbery (they produce the same expected observation. The reports of having seen Jesus fare a bit better, ( we grant here that they are genuine eyewitness reports and
But I think it is worse than that. Nothing is just "evidence" observations are evidence for or against a theory, and have to be evaluated with these two conflicting theories in mind, Which for instance for the observation of the empty grave means
solution. Treating the Gospel as a mere physical eyewitness account leads inevitably to the physical resurrection reading, which was a comparative latecomer: "Theologically speaking, it is a rationalization of the resurrection event, interpreting it withdistinguish
between a resurrection theory and one where his death was just misdiagnosed, which would be the much more natural explanation
b) even if granted that he had really died, why only so few people saw Jesus, and
c) even worse, why , as Luke indicates, some of those who should have identified him did not.
So once treated like ordinary evidence, it becomes inevitably subject to testing against other evidence (or the lack of it) .
So in exchange for treating the Gospels as "ordinary evidence", you only get an extremely weakly supported, part contradicted, theologically least palatable. Tillich's classification is helpful here even if one does not adopt his preferred
Christ-the-man has become now "The Church", not any longer an individual (hence Luke, unrecognisable for some, at least temporarily), ecstatic and experiential rather than descriptive-factual.physical body occupying a specific place Immediately the absurd question arises: what happened to the molecules which comprise the corpse of
Jesus of Nazaret. In this question, the mere absurdity becomes almost blasphemy."
And what you lose are the much more theologically rewarding readings of the text, the spiritual interpretation (which I'd say is by now mainstream) . And of course also Tillich's reading as restitution, which I always thought the most compelling:
"This theory concerning the event which underlies the symbol of Resurrection dismisses physical as well as spiritualistic literalism.
[...] and places at the center of its analysis the religious meaning of the Resurrection for the disciples (and their followers), in contrast to
their previous state of negativity and despair. This view is the ecstatic confirmation of the indestructible unity of the New Being and
its bearer, Jesus of Nazareth. In eternity they belong together. In contrast to the physical, the spiritualistic, and the psychological
theories concerning the Resurrection event, one could call this the "restitution theory". According to it, the Resurrection is the
restitution of Jesus as Christ, a restitution which is rooted in the personal unity between Jesus and God and in the impact of this unity on
the minds of the apostles."
With other words, the Gospels do not report a set of massively ambiguous observations, something done through the physical senses and subject to its limitations, but a profound life-changing experience of a transformation of a relationship -
resurrected Jesus as some kind of evidence that the story was not made up out of whole cloth and that it is reporting an intense psychological experience following a traumatic loss.
And not just Luke. There's the Emmaus Road story in John, and Mark 16:12, where Jesus appears "in another form", and John 20:14 where Mary Magdalene does not recognize resurrected Jesus. I actually find all those instances of not recognizing the
Let me get this right. The two disciples on the road to Emmaus were
clearly downbeat and were regarding the Jesus "story" as effectively
over. Are you suggesting that they met a stranger and underwent some
sort of trauma-induced transmogrification which convinced them that
this stranger was actually Christ and converted their sense of
depression into a burning zeal which caused them to immediately return
to Jerusalem?
And you complain that I misrepresent your views?I asked you a question, I don't see how that misrepresents you views.
If you did think that, then answering the question would have been
helpful.
It would have been perfectly easy, had the thing just been invented entirely, just to make everybody recognize Jesus and feel his wounds to be sure.
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 11:59:52 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:living person", then lots of biologically dead people are alive, including many who became biologically dead thousands of years ago.
On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 1:40:17?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 10:10:57 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 12:30:17?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 15:52:03 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 5:55:17?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 11:36:45 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:40:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:23:10 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" >> >> >> >> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:15:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:16:48 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 9:00:16?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 18:07:18 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 8:40:15?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:Fair enough, I was taking 'first' and 'second' as referring to the
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 07:51:35 -0700 (PDT), Abner
<abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kalkidas wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Happy Easter, everyone!
There is a lot of evidence for the first. The second ... pure faith. Happy Easter!
'Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and
biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his
nonexistence as effectively refuted.[7][9][48][49][50] Robert M.
Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his
perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[51]
Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent
years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have
not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant,
evidence to the contrary."[9] Richard A. Burridge states, "There are
those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination,
that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know
any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."[48][35]:
24-26'
You reckon you know better?
You seem to have misread the post.
The first statement, for which there is plenty of evidence, was "Charles Darwin still dead." The second statement, which requires pure faith, was "Jesus Christ still alive." There was no denial of the historical Jesus.
people rather than their state. Anyway, that takes us back to one of
your regular points - what do we mean by someone being "alive"? Jesus
is certainly alive to me and millions of other Christians. >> >> >> >> >> >If you wish, you can define "alive" so that Jesus is "alive." Virtually any statement can be made true if you are willing to define the terms it contains in the right way. Indeed if you want to define "alive" as "remembered by some
existence of somebody making a claim is evidence for that claim, then there are no claims for which evidence is entirely lacking. You may counter that as the number of people making the claim increases, the evidence is proportionately stronger, soIf you want to avoid special pleading, then you will need to use the same standard of evidence for other striking claims, the ascension of Mohammed, the Virgin Birth, bigfoot, ancient aliens building the pyramids, etc, for example. If theMore pertinently, he said there is no evidence of Jesus being alive. IChristians believe that Jesus overcame death and returned to life. ItWell, sure, and that's the kind of alive Jesus the belief in which requires pure faith, as Abner said in the first place.
was clearly a different life from what we generally experience - he
was able to appear and disappear at will and pass through walls yet
there were still physical elements to him such as eating with his
disciples and inviting Thomas to insert his fingers into his (Jesus's)
wounds. That's a lot more than just alive in people's memories.
would dispute that. The Gospel accounts, for example, are evidence.
You and he might not want to accept the validity of that evidence but
that doesn't change the fact that it is evidence.
as you would apply to miraculous claims in Homer, or the Koran, or Herodotus, or the Gita. In my view, that means that while there is abundant evidence that lots of people believed and believe in the resurrection, there is no evidence for the
In would say that if you want to make a non-faith based claim about a proposed event involving a historical religious figure, for example the physical resurrection of Jesus, then you need to apply the same standards of evidence to that claim
not on the basis of the evidence. I think that is not terribly different than demanding proof of a negative, but suit yourself.A quick response due to time pressures but just to make clear that IA couple of problems with that. First of all, you and Abner areWell, I'd agree with Abner, that the quality of the evidence for Jesus resurrection is poor enough that few would accept it were it not for it representing the desired conclusion.So effectively, you get into a debate on how conclusive or reliable >> >> >> the evidence is. Not much different really from a courtroom where >> >> >> there is no conclusive *forensic* evidence and both sides will argue
But there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.
whether conclusions can be drawn from *circumstantial* evidence. The
point is that it is an evidence-based argument, not just "pure faith"
as Abner claimed.
effectively behaving in much the same way as you describe there - your >> >> rejection of the Resurrection is not based on any contrary evidence
you have, you are coming to a conclusion that supports your existing >> >> views about Christ.
Sorry, it's not symmetrical, much as you might wish it to be so. You are once again applying a standard in the case of the resurrection which you would probably not be willing to generalize.
What I mean is this - you demand that Abner and I find evidence against the resurrection,
am NOT asking, let alone *demanding*, that you and Abner produce any
such evidence - that would be asking you to prove a negative which
would be nonsensical.. I'm simply making the point that your decision
to discard the Gospel accounts is based on a worldview, not an
evidential basis.
In that case your claim is this - if someone rejects a claim for lack of convincing positive evidence in support of the claim and in the absence of definitive contrary evidence against the claim, then they can only do so on the basis of a worldview,
I wish you would stop misrepresenting what I said, I said nothing
about you needing *definitive* evidence - I said you are making a
decision in the absence of *any* conflicting evidence of your own. You
argue below that the failures of the evidence from the Gospels fail to
meet your standards but that constitutes a worldview as it is
something based on your personal standards, particularly your explicit dismissal of the evidence rather than simply refusing to accept it as conclusive.
as is possible, consistent about accepting claims backed by evidence that meets that standard, and rejecting those that don't.In any case, my decision to decision to reject the Gospel accounts, unlike your decision to accept them, is based on evidence, not a prior commitment to a worldview (well, except to the worldview that evidence matters). Here's what the difference is.
I have a standard of evidence for accepting claims. I apply that standard to all claims, regardless of what they are, whether they are claims about Jesus, about Homer, about Bigfoot, about economics, virology, secular history or whatever. I am, as far
evidence, then I would be unable to reject any number of extraordinary and implausible claims, for example the claim that you are an apostate Catholic who assiduously hides his apostasy.You, on the other hand, have standards of evidence that vary based on whether the claim is important to your religion or not.My standards absolutely do not vary according to my religious beliefs
and I find it rtather insulting for you to suggest so. When evidence
is measurable or testable, I accept it based on the results of those
tests or measurements. When evidence is circumstantial and cannot be verified, I treat it with a great deal of caution exactly as I have
done here, explicitly emphasising that the evidence from the Gospels
is not at all conclusive. I do not, however, dismiss it out of hand as
you are doing here which suggests that you are being driven by an anti-religious entiment.
The same loose standards of evidence which lead you to accept the resurrection based on the gospel accounts should, by rights lead you to accept many claims of events you almost certainly consider incredible. If I were to adopt your standards of
See above.The whole problem only arises because you seem to want evidence to support your faith.Again, you misrepresent my views. I do not need any evidence to
support my faith nor is my acceptance of the Resurrection based simply
on the Gospel accounts. I have explained several times in the past
that my faith is primarily based on my own experience of Jesus Christ
in my life.
The whole point of faith is that it does not need supporting evidence, apart from your own subjective experience of faith itself.The fact that faith does not *need* evidence does not obviate the
existence of evidence. As I have said already, faith and evidence are
not mutually exclusive, a point that you somehow seem unable to grasp.
evidence for the resurrection whether I was a Christian or an atheist.And as I said before, when I was a Christian and believed in the resurrection I still did not believe there was evidence for it apart from my own faith. So I really do not think my world view makes any difference, since I had the same view of the
impossible, rather than just that it was very rare. That's a move you can make. But then you must apply that move to any number of claims which you, or at least most people, would consider so improbable as to be not worth entertaining. Where's the
I will respond in more detail later.
presumably evidence beyond the simple observation that death has very widely been observed to be irreversible. You would perhaps argue that, well, that's irrelevant to any specific case, we would need specific evidence that resurrection was
resurrection in spite of the lack of evidence. Like all those people who, unlike Thomas, are blessed "because they have not seen and yet believe."
And just to be clear, this is unrelated to my conclusions about Jesus. When I was a Christian I was just as fully convinced that there was no credible evidence for Jesus' resurrection as I am now. It's just that back then I believed in the
is the one in the minds of people decades or centuries after the events, including people in the present. We have a much better chance at understanding what conclusions they desire than we do at trying to figure out the state of mind of peole thousands
Secondly, I don't think that "the desired conclusion" stands up to
scrutiny in regard to the Disciples. It is clear from the Gospels that >> >> the disciples did not really grasp what Jesus foretold about his death >> >> and Resurrection and were totally taken aback by his reappearance; we >> >> can see that in the women who went to the tomb and ran from it in
terror, the disciples refusing to believe Mary of Magdala when she
told them that he had appeared to her and Thomas refusing to believe >> >> the other disciples after Jesus appeared to them. They did not expect >> >> Jesus to reappear in physical form and initially struggled to believe >> >> it when it happened.
What written records there are are from decades after the reported events and are generally at least second hand, so they are not an obvious reflection of what anyone thought in the days immediately after the crucifixion. The "desired conclusion"
yeah, you need pure faith.There's always a debate on how conclusive evidence is, if you are willing to call "a bunch of people say X" evidence for X. In that case, all claims have evidence to support, because at the very least the claimant supports the claim. So I'd say,
Of course one needs faith but faith and evidence are not mutually
exclusive. The stories in the Gospel are not *conclusive* evidence but >> >> they are *supporting* evidence. I'll say a bit more about that in a
reply to Burkhard because I'm interested to hear his arguments from a >> >> legal/judicial perspective.
Which, more or less goes along with Jesus' alleged words to Thomas "Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
On the other hand, the evidence for the resurrection is no better than the evidence for many other things which I consider not worthy of belief, Apollo's intervention in the Trojan War, the visitation of Joseph Smith by the Angel Moroni and the GoldenTablets, the existence of a pleiseosaur in Loch Ness,
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 01:34:44 -0700 (PDT), Burkhardperson", then lots of biologically dead people are alive, including many who became biologically dead thousands of years ago.
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 10:55:17?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 11:36:45 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:40:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:23:10 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:15:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:16:48 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 9:00:16?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 18:07:18 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" >> >> >> >> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:If you wish, you can define "alive" so that Jesus is "alive." Virtually any statement can be made true if you are willing to define the terms it contains in the right way. Indeed if you want to define "alive" as "remembered by some living
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 8:40:15?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:Fair enough, I was taking 'first' and 'second' as referring to the
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 07:51:35 -0700 (PDT), Abner
<abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kalkidas wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Happy Easter, everyone!
There is a lot of evidence for the first. The second ... pure faith. Happy Easter!
'Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and
biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his
nonexistence as effectively refuted.[7][9][48][49][50] Robert M.
Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his
perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[51]
Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent
years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the
non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have
not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant,
evidence to the contrary."[9] Richard A. Burridge states, "There are
those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination,
that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know
any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."[48][35]:
24-26'
You reckon you know better?
You seem to have misread the post.
The first statement, for which there is plenty of evidence, was "Charles Darwin still dead." The second statement, which requires pure faith, was "Jesus Christ still alive." There was no denial of the historical Jesus.
people rather than their state. Anyway, that takes us back to one of
your regular points - what do we mean by someone being "alive"? Jesus
is certainly alive to me and millions of other Christians.
of somebody making a claim is evidence for that claim, then there are no claims for which evidence is entirely lacking. You may counter that as the number of people making the claim increases, the evidence is proportionately stronger, so because moreIf you want to avoid special pleading, then you will need to use the same standard of evidence for other striking claims, the ascension of Mohammed, the Virgin Birth, bigfoot, ancient aliens building the pyramids, etc, for example. If the existenceMore pertinently, he said there is no evidence of Jesus being alive. I >> >> would dispute that. The Gospel accounts, for example, are evidence.Christians believe that Jesus overcame death and returned to life. ItWell, sure, and that's the kind of alive Jesus the belief in which requires pure faith, as Abner said in the first place.
was clearly a different life from what we generally experience - he >> >> >> was able to appear and disappear at will and pass through walls yet >> >> >> there were still physical elements to him such as eating with his >> >> >> disciples and inviting Thomas to insert his fingers into his (Jesus's)
wounds. That's a lot more than just alive in people's memories.
You and he might not want to accept the validity of that evidence but >> >> that doesn't change the fact that it is evidence.
would apply to miraculous claims in Homer, or the Koran, or Herodotus, or the Gita. In my view, that means that while there is abundant evidence that lots of people believed and believe in the resurrection, there is no evidence for the resurrection
In would say that if you want to make a non-faith based claim about a proposed event involving a historical religious figure, for example the physical resurrection of Jesus, then you need to apply the same standards of evidence to that claim as you
So effectively, you get into a debate on how conclusive or reliable
But there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.
the evidence is. Not much different really from a courtroom where
there is no conclusive *forensic* evidence and both sides will argue
whether conclusions can be drawn from *circumstantial* evidence. The
point is that it is an evidence-based argument, not just "pure faith"
as Abner claimed.
I'd say while this is a possible reading of the Gospel, it's theologically somewhere between the least satisfying and the massively blasphemous.I don't see how you get to that, can you elaborate?
As all attempts to naturalise religion inevitably are.But I'm not trying to naturalise religion - I agree with you on the
futility of that. As I've said to Bill, however, evidence and faith
are not mutually exclusive; what we get in the Bible is *supporting* evidence. Faith is indeed required to overcome the shortfalls in that evidence and take it beyond the bare reported facts but that does not eliminate its supportive nature.
Again, I don't follow your logic there, especially your reference to
Luke 24 13-16.
on this, where we disagreed on that point)I would agree with you that as a matter of terminology, even extremely weak evidence is still evidence. I'd go even further and would argue that even evidence that later turned out to be misleading is evidence, (I remember some discussions with John H
That is the key point I have been trying to make - rather fruitlessly
so far. Abner, endorsed by Bill, said that belief in the Resurrection
is "pure faith" implying that there is NO evidence. What I am arguing
is that there is *some* evidence even if it is not necessarily
conclusive.
d add, it inevitably gives you then a scale that allows comparisons. So it inevitably leads to statements of the form "The evidence for the resurrection is weaker, or at best as strong as, that for XYZ" where given what we are dealing here with more orBut apart from coming in degrees, the type of evidence that we use in court has also a range of other properties that you would not necessarily want in a religious context. One is the one Bill alluded to - it requires consistency in application, and I'
it can't really distinguish between a supernatural resurrection and simp grave robbery (they produce the same expected observation.But I think it is worse than that. Nothing is just "evidence" observations are evidence for or against a theory, and have to be evaluated with these two conflicting theories in mind, Which for instance for the observation of the empty grave means that
Whether the evidence is reliable or conclusive is matter of debate and
I tread cautiously in getting into any legal argument with you but as
I understand it, circumstantial evidence is measured on its overall
weight and extent.
through one murder trial where the evidence against the defendant was entirely circumstantial [1] but the judge explained this to the jury
with the single strand vs rope metaphor i.e. a single piece of circumstantial evidence may be weak like a single strand of a rope but
when all the pieces of evidence are interlocked together, they can
form a strong case just as a number of strands interlocked together
can form a very strong rope.
I gave the Gospel accounts as a particular example and, on their own,
they could be explained away as you say by a claim of misdiagnosis of
death. When begin to add you add in other factors, however, such as
the way Jesus foretold his death and Resurrection and the reaction of
the authorities (bribing the guards to change their story), that adds
weight to the evidence. Again to be clear, I am not claiming that that
makes the evidence conclusive, only that there is some degree of *supporting* evidence.
etc). So we read them ex hypothesis as "bare observations" - but now we really have a badly evidenced zombie walking around, because that physical reading is the only one the reported observations would be evidence for. With the additional problems thatThe reports of having seen Jesus fare a bit better, ( we grant here that they are genuine eyewitness reports and leave aside for the purpose of this analysis the possibility that they are later inventions, additions, misunderstandings and misreporting
Treating the Gospel as a mere physical eyewitness account leads inevitably to the physical resurrection reading, which was a comparative latecomer: "Theologically speaking, it is a rationalization of the resurrection event, interpreting it with physicalbetween a resurrection theory and one where his death was just misdiagnosed, which would be the much more natural explanation
b) even if granted that he had really died, why only so few people saw Jesus, and
c) even worse, why , as Luke indicates, some of those who should have identified him did not.
So once treated like ordinary evidence, it becomes inevitably subject to testing against other evidence (or the lack of it) .
So in exchange for treating the Gospels as "ordinary evidence", you only get an extremely weakly supported, part contradicted, theologically least palatable. Tillich's classification is helpful here even if one does not adopt his preferred solution.
physical body occupying a specific place Immediately the absurd question arises: what happened to the molecules which comprise the corpse of
Jesus of Nazaret. In this question, the mere absurdity becomes almost blasphemy."
And what you lose are the much more theologically rewarding readings of the text, the spiritual interpretation (which I'd say is by now mainstream) . And of course also Tillich's reading as restitution, which I always thought the most compelling:
"This theory concerning the event which underlies the symbol of Resurrection dismisses physical as well as spiritualistic literalism.I'm not familiar with Tillich's ideas, is he actually discarding the *physical* Resurrection or is he just emphasising the far more
[...] and places at the center of its analysis the religious meaning of the Resurrection for the disciples (and their followers), in contrast to
their previous state of negativity and despair. This view is the ecstatic confirmation of the indestructible unity of the New Being and
its bearer, Jesus of Nazareth. In eternity they belong together. In contrast to the physical, the spiritualistic, and the psychological
theories concerning the Resurrection event, one could call this the "restitution theory". According to it, the Resurrection is the
restitution of Jesus as Christ, a restitution which is rooted in the personal unity between Jesus and God and in the impact of this unity on
the minds of the apostles."
important spiritual impact of it? If so, then I am in total agreement
with him and I don't think he is saying anything particularly
different to most theologians in that regard.
the-man has become now "The Church", not any longer an individual (hence Luke, unrecognisable for some, at least temporarily), ecstatic and experiential rather than descriptive-factual.With other words, the Gospels do not report a set of massively ambiguous observations, something done through the physical senses and subject to its limitations, but a profound life-changing experience of a transformation of a relationship - Christ-
====================================
[1] The case was for the murder of my sister-in-law and the defendant
was found guilty on a unanimous verdict by the jury. You may well have knowledge of the case - it was the first case in the UK where a
previous conviction was revealed to the jury due to the similarity
between the two crimes. It was also the first whole-life tariff given
in Northern Ireland though the Court of Appeal later set a 35-year
tariff.
https://attracta.martinharran.com
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 3:15:18 PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:person", then lots of biologically dead people are alive, including many who became biologically dead thousands of years ago.
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 01:34:44 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 10:55:17?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 11:36:45 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:40:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:23:10 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:15:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:16:48 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" >> >> >> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 9:00:16?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 18:07:18 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" >> >> >> >> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:If you wish, you can define "alive" so that Jesus is "alive." Virtually any statement can be made true if you are willing to define the terms it contains in the right way. Indeed if you want to define "alive" as "remembered by some living
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 8:40:15?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:Fair enough, I was taking 'first' and 'second' as referring to the
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 07:51:35 -0700 (PDT), Abner
<abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kalkidas wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Happy Easter, everyone!
There is a lot of evidence for the first. The second ... pure faith. Happy Easter!
'Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and
biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his
nonexistence as effectively refuted.[7][9][48][49][50] Robert M.
Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his
perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[51]
Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent
years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the
non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have
not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant,
evidence to the contrary."[9] Richard A. Burridge states, "There are
those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination,
that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know
any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."[48][35]:
24-26'
You reckon you know better?
You seem to have misread the post.
The first statement, for which there is plenty of evidence, was "Charles Darwin still dead." The second statement, which requires pure faith, was "Jesus Christ still alive." There was no denial of the historical Jesus.
people rather than their state. Anyway, that takes us back to one of
your regular points - what do we mean by someone being "alive"? Jesus
is certainly alive to me and millions of other Christians.
existence of somebody making a claim is evidence for that claim, then there are no claims for which evidence is entirely lacking. You may counter that as the number of people making the claim increases, the evidence is proportionately stronger, soIf you want to avoid special pleading, then you will need to use the same standard of evidence for other striking claims, the ascension of Mohammed, the Virgin Birth, bigfoot, ancient aliens building the pyramids, etc, for example. If theMore pertinently, he said there is no evidence of Jesus being alive. IChristians believe that Jesus overcame death and returned to life. It
was clearly a different life from what we generally experience - he
was able to appear and disappear at will and pass through walls yet
there were still physical elements to him such as eating with his >> >> >> disciples and inviting Thomas to insert his fingers into his (Jesus's)
wounds. That's a lot more than just alive in people's memories. >> >> >Well, sure, and that's the kind of alive Jesus the belief in which requires pure faith, as Abner said in the first place.
would dispute that. The Gospel accounts, for example, are evidence. >> >> You and he might not want to accept the validity of that evidence but
that doesn't change the fact that it is evidence.
you would apply to miraculous claims in Homer, or the Koran, or Herodotus, or the Gita. In my view, that means that while there is abundant evidence that lots of people believed and believe in the resurrection, there is no evidence for the resurrection
In would say that if you want to make a non-faith based claim about a proposed event involving a historical religious figure, for example the physical resurrection of Jesus, then you need to apply the same standards of evidence to that claim as
much stronger than that of the resurrection of Christ" which is anything but. The problem is that naturalistic evidence can be quantified, quantification leads to commensurability, and that turns "it's a miracle" into "that's just silly". (this is ISo effectively, you get into a debate on how conclusive or reliable
But there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.
the evidence is. Not much different really from a courtroom where
there is no conclusive *forensic* evidence and both sides will argue
whether conclusions can be drawn from *circumstantial* evidence. The
point is that it is an evidence-based argument, not just "pure faith" >> as Abner claimed.
I'd say everything that followed was that elaboration. In summary:I'd say while this is a possible reading of the Gospel, it's theologically somewhere between the least satisfying and the massively blasphemous.I don't see how you get to that, can you elaborate?
- if one wants to or not, it inevitably naturalises religion because it has to assume the divine leaves naturalistic traces and can thus be cajoled into answering our questions)
- it is only compatible with one of the (at least four) possible theological positions that have been argued over the centuries, to wit the "vulgar zombie version", and is incompatible with the theologically more rewarding ones
- it is inconsistent with other parts of the gospel, and in particular the non-recognition of Christ by other witnesses
- while it gives you as statement "there is some evidence for a (physical) resurrection" which may "feel" reassuring and comforting, it gives you also the equivalent statements (relative to the evidence given) "The evidence for Elvis being alive is
naturalistic evidence assessment, and that comes with a whole baggage of corollaries, inevitably. So I don't think the idea of a harmonious "supportive" relation works, not if you follow though through with the reasoning.There is a simple and a more complex answer on this. The simple one is: even if you treat it as just "some" weak supporting" evidence, it still assumed that spiritual/supernatural events leave natural traces. That means you have to play by the rules ofAs all attempts to naturalise religion inevitably are.But I'm not trying to naturalise religion - I agree with you on the futility of that. As I've said to Bill, however, evidence and faith
are not mutually exclusive; what we get in the Bible is *supporting* evidence. Faith is indeed required to overcome the shortfalls in that evidence and take it beyond the bare reported facts but that does not eliminate its supportive nature.
The more complex one in that "faith" , just like "belief" is a homonym, or at least has a very wide semantic field. In everyday language, we sometimes use "belief" for "less well confirmed" propositions, and contrast it with knowledge, as in "I don'tknow the answer, but I believe it is X". In philosophical contexts, we use it differently, as a perspective change. "Knowledge" then becomes "justified true believe", which means technically speaking, I should never say "I know X", only ever "I believe X"
With "faith" I'd say it's similar. In ordinary language, we use "faith" sometimes as a non-rational, non-evidential and in that sense lesser method to form an opinion. "Why do you think the guy you just elected will keep his promises? I have faith inhim" (often despite that person's track record. Or as you implicitly do, as a sort of "last meter" crutch that makes sure you come to a decision after reasons have run out ("I looked at all the data, and all the score sheets, and whittled down the
I'd say these correspond to the everyday notion of "belief" above, and make "faith" inherently suspicious, which is then why people feel the need to use it only when reason fails. And just as with the above, "faith" in the religious context ought in myview to be something categorically different, not a mere handmaiden to reason or an excuse - it can move mountains, all on its own.
particular, Luke 24 13-16.What it leads to is the interpretation of the resurrection as a vulgar zombie-apocalypse, that positively gets in the way of spiritual or redemptive (in Tilllich's sense) interpretation, and also creates conflicts with other passages of the text, in
witness etc ) fail to make an ID. If you treat this naturalistically, just ask yourself how you'd evaluate the totality of the evidence here - one witness claiming to have seen something inherently implausible, and several other witnesses in the same orAgain, I don't follow your logic there, especially your reference toWe have two prima facie contradictory accounts One set of witnesses makes a positive ID. The other, despite excellent epistemic conditions (under the ADVOKATE factors on eyewitness testimony, ( amount of time, distance to object, visibility, known by
Luke 24 13-16.
But if you give up the "physical observation eyewitness model", reconciling the two accounts gets straightforward. All of the people here make the same spiritual experience - in my preferred redemptive reading, from a feeling of deepest depression andutter despair came a sudden, massive, totally unexpected (and unearned.... ) and unexplainable lifting of the spirit and a realisation of unbounded freedom (freedom which then explains the subsequent actions of the Apostle, which otherwise would make
The people most directly affected with this don't initially understand this, and then, as humans do, try in varying degrees successfully to verbalise this and make sense of this experience. That explains the time lapse also for Maria Magdalena betweenthe "physical" seeing (which would have been instantaneous) and the "recognition" part. None of this works well when interpreted as an ordinary physical observation, we would not expect it to happen like this given everything we know about facial
H on this, where we disagreed on that point)I would agree with you that as a matter of terminology, even extremely weak evidence is still evidence. I'd go even further and would argue that even evidence that later turned out to be misleading is evidence, (I remember some discussions with John
I'd add, it inevitably gives you then a scale that allows comparisons. So it inevitably leads to statements of the form "The evidence for the resurrection is weaker, or at best as strong as, that for XYZ" where given what we are dealing here with more orThat is the key point I have been trying to make - rather fruitlesslyAnd I'd say you both underestimate or devalue faith here, just from opposite directions. And I don't think they work in synergy either, as this gives you again the "handmaiden role" of faith that makes it look like an excuse for the failure of reason
so far. Abner, endorsed by Bill, said that belief in the Resurrection
is "pure faith" implying that there is NO evidence. What I am arguing
is that there is *some* evidence even if it is not necessarily
conclusive.
But apart from coming in degrees, the type of evidence that we use in court has also a range of other properties that you would not necessarily want in a religious context. One is the one Bill alluded to - it requires consistency in application, and
that it can't really distinguish between a supernatural resurrection and simp grave robbery (they produce the same expected observation.But I think it is worse than that. Nothing is just "evidence" observations are evidence for or against a theory, and have to be evaluated with these two conflicting theories in mind, Which for instance for the observation of the empty grave means
lot, and then they don't do it again, at least not in my presence :o)Whether the evidence is reliable or conclusive is matter of debate andThat misses a bit my point. Often, people say things like "DNA is evidence" or "confessions are evidence", or even worse, ""DNA is highly reliable evidence" or ""DNA is strong evidence" etc My students do this exactly once, and then I shout at them a
I tread cautiously in getting into any legal argument with you but as
I understand it, circumstantial evidence is measured on its overall
weight and extent.
Nothing is just "evidence", let alone "strong/weak/conclusive/" etc evidence. The same "fact", a DNA match between say the suspect and a trace on the victim in a rape case, can be extremely important, IF the defense hypothesis is that someone else thanthe accused was the perpetrator, and utterly irrelevant IF the defence hypothesis is that it was consensual. With other words, an observation or data point becomes evidence only ever when there are two mutually exclusive hypothesis (in a legal context,
Or as R v Kilbourne[1973] AC 729, 756 put itprobabilities. You said e.g. that Bill dismisses the Gospel account "without any reason". But that is of course not true, quite on the contrary. He has lost and lots of contrary observations - every time someone dies and stays dead. That forms the prior
“Evidence is relevant if it is logically probative or disprobative of some matter which requires proof … relevant (i e logically probative or disprobative) evidence is evidence which makes the matter which requires proof more or less probable"
So in our case that creates a number of problems for the "evidential" account of the Gospel, One is more technical and I'd say less of an issue theologically, the other is more a theological problem. The first is the one about the background
But the bigger problem is that if you treat this really as a naturalistic eyewitness account, it forces your hand regarding the possible theological interpretations. That is the "data" "witness X saw that Y" is evidence for "Y" only because ourbackground causal theory how observations work, how the eye works etc etc , and that means it can only be evidence for the "physical zombie" version, and contradict the spiritual etc version. They are not different aspects of the same thing, and IF any
My own experience of this is limited to sittingone over the other. In particular, keep track of the fact that disproving a proposition is always easier than proving one. 1 point of correspondence of a fingerprint match is not stronger than 8 or 16 or 32 points IF one of them has also a clear scar
through one murder trial where the evidence against the defendant was entirely circumstantial [1] but the judge explained this to the juryThat's both true and dangerous. It's absolutely correct when done properly. One aspect of this is as I said above, connect the bare observation and data with the competing hypothesis, and show for each pair of them how the evidence in question favours
with the single strand vs rope metaphor i.e. a single piece of circumstantial evidence may be weak like a single strand of a rope but when all the pieces of evidence are interlocked together, they can
form a strong case just as a number of strands interlocked together
can form a very strong rope.
In the below, I'd say quite a bit of your evidence fails this test- in particular one a prediction is made (foretelling) , and observation of events after that risks to be tainted by that expectation etc.misreporting etc). So we read them ex hypothesis as "bare observations" - but now we really have a badly evidenced zombie walking around, because that physical reading is the only one the reported observations would be evidence for. With the additional
I gave the Gospel accounts as a particular example and, on their own,I'd say quite a lot of single point of failures here, and in particular a discounting of the "author effect", that is you hear them through a single narrator.
they could be explained away as you say by a claim of misdiagnosis of death. When begin to add you add in other factors, however, such as
the way Jesus foretold his death and Resurrection and the reaction of
the authorities (bribing the guards to change their story), that adds weight to the evidence. Again to be clear, I am not claiming that that makes the evidence conclusive, only that there is some degree of *supporting* evidence.
The reports of having seen Jesus fare a bit better, ( we grant here that they are genuine eyewitness reports and leave aside for the purpose of this analysis the possibility that they are later inventions, additions, misunderstandings and
Treating the Gospel as a mere physical eyewitness account leads inevitably to the physical resurrection reading, which was a comparative latecomer: "Theologically speaking, it is a rationalization of the resurrection event, interpreting it with physicalbetween a resurrection theory and one where his death was just misdiagnosed, which would be the much more natural explanation
b) even if granted that he had really died, why only so few people saw Jesus, and
c) even worse, why , as Luke indicates, some of those who should have identified him did not.
So once treated like ordinary evidence, it becomes inevitably subject to testing against other evidence (or the lack of it) .
So in exchange for treating the Gospels as "ordinary evidence", you only get an extremely weakly supported, part contradicted, theologically least palatable. Tillich's classification is helpful here even if one does not adopt his preferred solution.
into groups)physical body occupying a specific place Immediately the absurd question arises: what happened to the molecules which comprise the corpse of
Jesus of Nazaret. In this question, the mere absurdity becomes almost blasphemy."
And what you lose are the much more theologically rewarding readings of the text, the spiritual interpretation (which I'd say is by now mainstream) . And of course also Tillich's reading as restitution, which I always thought the most compelling:
I'd say he sees them as mutually exclusive, and would deny that you can mix and match them while staying consistent - that part of his work is largely descriptive, i.e. he maps the positions he found in church history, and they seem to lump clearly"This theory concerning the event which underlies the symbol of Resurrection dismisses physical as well as spiritualistic literalism.I'm not familiar with Tillich's ideas, is he actually discarding the *physical* Resurrection or is he just emphasising the far more
[...] and places at the center of its analysis the religious meaning of the Resurrection for the disciples (and their followers), in contrast to
their previous state of negativity and despair. This view is the ecstatic confirmation of the indestructible unity of the New Being and
its bearer, Jesus of Nazareth. In eternity they belong together. In contrast to the physical, the spiritualistic, and the psychological
theories concerning the Resurrection event, one could call this the "restitution theory". According to it, the Resurrection is the
restitution of Jesus as Christ, a restitution which is rooted in the personal unity between Jesus and God and in the impact of this unity on
the minds of the apostles."
important spiritual impact of it? If so, then I am in total agreement
with him and I don't think he is saying anything particularly
different to most theologians in that regard.
the-man has become now "The Church", not any longer an individual (hence Luke, unrecognisable for some, at least temporarily), ecstatic and experiential rather than descriptive-factual.With other words, the Gospels do not report a set of massively ambiguous observations, something done through the physical senses and subject to its limitations, but a profound life-changing experience of a transformation of a relationship - Christ-
pastgood character" himself) . It was a case two years later, O'Brien (Respondent) v. Chief Constable of South Wales Police that finally settled the issue. I know both cases well, I was member of the expert group of the Scottish Law Commission when we====================================
[1] The case was for the murder of my sister-in-law and the defendantOh Martin, I'm so terribly sorry to hear that, that must have been a terrible experience! And it is arguably too close personally for you for a mere academic discussion - so tell me when to stop, or just ignore the next part, it's just about the law.
was found guilty on a unanimous verdict by the jury. You may well have knowledge of the case - it was the first case in the UK where a
previous conviction was revealed to the jury due to the similarity
between the two crimes. It was also the first whole-life tariff given
in Northern Ireland though the Court of Appeal later set a 35-year
tariff.
https://attracta.martinharran.com
There had been cases before that where "similar fact evidence" had been admitted, and it was arguably never prohibited in English law, it was just very difficult to meet the admissibility threshold in practice (unless the accused brought up his "
I wasn't too worried about this, but had my own misgivings with the doctrine, as intuitive it is. It also has a bearing on the discussion above, what exactly is the evidence that is submitted, and what is it evidence for? The way the jury sees is isthat the evidence is "the accused did crimes of that type in the past" and this is evidence for "he is still having a preponderance for violence". And if that would be the evidence, that would make sense for some crimes at least (and possible be evidence
So I argued for stricter safeguards, and normal limitation to cases with "unlikely similarity" like the burglar who always took a piece of wallpaper as trophy - also because in most of the cases where this is not case, the other evidence is typicallystrong enough anyway. In your case, I (and our Scottish Fiscal) were surprised that the prosecution had introduced this as evidence, as it seemed unnecessary in our experience, while risking an appeal.
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 1:20:18 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:person", then lots of biologically dead people are alive, including many who became biologically dead thousands of years ago.
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 3:15:18 PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 01:34:44 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 10:55:17?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 11:36:45 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:40:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:23:10 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:15:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:16:48 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" >> >> >> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 9:00:16?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 18:07:18 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 8:40:15?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:Fair enough, I was taking 'first' and 'second' as referring to the
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 07:51:35 -0700 (PDT), Abner
<abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kalkidas wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Happy Easter, everyone!
There is a lot of evidence for the first. The second ... pure faith. Happy Easter!
'Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and
biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his
nonexistence as effectively refuted.[7][9][48][49][50] Robert M.
Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his
perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[51]
Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent
years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the >> >> >> >> >> non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have
not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant,
evidence to the contrary."[9] Richard A. Burridge states, "There are
those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination,
that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know
any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."[48][35]:
24-26'
You reckon you know better?
You seem to have misread the post.
The first statement, for which there is plenty of evidence, was "Charles Darwin still dead." The second statement, which requires pure faith, was "Jesus Christ still alive." There was no denial of the historical Jesus.
people rather than their state. Anyway, that takes us back to one of
your regular points - what do we mean by someone being "alive"? Jesus
is certainly alive to me and millions of other Christians. >> >> >> >If you wish, you can define "alive" so that Jesus is "alive." Virtually any statement can be made true if you are willing to define the terms it contains in the right way. Indeed if you want to define "alive" as "remembered by some living
existence of somebody making a claim is evidence for that claim, then there are no claims for which evidence is entirely lacking. You may counter that as the number of people making the claim increases, the evidence is proportionately stronger, soIf you want to avoid special pleading, then you will need to use the same standard of evidence for other striking claims, the ascension of Mohammed, the Virgin Birth, bigfoot, ancient aliens building the pyramids, etc, for example. If theMore pertinently, he said there is no evidence of Jesus being alive. IChristians believe that Jesus overcame death and returned to life. It
was clearly a different life from what we generally experience - he
was able to appear and disappear at will and pass through walls yet
there were still physical elements to him such as eating with his
disciples and inviting Thomas to insert his fingers into his (Jesus's)
wounds. That's a lot more than just alive in people's memories. >> >> >Well, sure, and that's the kind of alive Jesus the belief in which requires pure faith, as Abner said in the first place.
would dispute that. The Gospel accounts, for example, are evidence.
You and he might not want to accept the validity of that evidence but
that doesn't change the fact that it is evidence.
you would apply to miraculous claims in Homer, or the Koran, or Herodotus, or the Gita. In my view, that means that while there is abundant evidence that lots of people believed and believe in the resurrection, there is no evidence for the resurrection
In would say that if you want to make a non-faith based claim about a proposed event involving a historical religious figure, for example the physical resurrection of Jesus, then you need to apply the same standards of evidence to that claim as
much stronger than that of the resurrection of Christ" which is anything but. The problem is that naturalistic evidence can be quantified, quantification leads to commensurability, and that turns "it's a miracle" into "that's just silly". (this is ISo effectively, you get into a debate on how conclusive or reliable >> the evidence is. Not much different really from a courtroom where
But there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.
there is no conclusive *forensic* evidence and both sides will argue >> whether conclusions can be drawn from *circumstantial* evidence. The >> point is that it is an evidence-based argument, not just "pure faith" >> as Abner claimed.
I'd say everything that followed was that elaboration. In summary:I'd say while this is a possible reading of the Gospel, it's theologically somewhere between the least satisfying and the massively blasphemous.I don't see how you get to that, can you elaborate?
- if one wants to or not, it inevitably naturalises religion because it has to assume the divine leaves naturalistic traces and can thus be cajoled into answering our questions)
- it is only compatible with one of the (at least four) possible theological positions that have been argued over the centuries, to wit the "vulgar zombie version", and is incompatible with the theologically more rewarding ones
- it is inconsistent with other parts of the gospel, and in particular the non-recognition of Christ by other witnesses
- while it gives you as statement "there is some evidence for a (physical) resurrection" which may "feel" reassuring and comforting, it gives you also the equivalent statements (relative to the evidence given) "The evidence for Elvis being alive is
of naturalistic evidence assessment, and that comes with a whole baggage of corollaries, inevitably. So I don't think the idea of a harmonious "supportive" relation works, not if you follow though through with the reasoning.There is a simple and a more complex answer on this. The simple one is: even if you treat it as just "some" weak supporting" evidence, it still assumed that spiritual/supernatural events leave natural traces. That means you have to play by the rulesAs all attempts to naturalise religion inevitably are.But I'm not trying to naturalise religion - I agree with you on the futility of that. As I've said to Bill, however, evidence and faith
are not mutually exclusive; what we get in the Bible is *supporting* evidence. Faith is indeed required to overcome the shortfalls in that evidence and take it beyond the bare reported facts but that does not eliminate its supportive nature.
know the answer, but I believe it is X". In philosophical contexts, we use it differently, as a perspective change. "Knowledge" then becomes "justified true believe", which means technically speaking, I should never say "I know X", only ever "I believe X"The more complex one in that "faith" , just like "belief" is a homonym, or at least has a very wide semantic field. In everyday language, we sometimes use "belief" for "less well confirmed" propositions, and contrast it with knowledge, as in "I don't
him" (often despite that person's track record. Or as you implicitly do, as a sort of "last meter" crutch that makes sure you come to a decision after reasons have run out ("I looked at all the data, and all the score sheets, and whittled down theWith "faith" I'd say it's similar. In ordinary language, we use "faith" sometimes as a non-rational, non-evidential and in that sense lesser method to form an opinion. "Why do you think the guy you just elected will keep his promises? I have faith in
I agree with you about faith here. Although I don't have any religious faith any more, when I did, I did not think of faith as a way to justify a proposition about the world or about God, certainly not as a way to push inconclusive evidence to aconclusion. Rather I thought of it as more or less an enthusiastic way of saying "Yes" to existence and to God (in whom I believed at that point). I would have said that faith in God does not mean assent to the proposition that God exists, but rather a
That is the key point I have been trying to make - rather fruitlessly
so far. Abner, endorsed by Bill, said that belief in the Resurrection
is "pure faith" implying that there is NO evidence.
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 09:32:23 -0700, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:person", then lots of biologically dead people are alive, including many who became biologically dead thousands of years ago.
On 4/11/23 1:34 AM, Burkhard wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 10:55:17?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 11:36:45 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:40:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:23:10 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:15:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:16:48 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" >>>>>>>> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 9:00:16?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 18:07:18 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" >>>>>>>>>> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
If you wish, you can define "alive" so that Jesus is "alive." Virtually any statement can be made true if you are willing to define the terms it contains in the right way. Indeed if you want to define "alive" as "remembered by some livingOn Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 8:40:15?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 07:51:35 -0700 (PDT), AbnerFair enough, I was taking 'first' and 'second' as referring to the >>>>>>>>>> people rather than their state. Anyway, that takes us back to one of >>>>>>>>>> your regular points - what do we mean by someone being "alive"? Jesus
<abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kalkidas wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Happy Easter, everyone!
There is a lot of evidence for the first. The second ... pure faith. Happy Easter!
'Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and >>>>>>>>>>>> biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his
nonexistence as effectively refuted.[7][9][48][49][50] Robert M. >>>>>>>>>>>> Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his
perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[51]
Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent >>>>>>>>>>>> years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the >>>>>>>>>>>> non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have
not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant,
evidence to the contrary."[9] Richard A. Burridge states, "There are
those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination,
that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know
any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."[48][35]: >>>>>>>>>>>> 24–26'
You reckon you know better?
You seem to have misread the post.
The first statement, for which there is plenty of evidence, was "Charles Darwin still dead." The second statement, which requires pure faith, was "Jesus Christ still alive." There was no denial of the historical Jesus.
is certainly alive to me and millions of other Christians.
of somebody making a claim is evidence for that claim, then there are no claims for which evidence is entirely lacking. You may counter that as the number of people making the claim increases, the evidence is proportionately stronger, so because moreIf you want to avoid special pleading, then you will need to use the same standard of evidence for other striking claims, the ascension of Mohammed, the Virgin Birth, bigfoot, ancient aliens building the pyramids, etc, for example. If the existenceMore pertinently, he said there is no evidence of Jesus being alive. I >>>>>> would dispute that. The Gospel accounts, for example, are evidence. >>>>>> You and he might not want to accept the validity of that evidence but >>>>>> that doesn't change the fact that it is evidence.Christians believe that Jesus overcame death and returned to life. It >>>>>>>> was clearly a different life from what we generally experience - he >>>>>>>> was able to appear and disappear at will and pass through walls yet >>>>>>>> there were still physical elements to him such as eating with his >>>>>>>> disciples and inviting Thomas to insert his fingers into his (Jesus's) >>>>>>>> wounds. That's a lot more than just alive in people's memories. >>>>>>> Well, sure, and that's the kind of alive Jesus the belief in which requires pure faith, as Abner said in the first place.
would apply to miraculous claims in Homer, or the Koran, or Herodotus, or the Gita. In my view, that means that while there is abundant evidence that lots of people believed and believe in the resurrection, there is no evidence for the resurrection
In would say that if you want to make a non-faith based claim about a proposed event involving a historical religious figure, for example the physical resurrection of Jesus, then you need to apply the same standards of evidence to that claim as you
resurrection as a vulgar zombie-apocalypse, that positively gets in the way of spiritual or redemptive (in Tilllich's sense) interpretation, and also creates conflicts with other passages of the text, in particular, Luke 24 13-16.So effectively, you get into a debate on how conclusive or reliable
But there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.
the evidence is. Not much different really from a courtroom where
there is no conclusive *forensic* evidence and both sides will argue
whether conclusions can be drawn from *circumstantial* evidence. The
point is that it is an evidence-based argument, not just "pure faith"
as Abner claimed.
I'd say while this is a possible reading of the Gospel, it's theologically somewhere between the least satisfying and the massively blasphemous. As all attempts to naturalise religion inevitably are. What it leads to is the interpretation of the
[snip more worthy text]
There's also the problem that claiming an evidence-based belief in
religion raises issues of hypocrisy. The evidence for Jesus'
resurrection is no better than that for the divine inspiration of the
Qur'an or the divinity of Rama, and is roughly on par with evidence for
a thousand or so other gods, not to mention leprechauns, bunyips, Santa
at the North Pole, etc.
What particular evidence for those things did you have in mind?
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 11:59:52 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:person", then lots of biologically dead people are alive, including many who became biologically dead thousands of years ago.
On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 1:40:17?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 10:10:57 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 12:30:17?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 15:52:03 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 5:55:17?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 11:36:45 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:40:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:23:10 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" >>>>>>>>> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:15:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:16:48 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" >>>>>>>>>>> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 9:00:16?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 18:07:18 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" >>>>>>>>>>>>> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 8:40:15?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:Fair enough, I was taking 'first' and 'second' as referring to the
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 07:51:35 -0700 (PDT), Abner
<abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kalkidas wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Happy Easter, everyone!
There is a lot of evidence for the first. The second ... pure faith. Happy Easter!
'Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and
biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his
nonexistence as effectively refuted.[7][9][48][49][50] Robert M.
Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his
perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[51]
Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent
years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have
not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant,
evidence to the contrary."[9] Richard A. Burridge states, "There are
those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination,
that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know
any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."[48][35]:
24-26'
You reckon you know better?
You seem to have misread the post.
The first statement, for which there is plenty of evidence, was "Charles Darwin still dead." The second statement, which requires pure faith, was "Jesus Christ still alive." There was no denial of the historical Jesus.
people rather than their state. Anyway, that takes us back to one of
your regular points - what do we mean by someone being "alive"? Jesus
is certainly alive to me and millions of other Christians. >>>>>>>>>>>> If you wish, you can define "alive" so that Jesus is "alive." Virtually any statement can be made true if you are willing to define the terms it contains in the right way. Indeed if you want to define "alive" as "remembered by some living
existence of somebody making a claim is evidence for that claim, then there are no claims for which evidence is entirely lacking. You may counter that as the number of people making the claim increases, the evidence is proportionately stronger, soIf you want to avoid special pleading, then you will need to use the same standard of evidence for other striking claims, the ascension of Mohammed, the Virgin Birth, bigfoot, ancient aliens building the pyramids, etc, for example. If theMore pertinently, he said there is no evidence of Jesus being alive. IChristians believe that Jesus overcame death and returned to life. It
was clearly a different life from what we generally experience - he >>>>>>>>>>> was able to appear and disappear at will and pass through walls yet >>>>>>>>>>> there were still physical elements to him such as eating with his >>>>>>>>>>> disciples and inviting Thomas to insert his fingers into his (Jesus's)
wounds. That's a lot more than just alive in people's memories. >>>>>>>>>> Well, sure, and that's the kind of alive Jesus the belief in which requires pure faith, as Abner said in the first place.
would dispute that. The Gospel accounts, for example, are evidence. >>>>>>>>> You and he might not want to accept the validity of that evidence but >>>>>>>>> that doesn't change the fact that it is evidence.
you would apply to miraculous claims in Homer, or the Koran, or Herodotus, or the Gita. In my view, that means that while there is abundant evidence that lots of people believed and believe in the resurrection, there is no evidence for the resurrection
In would say that if you want to make a non-faith based claim about a proposed event involving a historical religious figure, for example the physical resurrection of Jesus, then you need to apply the same standards of evidence to that claim as
not on the basis of the evidence. I think that is not terribly different than demanding proof of a negative, but suit yourself.A quick response due to time pressures but just to make clear that IA couple of problems with that. First of all, you and Abner areWell, I'd agree with Abner, that the quality of the evidence for Jesus resurrection is poor enough that few would accept it were it not for it representing the desired conclusion.So effectively, you get into a debate on how conclusive or reliable >>>>>>> the evidence is. Not much different really from a courtroom where >>>>>>> there is no conclusive *forensic* evidence and both sides will argue >>>>>>> whether conclusions can be drawn from *circumstantial* evidence. The >>>>>>> point is that it is an evidence-based argument, not just "pure faith" >>>>>>> as Abner claimed.
But there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.
effectively behaving in much the same way as you describe there - your >>>>> rejection of the Resurrection is not based on any contrary evidence
you have, you are coming to a conclusion that supports your existing >>>>> views about Christ.
Sorry, it's not symmetrical, much as you might wish it to be so. You are once again applying a standard in the case of the resurrection which you would probably not be willing to generalize.
What I mean is this - you demand that Abner and I find evidence against the resurrection,
am NOT asking, let alone *demanding*, that you and Abner produce any
such evidence - that would be asking you to prove a negative which
would be nonsensical.. I'm simply making the point that your decision
to discard the Gospel accounts is based on a worldview, not an
evidential basis.
In that case your claim is this - if someone rejects a claim for lack of convincing positive evidence in support of the claim and in the absence of definitive contrary evidence against the claim, then they can only do so on the basis of a worldview,
I wish you would stop misrepresenting what I said, I said nothingas is possible, consistent about accepting claims backed by evidence that meets that standard, and rejecting those that don't.
about you needing *definitive* evidence - I said you are making a
decision in the absence of *any* conflicting evidence of your own. You
argue below that the failures of the evidence from the Gospels fail to
meet your standards but that constitutes a worldview as it is
something based on your personal standards, particularly your explicit dismissal of the evidence rather than simply refusing to accept it as conclusive.
In any case, my decision to decision to reject the Gospel accounts, unlike your decision to accept them, is based on evidence, not a prior commitment to a worldview (well, except to the worldview that evidence matters). Here's what the difference is.
I have a standard of evidence for accepting claims. I apply that standard to all claims, regardless of what they are, whether they are claims about Jesus, about Homer, about Bigfoot, about economics, virology, secular history or whatever. I am, as far
You, on the other hand, have standards of evidence that vary based on whether the claim is important to your religion or not.
My standards absolutely do not vary according to my religious beliefs
and I find it rtather insulting for you to suggest so. When evidence
is measurable or testable, I accept it based on the results of those
tests or measurements. When evidence is circumstantial and cannot be verified, I treat it with a great deal of caution exactly as I have
done here, explicitly emphasising that the evidence from the Gospels
is not at all conclusive. I do not, however, dismiss it out of hand as
you are doing here which suggests that you are being driven by an anti-religious entiment.
Martin Harran wrote:this topic, you don't seem to be able to see anything other than what you want to see.
That is the key point I have been trying to make - rather fruitlessly
so far. Abner, endorsed by Bill, said that belief in the Resurrection
is "pure faith" implying that there is NO evidence.
Perhaps the reason that you are making arguments fruitlessly is that you aren't listening. I did not say what you just ascribed to me, and I have even corrected you in detail since. At this point I have pretty much given up on trying to correct you on
Just so you don't have to search for the last cycle again, here's what I said: >Even if the gospels were correct that Jesus rose from the dead ... that isn't evidence that he is *still* alive. It's been 2000 years ... he could easily have died again in the time since then! Even if you count the gospels as evidence that he was alivethen, how could the gospels of 2000 years ago be evidence that he is alive 2000 years later? They certainly couldn't witness an inability to age, and an inability to be killed again wasn't tested, so ... the idea that he is still alive now is faith. Same
If you insist, yet again, as taking that as an argument against the Resurrection, so be it. Life's too short to keep arguing with someone who isn't listening. Have fun arguing, but please stop claiming I said something I didn't say!
Martin Harran wrote:this topic, you don't seem to be able to see anything other than what you want to see.
That is the key point I have been trying to make - rather fruitlessly
so far. Abner, endorsed by Bill, said that belief in the Resurrection
is "pure faith" implying that there is NO evidence.
Perhaps the reason that you are making arguments fruitlessly is that you aren't listening. I did not say what you just ascribed to me, and I have even corrected you in detail since. At this point I have pretty much given up on trying to correct you on
Just so you don't have to search for the last cycle again, here's what I said: >Even if the gospels were correct that Jesus rose from the dead ... that isn't evidence that he is *still* alive. It's been 2000 years ... he could easily have died again in the time since then! Even if you count the gospels as evidence that he was alivethen, how could the gospels of 2000 years ago be evidence that he is alive 2000 years later? They certainly couldn't witness an inability to age, and an inability to be killed again wasn't tested, so ... the idea that he is still alive now is faith. Same
If you insist, yet again, as taking that as an argument against the Resurrection, so be it. Life's too short to keep arguing with someone who isn't listening. Have fun arguing, but please stop claiming I said something I didn't say!
On 4/12/23 7:50 AM, Martin Harran wrote:person", then lots of biologically dead people are alive, including many who became biologically dead thousands of years ago.
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 09:32:23 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/11/23 1:34 AM, Burkhard wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 10:55:17?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 11:36:45 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:40:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:23:10 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:15:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:16:48 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" >>>>>>>>> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 9:00:16?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 18:07:18 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" >>>>>>>>>>> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 8:40:15?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 07:51:35 -0700 (PDT), AbnerFair enough, I was taking 'first' and 'second' as referring to the >>>>>>>>>>> people rather than their state. Anyway, that takes us back to one of
<abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kalkidas wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Happy Easter, everyone!
There is a lot of evidence for the first. The second ... pure faith. Happy Easter!
'Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and >>>>>>>>>>>>> biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his
nonexistence as effectively refuted.[7][9][48][49][50] Robert M. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his
perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[51]
Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent >>>>>>>>>>>>> years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the >>>>>>>>>>>>> non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have
not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant,
evidence to the contrary."[9] Richard A. Burridge states, "There are
those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination,
that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know
any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."[48][35]: >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2426'
You reckon you know better?
You seem to have misread the post.
The first statement, for which there is plenty of evidence, was "Charles Darwin still dead." The second statement, which requires pure faith, was "Jesus Christ still alive." There was no denial of the historical Jesus.
your regular points - what do we mean by someone being "alive"? Jesus
is certainly alive to me and millions of other Christians. >>>>>>>>>> If you wish, you can define "alive" so that Jesus is "alive." Virtually any statement can be made true if you are willing to define the terms it contains in the right way. Indeed if you want to define "alive" as "remembered by some living
existence of somebody making a claim is evidence for that claim, then there are no claims for which evidence is entirely lacking. You may counter that as the number of people making the claim increases, the evidence is proportionately stronger, soIf you want to avoid special pleading, then you will need to use the same standard of evidence for other striking claims, the ascension of Mohammed, the Virgin Birth, bigfoot, ancient aliens building the pyramids, etc, for example. If theMore pertinently, he said there is no evidence of Jesus being alive. I >>>>>>> would dispute that. The Gospel accounts, for example, are evidence. >>>>>>> You and he might not want to accept the validity of that evidence but >>>>>>> that doesn't change the fact that it is evidence.Christians believe that Jesus overcame death and returned to life. It >>>>>>>>> was clearly a different life from what we generally experience - he >>>>>>>>> was able to appear and disappear at will and pass through walls yet >>>>>>>>> there were still physical elements to him such as eating with his >>>>>>>>> disciples and inviting Thomas to insert his fingers into his (Jesus's)
wounds. That's a lot more than just alive in people's memories. >>>>>>>> Well, sure, and that's the kind of alive Jesus the belief in which requires pure faith, as Abner said in the first place.
you would apply to miraculous claims in Homer, or the Koran, or Herodotus, or the Gita. In my view, that means that while there is abundant evidence that lots of people believed and believe in the resurrection, there is no evidence for the resurrection
In would say that if you want to make a non-faith based claim about a proposed event involving a historical religious figure, for example the physical resurrection of Jesus, then you need to apply the same standards of evidence to that claim as
resurrection as a vulgar zombie-apocalypse, that positively gets in the way of spiritual or redemptive (in Tilllich's sense) interpretation, and also creates conflicts with other passages of the text, in particular, Luke 24 13-16.So effectively, you get into a debate on how conclusive or reliable
But there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.
the evidence is. Not much different really from a courtroom where
there is no conclusive *forensic* evidence and both sides will argue >>>>> whether conclusions can be drawn from *circumstantial* evidence. The >>>>> point is that it is an evidence-based argument, not just "pure faith" >>>>> as Abner claimed.
I'd say while this is a possible reading of the Gospel, it's theologically somewhere between the least satisfying and the massively blasphemous. As all attempts to naturalise religion inevitably are. What it leads to is the interpretation of the
[snip more worthy text]
There's also the problem that claiming an evidence-based belief in
religion raises issues of hypocrisy. The evidence for Jesus'
resurrection is no better than that for the divine inspiration of the
Qur'an or the divinity of Rama, and is roughly on par with evidence for
a thousand or so other gods, not to mention leprechauns, bunyips, Santa
at the North Pole, etc.
What particular evidence for those things did you have in mind?
Written accounts, same as for Jesus's resurrection.
On 4/12/23 7:40 AM, Martin Harran wrote:person", then lots of biologically dead people are alive, including many who became biologically dead thousands of years ago.
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 11:59:52 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 1:40:17?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 10:10:57 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 12:30:17?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 15:52:03 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 5:55:17?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 11:36:45 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" >>>>>>>> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:40:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:23:10 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" >>>>>>>>>> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:15:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:16:48 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" >>>>>>>>>>>> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 9:00:16?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 18:07:18 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 8:40:15?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:Fair enough, I was taking 'first' and 'second' as referring to the
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 07:51:35 -0700 (PDT), Abner >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kalkidas wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Happy Easter, everyone!
There is a lot of evidence for the first. The second ... pure faith. Happy Easter!
'Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and
biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his
nonexistence as effectively refuted.[7][9][48][49][50] Robert M.
Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his
perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[51]
Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent
years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have
not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant,
evidence to the contrary."[9] Richard A. Burridge states, "There are
those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination,
that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know
any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."[48][35]:
24-26'
You reckon you know better?
You seem to have misread the post.
The first statement, for which there is plenty of evidence, was "Charles Darwin still dead." The second statement, which requires pure faith, was "Jesus Christ still alive." There was no denial of the historical Jesus.
people rather than their state. Anyway, that takes us back to one of
your regular points - what do we mean by someone being "alive"? Jesus
is certainly alive to me and millions of other Christians. >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you wish, you can define "alive" so that Jesus is "alive." Virtually any statement can be made true if you are willing to define the terms it contains in the right way. Indeed if you want to define "alive" as "remembered by some living
existence of somebody making a claim is evidence for that claim, then there are no claims for which evidence is entirely lacking. You may counter that as the number of people making the claim increases, the evidence is proportionately stronger, soIf you want to avoid special pleading, then you will need to use the same standard of evidence for other striking claims, the ascension of Mohammed, the Virgin Birth, bigfoot, ancient aliens building the pyramids, etc, for example. If theMore pertinently, he said there is no evidence of Jesus being alive. IChristians believe that Jesus overcame death and returned to life. It
was clearly a different life from what we generally experience - he
was able to appear and disappear at will and pass through walls yet
there were still physical elements to him such as eating with his >>>>>>>>>>>> disciples and inviting Thomas to insert his fingers into his (Jesus's)
wounds. That's a lot more than just alive in people's memories. >>>>>>>>>>> Well, sure, and that's the kind of alive Jesus the belief in which requires pure faith, as Abner said in the first place.
would dispute that. The Gospel accounts, for example, are evidence. >>>>>>>>>> You and he might not want to accept the validity of that evidence but
that doesn't change the fact that it is evidence.
you would apply to miraculous claims in Homer, or the Koran, or Herodotus, or the Gita. In my view, that means that while there is abundant evidence that lots of people believed and believe in the resurrection, there is no evidence for the resurrection
In would say that if you want to make a non-faith based claim about a proposed event involving a historical religious figure, for example the physical resurrection of Jesus, then you need to apply the same standards of evidence to that claim as
not on the basis of the evidence. I think that is not terribly different than demanding proof of a negative, but suit yourself.A quick response due to time pressures but just to make clear that IA couple of problems with that. First of all, you and Abner areWell, I'd agree with Abner, that the quality of the evidence for Jesus resurrection is poor enough that few would accept it were it not for it representing the desired conclusion.So effectively, you get into a debate on how conclusive or reliable >>>>>>>> the evidence is. Not much different really from a courtroom where >>>>>>>> there is no conclusive *forensic* evidence and both sides will argue >>>>>>>> whether conclusions can be drawn from *circumstantial* evidence. The >>>>>>>> point is that it is an evidence-based argument, not just "pure faith" >>>>>>>> as Abner claimed.
But there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.
effectively behaving in much the same way as you describe there - your >>>>>> rejection of the Resurrection is not based on any contrary evidence >>>>>> you have, you are coming to a conclusion that supports your existing >>>>>> views about Christ.
Sorry, it's not symmetrical, much as you might wish it to be so. You are once again applying a standard in the case of the resurrection which you would probably not be willing to generalize.
What I mean is this - you demand that Abner and I find evidence against the resurrection,
am NOT asking, let alone *demanding*, that you and Abner produce any
such evidence - that would be asking you to prove a negative which
would be nonsensical.. I'm simply making the point that your decision
to discard the Gospel accounts is based on a worldview, not an
evidential basis.
In that case your claim is this - if someone rejects a claim for lack of convincing positive evidence in support of the claim and in the absence of definitive contrary evidence against the claim, then they can only do so on the basis of a worldview,
far as is possible, consistent about accepting claims backed by evidence that meets that standard, and rejecting those that don't.
I wish you would stop misrepresenting what I said, I said nothing
about you needing *definitive* evidence - I said you are making a
decision in the absence of *any* conflicting evidence of your own. You
argue below that the failures of the evidence from the Gospels fail to
meet your standards but that constitutes a worldview as it is
something based on your personal standards, particularly your explicit
dismissal of the evidence rather than simply refusing to accept it as
conclusive.
In any case, my decision to decision to reject the Gospel accounts, unlike your decision to accept them, is based on evidence, not a prior commitment to a worldview (well, except to the worldview that evidence matters). Here's what the difference is.
I have a standard of evidence for accepting claims. I apply that standard to all claims, regardless of what they are, whether they are claims about Jesus, about Homer, about Bigfoot, about economics, virology, secular history or whatever. I am, as
You, on the other hand, have standards of evidence that vary based on whether the claim is important to your religion or not.
My standards absolutely do not vary according to my religious beliefs
and I find it rtather insulting for you to suggest so. When evidence
is measurable or testable, I accept it based on the results of those
tests or measurements. When evidence is circumstantial and cannot be
verified, I treat it with a great deal of caution exactly as I have
done here, explicitly emphasising that the evidence from the Gospels
is not at all conclusive. I do not, however, dismiss it out of hand as
you are doing here which suggests that you are being driven by an
anti-religious entiment.
Two question about your standards:
1. Do you believe that the Qur'an was dictated to Mohammed by divine agent?
2. Do you acknowledge that the evidence for such divine dictation is
equal or better than evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ?
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 11:50:18?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:resurrection as a vulgar zombie-apocalypse, that positively gets in the way of spiritual or redemptive (in Tilllich's sense) interpretation, and also creates conflicts with other passages of the text, in particular, Luke 24 13-16.
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 08:30:11 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 10:50:18?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 05:03:22 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 4:35:17?AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
I'd say while this is a possible reading of the Gospel, it's theologically somewhere between the least satisfying and the massively blasphemous. As all attempts to naturalise religion inevitably are. What it leads to is the interpretation of the
John H on this, where we disagreed on that point)
I would agree with you that as a matter of terminology, even extremely weak evidence is still evidence. I'd go even further and would argue that even evidence that later turned out to be misleading is evidence, (I remember some discussions with
and I'd add, it inevitably gives you then a scale that allows comparisons. So it inevitably leads to statements of the form "The evidence for the resurrection is weaker, or at best as strong as, that for XYZ" where given what we are dealing here with
But apart from coming in degrees, the type of evidence that we use in court has also a range of other properties that you would not necessarily want in a religious context. One is the one Bill alluded to - it requires consistency in application,
means that it can't really distinguish between a supernatural resurrection and simp grave robbery (they produce the same expected observation. The reports of having seen Jesus fare a bit better, ( we grant here that they are genuine eyewitness reports
But I think it is worse than that. Nothing is just "evidence" observations are evidence for or against a theory, and have to be evaluated with these two conflicting theories in mind, Which for instance for the observation of the empty grave
solution. Treating the Gospel as a mere physical eyewitness account leads inevitably to the physical resurrection reading, which was a comparative latecomer: "Theologically speaking, it is a rationalization of the resurrection event, interpreting it withdistinguish
between a resurrection theory and one where his death was just misdiagnosed, which would be the much more natural explanation
b) even if granted that he had really died, why only so few people saw Jesus, and
c) even worse, why , as Luke indicates, some of those who should have identified him did not.
So once treated like ordinary evidence, it becomes inevitably subject to testing against other evidence (or the lack of it) .
So in exchange for treating the Gospels as "ordinary evidence", you only get an extremely weakly supported, part contradicted, theologically least palatable. Tillich's classification is helpful here even if one does not adopt his preferred
Christ-the-man has become now "The Church", not any longer an individual (hence Luke, unrecognisable for some, at least temporarily), ecstatic and experiential rather than descriptive-factual.physical body occupying a specific place Immediately the absurd question arises: what happened to the molecules which comprise the corpse of
Jesus of Nazaret. In this question, the mere absurdity becomes almost blasphemy."
And what you lose are the much more theologically rewarding readings of the text, the spiritual interpretation (which I'd say is by now mainstream) . And of course also Tillich's reading as restitution, which I always thought the most compelling:
"This theory concerning the event which underlies the symbol of Resurrection dismisses physical as well as spiritualistic literalism.
[...] and places at the center of its analysis the religious meaning of the Resurrection for the disciples (and their followers), in contrast to
their previous state of negativity and despair. This view is the ecstatic confirmation of the indestructible unity of the New Being and
its bearer, Jesus of Nazareth. In eternity they belong together. In contrast to the physical, the spiritualistic, and the psychological
theories concerning the Resurrection event, one could call this the "restitution theory". According to it, the Resurrection is the
restitution of Jesus as Christ, a restitution which is rooted in the personal unity between Jesus and God and in the impact of this unity on
the minds of the apostles."
With other words, the Gospels do not report a set of massively ambiguous observations, something done through the physical senses and subject to its limitations, but a profound life-changing experience of a transformation of a relationship -
resurrected Jesus as some kind of evidence that the story was not made up out of whole cloth and that it is reporting an intense psychological experience following a traumatic loss.
And not just Luke. There's the Emmaus Road story in John, and Mark 16:12, where Jesus appears "in another form", and John 20:14 where Mary Magdalene does not recognize resurrected Jesus. I actually find all those instances of not recognizing the
parent or child had visited them in the form of a bird or an animal?I asked you a question, I don't see how that misrepresents you views.Let me get this right. The two disciples on the road to Emmaus were
clearly downbeat and were regarding the Jesus "story" as effectively
over. Are you suggesting that they met a stranger and underwent some
sort of trauma-induced transmogrification which convinced them that
this stranger was actually Christ and converted their sense of
depression into a burning zeal which caused them to immediately return
to Jerusalem?
And you complain that I misrepresent your views?
If you did think that, then answering the question would have been
helpful.
I listed the Emmaus Road story as an example, one of several, of accounts of the resurrection which involve Jesus disciples not recognizing him except in retrospect. Have you never met a grieving person who believed that their recently dead spouse or
It hardly seems that great a stretch to imagine that those who had lost a dear teacher and friend might think he had visited them in the form of a mysterious stranger. In any case, I find those stories interesting in the sense that they are not what I'dexpect if someone were to invent a resurrection story from whole cloth. To me they are some evidence of the sincerity of the authors.
It would have been perfectly easy, had the thing just been invented entirely, just to make everybody recognize Jesus and feel his wounds to be sure.
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 3:15:18?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:person", then lots of biologically dead people are alive, including many who became biologically dead thousands of years ago.
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 01:34:44 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 10:55:17?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 11:36:45 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:40:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:23:10 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:15:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:16:48 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 9:00:16?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 18:07:18 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" >> >> >> >> >> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:If you wish, you can define "alive" so that Jesus is "alive." Virtually any statement can be made true if you are willing to define the terms it contains in the right way. Indeed if you want to define "alive" as "remembered by some living
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 8:40:15?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:Fair enough, I was taking 'first' and 'second' as referring to the
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 07:51:35 -0700 (PDT), Abner
<abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kalkidas wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Happy Easter, everyone!
There is a lot of evidence for the first. The second ... pure faith. Happy Easter!
'Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and
biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his
nonexistence as effectively refuted.[7][9][48][49][50] Robert M.
Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his
perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[51]
Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent
years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the
non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have
not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant,
evidence to the contrary."[9] Richard A. Burridge states, "There are
those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination,
that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know
any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."[48][35]:
24-26'
You reckon you know better?
You seem to have misread the post.
The first statement, for which there is plenty of evidence, was "Charles Darwin still dead." The second statement, which requires pure faith, was "Jesus Christ still alive." There was no denial of the historical Jesus.
people rather than their state. Anyway, that takes us back to one of
your regular points - what do we mean by someone being "alive"? Jesus
is certainly alive to me and millions of other Christians.
existence of somebody making a claim is evidence for that claim, then there are no claims for which evidence is entirely lacking. You may counter that as the number of people making the claim increases, the evidence is proportionately stronger, soIf you want to avoid special pleading, then you will need to use the same standard of evidence for other striking claims, the ascension of Mohammed, the Virgin Birth, bigfoot, ancient aliens building the pyramids, etc, for example. If theMore pertinently, he said there is no evidence of Jesus being alive. I >> >> >> would dispute that. The Gospel accounts, for example, are evidence.Christians believe that Jesus overcame death and returned to life. ItWell, sure, and that's the kind of alive Jesus the belief in which requires pure faith, as Abner said in the first place.
was clearly a different life from what we generally experience - he >> >> >> >> was able to appear and disappear at will and pass through walls yet >> >> >> >> there were still physical elements to him such as eating with his >> >> >> >> disciples and inviting Thomas to insert his fingers into his (Jesus's)
wounds. That's a lot more than just alive in people's memories.
You and he might not want to accept the validity of that evidence but >> >> >> that doesn't change the fact that it is evidence.
you would apply to miraculous claims in Homer, or the Koran, or Herodotus, or the Gita. In my view, that means that while there is abundant evidence that lots of people believed and believe in the resurrection, there is no evidence for the resurrection
In would say that if you want to make a non-faith based claim about a proposed event involving a historical religious figure, for example the physical resurrection of Jesus, then you need to apply the same standards of evidence to that claim as
stronger than that of the resurrection of Christ" which is anything but. The problem is that naturalistic evidence can be quantified, quantification leads to commensurability, and that turns "it's a miracle" into "that's just silly". (this is I thinkI don't see how you get to that, can you elaborate?So effectively, you get into a debate on how conclusive or reliable
But there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.
the evidence is. Not much different really from a courtroom where
there is no conclusive *forensic* evidence and both sides will argue
whether conclusions can be drawn from *circumstantial* evidence. The
point is that it is an evidence-based argument, not just "pure faith"
as Abner claimed.
I'd say while this is a possible reading of the Gospel, it's theologically somewhere between the least satisfying and the massively blasphemous.
I'd say everything that followed was that elaboration. In summary:
- if one wants to or not, it inevitably naturalises religion because it has to assume the divine leaves naturalistic traces and can thus be cajoled into answering our questions)
- it is only compatible with one of the (at least four) possible theological positions that have been argued over the centuries, to wit the "vulgar zombie version", and is incompatible with the theologically more rewarding ones
- it is inconsistent with other parts of the gospel, and in particular the non-recognition of Christ by other witnesses
- while it gives you as statement "there is some evidence for a (physical) resurrection" which may "feel" reassuring and comforting, it gives you also the equivalent statements (relative to the evidence given) "The evidence for Elvis being alive is much
naturalistic evidence assessment, and that comes with a whole baggage of corollaries, inevitably. So I don't think the idea of a harmonious "supportive" relation works, not if you follow though through with the reasoning.As all attempts to naturalise religion inevitably are.But I'm not trying to naturalise religion - I agree with you on the
futility of that. As I've said to Bill, however, evidence and faith
are not mutually exclusive; what we get in the Bible is *supporting*
evidence. Faith is indeed required to overcome the shortfalls in that
evidence and take it beyond the bare reported facts but that does not
eliminate its supportive nature.
There is a simple and a more complex answer on this. The simple one is: even if you treat it as just "some" weak supporting" evidence, it still assumed that spiritual/supernatural events leave natural traces. That means you have to play by the rules of
The more complex one in that "faith" , just like "belief" is a homonym, or at least has a very wide semantic field. In everyday language, we sometimes use "belief" for "less well confirmed" propositions, and contrast it with knowledge, as in "I don'tknow the answer, but I believe it is X". In philosophical contexts, we use it differently, as a perspective change. "Knowledge" then becomes "justified true believe", which means technically speaking, I should never say "I know X", only ever "I believe X"
With "faith" I'd say it's similar. In ordinary language, we use "faith" sometimes as a non-rational, non-evidential and in that sense lesser method to form an opinion. "Why do you think the guy you just elected will keep his promises? I have faith inhim" (often despite that person's track record. Or as you implicitly do, as a sort of "last meter" crutch that makes sure you come to a decision after reasons have run out ("I looked at all the data, and all the score sheets, and whittled down the
I'd say these correspond to the everyday notion of "belief" above, and make "faith" inherently suspicious, which is then why people feel the need to use it only when reason fails. And just as with the above, "faith" in the religious context ought inmy view to be something categorically different, not a mere handmaiden to reason or an excuse - it can move mountains, all on its own.
particular, Luke 24 13-16.What it leads to is the interpretation of the resurrection as a vulgar zombie-apocalypse, that positively gets in the way of spiritual or redemptive (in Tilllich's sense) interpretation, and also creates conflicts with other passages of the text, in
witness etc ) fail to make an ID. If you treat this naturalistically, just ask yourself how you'd evaluate the totality of the evidence here - one witness claiming to have seen something inherently implausible, and several other witnesses in the same orAgain, I don't follow your logic there, especially your reference to
Luke 24 13-16.
We have two prima facie contradictory accounts One set of witnesses makes a positive ID. The other, despite excellent epistemic conditions (under the ADVOKATE factors on eyewitness testimony, ( amount of time, distance to object, visibility, known by
As I said elsewhere, naturalism comes with baggage, one of it is testability of one piece of evidence against other pieces of evidence, and that's what we would have here.utter despair came a sudden, massive, totally unexpected (and unearned.... ) and unexplainable lifting of the spirit and a realisation of unbounded freedom (freedom which then explains the subsequent actions of the Apostle, which otherwise would make
But if you give up the "physical observation eyewitness model", reconciling the two accounts gets straightforward. All of the people here make the same spiritual experience - in my preferred redemptive reading, from a feeling of deepest depression and
The people most directly affected with this don't initially understand this, and then, as humans do, try in varying degrees successfully to verbalise this and make sense of this experience. That explains the time lapse also for Maria Magdalena betweenthe "physical" seeing (which would have been instantaneous) and the "recognition" part. None of this works well when interpreted as an ordinary physical observation, we would not expect it to happen like this given everything we know about facial
H on this, where we disagreed on that point)
I would agree with you that as a matter of terminology, even extremely weak evidence is still evidence. I'd go even further and would argue that even evidence that later turned out to be misleading is evidence, (I remember some discussions with John
That is the key point I have been trying to make - rather fruitlessly
so far. Abner, endorsed by Bill, said that belief in the Resurrection
is "pure faith" implying that there is NO evidence. What I am arguing
is that there is *some* evidence even if it is not necessarily
conclusive.
And I'd say you both underestimate or devalue faith here, just from opposite directions. And I don't think they work in synergy either, as this gives you again the "handmaiden role" of faith that makes it look like an excuse for the failure of reason
I'd add, it inevitably gives you then a scale that allows comparisons. So it inevitably leads to statements of the form "The evidence for the resurrection is weaker, or at best as strong as, that for XYZ" where given what we are dealing here with more or
But apart from coming in degrees, the type of evidence that we use in court has also a range of other properties that you would not necessarily want in a religious context. One is the one Bill alluded to - it requires consistency in application, and
that it can't really distinguish between a supernatural resurrection and simp grave robbery (they produce the same expected observation.
But I think it is worse than that. Nothing is just "evidence" observations are evidence for or against a theory, and have to be evaluated with these two conflicting theories in mind, Which for instance for the observation of the empty grave means
lot, and then they don't do it again, at least not in my presence :o)Whether the evidence is reliable or conclusive is matter of debate and
I tread cautiously in getting into any legal argument with you but as
I understand it, circumstantial evidence is measured on its overall
weight and extent.
That misses a bit my point. Often, people say things like "DNA is evidence" or "confessions are evidence", or even worse, ""DNA is highly reliable evidence" or ""DNA is strong evidence" etc My students do this exactly once, and then I shout at them a
Nothing is just "evidence", let alone "strong/weak/conclusive/" etc evidence. The same "fact", a DNA match between say the suspect and a trace on the victim in a rape case, can be extremely important, IF the defense hypothesis is that someone else thanthe accused was the perpetrator, and utterly irrelevant IF the defence hypothesis is that it was consensual. With other words, an observation or data point becomes evidence only ever when there are two mutually exclusive hypothesis (in a legal context,
Or as R v Kilbourne[1973] AC 729, 756 put itprobabilities. You said e.g. that Bill dismisses the Gospel account "without any reason". But that is of course not true, quite on the contrary. He has lost and lots of contrary observations - every time someone dies and stays dead. That forms the prior
"Evidence is relevant if it is logically probative or disprobative of some matter which requires proof relevant (i e logically probative or disprobative) evidence is evidence which makes the matter which requires proof more or less probable"
So in our case that creates a number of problems for the "evidential" account of the Gospel, One is more technical and I'd say less of an issue theologically, the other is more a theological problem. The first is the one about the background
But the bigger problem is that if you treat this really as a naturalistic eyewitness account, it forces your hand regarding the possible theological interpretations. That is the "data" "witness X saw that Y" is evidence for "Y" only because ourbackground causal theory how observations work, how the eye works etc etc , and that means it can only be evidence for the "physical zombie" version, and contradict the spiritual etc version. They are not different aspects of the same thing, and IF any
My own experience of this is limited to sittingone over the other. In particular, keep track of the fact that disproving a proposition is always easier than proving one. 1 point of correspondence of a fingerprint match is not stronger than 8 or 16 or 32 points IF one of them has also a clear scar
through one murder trial where the evidence against the defendant was
entirely circumstantial [1] but the judge explained this to the jury
with the single strand vs rope metaphor i.e. a single piece of
circumstantial evidence may be weak like a single strand of a rope but
when all the pieces of evidence are interlocked together, they can
form a strong case just as a number of strands interlocked together
can form a very strong rope.
That's both true and dangerous. It's absolutely correct when done properly. One aspect of this is as I said above, connect the bare observation and data with the competing hypothesis, and show for each pair of them how the evidence in question favours
In the below, I'd say quite a bit of your evidence fails this test- in particular one a prediction is made (foretelling) , and observation of events after that risks to be tainted by that expectation etc.
I gave the Gospel accounts as a particular example and, on their own,
they could be explained away as you say by a claim of misdiagnosis of
death. When begin to add you add in other factors, however, such as
the way Jesus foretold his death and Resurrection and the reaction of
the authorities (bribing the guards to change their story), that adds
weight to the evidence. Again to be clear, I am not claiming that that
makes the evidence conclusive, only that there is some degree of
*supporting* evidence.
I'd say quite a lot of single point of failures here, and in particular a discounting of the "author effect", that is you hear them through a single narrator.
misreporting etc). So we read them ex hypothesis as "bare observations" - but now we really have a badly evidenced zombie walking around, because that physical reading is the only one the reported observations would be evidence for. With the additionalThe reports of having seen Jesus fare a bit better, ( we grant here that they are genuine eyewitness reports and leave aside for the purpose of this analysis the possibility that they are later inventions, additions, misunderstandings and
Treating the Gospel as a mere physical eyewitness account leads inevitably to the physical resurrection reading, which was a comparative latecomer: "Theologically speaking, it is a rationalization of the resurrection event, interpreting it with physicalbetween a resurrection theory and one where his death was just misdiagnosed, which would be the much more natural explanation
b) even if granted that he had really died, why only so few people saw Jesus, and
c) even worse, why , as Luke indicates, some of those who should have identified him did not.
So once treated like ordinary evidence, it becomes inevitably subject to testing against other evidence (or the lack of it) .
So in exchange for treating the Gospels as "ordinary evidence", you only get an extremely weakly supported, part contradicted, theologically least palatable. Tillich's classification is helpful here even if one does not adopt his preferred solution.
physical body occupying a specific place Immediately the absurd question arises: what happened to the molecules which comprise the corpse ofI'm not familiar with Tillich's ideas, is he actually discarding the
Jesus of Nazaret. In this question, the mere absurdity becomes almost blasphemy."
And what you lose are the much more theologically rewarding readings of the text, the spiritual interpretation (which I'd say is by now mainstream) . And of course also Tillich's reading as restitution, which I always thought the most compelling:
"This theory concerning the event which underlies the symbol of Resurrection dismisses physical as well as spiritualistic literalism.
[...] and places at the center of its analysis the religious meaning of the Resurrection for the disciples (and their followers), in contrast to
their previous state of negativity and despair. This view is the ecstatic confirmation of the indestructible unity of the New Being and
its bearer, Jesus of Nazareth. In eternity they belong together. In contrast to the physical, the spiritualistic, and the psychological
theories concerning the Resurrection event, one could call this the "restitution theory". According to it, the Resurrection is the
restitution of Jesus as Christ, a restitution which is rooted in the personal unity between Jesus and God and in the impact of this unity on
the minds of the apostles."
*physical* Resurrection or is he just emphasising the far more
important spiritual impact of it? If so, then I am in total agreement
with him and I don't think he is saying anything particularly
different to most theologians in that regard.
I'd say he sees them as mutually exclusive,
and would deny that you can mix and match them while staying consistent - that part of his work is largely descriptive, i.e. he maps the positions he found in church history, and they seem to lump clearly into groups)the-man has become now "The Church", not any longer an individual (hence Luke, unrecognisable for some, at least temporarily), ecstatic and experiential rather than descriptive-factual.
With other words, the Gospels do not report a set of massively ambiguous observations, something done through the physical senses and subject to its limitations, but a profound life-changing experience of a transformation of a relationship - Christ-
====================================
[1] The case was for the murder of my sister-in-law and the defendant
was found guilty on a unanimous verdict by the jury. You may well have
knowledge of the case - it was the first case in the UK where a
previous conviction was revealed to the jury due to the similarity
between the two crimes. It was also the first whole-life tariff given
in Northern Ireland though the Court of Appeal later set a 35-year
tariff.
https://attracta.martinharran.com
Oh Martin, I'm so terribly sorry to hear that, that must have been a terrible experience! And it is arguably too close personally for you for a mere academic discussion - so tell me when to stop, or just ignore the next part, it's just about the law.
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 09:06:46 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:the resurrection as a vulgar zombie-apocalypse, that positively gets in the way of spiritual or redemptive (in Tilllich's sense) interpretation, and also creates conflicts with other passages of the text, in particular, Luke 24 13-16.
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 11:50:18?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 08:30:11 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 10:50:18?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 05:03:22 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 4:35:17?AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
I'd say while this is a possible reading of the Gospel, it's theologically somewhere between the least satisfying and the massively blasphemous. As all attempts to naturalise religion inevitably are. What it leads to is the interpretation of
with John H on this, where we disagreed on that point)
I would agree with you that as a matter of terminology, even extremely weak evidence is still evidence. I'd go even further and would argue that even evidence that later turned out to be misleading is evidence, (I remember some discussions
application, and I'd add, it inevitably gives you then a scale that allows comparisons. So it inevitably leads to statements of the form "The evidence for the resurrection is weaker, or at best as strong as, that for XYZ" where given what we are dealing
But apart from coming in degrees, the type of evidence that we use in court has also a range of other properties that you would not necessarily want in a religious context. One is the one Bill alluded to - it requires consistency in
means that it can't really distinguish between a supernatural resurrection and simp grave robbery (they produce the same expected observation. The reports of having seen Jesus fare a bit better, ( we grant here that they are genuine eyewitness reports
But I think it is worse than that. Nothing is just "evidence" observations are evidence for or against a theory, and have to be evaluated with these two conflicting theories in mind, Which for instance for the observation of the empty grave
solution. Treating the Gospel as a mere physical eyewitness account leads inevitably to the physical resurrection reading, which was a comparative latecomer: "Theologically speaking, it is a rationalization of the resurrection event, interpreting it withdistinguish
between a resurrection theory and one where his death was just misdiagnosed, which would be the much more natural explanation
b) even if granted that he had really died, why only so few people saw Jesus, and
c) even worse, why , as Luke indicates, some of those who should have identified him did not.
So once treated like ordinary evidence, it becomes inevitably subject to testing against other evidence (or the lack of it) .
So in exchange for treating the Gospels as "ordinary evidence", you only get an extremely weakly supported, part contradicted, theologically least palatable. Tillich's classification is helpful here even if one does not adopt his preferred
compelling:physical body occupying a specific place Immediately the absurd question arises: what happened to the molecules which comprise the corpse of
Jesus of Nazaret. In this question, the mere absurdity becomes almost blasphemy."
And what you lose are the much more theologically rewarding readings of the text, the spiritual interpretation (which I'd say is by now mainstream) . And of course also Tillich's reading as restitution, which I always thought the most
Christ-the-man has become now "The Church", not any longer an individual (hence Luke, unrecognisable for some, at least temporarily), ecstatic and experiential rather than descriptive-factual.
"This theory concerning the event which underlies the symbol of Resurrection dismisses physical as well as spiritualistic literalism.
[...] and places at the center of its analysis the religious meaning of the Resurrection for the disciples (and their followers), in contrast to
their previous state of negativity and despair. This view is the ecstatic confirmation of the indestructible unity of the New Being and
its bearer, Jesus of Nazareth. In eternity they belong together. In contrast to the physical, the spiritualistic, and the psychological
theories concerning the Resurrection event, one could call this the "restitution theory". According to it, the Resurrection is the
restitution of Jesus as Christ, a restitution which is rooted in the personal unity between Jesus and God and in the impact of this unity on
the minds of the apostles."
With other words, the Gospels do not report a set of massively ambiguous observations, something done through the physical senses and subject to its limitations, but a profound life-changing experience of a transformation of a relationship -
resurrected Jesus as some kind of evidence that the story was not made up out of whole cloth and that it is reporting an intense psychological experience following a traumatic loss.
And not just Luke. There's the Emmaus Road story in John, and Mark 16:12, where Jesus appears "in another form", and John 20:14 where Mary Magdalene does not recognize resurrected Jesus. I actually find all those instances of not recognizing the
parent or child had visited them in the form of a bird or an animal?I asked you a question, I don't see how that misrepresents you views.Let me get this right. The two disciples on the road to Emmaus were
clearly downbeat and were regarding the Jesus "story" as effectively >> >> over. Are you suggesting that they met a stranger and underwent some >> >> sort of trauma-induced transmogrification which convinced them that
this stranger was actually Christ and converted their sense of
depression into a burning zeal which caused them to immediately return >> >> to Jerusalem?
And you complain that I misrepresent your views?
If you did think that, then answering the question would have been
helpful.
I listed the Emmaus Road story as an example, one of several, of accounts of the resurrection which involve Jesus disciples not recognizing him except in retrospect. Have you never met a grieving person who believed that their recently dead spouse or
Yes, I have encountered instances of that but in every single case, it
was clearly a wistful yearning that only lasted a short time whilst
the person was coming around to accept the permanence of their loss. I
have never known anyone who permanently believed something along those lines, certainly not with the level of zeal and passion that the
disciples showed, especially when insisting on its truth put their
very lives at risk from the religious authorities.
d expect if someone were to invent a resurrection story from whole cloth. To me they are some evidence of the sincerity of the authors.It hardly seems that great a stretch to imagine that those who had lost a dear teacher and friend might think he had visited them in the form of a mysterious stranger. In any case, I find those stories interesting in the sense that they are not what I'
In that case, I'm not really sure why we are arguing as the difference between us is what we take from the evidence, not whether it exists.
It would have been perfectly easy, had the thing just been invented entirely, just to make everybody recognize Jesus and feel his wounds to be sure.
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 17:30:29 -0700, Mark Isaak
[...]
Two question about your standards:
1. Do you believe that the Qur'an was dictated to Mohammed by divine agent?
I doubt it very much, just as I don't believe that the Bible was
dictated by God as some Christians believe so no difference in my
standards there.
2. Do you acknowledge that the evidence for such divine dictation is
equal or better than evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ?
I'm not aware of any evidence of such divine diction for either the
Qur'an or the Bible as far as I am aware, that idea of divine diction
is the opinion of people who have read the books, not the people
directly involved in them[1]. If you have any other evidence, I'll
have a look at it if you point me in the direction of it.
===============================
[1] There is considerable evidence that directly contradicts the idea
of the Bible having been dictated but I don't know if that applies to
the Qur'an
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 17:34:06 -0700, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:resurrection as a vulgar zombie-apocalypse, that positively gets in the way of spiritual or redemptive (in Tilllich's sense) interpretation, and also creates conflicts with other passages of the text, in particular, Luke 24 13-16.
On 4/12/23 7:50 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 09:32:23 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/11/23 1:34 AM, Burkhard wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 10:55:17?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>> [...]
But there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.So effectively, you get into a debate on how conclusive or reliable >>>>>> the evidence is. Not much different really from a courtroom where
there is no conclusive *forensic* evidence and both sides will argue >>>>>> whether conclusions can be drawn from *circumstantial* evidence. The >>>>>> point is that it is an evidence-based argument, not just "pure faith" >>>>>> as Abner claimed.
I'd say while this is a possible reading of the Gospel, it's theologically somewhere between the least satisfying and the massively blasphemous. As all attempts to naturalise religion inevitably are. What it leads to is the interpretation of the
[snip more worthy text]
There's also the problem that claiming an evidence-based belief in
religion raises issues of hypocrisy. The evidence for Jesus'
resurrection is no better than that for the divine inspiration of the
Qur'an or the divinity of Rama, and is roughly on par with evidence for >>>> a thousand or so other gods, not to mention leprechauns, bunyips, Santa >>>> at the North Pole, etc.
What particular evidence for those things did you have in mind?
Written accounts, same as for Jesus's resurrection.
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point me in the direction of some of
those writings about leprechauns, bunyips and Santa at the North Pole.
On 4/13/23 8:49 AM, Martin Harran wrote:resurrection as a vulgar zombie-apocalypse, that positively gets in the way of spiritual or redemptive (in Tilllich's sense) interpretation, and also creates conflicts with other passages of the text, in particular, Luke 24 13-16.
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 17:34:06 -0700, Mark Isaak <specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/12/23 7:50 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 09:32:23 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/11/23 1:34 AM, Burkhard wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 10:55:17?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>> [...]
But there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.So effectively, you get into a debate on how conclusive or reliable >>>>>> the evidence is. Not much different really from a courtroom where >>>>>> there is no conclusive *forensic* evidence and both sides will argue >>>>>> whether conclusions can be drawn from *circumstantial* evidence. The >>>>>> point is that it is an evidence-based argument, not just "pure faith" >>>>>> as Abner claimed.
I'd say while this is a possible reading of the Gospel, it's theologically somewhere between the least satisfying and the massively blasphemous. As all attempts to naturalise religion inevitably are. What it leads to is the interpretation of the
[snip more worthy text]
There's also the problem that claiming an evidence-based belief in
religion raises issues of hypocrisy. The evidence for Jesus'
resurrection is no better than that for the divine inspiration of the >>>> Qur'an or the divinity of Rama, and is roughly on par with evidence for >>>> a thousand or so other gods, not to mention leprechauns, bunyips, Santa >>>> at the North Pole, etc.
What particular evidence for those things did you have in mind?
Written accounts, same as for Jesus's resurrection.
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point me in the direction of some ofThe written accounts come from oral accounts, and I have little doubt
those writings about leprechauns, bunyips and Santa at the North Pole.
that you yourself have heard oral accounts of leprechauns
Claus. For bunyips, you may need to travel to Australia. Or ask a
librarian and read the written accounts. (The Wikipedia article has
several references. I don't remember which of my several Australian
myth books I encountered them in.)
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 3:15:18 PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:person", then lots of biologically dead people are alive, including many who became biologically dead thousands of years ago.
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 01:34:44 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 10:55:17?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 11:36:45 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:40:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:23:10 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:15:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:16:48 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" >> >> >> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 9:00:16?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 18:07:18 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" >> >> >> >> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:If you wish, you can define "alive" so that Jesus is "alive." Virtually any statement can be made true if you are willing to define the terms it contains in the right way. Indeed if you want to define "alive" as "remembered by some living
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 8:40:15?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:Fair enough, I was taking 'first' and 'second' as referring to the
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 07:51:35 -0700 (PDT), Abner
<abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kalkidas wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Happy Easter, everyone!
There is a lot of evidence for the first. The second ... pure faith. Happy Easter!
'Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and
biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his
nonexistence as effectively refuted.[7][9][48][49][50] Robert M.
Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his
perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[51]
Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent
years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the
non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have
not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant,
evidence to the contrary."[9] Richard A. Burridge states, "There are
those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination,
that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know
any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."[48][35]:
24-26'
You reckon you know better?
You seem to have misread the post.
The first statement, for which there is plenty of evidence, was "Charles Darwin still dead." The second statement, which requires pure faith, was "Jesus Christ still alive." There was no denial of the historical Jesus.
people rather than their state. Anyway, that takes us back to one of
your regular points - what do we mean by someone being "alive"? Jesus
is certainly alive to me and millions of other Christians.
existence of somebody making a claim is evidence for that claim, then there are no claims for which evidence is entirely lacking. You may counter that as the number of people making the claim increases, the evidence is proportionately stronger, soIf you want to avoid special pleading, then you will need to use the same standard of evidence for other striking claims, the ascension of Mohammed, the Virgin Birth, bigfoot, ancient aliens building the pyramids, etc, for example. If theMore pertinently, he said there is no evidence of Jesus being alive. IChristians believe that Jesus overcame death and returned to life. It
was clearly a different life from what we generally experience - he
was able to appear and disappear at will and pass through walls yet
there were still physical elements to him such as eating with his >> >> >> disciples and inviting Thomas to insert his fingers into his (Jesus's)
wounds. That's a lot more than just alive in people's memories. >> >> >Well, sure, and that's the kind of alive Jesus the belief in which requires pure faith, as Abner said in the first place.
would dispute that. The Gospel accounts, for example, are evidence. >> >> You and he might not want to accept the validity of that evidence but
that doesn't change the fact that it is evidence.
you would apply to miraculous claims in Homer, or the Koran, or Herodotus, or the Gita. In my view, that means that while there is abundant evidence that lots of people believed and believe in the resurrection, there is no evidence for the resurrection
In would say that if you want to make a non-faith based claim about a proposed event involving a historical religious figure, for example the physical resurrection of Jesus, then you need to apply the same standards of evidence to that claim as
much stronger than that of the resurrection of Christ" which is anything but. The problem is that naturalistic evidence can be quantified, quantification leads to commensurability, and that turns "it's a miracle" into "that's just silly". (this is ISo effectively, you get into a debate on how conclusive or reliable
But there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.
the evidence is. Not much different really from a courtroom where
there is no conclusive *forensic* evidence and both sides will argue
whether conclusions can be drawn from *circumstantial* evidence. The
point is that it is an evidence-based argument, not just "pure faith" >> as Abner claimed.
I'd say everything that followed was that elaboration. In summary:I'd say while this is a possible reading of the Gospel, it's theologically somewhere between the least satisfying and the massively blasphemous.I don't see how you get to that, can you elaborate?
- if one wants to or not, it inevitably naturalises religion because it has to assume the divine leaves naturalistic traces and can thus be cajoled into answering our questions)
- it is only compatible with one of the (at least four) possible theological positions that have been argued over the centuries, to wit the "vulgar zombie version", and is incompatible with the theologically more rewarding ones
- it is inconsistent with other parts of the gospel, and in particular the non-recognition of Christ by other witnesses
- while it gives you as statement "there is some evidence for a (physical) resurrection" which may "feel" reassuring and comforting, it gives you also the equivalent statements (relative to the evidence given) "The evidence for Elvis being alive is
naturalistic evidence assessment, and that comes with a whole baggage of corollaries, inevitably. So I don't think the idea of a harmonious "supportive" relation works, not if you follow though through with the reasoning.There is a simple and a more complex answer on this. The simple one is: even if you treat it as just "some" weak supporting" evidence, it still assumed that spiritual/supernatural events leave natural traces. That means you have to play by the rules ofAs all attempts to naturalise religion inevitably are.But I'm not trying to naturalise religion - I agree with you on the futility of that. As I've said to Bill, however, evidence and faith
are not mutually exclusive; what we get in the Bible is *supporting* evidence. Faith is indeed required to overcome the shortfalls in that evidence and take it beyond the bare reported facts but that does not eliminate its supportive nature.
The more complex one in that "faith" , just like "belief" is a homonym, or at least has a very wide semantic field. In everyday language, we sometimes use "belief" for "less well confirmed" propositions, and contrast it with knowledge, as in "I don'tknow the answer, but I believe it is X". In philosophical contexts, we use it differently, as a perspective change. "Knowledge" then becomes "justified true believe", which means technically speaking, I should never say "I know X", only ever "I believe X"
With "faith" I'd say it's similar. In ordinary language, we use "faith" sometimes as a non-rational, non-evidential and in that sense lesser method to form an opinion. "Why do you think the guy you just elected will keep his promises? I have faith inhim" (often despite that person's track record. Or as you implicitly do, as a sort of "last meter" crutch that makes sure you come to a decision after reasons have run out ("I looked at all the data, and all the score sheets, and whittled down the
I'd say these correspond to the everyday notion of "belief" above, and make "faith" inherently suspicious, which is then why people feel the need to use it only when reason fails. And just as with the above, "faith" in the religious context ought in myview to be something categorically different, not a mere handmaiden to reason or an excuse - it can move mountains, all on its own.
particular, Luke 24 13-16.What it leads to is the interpretation of the resurrection as a vulgar zombie-apocalypse, that positively gets in the way of spiritual or redemptive (in Tilllich's sense) interpretation, and also creates conflicts with other passages of the text, in
witness etc ) fail to make an ID. If you treat this naturalistically, just ask yourself how you'd evaluate the totality of the evidence here - one witness claiming to have seen something inherently implausible, and several other witnesses in the same orAgain, I don't follow your logic there, especially your reference toWe have two prima facie contradictory accounts One set of witnesses makes a positive ID. The other, despite excellent epistemic conditions (under the ADVOKATE factors on eyewitness testimony, ( amount of time, distance to object, visibility, known by
Luke 24 13-16.
But if you give up the "physical observation eyewitness model", reconciling the two accounts gets straightforward. All of the people here make the same spiritual experience - in my preferred redemptive reading, from a feeling of deepest depression andutter despair came a sudden, massive, totally unexpected (and unearned.... ) and unexplainable lifting of the spirit and a realisation of unbounded freedom (freedom which then explains the subsequent actions of the Apostle, which otherwise would make
The people most directly affected with this don't initially understand this, and then, as humans do, try in varying degrees successfully to verbalise this and make sense of this experience. That explains the time lapse also for Maria Magdalena betweenthe "physical" seeing (which would have been instantaneous) and the "recognition" part. None of this works well when interpreted as an ordinary physical observation, we would not expect it to happen like this given everything we know about facial
H on this, where we disagreed on that point)I would agree with you that as a matter of terminology, even extremely weak evidence is still evidence. I'd go even further and would argue that even evidence that later turned out to be misleading is evidence, (I remember some discussions with John
I'd add, it inevitably gives you then a scale that allows comparisons. So it inevitably leads to statements of the form "The evidence for the resurrection is weaker, or at best as strong as, that for XYZ" where given what we are dealing here with more orThat is the key point I have been trying to make - rather fruitlesslyAnd I'd say you both underestimate or devalue faith here, just from opposite directions. And I don't think they work in synergy either, as this gives you again the "handmaiden role" of faith that makes it look like an excuse for the failure of reason
so far. Abner, endorsed by Bill, said that belief in the Resurrection
is "pure faith" implying that there is NO evidence. What I am arguing
is that there is *some* evidence even if it is not necessarily
conclusive.
But apart from coming in degrees, the type of evidence that we use in court has also a range of other properties that you would not necessarily want in a religious context. One is the one Bill alluded to - it requires consistency in application, and
that it can't really distinguish between a supernatural resurrection and simp grave robbery (they produce the same expected observation.But I think it is worse than that. Nothing is just "evidence" observations are evidence for or against a theory, and have to be evaluated with these two conflicting theories in mind, Which for instance for the observation of the empty grave means
lot, and then they don't do it again, at least not in my presence :o)Whether the evidence is reliable or conclusive is matter of debate andThat misses a bit my point. Often, people say things like "DNA is evidence" or "confessions are evidence", or even worse, ""DNA is highly reliable evidence" or ""DNA is strong evidence" etc My students do this exactly once, and then I shout at them a
I tread cautiously in getting into any legal argument with you but as
I understand it, circumstantial evidence is measured on its overall
weight and extent.
Nothing is just "evidence", let alone "strong/weak/conclusive/" etc evidence. The same "fact", a DNA match between say the suspect and a trace on the victim in a rape case, can be extremely important, IF the defense hypothesis is that someone else thanthe accused was the perpetrator, and utterly irrelevant IF the defence hypothesis is that it was consensual. With other words, an observation or data point becomes evidence only ever when there are two mutually exclusive hypothesis (in a legal context,
Or as R v Kilbourne[1973] AC 729, 756 put itprobabilities. You said e.g. that Bill dismisses the Gospel account "without any reason". But that is of course not true, quite on the contrary. He has lost and lots of contrary observations - every time someone dies and stays dead. That forms the prior
“Evidence is relevant if it is logically probative or disprobative of some matter which requires proof … relevant (i e logically probative or disprobative) evidence is evidence which makes the matter which requires proof more or less probable"
So in our case that creates a number of problems for the "evidential" account of the Gospel, One is more technical and I'd say less of an issue theologically, the other is more a theological problem. The first is the one about the background
But the bigger problem is that if you treat this really as a naturalistic eyewitness account, it forces your hand regarding the possible theological interpretations. That is the "data" "witness X saw that Y" is evidence for "Y" only because ourbackground causal theory how observations work, how the eye works etc etc , and that means it can only be evidence for the "physical zombie" version, and contradict the spiritual etc version. They are not different aspects of the same thing, and IF any
My own experience of this is limited to sittingone over the other. In particular, keep track of the fact that disproving a proposition is always easier than proving one. 1 point of correspondence of a fingerprint match is not stronger than 8 or 16 or 32 points IF one of them has also a clear scar
through one murder trial where the evidence against the defendant was entirely circumstantial [1] but the judge explained this to the juryThat's both true and dangerous. It's absolutely correct when done properly. One aspect of this is as I said above, connect the bare observation and data with the competing hypothesis, and show for each pair of them how the evidence in question favours
with the single strand vs rope metaphor i.e. a single piece of circumstantial evidence may be weak like a single strand of a rope but when all the pieces of evidence are interlocked together, they can
form a strong case just as a number of strands interlocked together
can form a very strong rope.
In the below, I'd say quite a bit of your evidence fails this test- in particular one a prediction is made (foretelling) , and observation of events after that risks to be tainted by that expectation etc.<snip>
I gave the Gospel accounts as a particular example and, on their own,I'd say quite a lot of single point of failures here, and in particular a discounting of the "author effect", that is you hear them through a single narrator.
they could be explained away as you say by a claim of misdiagnosis of death. When begin to add you add in other factors, however, such as
the way Jesus foretold his death and Resurrection and the reaction of
the authorities (bribing the guards to change their story), that adds weight to the evidence. Again to be clear, I am not claiming that that makes the evidence conclusive, only that there is some degree of *supporting* evidence.
I like Hume on miracles. He did not say it quite this way,
but I think that it is simply impossible to have usefully
convincing evidence of a miracle. The reason is
straightforward. If miracles are possible, then natural laws
are not the reliable regularities we think they are. But
any chain of evidence relies on a whole series of events
following reliable natural laws. Once you decide that
natural laws are only "most of the time" then you cannot
draw reliable conclusions from any evidence at all.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yGpX2tyRHo&list=PLpdBEstCHhmWIewYyKPBoYbL4E2NVpjaK>
On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 6:50:20 AM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote: [ . . . ]
I like Hume on miracles. He did not say it quite this way,Oh I don't know. I've made a lot of toast over the years,
but I think that it is simply impossible to have usefully
convincing evidence of a miracle. The reason is
straightforward. If miracles are possible, then natural laws
are not the reliable regularities we think they are. But
any chain of evidence relies on a whole series of events
following reliable natural laws. Once you decide that
natural laws are only "most of the time" then you cannot
draw reliable conclusions from any evidence at all.
as have many others. And there have been some occasional
reports of seeing the Madonna or Jesus on some rather
amorphous pattern. Sure you can explain that away as a
fluke of nature. But this one time, my toast had a very
clear image of George Best's goal against Benfica in the
1968 final. Some might call it a fluke but it will always be
a miracle to me.
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 1:20:18 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:person", then lots of biologically dead people are alive, including many who became biologically dead thousands of years ago.
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 3:15:18 PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 01:34:44 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 10:55:17?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 11:36:45 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:40:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:23:10 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:15:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:16:48 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" >> >> >> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 9:00:16?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 18:07:18 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 8:40:15?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:Fair enough, I was taking 'first' and 'second' as referring to the
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 07:51:35 -0700 (PDT), Abner
<abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kalkidas wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Happy Easter, everyone!
There is a lot of evidence for the first. The second ... pure faith. Happy Easter!
'Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and
biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his
nonexistence as effectively refuted.[7][9][48][49][50] Robert M.
Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his
perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[51]
Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent
years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the >> >> >> >> >> non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have
not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant,
evidence to the contrary."[9] Richard A. Burridge states, "There are
those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination,
that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know
any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."[48][35]:
24-26'
You reckon you know better?
You seem to have misread the post.
The first statement, for which there is plenty of evidence, was "Charles Darwin still dead." The second statement, which requires pure faith, was "Jesus Christ still alive." There was no denial of the historical Jesus.
people rather than their state. Anyway, that takes us back to one of
your regular points - what do we mean by someone being "alive"? Jesus
is certainly alive to me and millions of other Christians. >> >> >> >If you wish, you can define "alive" so that Jesus is "alive." Virtually any statement can be made true if you are willing to define the terms it contains in the right way. Indeed if you want to define "alive" as "remembered by some living
existence of somebody making a claim is evidence for that claim, then there are no claims for which evidence is entirely lacking. You may counter that as the number of people making the claim increases, the evidence is proportionately stronger, soIf you want to avoid special pleading, then you will need to use the same standard of evidence for other striking claims, the ascension of Mohammed, the Virgin Birth, bigfoot, ancient aliens building the pyramids, etc, for example. If theMore pertinently, he said there is no evidence of Jesus being alive. IChristians believe that Jesus overcame death and returned to life. It
was clearly a different life from what we generally experience - he
was able to appear and disappear at will and pass through walls yet
there were still physical elements to him such as eating with his
disciples and inviting Thomas to insert his fingers into his (Jesus's)
wounds. That's a lot more than just alive in people's memories. >> >> >Well, sure, and that's the kind of alive Jesus the belief in which requires pure faith, as Abner said in the first place.
would dispute that. The Gospel accounts, for example, are evidence.
You and he might not want to accept the validity of that evidence but
that doesn't change the fact that it is evidence.
you would apply to miraculous claims in Homer, or the Koran, or Herodotus, or the Gita. In my view, that means that while there is abundant evidence that lots of people believed and believe in the resurrection, there is no evidence for the resurrection
In would say that if you want to make a non-faith based claim about a proposed event involving a historical religious figure, for example the physical resurrection of Jesus, then you need to apply the same standards of evidence to that claim as
much stronger than that of the resurrection of Christ" which is anything but. The problem is that naturalistic evidence can be quantified, quantification leads to commensurability, and that turns "it's a miracle" into "that's just silly". (this is ISo effectively, you get into a debate on how conclusive or reliable >> the evidence is. Not much different really from a courtroom where
But there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.
there is no conclusive *forensic* evidence and both sides will argue >> whether conclusions can be drawn from *circumstantial* evidence. The >> point is that it is an evidence-based argument, not just "pure faith" >> as Abner claimed.
I'd say everything that followed was that elaboration. In summary:I'd say while this is a possible reading of the Gospel, it's theologically somewhere between the least satisfying and the massively blasphemous.I don't see how you get to that, can you elaborate?
- if one wants to or not, it inevitably naturalises religion because it has to assume the divine leaves naturalistic traces and can thus be cajoled into answering our questions)
- it is only compatible with one of the (at least four) possible theological positions that have been argued over the centuries, to wit the "vulgar zombie version", and is incompatible with the theologically more rewarding ones
- it is inconsistent with other parts of the gospel, and in particular the non-recognition of Christ by other witnesses
- while it gives you as statement "there is some evidence for a (physical) resurrection" which may "feel" reassuring and comforting, it gives you also the equivalent statements (relative to the evidence given) "The evidence for Elvis being alive is
I like Hume on miracles. He did not say it quite this way, but I think that it is simply impossible to have usefully convincing evidence of a miracle. The reason is straightforward. If miracles are possible, then natural laws are not the reliableregularities we think they are. But any chain of evidence relies on a whole series of events following reliable natural laws. Once you decide that natural laws are only "most of the time" then you cannot draw reliable conclusions from any evidence at all.
On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 6:50:20 AM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote: [ . . . ]
I like Hume on miracles. He did not say it quite this way,Oh I don't know. I've made a lot of toast over the years,
but I think that it is simply impossible to have usefully
convincing evidence of a miracle. The reason is
straightforward. If miracles are possible, then natural laws
are not the reliable regularities we think they are. But
any chain of evidence relies on a whole series of events
following reliable natural laws. Once you decide that
natural laws are only "most of the time" then you cannot
draw reliable conclusions from any evidence at all.
as have many others. And there have been some occasional
reports of seeing the Madonna or Jesus on some rather
amorphous pattern. Sure you can explain that away as a
fluke of nature. But this one time, my toast had a very
clear image of George Best's goal against Benfica in the
1968 final. Some might call it a fluke but it will always be
a miracle to me.
Martin Harran wrote:this topic, you don't seem to be able to see anything other than what you want to see.
That is the key point I have been trying to make - rather fruitlesslyPerhaps the reason that you are making arguments fruitlessly is that you aren't listening. I did not say what you just ascribed to me, and I have even corrected you in detail since. At this point I have pretty much given up on trying to correct you on
so far. Abner, endorsed by Bill, said that belief in the Resurrection
is "pure faith" implying that there is NO evidence.
Just so you don't have to search for the last cycle again, here's what I said:alive then, how could the gospels of 2000 years ago be evidence that he is alive 2000 years later? They certainly couldn't witness an inability to age, and an inability to be killed again wasn't tested, so ... the idea that he is still alive now is faith.
Even if the gospels were correct that Jesus rose from the dead ... that isn't evidence that he is *still* alive. It's been 2000 years ... he could easily have died again in the time since then! Even if you count the gospels as evidence that he was
If you insist, yet again, as taking that as an argument against the Resurrection, so be it. Life's too short to keep arguing with someone who isn't listening. Have fun arguing, but please stop claiming I said something I didn't say!
You've reminded me that I once caught you listing me as a "creationist." Or was that a different person in talk.origins named Abner?
I assure you, I am about as far from being a creationist as anyone here, and I'd like to know who or what it was
that ever put that idea in your head.
Peter wrote:to any position other than wanting to get a rise out of people.
You've reminded me that I once caught you listing me as a "creationist." Or was that a different person in talk.origins named Abner?
I assure you, I am about as far from being a creationist as anyone here, and I'd like to know who or what it was
that ever put that idea in your head.
I had gotten that impression from reading your posts over the years. I admit that it is entirely possible that you are not a creationist, but the most likely alternative IMO is that you are trolling for reactions. Trolls don't really hold allegiance
If you wish, I will switch my mental category for you from 'probably a creationist' to 'probably a troll'. Based on extensive reading of your posts, I'm afraid those are the two options I have left for you.
Enjoy your weekend posting break!
jillery wrote:on this topic, you don't seem to be able to see anything other than what you want to see.
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 17:30:05 -0700 (PDT), Abner
<abnerinfinity@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
That is the key point I have been trying to make - rather fruitlessly >>>> so far. Abner, endorsed by Bill, said that belief in the Resurrection >>>> is "pure faith" implying that there is NO evidence.
Perhaps the reason that you are making arguments fruitlessly is that you aren't listening. I did not say what you just ascribed to me, and I have even corrected you in detail since. At this point I have pretty much given up on trying to correct you
alive then, how could the gospels of 2000 years ago be evidence that he is alive 2000 years later? They certainly couldn't witness an inability to age, and an inability to be killed again wasn't tested, so ... the idea that he is still alive now is faith.
Just so you don't have to search for the last cycle again, here's what I said:
Even if the gospels were correct that Jesus rose from the dead ... that isn't evidence that he is *still* alive. It's been 2000 years ... he could easily have died again in the time since then! Even if you count the gospels as evidence that he was
If you insist, yet again, as taking that as an argument against the Resurrection, so be it. Life's too short to keep arguing with someone who isn't listening. Have fun arguing, but please stop claiming I said something I didn't say!
If you're interested in a rational and coherent commentary about
Jesus' resurrection, I recommend a series of Youtube videos created by >>Paulogia, a former Christian who takes a look at the claims of
Christians:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yGpX2tyRHo&list=PLpdBEstCHhmWIewYyKPBoYbL4E2NVpjaK>
Thanks, bookmarked for later!
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 1:20:18?PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:person", then lots of biologically dead people are alive, including many who became biologically dead thousands of years ago.
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 3:15:18?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 01:34:44 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 10:55:17?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 11:36:45 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:40:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> > >> >> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:23:10 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 1:15:16?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:16:48 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" >> > >> >> >> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 9:00:16?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 18:07:18 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"If you wish, you can define "alive" so that Jesus is "alive." Virtually any statement can be made true if you are willing to define the terms it contains in the right way. Indeed if you want to define "alive" as "remembered by some living
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 8:40:15?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:Fair enough, I was taking 'first' and 'second' as referring to the
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 07:51:35 -0700 (PDT), Abner
<abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Kalkidas wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Happy Easter, everyone!
There is a lot of evidence for the first. The second ... pure faith. Happy Easter!
'Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and
biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his
nonexistence as effectively refuted.[7][9][48][49][50] Robert M.
Price, an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus, agrees that his
perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[51]
Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent
years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the
non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have
not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant,
evidence to the contrary."[9] Richard A. Burridge states, "There are
those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination,
that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know
any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."[48][35]:
24-26'
You reckon you know better?
You seem to have misread the post.
The first statement, for which there is plenty of evidence, was "Charles Darwin still dead." The second statement, which requires pure faith, was "Jesus Christ still alive." There was no denial of the historical Jesus.
people rather than their state. Anyway, that takes us back to one of
your regular points - what do we mean by someone being "alive"? Jesus
is certainly alive to me and millions of other Christians.
existence of somebody making a claim is evidence for that claim, then there are no claims for which evidence is entirely lacking. You may counter that as the number of people making the claim increases, the evidence is proportionately stronger, soIf you want to avoid special pleading, then you will need to use the same standard of evidence for other striking claims, the ascension of Mohammed, the Virgin Birth, bigfoot, ancient aliens building the pyramids, etc, for example. If theMore pertinently, he said there is no evidence of Jesus being alive. IChristians believe that Jesus overcame death and returned to life. It
was clearly a different life from what we generally experience - he
was able to appear and disappear at will and pass through walls yet
there were still physical elements to him such as eating with his
disciples and inviting Thomas to insert his fingers into his (Jesus's)
wounds. That's a lot more than just alive in people's memories. >> > >> >> >Well, sure, and that's the kind of alive Jesus the belief in which requires pure faith, as Abner said in the first place.
would dispute that. The Gospel accounts, for example, are evidence. >> > >> >> You and he might not want to accept the validity of that evidence but
that doesn't change the fact that it is evidence.
you would apply to miraculous claims in Homer, or the Koran, or Herodotus, or the Gita. In my view, that means that while there is abundant evidence that lots of people believed and believe in the resurrection, there is no evidence for the resurrection
In would say that if you want to make a non-faith based claim about a proposed event involving a historical religious figure, for example the physical resurrection of Jesus, then you need to apply the same standards of evidence to that claim as
much stronger than that of the resurrection of Christ" which is anything but. The problem is that naturalistic evidence can be quantified, quantification leads to commensurability, and that turns "it's a miracle" into "that's just silly". (this is II'd say everything that followed was that elaboration. In summary:I don't see how you get to that, can you elaborate?So effectively, you get into a debate on how conclusive or reliable
But there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.
the evidence is. Not much different really from a courtroom where
there is no conclusive *forensic* evidence and both sides will argue >> > >> whether conclusions can be drawn from *circumstantial* evidence. The >> > >> point is that it is an evidence-based argument, not just "pure faith" >> > >> as Abner claimed.
I'd say while this is a possible reading of the Gospel, it's theologically somewhere between the least satisfying and the massively blasphemous.
- if one wants to or not, it inevitably naturalises religion because it has to assume the divine leaves naturalistic traces and can thus be cajoled into answering our questions)
- it is only compatible with one of the (at least four) possible theological positions that have been argued over the centuries, to wit the "vulgar zombie version", and is incompatible with the theologically more rewarding ones
- it is inconsistent with other parts of the gospel, and in particular the non-recognition of Christ by other witnesses
- while it gives you as statement "there is some evidence for a (physical) resurrection" which may "feel" reassuring and comforting, it gives you also the equivalent statements (relative to the evidence given) "The evidence for Elvis being alive is
I like Hume on miracles. He did not say it quite this way, but I think that it is simply impossible to have usefully convincing evidence of a miracle. The reason is straightforward. If miracles are possible, then natural laws are not the reliableregularities we think they are. But any chain of evidence relies on a whole series of events following reliable natural laws. Once you decide that natural laws are only "most of the time" then you cannot draw reliable conclusions from any evidence at all.
of the original diagnostic tests in which case you have a miraculous error in diagnosis rather than a miraculous cure. I don't think you can get around that problem without special pleading for a certain religious point of view about what sorts ofmiracles are likely to happen. So I think once you open the door to miracles, all evidence, even partial, supporting evidence, is meaningless. That's not to say that miracles don't happen, only that if they do, their occurrence makes any evidence for
of naturalistic evidence assessment, and that comes with a whole baggage of corollaries, inevitably. So I don't think the idea of a harmonious "supportive" relation works, not if you follow though through with the reasoning.There is a simple and a more complex answer on this. The simple one is: even if you treat it as just "some" weak supporting" evidence, it still assumed that spiritual/supernatural events leave natural traces. That means you have to play by the rulesAs all attempts to naturalise religion inevitably are.But I'm not trying to naturalise religion - I agree with you on the
futility of that. As I've said to Bill, however, evidence and faith
are not mutually exclusive; what we get in the Bible is *supporting*
evidence. Faith is indeed required to overcome the shortfalls in that
evidence and take it beyond the bare reported facts but that does not
eliminate its supportive nature.
know the answer, but I believe it is X". In philosophical contexts, we use it differently, as a perspective change. "Knowledge" then becomes "justified true believe", which means technically speaking, I should never say "I know X", only ever "I believe X"
The more complex one in that "faith" , just like "belief" is a homonym, or at least has a very wide semantic field. In everyday language, we sometimes use "belief" for "less well confirmed" propositions, and contrast it with knowledge, as in "I don't
him" (often despite that person's track record. Or as you implicitly do, as a sort of "last meter" crutch that makes sure you come to a decision after reasons have run out ("I looked at all the data, and all the score sheets, and whittled down the
With "faith" I'd say it's similar. In ordinary language, we use "faith" sometimes as a non-rational, non-evidential and in that sense lesser method to form an opinion. "Why do you think the guy you just elected will keep his promises? I have faith in
my view to be something categorically different, not a mere handmaiden to reason or an excuse - it can move mountains, all on its own.
I'd say these correspond to the everyday notion of "belief" above, and make "faith" inherently suspicious, which is then why people feel the need to use it only when reason fails. And just as with the above, "faith" in the religious context ought in
particular, Luke 24 13-16.What it leads to is the interpretation of the resurrection as a vulgar zombie-apocalypse, that positively gets in the way of spiritual or redemptive (in Tilllich's sense) interpretation, and also creates conflicts with other passages of the text, in
witness etc ) fail to make an ID. If you treat this naturalistically, just ask yourself how you'd evaluate the totality of the evidence here - one witness claiming to have seen something inherently implausible, and several other witnesses in the same orAgain, I don't follow your logic there, especially your reference toWe have two prima facie contradictory accounts One set of witnesses makes a positive ID. The other, despite excellent epistemic conditions (under the ADVOKATE factors on eyewitness testimony, ( amount of time, distance to object, visibility, known by
Luke 24 13-16.
utter despair came a sudden, massive, totally unexpected (and unearned.... ) and unexplainable lifting of the spirit and a realisation of unbounded freedom (freedom which then explains the subsequent actions of the Apostle, which otherwise would make
But if you give up the "physical observation eyewitness model", reconciling the two accounts gets straightforward. All of the people here make the same spiritual experience - in my preferred redemptive reading, from a feeling of deepest depression and
the "physical" seeing (which would have been instantaneous) and the "recognition" part. None of this works well when interpreted as an ordinary physical observation, we would not expect it to happen like this given everything we know about facial
The people most directly affected with this don't initially understand this, and then, as humans do, try in varying degrees successfully to verbalise this and make sense of this experience. That explains the time lapse also for Maria Magdalena between
John H on this, where we disagreed on that point)
I would agree with you that as a matter of terminology, even extremely weak evidence is still evidence. I'd go even further and would argue that even evidence that later turned out to be misleading is evidence, (I remember some discussions with
and I'd add, it inevitably gives you then a scale that allows comparisons. So it inevitably leads to statements of the form "The evidence for the resurrection is weaker, or at best as strong as, that for XYZ" where given what we are dealing here withThat is the key point I have been trying to make - rather fruitlesslyAnd I'd say you both underestimate or devalue faith here, just from opposite directions. And I don't think they work in synergy either, as this gives you again the "handmaiden role" of faith that makes it look like an excuse for the failure of reason
so far. Abner, endorsed by Bill, said that belief in the Resurrection
is "pure faith" implying that there is NO evidence. What I am arguing
is that there is *some* evidence even if it is not necessarily
conclusive.
But apart from coming in degrees, the type of evidence that we use in court has also a range of other properties that you would not necessarily want in a religious context. One is the one Bill alluded to - it requires consistency in application,
that it can't really distinguish between a supernatural resurrection and simp grave robbery (they produce the same expected observation.
But I think it is worse than that. Nothing is just "evidence" observations are evidence for or against a theory, and have to be evaluated with these two conflicting theories in mind, Which for instance for the observation of the empty grave means
lot, and then they don't do it again, at least not in my presence :o)Whether the evidence is reliable or conclusive is matter of debate andThat misses a bit my point. Often, people say things like "DNA is evidence" or "confessions are evidence", or even worse, ""DNA is highly reliable evidence" or ""DNA is strong evidence" etc My students do this exactly once, and then I shout at them a
I tread cautiously in getting into any legal argument with you but as
I understand it, circumstantial evidence is measured on its overall
weight and extent.
than the accused was the perpetrator, and utterly irrelevant IF the defence hypothesis is that it was consensual. With other words, an observation or data point becomes evidence only ever when there are two mutually exclusive hypothesis (in a legal
Nothing is just "evidence", let alone "strong/weak/conclusive/" etc evidence. The same "fact", a DNA match between say the suspect and a trace on the victim in a rape case, can be extremely important, IF the defense hypothesis is that someone else
probabilities. You said e.g. that Bill dismisses the Gospel account "without any reason". But that is of course not true, quite on the contrary. He has lost and lots of contrary observations - every time someone dies and stays dead. That forms the prior
Or as R v Kilbourne[1973] AC 729, 756 put it
“Evidence is relevant if it is logically probative or disprobative of some matter which requires proof … relevant (i e logically probative or disprobative) evidence is evidence which makes the matter which requires proof more or less probable"
So in our case that creates a number of problems for the "evidential" account of the Gospel, One is more technical and I'd say less of an issue theologically, the other is more a theological problem. The first is the one about the background
background causal theory how observations work, how the eye works etc etc , and that means it can only be evidence for the "physical zombie" version, and contradict the spiritual etc version. They are not different aspects of the same thing, and IF any
But the bigger problem is that if you treat this really as a naturalistic eyewitness account, it forces your hand regarding the possible theological interpretations. That is the "data" "witness X saw that Y" is evidence for "Y" only because our
one over the other. In particular, keep track of the fact that disproving a proposition is always easier than proving one. 1 point of correspondence of a fingerprint match is not stronger than 8 or 16 or 32 points IF one of them has also a clear scarMy own experience of this is limited to sitting
through one murder trial where the evidence against the defendant wasThat's both true and dangerous. It's absolutely correct when done properly. One aspect of this is as I said above, connect the bare observation and data with the competing hypothesis, and show for each pair of them how the evidence in question favours
entirely circumstantial [1] but the judge explained this to the jury
with the single strand vs rope metaphor i.e. a single piece of
circumstantial evidence may be weak like a single strand of a rope but
when all the pieces of evidence are interlocked together, they can
form a strong case just as a number of strands interlocked together
can form a very strong rope.
<snip>
In the below, I'd say quite a bit of your evidence fails this test- in particular one a prediction is made (foretelling) , and observation of events after that risks to be tainted by that expectation etc.
I'd say quite a lot of single point of failures here, and in particular a discounting of the "author effect", that is you hear them through a single narrator.
I gave the Gospel accounts as a particular example and, on their own,
they could be explained away as you say by a claim of misdiagnosis of
death. When begin to add you add in other factors, however, such as
the way Jesus foretold his death and Resurrection and the reaction of
the authorities (bribing the guards to change their story), that adds
weight to the evidence. Again to be clear, I am not claiming that that
makes the evidence conclusive, only that there is some degree of
*supporting* evidence.
On 4/13/23 8:49 AM, Martin Harran wrote:resurrection as a vulgar zombie-apocalypse, that positively gets in the way of spiritual or redemptive (in Tilllich's sense) interpretation, and also creates conflicts with other passages of the text, in particular, Luke 24 13-16.
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 17:34:06 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/12/23 7:50 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 09:32:23 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/11/23 1:34 AM, Burkhard wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 10:55:17?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>>> [...]
But there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.So effectively, you get into a debate on how conclusive or reliable >>>>>>> the evidence is. Not much different really from a courtroom where >>>>>>> there is no conclusive *forensic* evidence and both sides will argue >>>>>>> whether conclusions can be drawn from *circumstantial* evidence. The >>>>>>> point is that it is an evidence-based argument, not just "pure faith" >>>>>>> as Abner claimed.
I'd say while this is a possible reading of the Gospel, it's theologically somewhere between the least satisfying and the massively blasphemous. As all attempts to naturalise religion inevitably are. What it leads to is the interpretation of the
[snip more worthy text]
There's also the problem that claiming an evidence-based belief in
religion raises issues of hypocrisy. The evidence for Jesus'
resurrection is no better than that for the divine inspiration of the >>>>> Qur'an or the divinity of Rama, and is roughly on par with evidence for >>>>> a thousand or so other gods, not to mention leprechauns, bunyips, Santa >>>>> at the North Pole, etc.
What particular evidence for those things did you have in mind?
Written accounts, same as for Jesus's resurrection.
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point me in the direction of some of
those writings about leprechauns, bunyips and Santa at the North Pole.
The written accounts come from oral accounts, and I have little doubt
that you yourself have heard oral accounts of leprechauns and Santa
Claus.
For bunyips, you may need to travel to Australia. Or ask a
librarian and read the written accounts. (The Wikipedia article has
several references. I don't remember which of my several Australian
myth books I encountered them in.)
On 4/13/23 9:01 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 17:30:29 -0700, Mark Isaak
[...]I doubt it very much, just as I don't believe that the Bible was
Two question about your standards:
1. Do you believe that the Qur'an was dictated to Mohammed by divine agent? >>
dictated by God as some Christians believe so no difference in my
standards there.
That is the answer I was expecting. (For what it's worth, I agree with
you.)
2. Do you acknowledge that the evidence for such divine dictation is
equal or better than evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ?
I'm not aware of any evidence of such divine diction for either the
Qur'an or the Bible as far as I am aware, that idea of divine diction
is the opinion of people who have read the books, not the people
directly involved in them[1]. If you have any other evidence, I'll
have a look at it if you point me in the direction of it.
===============================
[1] There is considerable evidence that directly contradicts the idea
of the Bible having been dictated but I don't know if that applies to
the Qur'an
That does not answer the question, which asked about evidence for the >resurrection as described by the Bible (not for the dictation, or any
other sourcing, of the Bible).
As I understand, there is evidence claimed for divine dictation for the >Qur'an, to wit, that Mohammed was semi-literate and could not have
composed something so beautiful on his own.
Not knowing any Arabic
(aside from Arabic numerals), I am not in a position to evaluate that >argument, but my impression is that it is weak. You don't need to know
how to write in order to express yourself well; plus, the scribes who >ultimately wrote it down could have cleaned up the text a bit more.
Still, that evidence is more than a mere written account for the
biblical resurrection.
Lots of really interesting stuff in there that goes beyond the resurrection issue - unfortunately, I'm now off to 3 weeks hiking in Corfu,
so won't be able to comment on all of it, and it will also be the last post for a while.
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 8:30:18?PM UTC-4, Abner wrote:this topic, you don't seem to be able to see anything other than what you want to see.
Martin Harran wrote:
That is the key point I have been trying to make - rather fruitlesslyPerhaps the reason that you are making arguments fruitlessly is that you aren't listening. I did not say what you just ascribed to me, and I have even corrected you in detail since. At this point I have pretty much given up on trying to correct you on
so far. Abner, endorsed by Bill, said that belief in the Resurrection
is "pure faith" implying that there is NO evidence.
You've reminded me that I once caught you listing me as a "creationist." Or was that a different person in talk.origins named Abner?alive then, how could the gospels of 2000 years ago be evidence that he is alive 2000 years later? They certainly couldn't witness an inability to age, and an inability to be killed again wasn't tested, so ... the idea that he is still alive now is faith.
I assure you, I am about as far from being a creationist as anyone here, and I'd like to know who or what it was
that ever put that idea in your head.
Just so you don't have to search for the last cycle again, here's what I said:
Even if the gospels were correct that Jesus rose from the dead ... that isn't evidence that he is *still* alive. It's been 2000 years ... he could easily have died again in the time since then! Even if you count the gospels as evidence that he was
If you insist, yet again, as taking that as an argument against the Resurrection, so be it. Life's too short to keep arguing with someone who isn't listening. Have fun arguing, but please stop claiming I said something I didn't say!
I'm about to start my usual weekend posting break, but come Monday, I'll look to see whether you
have responded to my query.
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 10:30:18 -0700, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:resurrection as a vulgar zombie-apocalypse, that positively gets in the way of spiritual or redemptive (in Tilllich's sense) interpretation, and also creates conflicts with other passages of the text, in particular, Luke 24 13-16.
On 4/13/23 8:49 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 17:34:06 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/12/23 7:50 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 09:32:23 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/11/23 1:34 AM, Burkhard wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 10:55:17?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>>>> [...]
But there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.So effectively, you get into a debate on how conclusive or reliable >>>>>>>> the evidence is. Not much different really from a courtroom where >>>>>>>> there is no conclusive *forensic* evidence and both sides will argue >>>>>>>> whether conclusions can be drawn from *circumstantial* evidence. The >>>>>>>> point is that it is an evidence-based argument, not just "pure faith" >>>>>>>> as Abner claimed.
I'd say while this is a possible reading of the Gospel, it's theologically somewhere between the least satisfying and the massively blasphemous. As all attempts to naturalise religion inevitably are. What it leads to is the interpretation of the
[snip more worthy text]
There's also the problem that claiming an evidence-based belief in >>>>>> religion raises issues of hypocrisy. The evidence for Jesus'
resurrection is no better than that for the divine inspiration of the >>>>>> Qur'an or the divinity of Rama, and is roughly on par with evidence for >>>>>> a thousand or so other gods, not to mention leprechauns, bunyips, Santa >>>>>> at the North Pole, etc.
What particular evidence for those things did you have in mind?
Written accounts, same as for Jesus's resurrection.
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point me in the direction of some of
those writings about leprechauns, bunyips and Santa at the North Pole.
The written accounts come from oral accounts, and I have little doubt
that you yourself have heard oral accounts of leprechauns and Santa
Claus.
Hmm, I was hoping for something a bit better in evidence terms than
written accounts of oral mythology. I don't know anything about
bunyips ( I never heard of them until you mentioned them here) but
I've certainly never heard anyone[1] claiming to have met a leprechaun
or Santa Claus - have you?
[1] Young children excluded.
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 10:17:16 -0700, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/13/23 9:01 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 17:30:29 -0700, Mark Isaak
[...]
Two question about your standards:
1. Do you believe that the Qur'an was dictated to Mohammed by divine agent?
I doubt it very much, just as I don't believe that the Bible was
dictated by God as some Christians believe so no difference in my
standards there.
That is the answer I was expecting. (For what it's worth, I agree with
you.)
2. Do you acknowledge that the evidence for such divine dictation is
equal or better than evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ?
I'm not aware of any evidence of such divine diction for either the
Qur'an or the Bible as far as I am aware, that idea of divine diction
is the opinion of people who have read the books, not the people
directly involved in them[1]. If you have any other evidence, I'll
have a look at it if you point me in the direction of it.
===============================
[1] There is considerable evidence that directly contradicts the idea
of the Bible having been dictated but I don't know if that applies to
the Qur'an
That does not answer the question, which asked about evidence for the
resurrection as described by the Bible (not for the dictation, or any
other sourcing, of the Bible).
I'm struggling to see your point here. You asked me if evidence for
such divine dictation is equal or better than evidence for the
resurrection of Jesus Christ, I told you I'm not aware of *any*
evidence for divine diction (and you seem to agree). How can I
evaluate something that I don't even think exists, let alone know
anything about ?
As I understand, there is evidence claimed for divine dictation for the
Qur'an, to wit, that Mohammed was semi-literate and could not have
composed something so beautiful on his own.
At best, that's an argument from logic, not evidence. Even if it were
true, I'm not sure how it's supposed to support divine diction when
muslims don't belive Muhammed to be God.
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 10:30:18 -0700, Mark Isaak <specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:resurrection as a vulgar zombie-apocalypse, that positively gets in the way of spiritual or redemptive (in Tilllich's sense) interpretation, and also creates conflicts with other passages of the text, in particular, Luke 24 13-16.
On 4/13/23 8:49 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 17:34:06 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/12/23 7:50 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 09:32:23 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/11/23 1:34 AM, Burkhard wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 10:55:17?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>>> [...]
But there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.So effectively, you get into a debate on how conclusive or reliable >>>>>>> the evidence is. Not much different really from a courtroom where >>>>>>> there is no conclusive *forensic* evidence and both sides will argue >>>>>>> whether conclusions can be drawn from *circumstantial* evidence. The >>>>>>> point is that it is an evidence-based argument, not just "pure faith"
as Abner claimed.
I'd say while this is a possible reading of the Gospel, it's theologically somewhere between the least satisfying and the massively blasphemous. As all attempts to naturalise religion inevitably are. What it leads to is the interpretation of the
.....[snip more worthy text]
There's also the problem that claiming an evidence-based belief in >>>>> religion raises issues of hypocrisy. The evidence for Jesus'
resurrection is no better than that for the divine inspiration of the >>>>> Qur'an or the divinity of Rama, and is roughly on par with evidence for
a thousand or so other gods, not to mention leprechauns, bunyips, Santa
at the North Pole, etc.
What particular evidence for those things did you have in mind?
Written accounts, same as for Jesus's resurrection.
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point me in the direction of some of
those writings about leprechauns, bunyips and Santa at the North Pole.
The written accounts come from oral accounts, and I have little doubt
that you yourself have heard oral accounts of leprechauns and Santa
Claus.
Hmm, I was hoping for something a bit better in evidence terms than
written accounts of oral mythology.
I don't know anything about
bunyips ( I never heard of them until you mentioned them here) but
I've certainly never heard anyone[1] claiming to have met a leprechaun
or Santa Claus - have you?
For bunyips, you may need to travel to Australia. Or ask a[1] Young children excluded.
librarian and read the written accounts. (The Wikipedia article has >several references. I don't remember which of my several Australian
myth books I encountered them in.)
As I understand, there is evidence claimed for divine dictation for theAt best, that's an argument from logic, not evidence. Even if it were
Qur'an, to wit, that Mohammed was semi-literate and could not have
composed something so beautiful on his own.
true, I'm not sure how it's supposed to support divine diction when
muslims don't belive Muhammed to be God.
Rather hypocritical of you to challenge someone else's unfounded
claims about you when you haven't provided anything to back up your
claims about me being a secret apostate and your commitment over two
weeks ago when you said you would produce detailed analysis *the
following week* of me having a "cavalier attitude" towards Jesus's commandment against bearing false witness yet you have produced
absolutely nothing.
There are other T.O. posters who support ID. I have asked each of
them how their designer could have done all the things they claim it
did without it being a supernatural entity. If so, that would
logically make their ID a form of Creationism in disguise. My
experience is all cdesign proponentsists either ignore the question altogether, or admit they presume their designer is God.
Martin Harran wrote:
Rather hypocritical of you to challenge someone else's unfounded
claims about you when you haven't provided anything to back up your
claims about me being a secret apostate and your commitment over two
weeks ago when you said you would produce detailed analysis *the
following week* of me having a "cavalier attitude" towards Jesus's
commandment against bearing false witness yet you have produced
absolutely nothing.
For the record, I haven't seen any sign that Martin is an apostate, secret or otherwise. IMO his stated beliefs and behavior seem to be within the Christian mainstream.
Martin Harran wrote:
That is the key point I have been trying to make - rather fruitlessly
so far. Abner, endorsed by Bill, said that belief in the Resurrection
is "pure faith" implying that there is NO evidence.
Perhaps the reason that you are making arguments fruitlessly is that you aren't listening. I did not say what you just ascribed to me, and I have even corrected you in detail since.
At this point I have pretty much given up on trying to correct you on this topic, you don't seem to be able to see anything other than what you want to see.then, how could the gospels of 2000 years ago be evidence that he is alive 2000 years later? They certainly couldn't witness an inability to age, and an inability to be killed again wasn't tested,
Just so you don't have to search for the last cycle again, here's what I said: >Even if the gospels were correct that Jesus rose from the dead ... that isn't evidence that he is *still* alive. It's been 2000 years ... he could easily have died again in the time since then! Even if you count the gospels as evidence that he was alive
so ... the idea that he is still alive now is faith. Same with Darwin still being alive now.
If you insist, yet again, as taking that as an argument against the Resurrection, so be it. Life's too short to keep arguing with someone who isn't listening. Have fun arguing, but please stop claiming I said something I didn't say!
jillery wrote:stating the creationist position is far more respectable than deception aimed at hiding it.
There are other T.O. posters who support ID. I have asked each of
them how their designer could have done all the things they claim it
did without it being a supernatural entity. If so, that would
logically make their ID a form of Creationism in disguise. My
experience is all cdesign proponentsists either ignore the question
altogether, or admit they presume their designer is God.
I agree with almost all of your analysis. In my experience, ID is just a false skin stretched thin over creationism; the slightest scratch and it splits open, revealing the creationist within. It is an attempt at respectability, but IMO honestly
On 4/15/23 8:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:resurrection as a vulgar zombie-apocalypse, that positively gets in the way of spiritual or redemptive (in Tilllich's sense) interpretation, and also creates conflicts with other passages of the text, in particular, Luke 24 13-16.
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 10:30:18 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/13/23 8:49 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 17:34:06 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/12/23 7:50 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 09:32:23 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/11/23 1:34 AM, Burkhard wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 10:55:17?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>>>>> [...]
But there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.So effectively, you get into a debate on how conclusive or reliable >>>>>>>>> the evidence is. Not much different really from a courtroom where >>>>>>>>> there is no conclusive *forensic* evidence and both sides will argue >>>>>>>>> whether conclusions can be drawn from *circumstantial* evidence. The >>>>>>>>> point is that it is an evidence-based argument, not just "pure faith" >>>>>>>>> as Abner claimed.
I'd say while this is a possible reading of the Gospel, it's theologically somewhere between the least satisfying and the massively blasphemous. As all attempts to naturalise religion inevitably are. What it leads to is the interpretation of the
[snip more worthy text]
There's also the problem that claiming an evidence-based belief in >>>>>>> religion raises issues of hypocrisy. The evidence for Jesus'
resurrection is no better than that for the divine inspiration of the >>>>>>> Qur'an or the divinity of Rama, and is roughly on par with evidence for >>>>>>> a thousand or so other gods, not to mention leprechauns, bunyips, Santa >>>>>>> at the North Pole, etc.
What particular evidence for those things did you have in mind?
Written accounts, same as for Jesus's resurrection.
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point me in the direction of some of
those writings about leprechauns, bunyips and Santa at the North Pole.
The written accounts come from oral accounts, and I have little doubt
that you yourself have heard oral accounts of leprechauns and Santa
Claus.
Hmm, I was hoping for something a bit better in evidence terms than
written accounts of oral mythology. I don't know anything about
bunyips ( I never heard of them until you mentioned them here) but
I've certainly never heard anyone[1] claiming to have met a leprechaun
or Santa Claus - have you?
[1] Young children excluded.
I get the impression you are trying to avoid the larger point.
First,
as Burkhard posted, the existence of leprechauns has been taken
seriously in historical times. Second and more important is the "etc."
I included in my original comment. The standard of evidence that "I
believe it because an anonymous source said it, and someone else wrote
it down" could also be applied, off the top of my head, to thunderbirds, >chupacabras, Bigfoot, ET aliens, witches, dragons, kobolds, mermaids.
No doubt anthropologists could extend the list to thousands of items.
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 17:30:05 -0700 (PDT), Abneralive then, how could the gospels of 2000 years ago be evidence that he is alive 2000 years later? They certainly couldn't witness an inability to age, and an inability to be killed again wasn't tested,
<abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
That is the key point I have been trying to make - rather fruitlessly
so far. Abner, endorsed by Bill, said that belief in the Resurrection
is "pure faith" implying that there is NO evidence.
Perhaps the reason that you are making arguments fruitlessly is that you aren't listening. I did not say what you just ascribed to me, and I have even corrected you in detail since.Perhaps I missed it, where did you accept that there is evidence
supporting the Resurrection?
There is evidence in the form of eyewitness accounts; you may choose
to disbelieve those accounts, that's fine, but to make out that they
don't exist and that belief in the Resurrection is "pure faith" is essentially a mirror image of your claim that "Kalkidas came out
swinging with a claim of faith as if it was a claim of truth".
At this point I have pretty much given up on trying to correct you on this topic, you don't seem to be able to see anything other than what you want to see.
Just so you don't have to search for the last cycle again, here's what I said:
Even if the gospels were correct that Jesus rose from the dead ... that isn't evidence that he is *still* alive. It's been 2000 years ... he could easily have died again in the time since then! Even if you count the gospels as evidence that he was
Sorry, I'm interested in debating what people claim to have witnessed,
not some imaginary idea that nobody has claimed.
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 09:31:53 -0700, Mark Isaak <specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:the resurrection as a vulgar zombie-apocalypse, that positively gets in the way of spiritual or redemptive (in Tilllich's sense) interpretation, and also creates conflicts with other passages of the text, in particular, Luke 24 13-16.
On 4/15/23 8:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 10:30:18 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/13/23 8:49 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 17:34:06 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/12/23 7:50 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 09:32:23 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/11/23 1:34 AM, Burkhard wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 10:55:17?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]So effectively, you get into a debate on how conclusive or reliable
But there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.
the evidence is. Not much different really from a courtroom where >>>>>>>>> there is no conclusive *forensic* evidence and both sides will argue
whether conclusions can be drawn from *circumstantial* evidence. The
point is that it is an evidence-based argument, not just "pure faith"
as Abner claimed.
I'd say while this is a possible reading of the Gospel, it's theologically somewhere between the least satisfying and the massively blasphemous. As all attempts to naturalise religion inevitably are. What it leads to is the interpretation of
The written accounts come from oral accounts, and I have little doubt >>> that you yourself have heard oral accounts of leprechauns and Santa[snip more worthy text]
There's also the problem that claiming an evidence-based belief in >>>>>>> religion raises issues of hypocrisy. The evidence for Jesus'
resurrection is no better than that for the divine inspiration of the
Qur'an or the divinity of Rama, and is roughly on par with evidence for
a thousand or so other gods, not to mention leprechauns, bunyips, Santa
at the North Pole, etc.
What particular evidence for those things did you have in mind?
Written accounts, same as for Jesus's resurrection.
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point me in the direction of some of >>>> those writings about leprechauns, bunyips and Santa at the North Pole. >>>
Claus.
Hmm, I was hoping for something a bit better in evidence terms than
written accounts of oral mythology. I don't know anything about
bunyips ( I never heard of them until you mentioned them here) but
I've certainly never heard anyone[1] claiming to have met a leprechaun
or Santa Claus - have you?
[1] Young children excluded.
I get the impression you are trying to avoid the larger point.The Gospels have been extensively studied for over 2000 years by
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 5:05:22 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
The Gospels have been extensively studied for over 2000 years byThe gospels have not existed for __over 2000 years__.
Sorry, I'm interested in debating what people claim to have witnessed,
not some imaginary idea that nobody has claimed.
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 09:31:53 -0700, Mark Isaak <specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:the resurrection as a vulgar zombie-apocalypse, that positively gets in the way of spiritual or redemptive (in Tilllich's sense) interpretation, and also creates conflicts with other passages of the text, in particular, Luke 24 13-16.
On 4/15/23 8:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 10:30:18 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/13/23 8:49 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 17:34:06 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/12/23 7:50 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 09:32:23 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/11/23 1:34 AM, Burkhard wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 10:55:17?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]So effectively, you get into a debate on how conclusive or reliable
But there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.
the evidence is. Not much different really from a courtroom where >>>>>>>>> there is no conclusive *forensic* evidence and both sides will argue
whether conclusions can be drawn from *circumstantial* evidence. The
point is that it is an evidence-based argument, not just "pure faith"
as Abner claimed.
I'd say while this is a possible reading of the Gospel, it's theologically somewhere between the least satisfying and the massively blasphemous. As all attempts to naturalise religion inevitably are. What it leads to is the interpretation of
The written accounts come from oral accounts, and I have little doubt >>> that you yourself have heard oral accounts of leprechauns and Santa[snip more worthy text]
There's also the problem that claiming an evidence-based belief in >>>>>>> religion raises issues of hypocrisy. The evidence for Jesus'
resurrection is no better than that for the divine inspiration of the
Qur'an or the divinity of Rama, and is roughly on par with evidence for
a thousand or so other gods, not to mention leprechauns, bunyips, Santa
at the North Pole, etc.
What particular evidence for those things did you have in mind?
Written accounts, same as for Jesus's resurrection.
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point me in the direction of some of >>>> those writings about leprechauns, bunyips and Santa at the North Pole. >>>
Claus.
Hmm, I was hoping for something a bit better in evidence terms than
written accounts of oral mythology. I don't know anything about
bunyips ( I never heard of them until you mentioned them here) but
I've certainly never heard anyone[1] claiming to have met a leprechaun
or Santa Claus - have you?
[1] Young children excluded.
I get the impression you are trying to avoid the larger point.The Gospels have been extensively studied for over 2000 years by
thousands of scholars from a wide range of backgrounds, some religious
and some secular; they, along with the rest of the Bible, are probably
the most studied ever piece of literature. There is clearly a lack of consensus in many areas of them but that doesn't change the fact that
they are a serious and significant body of work.
You attempt to trivialise them by seeking to present them in the same category as leprechauns, bunyips and Santa Claus. That doesn't make
any "larger point" - it simply shows your antagonism towards religious belief and the futility of trying to have a rational debate with you
on religious issues.
First,
as Burkhard posted, the existence of leprechauns has been taken
seriously in historical times. Second and more important is the "etc."
I included in my original comment. The standard of evidence that "I >believe it because an anonymous source said it, and someone else wrote
it down" could also be applied, off the top of my head, to thunderbirds, >chupacabras, Bigfoot, ET aliens, witches, dragons, kobolds, mermaids.
No doubt anthropologists could extend the list to thousands of items.
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 5:05:22?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:the resurrection as a vulgar zombie-apocalypse, that positively gets in the way of spiritual or redemptive (in Tilllich's sense) interpretation, and also creates conflicts with other passages of the text, in particular, Luke 24 13-16.
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 09:31:53 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/15/23 8:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 10:30:18 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/13/23 8:49 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 17:34:06 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/12/23 7:50 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 09:32:23 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/11/23 1:34 AM, Burkhard wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 10:55:17?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]So effectively, you get into a debate on how conclusive or reliable
But there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.
the evidence is. Not much different really from a courtroom where >> >>>>>>>>> there is no conclusive *forensic* evidence and both sides will argue
whether conclusions can be drawn from *circumstantial* evidence. The
point is that it is an evidence-based argument, not just "pure faith"
as Abner claimed.
I'd say while this is a possible reading of the Gospel, it's theologically somewhere between the least satisfying and the massively blasphemous. As all attempts to naturalise religion inevitably are. What it leads to is the interpretation of
The Gospels have been extensively studied for over 2000 years byThe written accounts come from oral accounts, and I have little doubt[snip more worthy text]
There's also the problem that claiming an evidence-based belief in >> >>>>>>> religion raises issues of hypocrisy. The evidence for Jesus'
resurrection is no better than that for the divine inspiration of the
Qur'an or the divinity of Rama, and is roughly on par with evidence for
a thousand or so other gods, not to mention leprechauns, bunyips, Santa
at the North Pole, etc.
What particular evidence for those things did you have in mind?
Written accounts, same as for Jesus's resurrection.
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point me in the direction of some of
those writings about leprechauns, bunyips and Santa at the North Pole. >> >>>
that you yourself have heard oral accounts of leprechauns and Santa
Claus.
Hmm, I was hoping for something a bit better in evidence terms than
written accounts of oral mythology. I don't know anything about
bunyips ( I never heard of them until you mentioned them here) but
I've certainly never heard anyone[1] claiming to have met a leprechaun
or Santa Claus - have you?
[1] Young children excluded.
I get the impression you are trying to avoid the larger point.
The gospels have not existed for __over 2000 years__.
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:35:20?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:the resurrection as a vulgar zombie-apocalypse, that positively gets in the way of spiritual or redemptive (in Tilllich's sense) interpretation, and also creates conflicts with other passages of the text, in particular, Luke 24 13-16.
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 10:30:18 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/13/23 8:49 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 17:34:06 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/12/23 7:50 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 09:32:23 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/11/23 1:34 AM, Burkhard wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 10:55:17?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote: >> >>>>>>>> [...]
But there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.So effectively, you get into a debate on how conclusive or reliable >> >>>>>>> the evidence is. Not much different really from a courtroom where
there is no conclusive *forensic* evidence and both sides will argue >> >>>>>>> whether conclusions can be drawn from *circumstantial* evidence. The >> >>>>>>> point is that it is an evidence-based argument, not just "pure faith"
as Abner claimed.
I'd say while this is a possible reading of the Gospel, it's theologically somewhere between the least satisfying and the massively blasphemous. As all attempts to naturalise religion inevitably are. What it leads to is the interpretation of
.....[snip more worthy text]
There's also the problem that claiming an evidence-based belief in
religion raises issues of hypocrisy. The evidence for Jesus'
resurrection is no better than that for the divine inspiration of the >> >>>>> Qur'an or the divinity of Rama, and is roughly on par with evidence for
a thousand or so other gods, not to mention leprechauns, bunyips, Santa
at the North Pole, etc.
What particular evidence for those things did you have in mind?
Written accounts, same as for Jesus's resurrection.
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point me in the direction of some of
those writings about leprechauns, bunyips and Santa at the North Pole.
The written accounts come from oral accounts, and I have little doubt
that you yourself have heard oral accounts of leprechauns and Santa
Claus.
Hmm, I was hoping for something a bit better in evidence terms than
written accounts of oral mythology.
Written accounts of oral mythology....Sounds like the gospels. None of the gospel authors signed their work. There is no explicit claim in any of them that the author is recording his own eyewitness testimony.
To the extent that any Christian believes that the gospels are eyewitness accounts they are going on the same sort of inferences that lead the Muslim to conclude that the Quran was dictated by God.
Like the belief that the Quran was divinely dictated, the identification of the gospel authors with specific individuals is a matter of religious tradition, not well-documented provenance. Luke, in fact, reports that he is writing down what others toldhim about the events.
On the other hand lots of people claim to have seen the resurrected Elvis or to have been abducted by aliens. If you are proposing a general principle of evidence that direct eyewitness accounts are more believable than written accounts of oralmythology, then the evidence for Elvis' resurrection is stronger than for Jesus's resurrection.
If you are willing to accept the accounts of miracles in old religious texts as evidence for those miracles, then miracles reported in many religions are as well (or poorly) evidenced as those in your particular religion.
I don't know anything about
bunyips ( I never heard of them until you mentioned them here) but
I've certainly never heard anyone[1] claiming to have met a leprechaun
or Santa Claus - have you?
For bunyips, you may need to travel to Australia. Or ask a[1] Young children excluded.
librarian and read the written accounts. (The Wikipedia article has
several references. I don't remember which of my several Australian
myth books I encountered them in.)
The reason I keep hounding Peter is that we all have our flashpoints
and two of mine are people who try to besmirch my character by using
blatant lies and people who try to take the high ground on truth and
morality whilst propagating blatant lies themselves. Peter qualifies
on both scores.
Martin Harran wrote:
Sorry, I'm interested in debating what people claim to have witnessed,
not some imaginary idea that nobody has claimed.
Nobody claims that Jesus Christ is still alive today?
Interesting. I could have sworn that Kalkidas claimed it in the opening post, and it was that claim that I addressed. I didn't say one word about the Resurrection ... that was all you, and that's why all your claims about my having said anything aboutthe Resurrection were completely off-target.
My point, from the beginning, was that there is no evidence that Jesus Christ is still alive - which was the claim that Kalkidas actually made.
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 17:53:35 -0700 (PDT), Abnerstating the creationist position is far more respectable than deception aimed at hiding it.
<abnerinfinity@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
There are other T.O. posters who support ID. I have asked each of
them how their designer could have done all the things they claim it
did without it being a supernatural entity. If so, that would
logically make their ID a form of Creationism in disguise. My
experience is all cdesign proponentsists either ignore the question
altogether, or admit they presume their designer is God.
I agree with almost all of your analysis. In my experience, ID is just a false skin stretched thin over creationism; the slightest scratch and it splits open, revealing the creationist within. It is an attempt at respectability, but IMO honestly
FWIW, I have said numerous times that the aspect that I as a Christian
find most detestable about ID is that they deny in public that they
are seeking to promote the Christian God as the "intelligent designer"
but openly admit to their followers that that is exactly what they are
doing. I regard lies and deception as the antithesis of Christian
belief.
No, nobody has claimed that he was resurrected and then died again as
you suggested *could* be the case.
rOn Sat, 15 Apr 2023 09:47:33 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:the resurrection as a vulgar zombie-apocalypse, that positively gets in the way of spiritual or redemptive (in Tilllich's sense) interpretation, and also creates conflicts with other passages of the text, in particular, Luke 24 13-16.
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 11:35:20?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 10:30:18 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/13/23 8:49 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 17:34:06 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/12/23 7:50 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 09:32:23 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/11/23 1:34 AM, Burkhard wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 10:55:17?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]So effectively, you get into a debate on how conclusive or reliable
But there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.
the evidence is. Not much different really from a courtroom where >> >>>>>>> there is no conclusive *forensic* evidence and both sides will argue
whether conclusions can be drawn from *circumstantial* evidence. The
point is that it is an evidence-based argument, not just "pure faith"
as Abner claimed.
I'd say while this is a possible reading of the Gospel, it's theologically somewhere between the least satisfying and the massively blasphemous. As all attempts to naturalise religion inevitably are. What it leads to is the interpretation of
.....The written accounts come from oral accounts, and I have little doubt[snip more worthy text]
There's also the problem that claiming an evidence-based belief in >> >>>>> religion raises issues of hypocrisy. The evidence for Jesus'
resurrection is no better than that for the divine inspiration of the
Qur'an or the divinity of Rama, and is roughly on par with evidence for
a thousand or so other gods, not to mention leprechauns, bunyips, Santa
at the North Pole, etc.
What particular evidence for those things did you have in mind?
Written accounts, same as for Jesus's resurrection.
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point me in the direction of some of
those writings about leprechauns, bunyips and Santa at the North Pole. >> >
that you yourself have heard oral accounts of leprechauns and Santa
Claus.
Hmm, I was hoping for something a bit better in evidence terms than
written accounts of oral mythology.
Written accounts of oral mythology....Sounds like the gospels. None of the gospel authors signed their work. There is no explicit claim in any of them that the author is recording his own eyewitness testimony.John claims eyewitness testimony twice in his Gospel and 3 times in
the first 3 verses of his first letter (though those last references
are to Jesus in a wider context than specific to his resurrection).
Not everyone accepts John as the actual writer but even if he isn't,
there is no reason to doubt that the writer was giving John's direct testimony. I'm not sure about the USA but in the UK and Ireland, the recorded eye witness testimony of a dead person is admissible as
evidence in a court of law; me telling something I was told by my
father which he in turn heard from his father - the equivalent of oral mythology - would not be admitted.
Most scholars think the Gospels were *probably* written between 60 AD
and 110 AD; Jesus is thought to have died between 30 AD and 33 AD so
the Gospels were likely *published* between 30 and 80 years after his
death. Deduct from that the time the authors spent researching and
preparing their accounts and there was considerable overlap in time
between the authors and contemporaries of Jesus; that includes St John
who scholars generally believe died around 100 AD. There is no reason
to think that they did not talk to and question eyewitnesses and other contemporaries of Jesus. I wouldn't place too much significance on
them not stating that explicitly, these accounts were written to
spread the message of Jesus rather than as some sort of biography and certainly not written as academic texts with citations required.
To the extent that any Christian believes that the gospels are eyewitness accounts they are going on the same sort of inferences that lead the Muslim to conclude that the Quran was dictated by God.Are there is any eye witness to that claim? I've already asked if is
even explicitly stated in the Qur'an and nobody has claimed that it
is.
told him about the events.Like the belief that the Quran was divinely dictated, the identification of the gospel authors with specific individuals is a matter of religious tradition, not well-documented provenance. Luke, in fact, reports that he is writing down what others
He clearly found their accounts credible. He also refers toSure, I'm not doubting Luke's sincerity.
previously written accounts which would have been even closer to the
time of Jesus than the Gospels as discussed above.
Another person who tends to get forgotten in these accounts is St.mythology, then the evidence for Elvis' resurrection is stronger than for Jesus's resurrection.
Paul. He was not an eyewitness to any of the events relating to Jesus
but he was someone who was utterly opposed to them but he directly interacted with the eyewitnesses and came to believe their accounts.
On the other hand lots of people claim to have seen the resurrected Elvis or to have been abducted by aliens. If you are proposing a general principle of evidence that direct eyewitness accounts are more believable than written accounts of oral
I've already dealt with Elvis claims in my response to Burkhard. I
pointed out one piece of circumstantial evidence is only of value when
it is supported by other evidence.
Jesus foretold his Resurrection,The evidence we have is that in a book written decades AFTER the events, Jesus is reported to have predicted the events. Fulfilled prophesies are not particularly convincing when the documentation of the prophesy occurs after the event foretold.
I'm not aware of Elvis doing that.
There is also the question of
significance - the Resurrection opens up a whole new vista and sense
of purpose but sightings of Elvis just lead to "so what, even if it
were true?"
Another factor that comes into it is that to the best of my limited knowledge, nobody who has claimed to see Elvis knew him intimately
when he was still alive; those whom the Gospels state to have seen
Jesus were people who were very close to Jesus before his crucifixion, spending several years in his company. I would regard them as somewhat
more credible than some housewife who never even met Elvis but is
convinced that she saw him filling his tank at her local petrol
station.
If you are willing to accept the accounts of miracles in old religious texts as evidence for those miracles, then miracles reported in many religions are as well (or poorly) evidenced as those in your particular religion.I keep hearing that but it seems odd to me that nobody has referred to evidence that is comparable to the evidence in the Gospels.
I don't know anything about
bunyips ( I never heard of them until you mentioned them here) but
I've certainly never heard anyone[1] claiming to have met a leprechaun
or Santa Claus - have you?
For bunyips, you may need to travel to Australia. Or ask a[1] Young children excluded.
librarian and read the written accounts. (The Wikipedia article has
several references. I don't remember which of my several Australian
myth books I encountered them in.)
rOn Sat, 15 Apr 2023 09:47:33 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Written accounts of oral mythology....Sounds like the gospels. None of the gospel authors signed their work. There is no explicit claim in any of them that the author is recording his own eyewitness testimony.
If you are willing to accept the accounts of miracles in old religious texts as evidence for those miracles, then miracles reported in many religions are as well (or poorly) evidenced as those in your particular religion.
I keep hearing that but it seems odd to me that nobody has referred to evidence that is comparable to the evidence in the Gospels.
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 09:31:53 -0700, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:the resurrection as a vulgar zombie-apocalypse, that positively gets in the way of spiritual or redemptive (in Tilllich's sense) interpretation, and also creates conflicts with other passages of the text, in particular, Luke 24 13-16.
On 4/15/23 8:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 10:30:18 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/13/23 8:49 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 17:34:06 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/12/23 7:50 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 09:32:23 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/11/23 1:34 AM, Burkhard wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 10:55:17?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> [...]
But there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.So effectively, you get into a debate on how conclusive or reliable >>>>>>>>>> the evidence is. Not much different really from a courtroom where >>>>>>>>>> there is no conclusive *forensic* evidence and both sides will argue >>>>>>>>>> whether conclusions can be drawn from *circumstantial* evidence. The >>>>>>>>>> point is that it is an evidence-based argument, not just "pure faith"
as Abner claimed.
I'd say while this is a possible reading of the Gospel, it's theologically somewhere between the least satisfying and the massively blasphemous. As all attempts to naturalise religion inevitably are. What it leads to is the interpretation of
The written accounts come from oral accounts, and I have little doubt[snip more worthy text]
There's also the problem that claiming an evidence-based belief in >>>>>>>> religion raises issues of hypocrisy. The evidence for Jesus'
resurrection is no better than that for the divine inspiration of the >>>>>>>> Qur'an or the divinity of Rama, and is roughly on par with evidence for
a thousand or so other gods, not to mention leprechauns, bunyips, Santa
at the North Pole, etc.
What particular evidence for those things did you have in mind?
Written accounts, same as for Jesus's resurrection.
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point me in the direction of some of
those writings about leprechauns, bunyips and Santa at the North Pole. >>>>
that you yourself have heard oral accounts of leprechauns and Santa
Claus.
Hmm, I was hoping for something a bit better in evidence terms than
written accounts of oral mythology. I don't know anything about
bunyips ( I never heard of them until you mentioned them here) but
I've certainly never heard anyone[1] claiming to have met a leprechaun
or Santa Claus - have you?
[1] Young children excluded.
I get the impression you are trying to avoid the larger point.
First,
as Burkhard posted, the existence of leprechauns has been taken
seriously in historical times. Second and more important is the "etc."
I included in my original comment. The standard of evidence that "I
believe it because an anonymous source said it, and someone else wrote
it down" could also be applied, off the top of my head, to thunderbirds,
chupacabras, Bigfoot, ET aliens, witches, dragons, kobolds, mermaids.
No doubt anthropologists could extend the list to thousands of items.
The Gospels have been extensively studied for over 2000 years by
thousands of scholars from a wide range of backgrounds, some religious
and some secular; they, along with the rest of the Bible, are probably
the most studied ever piece of literature. There is clearly a lack of consensus in many areas of them but that doesn't change the fact that
they are a serious and significant body of work.
You attempt to trivialise them by seeking to present them in the same category as leprechauns, bunyips and Santa Claus.
That doesn't make
any "larger point" - it simply shows your antagonism towards religious
belief and the futility of trying to have a rational debate with you
on religious issues.
Martin Harran wrote:
The reason I keep hounding Peter is that we all have our flashpoints
and two of mine are people who try to besmirch my character by using
blatant lies and people who try to take the high ground on truth and
morality whilst propagating blatant lies themselves. Peter qualifies
on both scores.
Agreed with that as well. This is one of the rare cases where I'm agreeing with you and Jillery in the same thread. :)
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 17:53:35 -0700 (PDT), Abnerstating the creationist position is far more respectable than deception aimed at hiding it.
<abnerinfinity@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
There are other T.O. posters who support ID. I have asked each of
them how their designer could have done all the things they claim it
did without it being a supernatural entity. If so, that would
logically make their ID a form of Creationism in disguise. My
experience is all cdesign proponentsists either ignore the question
altogether, or admit they presume their designer is God.
I agree with almost all of your analysis. In my experience, ID is just a false skin stretched thin over creationism; the slightest scratch and it splits open, revealing the creationist within. It is an attempt at respectability, but IMO honestly
FWIW, I have said numerous times that the aspect that I as a Christian
find most detestable about ID is that they deny in public that they
are seeking to promote the Christian God as the "intelligent designer"
but openly admit to their followers that that is exactly what they are
doing. I regard lies and deception as the antithesis of Christian
belief.
On 4/15/23 8:17 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 10:17:16 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/13/23 9:01 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 17:30:29 -0700, Mark Isaak
[...]
Two question about your standards:
1. Do you believe that the Qur'an was dictated to Mohammed by divine agent?
I doubt it very much, just as I don't believe that the Bible was
dictated by God as some Christians believe so no difference in my
standards there.
That is the answer I was expecting. (For what it's worth, I agree with
you.)
2. Do you acknowledge that the evidence for such divine dictation is >>>>> equal or better than evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ?
I'm not aware of any evidence of such divine diction for either the
Qur'an or the Bible as far as I am aware, that idea of divine diction
is the opinion of people who have read the books, not the people
directly involved in them[1]. If you have any other evidence, I'll
have a look at it if you point me in the direction of it.
===============================
[1] There is considerable evidence that directly contradicts the idea
of the Bible having been dictated but I don't know if that applies to
the Qur'an
That does not answer the question, which asked about evidence for the
resurrection as described by the Bible (not for the dictation, or any
other sourcing, of the Bible).
I'm struggling to see your point here. You asked me if evidence for
such divine dictation is equal or better than evidence for the
resurrection of Jesus Christ, I told you I'm not aware of *any*
evidence for divine diction (and you seem to agree). How can I
evaluate something that I don't even think exists, let alone know
anything about ?
Are you aware of any evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ?
As I understand, there is evidence claimed for divine dictation for the
Qur'an, to wit, that Mohammed was semi-literate and could not have
composed something so beautiful on his own.
At best, that's an argument from logic, not evidence. Even if it were
true, I'm not sure how it's supposed to support divine diction when
muslims don't belive Muhammed to be God.
It's evidence that the writing of the Qur'an was a miracle.
On 4/16/23 2:00 AM, Martin Harran wrote:the resurrection as a vulgar zombie-apocalypse, that positively gets in the way of spiritual or redemptive (in Tilllich's sense) interpretation, and also creates conflicts with other passages of the text, in particular, Luke 24 13-16.
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 09:31:53 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/15/23 8:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 10:30:18 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/13/23 8:49 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 17:34:06 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/12/23 7:50 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 09:32:23 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/11/23 1:34 AM, Burkhard wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 10:55:17?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> [...]
But there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.So effectively, you get into a debate on how conclusive or reliable >>>>>>>>>>> the evidence is. Not much different really from a courtroom where >>>>>>>>>>> there is no conclusive *forensic* evidence and both sides will argue
whether conclusions can be drawn from *circumstantial* evidence. The
point is that it is an evidence-based argument, not just "pure faith"
as Abner claimed.
I'd say while this is a possible reading of the Gospel, it's theologically somewhere between the least satisfying and the massively blasphemous. As all attempts to naturalise religion inevitably are. What it leads to is the interpretation of
The written accounts come from oral accounts, and I have little doubt >>>>> that you yourself have heard oral accounts of leprechauns and SantaWritten accounts, same as for Jesus's resurrection.[snip more worthy text]
There's also the problem that claiming an evidence-based belief in >>>>>>>>> religion raises issues of hypocrisy. The evidence for Jesus' >>>>>>>>> resurrection is no better than that for the divine inspiration of the >>>>>>>>> Qur'an or the divinity of Rama, and is roughly on par with evidence for
a thousand or so other gods, not to mention leprechauns, bunyips, Santa
at the North Pole, etc.
What particular evidence for those things did you have in mind? >>>>>>>
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point me in the direction of some of >>>>>> those writings about leprechauns, bunyips and Santa at the North Pole. >>>>>
Claus.
Hmm, I was hoping for something a bit better in evidence terms than
written accounts of oral mythology. I don't know anything about
bunyips ( I never heard of them until you mentioned them here) but
I've certainly never heard anyone[1] claiming to have met a leprechaun >>>> or Santa Claus - have you?
[1] Young children excluded.
I get the impression you are trying to avoid the larger point.
First,
as Burkhard posted, the existence of leprechauns has been taken
seriously in historical times. Second and more important is the "etc."
I included in my original comment. The standard of evidence that "I
believe it because an anonymous source said it, and someone else wrote
it down" could also be applied, off the top of my head, to thunderbirds, >>> chupacabras, Bigfoot, ET aliens, witches, dragons, kobolds, mermaids.
No doubt anthropologists could extend the list to thousands of items.
The Gospels have been extensively studied for over 2000 years by
thousands of scholars from a wide range of backgrounds, some religious
and some secular; they, along with the rest of the Bible, are probably
the most studied ever piece of literature. There is clearly a lack of
consensus in many areas of them but that doesn't change the fact that
they are a serious and significant body of work.
Tales of Coyote, the North American trickster, have also been
extensively studied and are a serious and significant body of work.
They are mainly an oral tradition so were not written down until
recently, but some of them probably are older than the Gospels. That
the study of Coyote tales is not as extensive as that of the Gospels
owes mainly to vagaries of history, especially of conquests and spread
of technology, and cannot easily be laid on the relative merits of the >stories. Coyote, after all, is another character who has resurrected.
You attempt to trivialise them by seeking to present them in the same
category as leprechauns, bunyips and Santa Claus.
On the contrary, in terms of value as evidence, the Gospels are
*exactly* in the same category as leprechauns, bunyips, and mermaids.
(Santa Claus was a poor choice as an example, being much *much* too >complicated.) I emphasize that my entire argument is and has been *in
terms of value as evidence*. I do not dispute in the least that the
Gospels have a great deal of value in other terms, especially religious >terms.
When you claim the Gospels as evidence, *you* implicitly bring in the
myriad other folklore traditions and raise the question of why only that
one, out of thousands, should qualify as evidence. It makes no sense to
me that your favorite religion deserves extraordinary epistemological >consideration that others don't. I have not seen anything from you to
help make sense of it.
That doesn't make
any "larger point" - it simply shows your antagonism towards religious
belief and the futility of trying to have a rational debate with you
on religious issues.
I think your problem with me (in this case) is not my antagonism towards >religion, but my appreciation of more than one religion, and of
non-religious abstract ideas too.
I suggest you consider, in addition to the question I mention two
paragraphs up, exactly what the values of the Gospels are, and where
value as evidence ranks on the list.
On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 08:50:31 -0700, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:the resurrection as a vulgar zombie-apocalypse, that positively gets in the way of spiritual or redemptive (in Tilllich's sense) interpretation, and also creates conflicts with other passages of the text, in particular, Luke 24 13-16.
On 4/16/23 2:00 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 09:31:53 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/15/23 8:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 10:30:18 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/13/23 8:49 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 17:34:06 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/12/23 7:50 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 09:32:23 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/11/23 1:34 AM, Burkhard wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 10:55:17?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]So effectively, you get into a debate on how conclusive or reliable
But there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.
the evidence is. Not much different really from a courtroom where >>>>>>>>>>>> there is no conclusive *forensic* evidence and both sides will argue
whether conclusions can be drawn from *circumstantial* evidence. The
point is that it is an evidence-based argument, not just "pure faith"
as Abner claimed.
I'd say while this is a possible reading of the Gospel, it's theologically somewhere between the least satisfying and the massively blasphemous. As all attempts to naturalise religion inevitably are. What it leads to is the interpretation of
The written accounts come from oral accounts, and I have little doubt >>>>>> that you yourself have heard oral accounts of leprechauns and Santa >>>>>> Claus.Written accounts, same as for Jesus's resurrection.[snip more worthy text]
There's also the problem that claiming an evidence-based belief in >>>>>>>>>> religion raises issues of hypocrisy. The evidence for Jesus' >>>>>>>>>> resurrection is no better than that for the divine inspiration of the
Qur'an or the divinity of Rama, and is roughly on par with evidence for
a thousand or so other gods, not to mention leprechauns, bunyips, Santa
at the North Pole, etc.
What particular evidence for those things did you have in mind? >>>>>>>>
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point me in the direction of some of >>>>>>> those writings about leprechauns, bunyips and Santa at the North Pole. >>>>>>
Hmm, I was hoping for something a bit better in evidence terms than
written accounts of oral mythology. I don't know anything about
bunyips ( I never heard of them until you mentioned them here) but
I've certainly never heard anyone[1] claiming to have met a leprechaun >>>>> or Santa Claus - have you?
[1] Young children excluded.
I get the impression you are trying to avoid the larger point.
First,
as Burkhard posted, the existence of leprechauns has been taken
seriously in historical times. Second and more important is the "etc." >>>> I included in my original comment. The standard of evidence that "I
believe it because an anonymous source said it, and someone else wrote >>>> it down" could also be applied, off the top of my head, to thunderbirds, >>>> chupacabras, Bigfoot, ET aliens, witches, dragons, kobolds, mermaids.
No doubt anthropologists could extend the list to thousands of items.
The Gospels have been extensively studied for over 2000 years by
thousands of scholars from a wide range of backgrounds, some religious
and some secular; they, along with the rest of the Bible, are probably
the most studied ever piece of literature. There is clearly a lack of
consensus in many areas of them but that doesn't change the fact that
they are a serious and significant body of work.
Tales of Coyote, the North American trickster, have also been
extensively studied and are a serious and significant body of work.
They are mainly an oral tradition so were not written down until
recently, but some of them probably are older than the Gospels. That
the study of Coyote tales is not as extensive as that of the Gospels
owes mainly to vagaries of history, especially of conquests and spread
of technology, and cannot easily be laid on the relative merits of the
stories. Coyote, after all, is another character who has resurrected.
Please point me to a scholarly work - just one will do - that
concludes that Coyote ever existed. (Or leprechauns or bunyips or
Santa Claus)
You attempt to trivialise them by seeking to present them in the same
category as leprechauns, bunyips and Santa Claus.
On the contrary, in terms of value as evidence, the Gospels are
*exactly* in the same category as leprechauns, bunyips, and mermaids.
(Santa Claus was a poor choice as an example, being much *much* too
complicated.) I emphasize that my entire argument is and has been *in
terms of value as evidence*. I do not dispute in the least that the
Gospels have a great deal of value in other terms, especially religious
terms.
When you claim the Gospels as evidence, *you* implicitly bring in the
myriad other folklore traditions and raise the question of why only that
one, out of thousands, should qualify as evidence. It makes no sense to
me that your favorite religion deserves extraordinary epistemological
consideration that others don't. I have not seen anything from you to
help make sense of it.
That doesn't make
any "larger point" - it simply shows your antagonism towards religious
belief and the futility of trying to have a rational debate with you
on religious issues.
I think your problem with me (in this case) is not my antagonism towards
religion, but my appreciation of more than one religion, and of
non-religious abstract ideas too.
I suggest you consider, in addition to the question I mention two
paragraphs up, exactly what the values of the Gospels are, and where
value as evidence ranks on the list.
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 04:39:13 -0700 (PDT), Abnerto any position other than wanting to get a rise out of people.
<abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Peter wrote:
You've reminded me that I once caught you listing me as a "creationist." Or was that a different person in talk.origins named Abner?
I assure you, I am about as far from being a creationist as anyone here, and I'd like to know who or what it was
that ever put that idea in your head.
I had gotten that impression from reading your posts over the years. I admit that it is entirely possible that you are not a creationist, but the most likely alternative IMO is that you are trolling for reactions. Trolls don't really hold allegiance
If you wish, I will switch my mental category for you from 'probably a creationist' to 'probably a troll'. Based on extensive reading of your posts, I'm afraid those are the two options I have left for you.
Enjoy your weekend posting break!
Mr. Nyikos distinguishes between ID and Creationism based on his
speculation that ID's designer could have been a naturally evolved civilization prior to life on Earth aka Directed Panspermia.
Logically, this begs the question of said designer's origin, and
eliminates said designer of fine-tuning the Universe,
which Mr. Nyikos also promotes. He avoids these logical conundrums
by discussing DP, ID, and fine-tuning in temporally separate threads.
There are other T.O. posters who support ID. I have asked each of
them how their designer could have done all the things they claim it
did without it being a supernatural entity.
If so, that would
logically make their ID a form of Creationism in disguise. My
experience is all cdesign proponentsists either ignore the question altogether, or admit they presume their designer is God.
On 4/17/23 5:01 AM, Martin Harran wrote:the resurrection as a vulgar zombie-apocalypse, that positively gets in the way of spiritual or redemptive (in Tilllich's sense) interpretation, and also creates conflicts with other passages of the text, in particular, Luke 24 13-16.
On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 08:50:31 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/16/23 2:00 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 09:31:53 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/15/23 8:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 10:30:18 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/13/23 8:49 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 17:34:06 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/12/23 7:50 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 09:32:23 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/11/23 1:34 AM, Burkhard wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 10:55:17?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]So effectively, you get into a debate on how conclusive or reliable
But there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.
the evidence is. Not much different really from a courtroom where >>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no conclusive *forensic* evidence and both sides will argue
whether conclusions can be drawn from *circumstantial* evidence. The
point is that it is an evidence-based argument, not just "pure faith"
as Abner claimed.
I'd say while this is a possible reading of the Gospel, it's theologically somewhere between the least satisfying and the massively blasphemous. As all attempts to naturalise religion inevitably are. What it leads to is the interpretation of
The Gospels have been extensively studied for over 2000 years byThe written accounts come from oral accounts, and I have little doubt >>>>>>> that you yourself have heard oral accounts of leprechauns and Santa >>>>>>> Claus.Written accounts, same as for Jesus's resurrection.[snip more worthy text]
There's also the problem that claiming an evidence-based belief in >>>>>>>>>>> religion raises issues of hypocrisy. The evidence for Jesus' >>>>>>>>>>> resurrection is no better than that for the divine inspiration of the
Qur'an or the divinity of Rama, and is roughly on par with evidence for
a thousand or so other gods, not to mention leprechauns, bunyips, Santa
at the North Pole, etc.
What particular evidence for those things did you have in mind? >>>>>>>>>
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point me in the direction of some of >>>>>>>> those writings about leprechauns, bunyips and Santa at the North Pole. >>>>>>>
Hmm, I was hoping for something a bit better in evidence terms than >>>>>> written accounts of oral mythology. I don't know anything about
bunyips ( I never heard of them until you mentioned them here) but >>>>>> I've certainly never heard anyone[1] claiming to have met a leprechaun >>>>>> or Santa Claus - have you?
[1] Young children excluded.
I get the impression you are trying to avoid the larger point.
First,
as Burkhard posted, the existence of leprechauns has been taken
seriously in historical times. Second and more important is the "etc." >>>>> I included in my original comment. The standard of evidence that "I >>>>> believe it because an anonymous source said it, and someone else wrote >>>>> it down" could also be applied, off the top of my head, to thunderbirds, >>>>> chupacabras, Bigfoot, ET aliens, witches, dragons, kobolds, mermaids. >>>>> No doubt anthropologists could extend the list to thousands of items. >>>>
thousands of scholars from a wide range of backgrounds, some religious >>>> and some secular; they, along with the rest of the Bible, are probably >>>> the most studied ever piece of literature. There is clearly a lack of
consensus in many areas of them but that doesn't change the fact that
they are a serious and significant body of work.
Tales of Coyote, the North American trickster, have also been
extensively studied and are a serious and significant body of work.
They are mainly an oral tradition so were not written down until
recently, but some of them probably are older than the Gospels. That
the study of Coyote tales is not as extensive as that of the Gospels
owes mainly to vagaries of history, especially of conquests and spread
of technology, and cannot easily be laid on the relative merits of the
stories. Coyote, after all, is another character who has resurrected.
Please point me to a scholarly work - just one will do - that
concludes that Coyote ever existed. (Or leprechauns or bunyips or
Santa Claus)
Exactly my point. Scholars recognize that stories are not evidence for >existence.
You attempt to trivialise them by seeking to present them in the same
category as leprechauns, bunyips and Santa Claus.
On the contrary, in terms of value as evidence, the Gospels are
*exactly* in the same category as leprechauns, bunyips, and mermaids.
(Santa Claus was a poor choice as an example, being much *much* too
complicated.) I emphasize that my entire argument is and has been *in
terms of value as evidence*. I do not dispute in the least that the
Gospels have a great deal of value in other terms, especially religious
terms.
When you claim the Gospels as evidence, *you* implicitly bring in the
myriad other folklore traditions and raise the question of why only that >>> one, out of thousands, should qualify as evidence. It makes no sense to >>> me that your favorite religion deserves extraordinary epistemological
consideration that others don't. I have not seen anything from you to
help make sense of it.
That doesn't make
any "larger point" - it simply shows your antagonism towards religious >>>> belief and the futility of trying to have a rational debate with you
on religious issues.
I think your problem with me (in this case) is not my antagonism towards >>> religion, but my appreciation of more than one religion, and of
non-religious abstract ideas too.
I suggest you consider, in addition to the question I mention two
paragraphs up, exactly what the values of the Gospels are, and where
value as evidence ranks on the list.
jillery wrote:
There are other T.O. posters who support ID. I have asked each of
them how their designer could have done all the things they claim it
did without it being a supernatural entity. If so, that would
logically make their ID a form of Creationism in disguise. My
experience is all cdesign proponentsists either ignore the question altogether, or admit they presume their designer is God.
I agree with almost all of your analysis. In my experience, ID is just a false skin stretched thin over creationism; the slightest scratch and it splits open, revealing the creationist within. It is an attempt at respectability, but IMO honestlystating the creationist position is far more respectable than deception aimed at hiding it.
On 4/17/23 5:01 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 08:50:31 -0700, Mark Isaak <specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/16/23 2:00 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 09:31:53 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/15/23 8:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 10:30:18 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/13/23 8:49 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 17:34:06 -0700, Mark Isaak
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point me in the direction of some of >>>>>>> those writings about leprechauns, bunyips and Santa at the North Pole.
The written accounts come from oral accounts, and I have little doubt >>>>>> that you yourself have heard oral accounts of leprechauns and Santa >>>>>> Claus.
Hmm, I was hoping for something a bit better in evidence terms than >>>>> written accounts of oral mythology. I don't know anything about
bunyips ( I never heard of them until you mentioned them here) but >>>>> I've certainly never heard anyone[1] claiming to have met a leprechaun >>>>> or Santa Claus - have you?
The Gospels have been extensively studied for over 2000 years by
[1] Young children excluded.
I get the impression you are trying to avoid the larger point.
First,
as Burkhard posted, the existence of leprechauns has been taken
seriously in historical times. Second and more important is the "etc." >>>> I included in my original comment. The standard of evidence that "I >>>> believe it because an anonymous source said it, and someone else wrote >>>> it down" could also be applied, off the top of my head, to thunderbirds,
chupacabras, Bigfoot, ET aliens, witches, dragons, kobolds, mermaids. >>>> No doubt anthropologists could extend the list to thousands of items. >>>
thousands of scholars from a wide range of backgrounds, some religious >>> and some secular; they, along with the rest of the Bible, are probably >>> the most studied ever piece of literature. There is clearly a lack of >>> consensus in many areas of them but that doesn't change the fact that >>> they are a serious and significant body of work.
Tales of Coyote, the North American trickster, have also been
extensively studied and are a serious and significant body of work.
They are mainly an oral tradition so were not written down until
recently, but some of them probably are older than the Gospels. That
the study of Coyote tales is not as extensive as that of the Gospels
owes mainly to vagaries of history, especially of conquests and spread
of technology, and cannot easily be laid on the relative merits of the
stories. Coyote, after all, is another character who has resurrected.
Please point me to a scholarly work - just one will do - that
concludes that Coyote ever existed. (Or leprechauns or bunyips or
Santa Claus)
Exactly my point. Scholars recognize that stories are not evidence for existence.
You attempt to trivialise them by seeking to present them in the same >>> category as leprechauns, bunyips and Santa Claus.
On the contrary, in terms of value as evidence, the Gospels are
*exactly* in the same category as leprechauns, bunyips, and mermaids.
(Santa Claus was a poor choice as an example, being much *much* too
complicated.) I emphasize that my entire argument is and has been *in
terms of value as evidence*. I do not dispute in the least that the
Gospels have a great deal of value in other terms, especially religious >> terms.
When you claim the Gospels as evidence, *you* implicitly bring in the
myriad other folklore traditions and raise the question of why only that >> one, out of thousands, should qualify as evidence. It makes no sense to >> me that your favorite religion deserves extraordinary epistemological
consideration that others don't. I have not seen anything from you to
help make sense of it.
That doesn't make
any "larger point" - it simply shows your antagonism towards religious >>> belief and the futility of trying to have a rational debate with you
on religious issues.
I think your problem with me (in this case) is not my antagonism towards >> religion, but my appreciation of more than one religion, and of
non-religious abstract ideas too.
I suggest you consider, in addition to the question I mention two
paragraphs up, exactly what the values of the Gospels are, and where
value as evidence ranks on the list.
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
I'll be doing something below that irritates some people here, Mark:
I'll be replying to earlier text -- but ONLY from you, none from Martin.
Happy Easter, everyone!-------
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 8:55:21?PM UTC-4, Abner wrote:
jillery wrote:
There are other T.O. posters who support ID. I have asked each of
them how their designer could have done all the things they claim it
did without it being a supernatural entity. If so, that would
logically make their ID a form of Creationism in disguise. My
experience is all cdesign proponentsists either ignore the question
altogether, or admit they presume their designer is God.
See my reply to jillery a few minutes ago, correcting a number of inaccuracies.
Mostly to blame for them is the fact that I haven't done any full updates of the
FAQ on directed panspermia in a decade. There is a reason for this, hinted at >in my reply to jillery, but I'd rather not go into detail on that today.
stating the creationist position is far more respectable than deception aimed at hiding it.I agree with almost all of your analysis. In my experience, ID is just a false skin stretched thin over creationism; the slightest scratch and it splits open, revealing the creationist within. It is an attempt at respectability, but IMO honestly
I have honestly made it clear many times that my ID hypotheses only make naturalistic
assumptions. In particular, there is nothing about Jesus Christ, the resurrection,
life after death, etc. involved in them.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
PS Thanks for your blunt but candid reply to my query to you. I'll be answering it, if not today,
then certainly tomorrow. In the meantime, please do look over my reply to jillery
a few minutes ago. It might clear up some misconceptions of yours about me.
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 08:27:14 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 8:55:21?PM UTC-4, Abner wrote:
jillery wrote:
There are other T.O. posters who support ID. I have asked each of
them how their designer could have done all the things they claim it
did without it being a supernatural entity. If so, that would
logically make their ID a form of Creationism in disguise. My
experience is all cdesign proponentsists either ignore the question
altogether, or admit they presume their designer is God.
See my reply to jillery a few minutes ago, correcting a number of inaccuracies.
Mostly to blame for them is the fact that I haven't done any full updates of the
FAQ on directed panspermia in a decade. There is a reason for this, hinted at
in my reply to jillery, but I'd rather not go into detail on that today.
stating the creationist position is far more respectable than deception aimed at hiding it.I agree with almost all of your analysis. In my experience, ID is just a false skin stretched thin over creationism; the slightest scratch and it splits open, revealing the creationist within. It is an attempt at respectability, but IMO honestly
I have honestly made it clear many times that my ID hypotheses only make naturalistic
assumptions. In particular, there is nothing about Jesus Christ, the resurrection,
life after death, etc. involved in them.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
PS Thanks for your blunt but candid reply to my query to you. I'll be answering it, if not today,
then certainly tomorrow. In the meantime, please do look over my reply to jillery
a few minutes ago. It might clear up some misconceptions of yours about me.
If anything, your reply to me only affirms Abner's and my
understanding above.
You presume your designers to exist outside the
scope of the question you claim to answer. When answering about the
origin of life on Earth, you claim it was designed by a civilization
that originated beyond Earth. And when answering about the origin/fine-tuning of the Universe, you claim it was designed by a civilization that originated beyond this Universe.
A rightful criticism to both your "answers" is they in fact kick the
can down the road.
By going beyond the scope of the original
questions, your "answers" raise entirely different questions. You
can't logically refute that criticism by complaining it doesn't limit
itself to the original questions, because your own "answers" go beyond
the original questions. This makes your refutation logical nonsense.
I would expect someone who claims mathematical expertise would be more careful about his logic. More importantly, your "answers" provide an
all too convenient excuse for providing no evidence for the existence
and/or nature of your presumptive "beyond" civilizations.
In that sense, they are functionally and logically identical to God. You claim they are "natural", but your arguments treat [designers of automobiles]
as supernatural.
In that sense, your "answers" are no different than
those of other cdesign proponentsists aka Creationists.
--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 09:21:09 -0700, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/15/23 8:17 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 10:17:16 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/13/23 9:01 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 17:30:29 -0700, Mark Isaak
[...]
Two question about your standards:
1. Do you believe that the Qur'an was dictated to Mohammed by divine agent?
I doubt it very much, just as I don't believe that the Bible was
dictated by God as some Christians believe so no difference in my
standards there.
That is the answer I was expecting. (For what it's worth, I agree with >>>> you.)
2. Do you acknowledge that the evidence for such divine dictation is >>>>>> equal or better than evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ? >>>>>I'm not aware of any evidence of such divine diction for either the
Qur'an or the Bible as far as I am aware, that idea of divine diction >>>>> is the opinion of people who have read the books, not the people
directly involved in them[1]. If you have any other evidence, I'll >>>>> have a look at it if you point me in the direction of it.
===============================
[1] There is considerable evidence that directly contradicts the idea >>>>> of the Bible having been dictated but I don't know if that applies to >>>>> the Qur'an
That does not answer the question, which asked about evidence for the
resurrection as described by the Bible (not for the dictation, or any
other sourcing, of the Bible).
I'm struggling to see your point here. You asked me if evidence for
such divine dictation is equal or better than evidence for the
resurrection of Jesus Christ, I told you I'm not aware of *any*
evidence for divine diction (and you seem to agree). How can I
evaluate something that I don't even think exists, let alone know
anything about ?
Are you aware of any evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ?
<sigh>
Have you even been following this thread?
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 09:18:08 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'll be doing something below that irritates some people here, Mark:
I'll be replying to earlier text -- but ONLY from you, none from Martin.
If that is meant as a sideways snipe at me
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 07:22:15 -0700, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:of the resurrection as a vulgar zombie-apocalypse, that positively gets in the way of spiritual or redemptive (in Tilllich's sense) interpretation, and also creates conflicts with other passages of the text, in particular, Luke 24 13-16.
On 4/17/23 5:01 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 08:50:31 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/16/23 2:00 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 09:31:53 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/15/23 8:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 10:30:18 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/13/23 8:49 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 17:34:06 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/12/23 7:50 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 09:32:23 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/11/23 1:34 AM, Burkhard wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 10:55:17?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]So effectively, you get into a debate on how conclusive or reliable
But there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.
the evidence is. Not much different really from a courtroom where
there is no conclusive *forensic* evidence and both sides will argue
whether conclusions can be drawn from *circumstantial* evidence. The
point is that it is an evidence-based argument, not just "pure faith"
as Abner claimed.
I'd say while this is a possible reading of the Gospel, it's theologically somewhere between the least satisfying and the massively blasphemous. As all attempts to naturalise religion inevitably are. What it leads to is the interpretation
The Gospels have been extensively studied for over 2000 years byWritten accounts, same as for Jesus's resurrection.[snip more worthy text]
There's also the problem that claiming an evidence-based belief in >>>>>>>>>>>> religion raises issues of hypocrisy. The evidence for Jesus' >>>>>>>>>>>> resurrection is no better than that for the divine inspiration of the
Qur'an or the divinity of Rama, and is roughly on par with evidence for
a thousand or so other gods, not to mention leprechauns, bunyips, Santa
at the North Pole, etc.
What particular evidence for those things did you have in mind? >>>>>>>>>>
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point me in the direction of some of >>>>>>>>> those writings about leprechauns, bunyips and Santa at the North Pole.
The written accounts come from oral accounts, and I have little doubt >>>>>>>> that you yourself have heard oral accounts of leprechauns and Santa >>>>>>>> Claus.
Hmm, I was hoping for something a bit better in evidence terms than >>>>>>> written accounts of oral mythology. I don't know anything about
bunyips ( I never heard of them until you mentioned them here) but >>>>>>> I've certainly never heard anyone[1] claiming to have met a leprechaun >>>>>>> or Santa Claus - have you?
[1] Young children excluded.
I get the impression you are trying to avoid the larger point.
First,
as Burkhard posted, the existence of leprechauns has been taken
seriously in historical times. Second and more important is the "etc." >>>>>> I included in my original comment. The standard of evidence that "I >>>>>> believe it because an anonymous source said it, and someone else wrote >>>>>> it down" could also be applied, off the top of my head, to thunderbirds, >>>>>> chupacabras, Bigfoot, ET aliens, witches, dragons, kobolds, mermaids. >>>>>> No doubt anthropologists could extend the list to thousands of items. >>>>>
thousands of scholars from a wide range of backgrounds, some religious >>>>> and some secular; they, along with the rest of the Bible, are probably >>>>> the most studied ever piece of literature. There is clearly a lack of >>>>> consensus in many areas of them but that doesn't change the fact that >>>>> they are a serious and significant body of work.
Tales of Coyote, the North American trickster, have also been
extensively studied and are a serious and significant body of work.
They are mainly an oral tradition so were not written down until
recently, but some of them probably are older than the Gospels. That
the study of Coyote tales is not as extensive as that of the Gospels
owes mainly to vagaries of history, especially of conquests and spread >>>> of technology, and cannot easily be laid on the relative merits of the >>>> stories. Coyote, after all, is another character who has resurrected.
Please point me to a scholarly work - just one will do - that
concludes that Coyote ever existed. (Or leprechauns or bunyips or
Santa Claus)
Exactly my point. Scholars recognize that stories are not evidence for
existence.
So eyewitness accounts from people we know to have been alive are no
better than stories about people who never existed.
Sorry, but I'm not going to waste any more time on idiotic logic like
that.
I'll be doing something below that irritates some people here, Mark:
I'll be replying to earlier text -- but ONLY from you, none from Martin.
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 10:25:23 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/17/23 5:01 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 08:50:31 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/16/23 2:00 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 09:31:53 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/15/23 8:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 10:30:18 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/13/23 8:49 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 17:34:06 -0700, Mark Isaak
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point me in the direction of some of >>>>>>>>> those writings about leprechauns, bunyips and Santa at the North Pole.
The written accounts come from oral accounts, and I have little doubt >>>>>>>> that you yourself have heard oral accounts of leprechauns and Santa >>>>>>>> Claus.
Hmm, I was hoping for something a bit better in evidence terms than >>>>>>> written accounts of oral mythology. I don't know anything about
bunyips ( I never heard of them until you mentioned them here) but >>>>>>> I've certainly never heard anyone[1] claiming to have met a leprechaun >>>>>>> or Santa Claus - have you?
I read a 1958 book on cryptozoology by Bernard Heuvelmans, "On the Track of Unknown Animals,"
a few years after it came out. In it, he speculated that the rhinoceros-to-hippo-sized extinct giant marsupial *Diprotodon*
was the source of the folklore about the bunyips. Not having read much about bunyips, I don't know
how plausible this is, but I do think it highly likely that humans did encounter *Diprotodon* and other
Aussie marsupial megafauna. I also believe that the extinction of many of them is directly or indirectly due to humans.
[...]
Tales of Coyote, the North American trickster, have also been
extensively studied and are a serious and significant body of work.
Of folklore, not of history. I trust you do think that a man named Yeshua (Jesus)
who died by crucifixion actually lived, and that disciples of his founded The Way, later called Christianity.
If you don't, I think you are among the minority posting on this particular issue on this thread.
It is also well established that the leading early followers of The Way
did believe that Jesus rose from the dead, and was enjoying everlasting life, and that they too would gain eternal life by following his teachings and example.
[For example, see I Peter 1:3-9.]
They are mainly an oral tradition so were not written down until
recently, but some of them probably are older than the Gospels. That
the study of Coyote tales is not as extensive as that of the Gospels
owes mainly to vagaries of history, especially of conquests and spread >>>> of technology, and cannot easily be laid on the relative merits of the >>>> stories. Coyote, after all, is another character who has resurrected.
According to folklore, not alleged eyewitness accounts. The Gospels
are generally believed to have been the work of people who claimed
to be eyewitnesses, or who personally knew people who claimed to
be eyewitnesses of the Risen Lord.
NOTE to all readers: jillery's bizarre "analysis" below has one
good take-away: ChatGPT is still too limited to be able to compose
such a surreal reply to what I wrote. So it will be a while before
the AI revolution is really upon us.
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 1:55:23?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:stating the creationist position is far more respectable than deception aimed at hiding it.
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 08:27:14 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 8:55:21?PM UTC-4, Abner wrote:
jillery wrote:
There are other T.O. posters who support ID. I have asked each of
them how their designer could have done all the things they claim it >> >> > did without it being a supernatural entity. If so, that would
logically make their ID a form of Creationism in disguise. My
experience is all cdesign proponentsists either ignore the question
altogether, or admit they presume their designer is God.
See my reply to jillery a few minutes ago, correcting a number of inaccuracies.
Mostly to blame for them is the fact that I haven't done any full updates of the
FAQ on directed panspermia in a decade. There is a reason for this, hinted at
in my reply to jillery, but I'd rather not go into detail on that today. >> >
I agree with almost all of your analysis. In my experience, ID is just a false skin stretched thin over creationism; the slightest scratch and it splits open, revealing the creationist within. It is an attempt at respectability, but IMO honestly
I have honestly made it clear many times that my ID hypotheses only make naturalistic
assumptions. In particular, there is nothing about Jesus Christ, the resurrection,
life after death, etc. involved in them.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
PS Thanks for your blunt but candid reply to my query to you. I'll be answering it, if not today,
then certainly tomorrow. In the meantime, please do look over my reply to jillery
a few minutes ago. It might clear up some misconceptions of yours about me.
If anything, your reply to me only affirms Abner's and my
understanding above.
What follows is a complete non sequitur, illustrating my preamble to this post.
You presume your designers to exist outside the
scope of the question you claim to answer. When answering about the
origin of life on Earth, you claim it was designed by a civilization
that originated beyond Earth. And when answering about the
origin/fine-tuning of the Universe, you claim it was designed by a
civilization that originated beyond this Universe.
I fail to see why you bother to post such a strained paragraph.
When answering a question about automobile design,
I "presume" the designers exist outside the automobiles they design.
It would be madness to presume otherwise.
A rightful criticism to both your "answers" is they in fact kick the
can down the road.
You mean like, identifying the people who designed this year's
model of [insert make and model of your favorite car]
only kicks the can down the road? Yeah, right.
Perhaps your mentor, Paul Gans, infected you with his ways
of seeming to address an issue without addressing it.
By going beyond the scope of the original
questions, your "answers" raise entirely different questions. You
can't logically refute that criticism by complaining it doesn't limit
itself to the original questions, because your own "answers" go beyond
the original questions. This makes your refutation logical nonsense.
Near as I can make out, you seem to be making up your own rules
as to what constitutes "Intelligent Design." Are you confining it to the >the things discussed in the book _Pandas_and_People_?
I know you have long had a love affair with the expression
"cdesign proponentsists", but don't you think it's about
time you got up to date on what ID is all about?
I would expect someone who claims mathematical expertise would be more
careful about his logic. More importantly, your "answers" provide an
all too convenient excuse for providing no evidence for the existence
and/or nature of your presumptive "beyond" civilizations.
I'm beginning to see the light: you are fleeing headlong
from my direct reply to you today, shortly before posting my reply to Abner. >Had you read it carefully, this last sentence of yours would be a shameless, bare-faced lie.
As it is, I do hope Abner has enough smarts to see through
the irresponsible behavior you are indulging in here.
In that sense, they are functionally and logically identical to God. You
claim they are "natural", but your arguments treat [designers of automobiles]
as supernatural.
I got tired of your riding roughshod over truth, reason, logic, common sense etc.
so I put the words in brackets to lay bare the stupidity of what you are spouting, including:
In that sense, your "answers" are no different than
those of other cdesign proponentsists aka Creationists.
--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
Obvious, if "You" refers to me; and I applaud these words of
that highly respected U.S. Senator, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan,
and do my best to distinguish between facts and my own opinions/hypotheses.
But you put yourself above and beyond such common sense.
Peter Nyikos
On 4/17/23 9:18 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll be doing something below that irritates some people here, Mark:
I'll be replying to earlier text -- but ONLY from you, none from Martin.
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 10:25:23 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/17/23 5:01 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 08:50:31 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/16/23 2:00 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 09:31:53 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/15/23 8:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 10:30:18 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/13/23 8:49 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 17:34:06 -0700, Mark Isaak
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point me in the direction of some of
those writings about leprechauns, bunyips and Santa at the North Pole.
The written accounts come from oral accounts, and I have little doubt
that you yourself have heard oral accounts of leprechauns and Santa >>>>>>>> Claus.
Hmm, I was hoping for something a bit better in evidence terms than >>>>>>> written accounts of oral mythology. I don't know anything about >>>>>>> bunyips ( I never heard of them until you mentioned them here) but >>>>>>> I've certainly never heard anyone[1] claiming to have met a leprechaun
or Santa Claus - have you?
I read a 1958 book on cryptozoology by Bernard Heuvelmans, "On the Track of Unknown Animals,"
a few years after it came out. In it, he speculated that the rhinoceros-to-hippo-sized extinct giant marsupial *Diprotodon*
was the source of the folklore about the bunyips. Not having read much about bunyips, I don't know
how plausible this is, but I do think it highly likely that humans did encounter *Diprotodon* and other
Aussie marsupial megafauna. I also believe that the extinction of many of them is directly or indirectly due to humans.
I don't know enough to assess the plausibility. I will note that there
are enough fantastic animals in world folklore to show that recently
extinct megafauna could not possibly account for all of them. Also, you might enjoy Adrienne Mayor's _The First Fossil Hunters_, which concerns
the overlap of paleontology and folklore.
[...]
Tales of Coyote, the North American trickster, have also been
extensively studied and are a serious and significant body of work.
Of folklore, not of history. I trust you do think that a man named Yeshua (Jesus)
who died by crucifixion actually lived, and that disciples of his founded The Way, later called Christianity.
If you don't, I think you are among the minority posting on this particular issue on this thread.
I do consider Jesus's existence to be historical (though not at the
99.9+% certainty range). However, the stories about his life are
folklore. That does not mean the stories are false. Some folklore is
largely true (e.g. Caesar's assassination), and a lot more folklore is
based on truth but expanded or distorted in various ways (e.g., King Arthur). In the case of Jesus, I'd say there's a good chance that the
core teachings in the Gospels, especially of God as Father, are true to
what a historical Jesus taught. The stories of events in his life,
however, have nothing to recommend them as being accurately related.
Indeed, some of them have been discredited by other historical records.
I also believe there was a historical Siddhartha Gautama who founded Buddhism, and that the stories surrounding his birth and death are
almost entirely mythologized. (I should have thought of this parallel example earlier.)
It is also well established that the leading early followers of The Way did believe that Jesus rose from the dead, and was enjoying everlasting life,
and that they too would gain eternal life by following his teachings and example.
[For example, see I Peter 1:3-9.]
What early followers believed is of no account as evidence (except as evidence of what they believed). As QAnon and multitudinous other ideas show, people will believe anything.
They are mainly an oral tradition so were not written down until
recently, but some of them probably are older than the Gospels. That >>>> the study of Coyote tales is not as extensive as that of the Gospels >>>> owes mainly to vagaries of history, especially of conquests and spread >>>> of technology, and cannot easily be laid on the relative merits of the >>>> stories. Coyote, after all, is another character who has resurrected.
According to folklore, not alleged eyewitness accounts. The Gospels
are generally believed to have been the work of people who claimed
to be eyewitnesses, or who personally knew people who claimed to
be eyewitnesses of the Risen Lord.
Once you need to put "alleged" in front of "eyewitness accounts", you
are already talking folklore.
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 5:15:23 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/17/23 9:18 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll be doing something below that irritates some people here, Mark:
I'll be replying to earlier text -- but ONLY from you, none from Martin. >>>
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 10:25:23 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
[...]
Tales of Coyote, the North American trickster, have also been
extensively studied and are a serious and significant body of work.
Of folklore, not of history. I trust you do think that a man named Yeshua (Jesus)
who died by crucifixion actually lived, and that disciples of his founded The Way, later called Christianity.
If you don't, I think you are among the minority posting on this particular issue on this thread.
I do consider Jesus's existence to be historical (though not at the
99.9+% certainty range). However, the stories about his life are
folklore. That does not mean the stories are false. Some folklore is
largely true (e.g. Caesar's assassination), and a lot more folklore is
based on truth but expanded or distorted in various ways (e.g., King
Arthur). In the case of Jesus, I'd say there's a good chance that the
core teachings in the Gospels, especially of God as Father, are true to
what a historical Jesus taught. The stories of events in his life,
however, have nothing to recommend them as being accurately related.
It's like I said in my first post to this thread, in reply to Bill Rogers: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We both (you a tad more than me)
are skeptical about the miraculous ones that violate what we know about science.
On the other hand, if we disregard that aspect, the stories seem quite sober and true
to what I've seen of human behavior.
Indeed, some of them have been discredited by other historical records.
For instance? And why do you use "discredited" rather than "contradicted"?
I also believe there was a historical Siddhartha Gautama who founded
Buddhism, and that the stories surrounding his birth and death are
almost entirely mythologized. (I should have thought of this parallel
example earlier.)
Gautama explicitly denied being divine, unlike Jesus is depicted as doing.
It is also well established that the leading early followers of The Way
did believe that Jesus rose from the dead, and was enjoying everlasting life,
and that they too would gain eternal life by following his teachings and example.
[For example, see I Peter 1:3-9.]
What early followers believed is of no account as evidence (except as
evidence of what they believed). As QAnon and multitudinous other ideas
show, people will believe anything.
QAnon is a bizarre cult, and is utterly unlike what is described in the body of Gospels ...
According to folklore, not alleged eyewitness accounts. The GospelsThey are mainly an oral tradition so were not written down until
recently, but some of them probably are older than the Gospels. That >>>>>> the study of Coyote tales is not as extensive as that of the Gospels >>>>>> owes mainly to vagaries of history, especially of conquests and spread >>>>>> of technology, and cannot easily be laid on the relative merits of the >>>>>> stories. Coyote, after all, is another character who has resurrected. >>>
are generally believed to have been the work of people who claimed
to be eyewitnesses, or who personally knew people who claimed to
be eyewitnesses of the Risen Lord.
Once you need to put "alleged" in front of "eyewitness accounts", you
are already talking folklore.
"folklore" is misleading; these are not folk tales, but historical accounts, with the understanding that all ancient historical accounts are "alleged"
in the same sense. There are significant differences, for example,
between what Polybius wrote about Hannibal and what Livy later wrote.
Yet there is a big body of information about Hannibal that no serious historian doubts; whereas none of the folklore about Coyote is taken literally by any serious historian.
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 5:05:15 PM UTC+3, Kalkidas wrote:
Happy Easter, everyone!-------
1882. Charles Darwin died.
Jesus Christ was crucified on Friday 7-4 BC. --
and He rose from the dead on Sunday morning
----
On 4/17/23 4:55 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 09:21:09 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/15/23 8:17 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 10:17:16 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/13/23 9:01 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 17:30:29 -0700, Mark Isaak
[...]
Two question about your standards:
1. Do you believe that the Qur'an was dictated to Mohammed by divine agent?
I doubt it very much, just as I don't believe that the Bible was
dictated by God as some Christians believe so no difference in my
standards there.
That is the answer I was expecting. (For what it's worth, I agree with >>>>> you.)
2. Do you acknowledge that the evidence for such divine dictation is >>>>>>> equal or better than evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ? >>>>>>I'm not aware of any evidence of such divine diction for either the >>>>>> Qur'an or the Bible as far as I am aware, that idea of divine diction >>>>>> is the opinion of people who have read the books, not the people
directly involved in them[1]. If you have any other evidence, I'll >>>>>> have a look at it if you point me in the direction of it.
===============================
[1] There is considerable evidence that directly contradicts the idea >>>>>> of the Bible having been dictated but I don't know if that applies to >>>>>> the Qur'an
That does not answer the question, which asked about evidence for the >>>>> resurrection as described by the Bible (not for the dictation, or any >>>>> other sourcing, of the Bible).
I'm struggling to see your point here. You asked me if evidence for
such divine dictation is equal or better than evidence for the
resurrection of Jesus Christ, I told you I'm not aware of *any*
evidence for divine diction (and you seem to agree). How can I
evaluate something that I don't even think exists, let alone know
anything about ?
Are you aware of any evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ?
<sigh>
Have you even been following this thread?
Have you?
If we reject "someone long ago told a story about it" as evidence, are
you aware of any evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ?
If we don't reject "someone long ago told a story about it" as evidence,
are we not then bound by the evidence to take mermaids, leprechauns, >centaurs, and myriad other folk beliefs, not to mention every aspect of
every other religion, just as seriously as Christ's resurrection?
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 1:15:23?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 09:18:08 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'll be doing something below that irritates some people here, Mark:
I'll be replying to earlier text -- but ONLY from you, none from Martin.
If that is meant as a sideways snipe at me
It isn't. Had I started commenting on things you wrote, readers
(including perhaps Mark) could have gotten irritated over my post's lack of focus,
as they *have* many times in the past.
This is why I let Mark know right away that I am focused on his statements exclusively.
I hope that makes my post a lot more readable than it would be otherwise.
[snip the rest of your GIGO]
Elvis alive: nothing is known about the background to the witnesses,
whether or not they were reputable people or whether or not they were
prone to bursts of vivid imagination; anyone who has talked to them as
part of a structured investigation has been convinced by their
accounts.r
On 4/17/23 8:17 AM, Martin Harran wrote:of the resurrection as a vulgar zombie-apocalypse, that positively gets in the way of spiritual or redemptive (in Tilllich's sense) interpretation, and also creates conflicts with other passages of the text, in particular, Luke 24 13-16.
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 07:22:15 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/17/23 5:01 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 08:50:31 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/16/23 2:00 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 09:31:53 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/15/23 8:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 10:30:18 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/13/23 8:49 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 17:34:06 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/12/23 7:50 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 09:32:23 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/11/23 1:34 AM, Burkhard wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 10:55:17?PM UTC+1, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]So effectively, you get into a debate on how conclusive or reliable
But there's nothing wrong with faith. If you believe, you believe, that's fine.
the evidence is. Not much different really from a courtroom where
there is no conclusive *forensic* evidence and both sides will argue
whether conclusions can be drawn from *circumstantial* evidence. The
point is that it is an evidence-based argument, not just "pure faith"
as Abner claimed.
I'd say while this is a possible reading of the Gospel, it's theologically somewhere between the least satisfying and the massively blasphemous. As all attempts to naturalise religion inevitably are. What it leads to is the interpretation
Please point me to a scholarly work - just one will do - thatThe Gospels have been extensively studied for over 2000 years byWritten accounts, same as for Jesus's resurrection.[snip more worthy text]
There's also the problem that claiming an evidence-based belief in
religion raises issues of hypocrisy. The evidence for Jesus' >>>>>>>>>>>>> resurrection is no better than that for the divine inspiration of the
Qur'an or the divinity of Rama, and is roughly on par with evidence for
a thousand or so other gods, not to mention leprechauns, bunyips, Santa
at the North Pole, etc.
What particular evidence for those things did you have in mind? >>>>>>>>>>>
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point me in the direction of some of >>>>>>>>>> those writings about leprechauns, bunyips and Santa at the North Pole.
The written accounts come from oral accounts, and I have little doubt >>>>>>>>> that you yourself have heard oral accounts of leprechauns and Santa >>>>>>>>> Claus.
Hmm, I was hoping for something a bit better in evidence terms than >>>>>>>> written accounts of oral mythology. I don't know anything about >>>>>>>> bunyips ( I never heard of them until you mentioned them here) but >>>>>>>> I've certainly never heard anyone[1] claiming to have met a leprechaun >>>>>>>> or Santa Claus - have you?
[1] Young children excluded.
I get the impression you are trying to avoid the larger point.
First,
as Burkhard posted, the existence of leprechauns has been taken
seriously in historical times. Second and more important is the "etc." >>>>>>> I included in my original comment. The standard of evidence that "I >>>>>>> believe it because an anonymous source said it, and someone else wrote >>>>>>> it down" could also be applied, off the top of my head, to thunderbirds,
chupacabras, Bigfoot, ET aliens, witches, dragons, kobolds, mermaids. >>>>>>> No doubt anthropologists could extend the list to thousands of items. >>>>>>
thousands of scholars from a wide range of backgrounds, some religious >>>>>> and some secular; they, along with the rest of the Bible, are probably >>>>>> the most studied ever piece of literature. There is clearly a lack of >>>>>> consensus in many areas of them but that doesn't change the fact that >>>>>> they are a serious and significant body of work.
Tales of Coyote, the North American trickster, have also been
extensively studied and are a serious and significant body of work.
They are mainly an oral tradition so were not written down until
recently, but some of them probably are older than the Gospels. That >>>>> the study of Coyote tales is not as extensive as that of the Gospels >>>>> owes mainly to vagaries of history, especially of conquests and spread >>>>> of technology, and cannot easily be laid on the relative merits of the >>>>> stories. Coyote, after all, is another character who has resurrected. >>>>
concludes that Coyote ever existed. (Or leprechauns or bunyips or
Santa Claus)
Exactly my point. Scholars recognize that stories are not evidence for
existence.
So eyewitness accounts from people we know to have been alive are no
better than stories about people who never existed.
Sorry, but I'm not going to waste any more time on idiotic logic like
that.
I should hope not! I wish you would pay attention to what I say instead.
But, of course, eyewitness accounts, even by people who are known to
have witnessed the events within the last year and are testifying under
oath, are notoriously problematical. Second-hand renditions of
eyewitness accounts, told for reasons other than recording an accurate >history, are worse yet. And when the account is about an even which is >common in folklore but nonexistent in verifiable experience, I think it
is safe to say that the evidence value of such accounts is
indistinguishable from zero.
Please lay out a general set of criteria which you use to evaluate claims of miraculous events. Otherwise "comparable to the evidence in the gospels" simply means "comparably conformable to my preferred religious beliefs".
I don't know anything about
bunyips ( I never heard of them until you mentioned them here) but
I've certainly never heard anyone[1] claiming to have met a leprechaun
or Santa Claus - have you?
For bunyips, you may need to travel to Australia. Or ask a[1] Young children excluded.
librarian and read the written accounts. (The Wikipedia article has
several references. I don't remember which of my several Australian
myth books I encountered them in.)
On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 05:44:43 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Please lay out a general set of criteria which you use to evaluate claims of miraculous events. Otherwise "comparable to the evidence in the gospels" simply means "comparably conformable to my preferred religious beliefs".
OK, my final effort at this.
By definition, miraculous or supernatural claims can't be tested scientifically - I can't provide a direct cite but I'm sure you have expounded that principle on a number of occasions in the past. We
therefore have to evaluate in overall - and subjective - the *circumstantial* evidence given in support of the claims. That
subjectivity applies both ways, something I tried to explain earlier
but apparently my explanation was too clumsy.
I'm open to correction by Burkhard in the following but, as I
understand it, the first step in examining circumstantial evidence is
to decide whether it is *admissible* and that is essentially what we
are debating here. I have said from the very start that the eyewitness testimony in the Gospels is *supporting* evidence not *conclusive*
evidence; the counterargument from you and others, as I understand it,
is that the evidence is worthless, effectively "not admissible".
In legal procedures, the question of admissibility is decided by a
judge, not by a jury. I think that process in regard to the eyewitness testimony in the Gospels versus sightings of Elvis might go something
along the following lines. (Note: in a real court case, the issues
would be debated by the prosecution and defence with the judge as
referee and final arbiter; for simplicity, I am presenting it here as
the judge asking the questions which will eventually help him make up
his mind about the admissibility.)
Source of testimony
=============
Resurrection of Jesus: the eyewitnesses are all dead but we have the testimony of a number of authors who investigated the testimony and
were happy that it was recorded accurately. We also have numerous
scholars who have scrutinised the Gospels and, whilst there are a
number of areas of disagreement, the scholars generally accept that
the records of accounts of the testimony are an accurate reflection of
what the eyewitnesses said.
Elvis alive: there is no dispute about what the witnesses said, some
of whom are still alive and available for questioning.
Background of the Witnesses:
===================
Resurrection of Jesus: the main witnesses were highly reputable
public figures who preached with lives based on openness and honesty,
those lives having been subjected to intense scrutiny over *almost*
2000 years.
Elvis alive: nothing is known about the background to the witnesses,
whether or not they were reputable people or whether or not they were
prone to bursts of vivid imagination; anyone who has talked to them as
part of a structured investigation has been convinced by their
accounts.
Did the witnesses know the person?
=======================
Resurrection of Jesus: the eyewitnesses were people who lived and
travelled with Jesus for several years before his death.
Elvis alive: none of the witnesses knew Elvis before he died, their judgement is based on his appearance in movies, television and photos.
Did the Witnesses interact with the person after their death? =================================================
Resurrection of Jesus: yes, the witnesses spent considerable time in
his company on a number of occasions, they shared food with him and
listened to his teaching and instructions.
Elvis alive: no, physical sightings were visual only, based on people
whom the witnessses thought looked like Elvis. In at least one case,
it was based on seeing someone who looked like Elvis in the background
of a popular movie.
Did the subject of the testimony actually claim to be that person? ==========================================
Resurrection of Jesus: Yes, the person encountered by the disciples
claimed that he was Jesus Christ.
Elvis alive: no known case of the subject of sightings claiming to be
Elvis.
Has the evidence been scrutinised by anyone hostile to the witnesses? ============================================
Resurrection of Jesus: St Paul initially rejected the eyewitnesses' testimony, persecuting them for giving it. After spending time with
the eyewitnesses, he came to believe them and spent the rest of his
life promoting what they had said.
Elvis alive: writer Kenneth Partridge checked out the stories and in
many of them, he found directly contradicting evidence [1]. For
example, the first person who claimed to see Elvis said that he saw "a
man bearing a striking resemblance to Elvis purchasing a one-way
ticket from Memphis International Airport to Buenos Aires in 1977.
There were not flights from Memphis to Buenos Aires at that time. The
second claimed sighting was somebody who thought that a shadowy figure
in a photo taken at Elvis's pool house. Joe Esprito, a good buddy of
Elvis, said it wasn't, it looked more like Al Strada, another
associate of Elvis.
I could go on, but I think there is more than enough there to show a considerably stronger case for the admissibility of the Gospel
evidence than Elvis sightings. Is it strong enough to be *admissible*?
I think so but if it were the equivalent of a court case and I were
the judge, I would be emphasising strongly to the jury that they
should not be over-reliant on it in deciding whether the Resurrection
really happened, they would need further evidence to arrive at that conclusion.
The alternative to that further evidence is indeed faith but that does
not mean the faith can rely on the limited evidence alone, it has to
be based on much more than that. It certainly is in my case and all committed Christians that I know.
[1] https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/503466/suspicious-minds-bizarre-40-year-history-elvis-presley-sightings
I don't know anything about
bunyips ( I never heard of them until you mentioned them here) but
I've certainly never heard anyone[1] claiming to have met a leprechaun >> >> or Santa Claus - have you?
For bunyips, you may need to travel to Australia. Or ask a[1] Young children excluded.
librarian and read the written accounts. (The Wikipedia article has >> >> >several references. I don't remember which of my several Australian >> >> >myth books I encountered them in.)
I simply hope I am never on trail with you in the jury.
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 13:25:02 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 1:15:23?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 09:18:08 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'll be doing something below that irritates some people here, Mark:
I'll be replying to earlier text -- but ONLY from you, none from Martin.
If that is meant as a sideways snipe at me
It isn't. Had I started commenting on things you wrote, readers
(including perhaps Mark) could have gotten irritated over my post's lack of focus,
as they *have* many times in the past.
This is why I let Mark know right away that I am focused on his statements exclusively.
I hope that makes my post a lot more readable than it would be otherwise.
[snip the rest of your GIGO]
As Joe Louis is reputed to have said, you can run but you can't hide.
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 13:33:21 -0700, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/17/23 8:17 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 07:22:15 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/17/23 5:01 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
Please point me to a scholarly work - just one will do - that
concludes that Coyote ever existed. (Or leprechauns or bunyips or
Santa Claus)
Exactly my point. Scholars recognize that stories are not evidence for >>>> existence.
So eyewitness accounts from people we know to have been alive are no
better than stories about people who never existed.
Sorry, but I'm not going to waste any more time on idiotic logic like
that.
I should hope not! I wish you would pay attention to what I say instead.
But, of course, eyewitness accounts, even by people who are known to
have witnessed the events within the last year and are testifying under
oath, are notoriously problematical. Second-hand renditions of
eyewitness accounts, told for reasons other than recording an accurate
history, are worse yet. And when the account is about an even which is
common in folklore but nonexistent in verifiable experience, I think it
is safe to say that the evidence value of such accounts is
indistinguishable from zero.
I simply hope I am never on trial with you in the jury.
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7:00:24 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 05:44:43 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Please lay out a general set of criteria which you use to evaluate claims of miraculous events. Otherwise "comparable to the evidence in the gospels" simply means "comparably conformable to my preferred religious beliefs".
OK, my final effort at this.
By definition, miraculous or supernatural claims can't be tested scientifically - I can't provide a direct cite but I'm sure you have expounded that principle on a number of occasions in the past.
The problem I see here is that once you admit the possibility of miraculous violations of natural law evidence simply becomes meaningless, not inconclusive, or merely circumstantial, but entirely meaningless.
Everything that normally makes evidence evidentiary depends on natural laws being reliable, objects don't appear out of thin air, scientific assays on material evidence do not give random answers, signatures on affidavits do not magically change.
Once you say that natural laws are not really laws, just things that usually, but not always, happen, then there's no way at all to assess any evidence. I can think of two ways to proceed (1) accept, as a matter of method, that there is no way toassess evidence for any miraculous violation of natural law (2) as a matter of faith decide that only certain sorts of violations of natural law happen (you'd be in the company of Descartes in this, in his denial of the possibility of a deceptive God).
That seems to me to be exactly what you do. You adduce evidence (call it circumstantial or inconclusive as much as you like, but it's offered as evidence) of a miraculous resurrection, but you consider a miraculous Christian resurrection inherentlymore likely than any number of miraculous violations of natural law that could undermine the chain of evidence.
natural laws.I'm open to correction by Burkhard in the following but, as ISee above, the counterargument is that in a world in which miraculous violations of natural law can occur, evidence is meaningless, not merely inconclusive, because everything that makes evidence of anything credible relies on the reliability of
understand it, the first step in examining circumstantial evidence is
to decide whether it is *admissible* and that is essentially what we
are debating here. I have said from the very start that the eyewitness testimony in the Gospels is *supporting* evidence not *conclusive* evidence; the counterargument from you and others, as I understand it,
is that the evidence is worthless, effectively "not admissible".
whether purported evidence is relatively strong or relatively weak? These could be things likeIn legal procedures, the question of admissibility is decided by a
judge, not by a jury. I think that process in regard to the eyewitness testimony in the Gospels versus sightings of Elvis might go something along the following lines. (Note: in a real court case, the issues
would be debated by the prosecution and defence with the judge as
referee and final arbiter; for simplicity, I am presenting it here as
the judge asking the questions which will eventually help him make up
his mind about the admissibility.)
You've written a lot here and I am sorry if it looks like I am paying no attention. The issue is not Jesus versus Elvis. The issue is, given 100 claims of miraculous violations of natural law, what criteria do you use, in general terms, to decide
1. Is the witness available for examination?
2. What is the provenance of a document?
3. What is the political, personal or religious agenda of the author of a document?
4. What fraction of people who accept the claim are willing to kill or be killed in defense of its truth?
5. How many independent sources report the event?
6. How soon after the event allegedly occurred was it documented?
The best way to avoid claims of special pleading is to address these criteria in the abstract, without trying to apply them to any specific miraculous claim, still less to one made by your preferred religion.
My own approach is not directed against your or anybody else's religion. My own approach does not deny the possibility of miracles, my only claim is that if miracles occur, then there can be no meaningful evidence for them.
Source of testimony
=============
Resurrection of Jesus: the eyewitnesses are all dead but we have the testimony of a number of authors who investigated the testimony and
were happy that it was recorded accurately. We also have numerous
scholars who have scrutinised the Gospels and, whilst there are a
number of areas of disagreement, the scholars generally accept that
the records of accounts of the testimony are an accurate reflection of what the eyewitnesses said.
Elvis alive: there is no dispute about what the witnesses said, some
of whom are still alive and available for questioning.
Background of the Witnesses:
===================
Resurrection of Jesus: the main witnesses were highly reputable
public figures who preached with lives based on openness and honesty, those lives having been subjected to intense scrutiny over *almost*
2000 years.
Elvis alive: nothing is known about the background to the witnesses, whether or not they were reputable people or whether or not they were prone to bursts of vivid imagination; anyone who has talked to them as part of a structured investigation has been convinced by their
accounts.
Did the witnesses know the person?
=======================
Resurrection of Jesus: the eyewitnesses were people who lived and travelled with Jesus for several years before his death.
Elvis alive: none of the witnesses knew Elvis before he died, their judgement is based on his appearance in movies, television and photos.
Did the Witnesses interact with the person after their death? =================================================
Resurrection of Jesus: yes, the witnesses spent considerable time in
his company on a number of occasions, they shared food with him and listened to his teaching and instructions.
Elvis alive: no, physical sightings were visual only, based on people
whom the witnessses thought looked like Elvis. In at least one case,
it was based on seeing someone who looked like Elvis in the background
of a popular movie.
Did the subject of the testimony actually claim to be that person? ==========================================
Resurrection of Jesus: Yes, the person encountered by the disciples claimed that he was Jesus Christ.
Elvis alive: no known case of the subject of sightings claiming to be Elvis.
Has the evidence been scrutinised by anyone hostile to the witnesses? ============================================
Resurrection of Jesus: St Paul initially rejected the eyewitnesses' testimony, persecuting them for giving it. After spending time with
the eyewitnesses, he came to believe them and spent the rest of his
life promoting what they had said.
Elvis alive: writer Kenneth Partridge checked out the stories and in
many of them, he found directly contradicting evidence [1]. For
example, the first person who claimed to see Elvis said that he saw "a
man bearing a striking resemblance to Elvis purchasing a one-way
ticket from Memphis International Airport to Buenos Aires in 1977.
There were not flights from Memphis to Buenos Aires at that time. The second claimed sighting was somebody who thought that a shadowy figure
in a photo taken at Elvis's pool house. Joe Esprito, a good buddy of Elvis, said it wasn't, it looked more like Al Strada, another
associate of Elvis.
I could go on, but I think there is more than enough there to show a considerably stronger case for the admissibility of the Gospel
evidence than Elvis sightings. Is it strong enough to be *admissible*?
I think so but if it were the equivalent of a court case and I were
the judge, I would be emphasising strongly to the jury that they
should not be over-reliant on it in deciding whether the Resurrection really happened, they would need further evidence to arrive at that conclusion.
The alternative to that further evidence is indeed faith but that does
not mean the faith can rely on the limited evidence alone, it has to
be based on much more than that. It certainly is in my case and all committed Christians that I know.
My argument is that you are looking for trouble if you ask the resurrection (or your miracle of choice) to be treated as subject to evidential support (even circumstantial evidential support). You will end up, inevitably, in special pleading for themiracles of your religion against the miracles of other religions. Given that the a priori probability of a miraculous event is inherently infinitesimal (otherwise it would not be a miracle),
[1] https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/503466/suspicious-minds-bizarre-40-year-history-elvis-presley-sightings
I don't know anything about
bunyips ( I never heard of them until you mentioned them here) but >> >> I've certainly never heard anyone[1] claiming to have met a leprechaun
or Santa Claus - have you?
For bunyips, you may need to travel to Australia. Or ask a[1] Young children excluded.
librarian and read the written accounts. (The Wikipedia article has >> >> >several references. I don't remember which of my several Australian >> >> >myth books I encountered them in.)
On 4/17/23 8:05 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 5:15:23 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/17/23 9:18 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll be doing something below that irritates some people here, Mark:
I'll be replying to earlier text -- but ONLY from you, none from Martin. >>>
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 10:25:23 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
[...]Of folklore, not of history. I trust you do think that a man named Yeshua (Jesus)
Tales of Coyote, the North American trickster, have also been
extensively studied and are a serious and significant body of work. >>>
who died by crucifixion actually lived, and that disciples of his founded The Way, later called Christianity.
If you don't, I think you are among the minority posting on this particular issue on this thread.
I do consider Jesus's existence to be historical (though not at the
99.9+% certainty range). However, the stories about his life are
folklore. That does not mean the stories are false. Some folklore is
largely true (e.g. Caesar's assassination), and a lot more folklore is
based on truth but expanded or distorted in various ways (e.g., King
Arthur). In the case of Jesus, I'd say there's a good chance that the
core teachings in the Gospels, especially of God as Father, are true to >> what a historical Jesus taught. The stories of events in his life,
however, have nothing to recommend them as being accurately related.
It's like I said in my first post to this thread, in reply to Bill Rogers: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We both (you a tad more than me)
are skeptical about the miraculous ones that violate what we know about science.
On the other hand, if we disregard that aspect, the stories seem quite sober and true
to what I've seen of human behavior.
Indeed, some of them have been discredited by other historical records.
For instance? And why do you use "discredited" rather than "contradicted"?
The need for his parents to go to Bethlehem because of a census. Roman census records don't bear that out.
I also believe there was a historical Siddhartha Gautama who founded
Buddhism, and that the stories surrounding his birth and death are
almost entirely mythologized. (I should have thought of this parallel
example earlier.)
Gautama explicitly denied being divine, unlike Jesus is depicted as doing.
Nevertheless, tales of his life (not to mention previous lives) often include miracles and extraordinary events. I believe by some accounts
his birth was accompanied by an earthquake and a miraculous blooming of flowers. And of course, he was tempted by a demon.
It is also well established that the leading early followers of The Way >>> did believe that Jesus rose from the dead, and was enjoying everlasting life,
and that they too would gain eternal life by following his teachings and example.
[For example, see I Peter 1:3-9.]
What early followers believed is of no account as evidence (except as
evidence of what they believed). As QAnon and multitudinous other ideas >> show, people will believe anything.
QAnon is a bizarre cult, and is utterly unlike what is described in the body of Gospels ...
That's my point. Belief alone in a thing CANNOT be taken as evidence
for the thing.
According to folklore, not alleged eyewitness accounts. The GospelsThey are mainly an oral tradition so were not written down until >>>>>> recently, but some of them probably are older than the Gospels. That >>>>>> the study of Coyote tales is not as extensive as that of the Gospels >>>>>> owes mainly to vagaries of history, especially of conquests and spread
of technology, and cannot easily be laid on the relative merits of the
stories. Coyote, after all, is another character who has resurrected. >>>
are generally believed to have been the work of people who claimed
to be eyewitnesses, or who personally knew people who claimed to
be eyewitnesses of the Risen Lord.
Once you need to put "alleged" in front of "eyewitness accounts", you
are already talking folklore.
"folklore" is misleading; these are not folk tales, but historical accounts,
with the understanding that all ancient historical accounts are "alleged" in the same sense. There are significant differences, for example,
between what Polybius wrote about Hannibal and what Livy later wrote.
Yet there is a big body of information about Hannibal that no serious historian doubts; whereas none of the folklore about Coyote is taken literally by any serious historian.
Folklore is a very broad category. It includes "fairy tales", virtually
all religious tradition, jokes, quilt patterns, superstitions,
lullabies, and a great deal more. Stories which purport to tell a
history but which were influenced by retellings are legend. Legend too
is folklore, and the gospels fall in this category.
(I think Paul's letters, and probably Revelation, are the only parts of the Bible which
are not folklore.)
In the case of the gospels, they are part of the
religion, but in other cases legend gets taken seriously as a historical basis for customs, which can also lead to people taking it literally.
Part of the purpose of trickster tales such as most Coyote tales is to
be outlandish enough that people will not take them literally, but will still see serious lessons in them. This reminds people that "literally"
and "seriously" are very different concepts, and one does not imply the other. I think many Americans need such lessons.
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7:50:24 AM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7:00:24 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:[ . . . ]
The problem I see here is that once you admit the possibility of miraculous violations of natural law evidence simply becomesI do believe I understand your position but I'm forced to disagree.
meaningless, not inconclusive, or merely circumstantial, but
entirely meaningless. Everything that normally makes evidence
evidentiary depends on natural laws being reliable, objects don't
appear out of thin air, scientific assays on material evidence do
not give random answers, signatures on affidavits do not magically
change. Once you say that natural laws are not really laws, just
things that usually, but not always, happen, then there's no way
at all to assess any evidence. I can think of two ways to proceed
(1) accept, as a matter of method, that there is no way to assess
evidence for any miraculous violation of natural law (2) as a matter
of faith decide that only certain sorts of violations of natural law happen (you'd be in the company of Descartes in this, in his denial
of the possibility of a deceptive God). That seems to me to be
exactly what you do. You adduce evidence (call it circumstantial
or inconclusive as much as you like, but it's offered as evidence)
of a miraculous resurrection, but you consider a miraculous
Christian resurrection inherently more likely than any number
of miraculous violations of natural law that could undermine
the chain of evidence.
The problem, as I see it, is a false dichotomy. If our treasured
"laws of nature" are trustworthy in greater than 99.999% of all
events, then we can do science as we know it. A pedant can find
an example where we need even higher levels of reproducibility
but the exact number isn't the point. The point is that there exists
a __mostly__ that is associated with natural behavior sufficient
to our needs. And in context, those needs are the ability to detect
an event which is a bold exception.
We occasionally hear a story about somebody who was declared
dead, transported to a funeral home or morgue and then turns
up alive! As best I know, these are not miracles. Rather, they
are mistakes made by people who failed to detect a pulse.
But let's imagine a case where we had a full suite of advanced
medical monitors hooked up and a patient flat lined. We lost all
cardiac activity, circulation stops, and brain activity stops. A hour
later they are quietly removed to the morgue. And another hour
later dear Lazarus is found sitting up and wondering where they
are. I guess we could invent stories about broken wires or
malfunctioning equipment or other ad hoc excuses, but then again
it just might be that exception to all that we know.
Would that singular example invalidate everything we normally
count on? I don't think so. I don't believe it will happen. If such
miracles did occur, I rather think we would have examples to
point to. But if they did happen, albeit rarely, it would not have
to invalidate the vast majority of experience where the wild exceptions don't occur.
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7:05:24?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 13:25:02 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 1:15:23?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 09:18:08 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'll be doing something below that irritates some people here, Mark:If that is meant as a sideways snipe at me
I'll be replying to earlier text -- but ONLY from you, none from Martin. >> >
It isn't. Had I started commenting on things you wrote, readers
(including perhaps Mark) could have gotten irritated over my post's lack of focus,
as they *have* many times in the past.
This is why I let Mark know right away that I am focused on his statements exclusively.
I hope that makes my post a lot more readable than it would be otherwise. >> >
[snip the rest of your GIGO]
As Joe Louis is reputed to have said, you can run but you can't hide.
You ran from Glenn's analysis, and your answer indicated that you
weren't interested in the truth of what he wrote, but only in arguing with me.
On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 05:44:43 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Please lay out a general set of criteria which you use to evaluate claims of miraculous events. Otherwise "comparable to the evidence in the gospels" simply means "comparably conformable to my preferred religious beliefs".
OK, my final effort at this.
By definition, miraculous or supernatural claims can't be tested scientifically - I can't provide a direct cite but I'm sure you have expounded that principle on a number of occasions in the past. We
therefore have to evaluate in overall - and subjective - the
*circumstantial* evidence given in support of the claims. That
subjectivity applies both ways, something I tried to explain earlier
but apparently my explanation was too clumsy.
I'm open to correction by Burkhard in the following but, as I
understand it, the first step in examining circumstantial evidence is
to decide whether it is *admissible* and that is essentially what we
are debating here. I have said from the very start that the eyewitness testimony in the Gospels is *supporting* evidence not *conclusive*
evidence; the counterargument from you and others, as I understand it,
is that the evidence is worthless, effectively "not admissible".
In legal procedures, the question of admissibility is decided by a
judge, not by a jury. I think that process in regard to the eyewitness testimony in the Gospels versus sightings of Elvis might go something
along the following lines. (Note: in a real court case, the issues
would be debated by the prosecution and defence with the judge as
referee and final arbiter; for simplicity, I am presenting it here as
the judge asking the questions which will eventually help him make up
his mind about the admissability.)
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7:00:24 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
The problem I see here is that once you admit the possibility of
miraculous violations of natural law evidence simply becomes
meaningless, not inconclusive, or merely circumstantial, but
entirely meaningless. Everything that normally makes evidence
evidentiary depends on natural laws being reliable, objects don't
appear out of thin air, scientific assays on material evidence do
not give random answers, signatures on affidavits do not magically
change. Once you say that natural laws are not really laws, just
things that usually, but not always, happen, then there's no way
at all to assess any evidence. I can think of two ways to proceed
(1) accept, as a matter of method, that there is no way to assess
evidence for any miraculous violation of natural law (2) as a matter
of faith decide that only certain sorts of violations of natural law
happen (you'd be in the company of Descartes in this, in his denial
of the possibility of a deceptive God). That seems to me to be
exactly what you do. You adduce evidence (call it circumstantial
or inconclusive as much as you like, but it's offered as evidence)
of a miraculous resurrection, but you consider a miraculous
Christian resurrection inherently more likely than any number
of miraculous violations of natural law that could undermine
the chain of evidence.
NOTE TO READERS: Bill Rogers has avoided all direct replies to posts of mine, >and even ignored most of their content preserved in replies to me, for something like three years now.
So the following analysis is directed at those who care about what I say below.
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7:50:24?AM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7:00:24?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 05:44:43 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Please lay out a general set of criteria which you use to evaluate claims of miraculous events. Otherwise "comparable to the evidence in the gospels" simply means "comparably conformable to my preferred religious beliefs".
OK, my final effort at this.
By definition, miraculous or supernatural claims can't be tested
scientifically - I can't provide a direct cite but I'm sure you have
expounded that principle on a number of occasions in the past.
Martin seems unaware of possible exceptions -- permanent artifacts produced in
miracle that defy scientific explanations. Some allege that the tilma in permanent display
in Mexico City, bearing the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, defies scientific explanation.
But I've seen it and it does not impress me as miraculous. There are also allegations
of the miraculous nature of the image on the Shroud of Turin, but they have been
countered. Still, the principle is valid -- a real exception would void Martin's premature
surrender to the peculiar terminology of Bill Rogers.
The problem I see here is that once you admit the possibility of miraculous violations of natural law evidence simply becomes meaningless, not inconclusive, or merely circumstantial, but entirely meaningless.
Bill sees an illogical problem; specifically, a false dichotomy.
Everything that normally makes evidence evidentiary depends on natural laws being reliable, objects don't appear out of thin air, scientific assays on material evidence do not give random answers, signatures on affidavits do not magically change.
True as far as it goes, with emphasis on "normally". But Bill's sequel blithely ignores something that is stated in the movie, "Inherit the Wind."
It is that natural law was made by God, who can override it if so inclined. And although the movie
is highly biased against "Matthew Harrison Brady" -- the counterpart of William Jennings Bryan --
this statement by him is left unanswered by "Henry Drummond" [counterpart of Clarence Darrow]
and everyone else in the movie.
And so, the Hume-style analysis that follows is a classic case of begging the question.
The only logical rationale for it is a "hard atheism" that dismisses all claims of a designer of our universe.
assess evidence for any miraculous violation of natural law (2) as a matter of faith decide that only certain sorts of violations of natural law happen (you'd be in the company of Descartes in this, in his denial of the possibility of a deceptive God).Once you say that natural laws are not really laws, just things that usually, but not always, happen, then there's no way at all to assess any evidence. I can think of two ways to proceed (1) accept, as a matter of method, that there is no way to
"deceptive" is an anachronism. Until Newton started the investigation of natural laws, no rational person would have
suggested that a miracle is a deception by God as to what these laws are.
"deceptive" is also intellectually dishonest: Descartes was concerned about a thoroughly deceptive demon
making all of Descartes's life seem like a dream -- so thorough that for a while the only thing
he could be sure he wasn't deceived about is his own existence.
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 12:25:23?AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/17/23 8:05 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 5:15:23?PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/17/23 9:18 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll be doing something below that irritates some people here, Mark:
I'll be replying to earlier text -- but ONLY from you, none from Martin.
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 10:25:23?AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
[...]Of folklore, not of history. I trust you do think that a man named Yeshua (Jesus)
Tales of Coyote, the North American trickster, have also been
extensively studied and are a serious and significant body of work. >> >>>
who died by crucifixion actually lived, and that disciples of his founded The Way, later called Christianity.
If you don't, I think you are among the minority posting on this particular issue on this thread.
I do consider Jesus's existence to be historical (though not at the
99.9+% certainty range). However, the stories about his life are
folklore. That does not mean the stories are false. Some folklore is
largely true (e.g. Caesar's assassination), and a lot more folklore is >> >> based on truth but expanded or distorted in various ways (e.g., King
Arthur). In the case of Jesus, I'd say there's a good chance that the
core teachings in the Gospels, especially of God as Father, are true to >> >> what a historical Jesus taught. The stories of events in his life,
however, have nothing to recommend them as being accurately related.
It's like I said in my first post to this thread, in reply to Bill Rogers:
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We both (you a tad more than me)
are skeptical about the miraculous ones that violate what we know about science.
On the other hand, if we disregard that aspect, the stories seem quite sober and true
to what I've seen of human behavior.
Indeed, some of them have been discredited by other historical records. >> >For instance? And why do you use "discredited" rather than "contradicted"?
The need for his parents to go to Bethlehem because of a census. Roman
census records don't bear that out.
Have you forgotten the principle, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."?
I also believe there was a historical Siddhartha Gautama who founded
Buddhism, and that the stories surrounding his birth and death are
almost entirely mythologized. (I should have thought of this parallel
example earlier.)
Gautama explicitly denied being divine, unlike Jesus is depicted as doing.
Nevertheless, tales of his life (not to mention previous lives) often
include miracles and extraordinary events. I believe by some accounts
his birth was accompanied by an earthquake and a miraculous blooming of
flowers. And of course, he was tempted by a demon.
There are some interesting parallels here, but the last bit is only miraculous >if one denies the existence of demons. Tempting is the *main* job of demons >in Christian folklore. C.S. Lewis's _The Screwtape Letters_ takes advantage of
that folklore, but goes way beyond it in the insight it provides to human foibles,
with lessons for everyone of any faith (or no faith).
It is also well established that the leading early followers of The Way >> >>> did believe that Jesus rose from the dead, and was enjoying everlasting life,
and that they too would gain eternal life by following his teachings and example.
[For example, see I Peter 1:3-9.]
What early followers believed is of no account as evidence (except as
evidence of what they believed). As QAnon and multitudinous other ideas >> >> show, people will believe anything.
QAnon is a bizarre cult, and is utterly unlike what is described in the body of Gospels ...
That's my point. Belief alone in a thing CANNOT be taken as evidence
for the thing.
In case I haven't made it sufficiently clear: we are in full agreement on this.
I was merely pointing out two things about which there is no serious skepticism by historians.
As were the two things that I mentioned to which you responded with the figure 99.9+,
your unwillingness to go *quite* that far notwithstanding.
They are mainly an oral tradition so were not written down until
recently, but some of them probably are older than the Gospels. That >> >>>>>> the study of Coyote tales is not as extensive as that of the Gospels >> >>>>>> owes mainly to vagaries of history, especially of conquests and spread
of technology, and cannot easily be laid on the relative merits of the
stories. Coyote, after all, is another character who has resurrected.
According to folklore, not alleged eyewitness accounts. The Gospels
are generally believed to have been the work of people who claimed
to be eyewitnesses, or who personally knew people who claimed to
be eyewitnesses of the Risen Lord.
Once you need to put "alleged" in front of "eyewitness accounts", you
are already talking folklore.
"folklore" is misleading; these are not folk tales, but historical accounts,
with the understanding that all ancient historical accounts are "alleged" >> > in the same sense. There are significant differences, for example,
between what Polybius wrote about Hannibal and what Livy later wrote.
Yet there is a big body of information about Hannibal that no serious
historian doubts; whereas none of the folklore about Coyote is taken
literally by any serious historian.
Folklore is a very broad category. It includes "fairy tales", virtually
all religious tradition, jokes, quilt patterns, superstitions,
lullabies, and a great deal more. Stories which purport to tell a
history but which were influenced by retellings are legend. Legend too
is folklore, and the gospels fall in this category.
Not everything in the gospels, not by a long shot.
(I think Paul's letters, and probably Revelation, are the only parts of the Bible which
are not folklore.)
These are two starkly contrasting things. Revelation is the *alleged* recounting
of a vision, but its resemblance to visions in the OT books of Ezekiel and Daniel
has caused scholars to make it part of a genre with elaborate conventions of narrative.
I know of no such conventions in Paul's letters.
You also forget that the first person accounts of Luke in "Acts of the Apostles".
are as far removed from visions and folklore as one can get. Also, Luke's "Acts"
includes the story of Paul's conversion, begun by a vision of Jesus
saying "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" [Acts 9: 3-8]. Paul is shown corroborating
this in Acts 22: 6-11 and part way in Acts 26: 13-15. He also confirms this event
firsthand in I Corinthians 15:8.
In the case of the gospels, they are part of the
religion, but in other cases legend gets taken seriously as a historical
basis for customs, which can also lead to people taking it literally.
The example that pops to mind is that the legend of St.Nicholas has become the basis
of customs in Europe on Dec. 6 [the feast of St. Nicholas in the Catholic Church] and
their elaborate American modification about Santa Claus on Christmas Eve.
Did you have others in mind?
Part of the purpose of trickster tales such as most Coyote tales is to
be outlandish enough that people will not take them literally, but will
still see serious lessons in them. This reminds people that "literally"
and "seriously" are very different concepts, and one does not imply the
other. I think many Americans need such lessons.
This reminds me of the two very different meanings of the word "myth."
The older one had Greek mythology as its most familiar exemplar for Americans. >The modern one includes the use that you describe under the heading of "tales."
Of course, the modern one is about purposes that go back to Greek myths. >Homer's Iliad and Odyssey contain innumerable serious lessons while relating myths
about gods and goddesses and fantastic creatures.
And most serious of all: Odysseus's visit to the realm of the dead, where the shade of
Achilles tells him that he would rather be the lowliest of servants on earth than king of all the dead.
Peter Nyikos
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 12:25:23 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
Folklore is a very broad category. It includes "fairy tales", virtually
all religious tradition, jokes, quilt patterns, superstitions,
lullabies, and a great deal more. Stories which purport to tell a
history but which were influenced by retellings are legend. Legend too
is folklore, and the gospels fall in this category.
Not everything in the gospels, not by a long shot.
(I think Paul's letters, and probably Revelation, are the only parts of the Bible which
are not folklore.)
These are two starkly contrasting things. Revelation is the *alleged* recounting
of a vision, but its resemblance to visions in the OT books of Ezekiel and Daniel
has caused scholars to make it part of a genre with elaborate conventions of narrative.
I know of no such conventions in Paul's letters.
You also forget that the first person accounts of Luke in "Acts of the Apostles".
are as far removed from visions and folklore as one can get. Also, Luke's "Acts"
includes the story of Paul's conversion, begun by a vision of Jesus
saying "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" [Acts 9: 3-8]. Paul is shown corroborating
this in Acts 22: 6-11 and part way in Acts 26: 13-15. He also confirms this event
firsthand in I Corinthians 15:8.
> In the case of the gospels, they are part of the
religion, but in other cases legend gets taken seriously as a historical
basis for customs, which can also lead to people taking it literally.
The example that pops to mind is that the legend of St.Nicholas has become the basis
of customs in Europe on Dec. 6 [the feast of St. Nicholas in the Catholic Church] and
their elaborate American modification about Santa Claus on Christmas Eve.
Did you have others in mind?
Part of the purpose of trickster tales such as most Coyote tales is to
be outlandish enough that people will not take them literally, but will
still see serious lessons in them. This reminds people that "literally"
and "seriously" are very different concepts, and one does not imply the
other. I think many Americans need such lessons.
This reminds me of the two very different meanings of the word "myth."
The older one had Greek mythology as its most familiar exemplar for Americans.
The modern one includes the use that you describe under the heading of "tales."
Of course, the modern one is about purposes that go back to Greek myths. Homer's Iliad and Odyssey contain innumerable serious lessons while relating myths
about gods and goddesses and fantastic creatures.
And most serious of all: Odysseus's visit to the realm of the dead, where the shade of
Achilles tells him that he would rather be the lowliest of servants on earth than king of all the dead.
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7:50:24?AM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7:00:24?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
[ . . . ]
The problem I see here is that once you admit the possibility of
miraculous violations of natural law evidence simply becomes
meaningless, not inconclusive, or merely circumstantial, but
entirely meaningless. Everything that normally makes evidence
evidentiary depends on natural laws being reliable, objects don't
appear out of thin air, scientific assays on material evidence do
not give random answers, signatures on affidavits do not magically
change. Once you say that natural laws are not really laws, just
things that usually, but not always, happen, then there's no way
at all to assess any evidence. I can think of two ways to proceed
(1) accept, as a matter of method, that there is no way to assess
evidence for any miraculous violation of natural law (2) as a matter
of faith decide that only certain sorts of violations of natural law
happen (you'd be in the company of Descartes in this, in his denial
of the possibility of a deceptive God). That seems to me to be
exactly what you do. You adduce evidence (call it circumstantial
or inconclusive as much as you like, but it's offered as evidence)
of a miraculous resurrection, but you consider a miraculous
Christian resurrection inherently more likely than any number
of miraculous violations of natural law that could undermine
the chain of evidence.
I do believe I understand your position but I'm forced to disagree.
The problem, as I see it, is a false dichotomy. If our treasured
"laws of nature" are trustworthy in greater than 99.999% of all
events, then we can do science as we know it. A pedant can find
an example where we need even higher levels of reproducibility
but the exact number isn't the point. The point is that there exists
a __mostly__ that is associated with natural behavior sufficient
to our needs. And in context, those needs are the ability to detect
an event which is a bold exception.
We occasionally hear a story about somebody who was declared
dead, transported to a funeral home or morgue and then turns
up alive! As best I know, these are not miracles. Rather, they
are mistakes made by people who failed to detect a pulse.
But let's imagine a case where we had a full suite of advanced
medical monitors hooked up and a patient flat lined. We lost all
cardiac activity, circulation stops, and brain activity stops. A hour
later they are quietly removed to the morgue. And another hour
later dear Lazarus is found sitting up and wondering where they
are. I guess we could invent stories about broken wires or
malfunctioning equipment or other ad hoc excuses, but then again
it just might be that exception to all that we know.
Would that singular example invalidate everything we normally
count on? I don't think so. I don't believe it will happen. If such
miracles did occur, I rather think we would have examples to
point to. But if they did happen, albeit rarely, it would not have
to invalidate the vast majority of experience where the wild exceptions
don't occur.
On 4/18/23 3:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 05:44:43 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Please lay out a general set of criteria which you use to evaluate claims of miraculous events. Otherwise "comparable to the evidence in the gospels" simply means "comparably conformable to my preferred religious beliefs".
OK, my final effort at this.
By definition, miraculous or supernatural claims can't be tested
scientifically - I can't provide a direct cite but I'm sure you have
expounded that principle on a number of occasions in the past. We
therefore have to evaluate in overall - and subjective - the
*circumstantial* evidence given in support of the claims. That
subjectivity applies both ways, something I tried to explain earlier
but apparently my explanation was too clumsy.
I'm open to correction by Burkhard in the following but, as I
understand it, the first step in examining circumstantial evidence is
to decide whether it is *admissible* and that is essentially what we
are debating here. I have said from the very start that the eyewitness
testimony in the Gospels is *supporting* evidence not *conclusive*
evidence; the counterargument from you and others, as I understand it,
is that the evidence is worthless, effectively "not admissible".
In legal procedures, the question of admissibility is decided by a
judge, not by a jury. I think that process in regard to the eyewitness
testimony in the Gospels versus sightings of Elvis might go something
along the following lines. (Note: in a real court case, the issues
would be debated by the prosecution and defence with the judge as
referee and final arbiter; for simplicity, I am presenting it here as
the judge asking the questions which will eventually help him make up
his mind about the admissability.)
I too would defer to an expert legal opinion, but my understanding is
that a witness is not even allowed to testify about what someone else
has claimed. ("Objection! Hearsay.")
No judge would possibly allow as
evidence reports written down a decade or more after the events in
question, whose authors are unknown much less unavailable for >cross-examination, which reports are known to have gone through at least
one selection process to reject competing reports that may have said >something different, and which do not even purport to be written by >eyewitnesses to the resurrection.
The gospels were written well after Jesus's death. During that time,
the community of Jesus's followers would have been telling stories about
the old days. Those stories would inevitably undergo changes to better
fit them with the beliefs and expectations of the community. (And note, >"Jesus's death was pointless" would *not* have been among those >expectations.) Probably new stories would have been added and, after >circulating awhile, accepted as fact.
Add to that, the gospels were not written as historical documents, but
as rhetorical ones, designed to press a point of view. Modern standards
of evidence (excepting those used by Fox News) would not have applied; I >doubt whether the writing went through *any* fact-checking. It is even >possible that the writers never met Jesus at all. And again, the
writings were selected to weed out all other accounts which did not fit
with the dogma; you have received a deliberately one-sided view.
You keep using the word "eyewitness" when what you have is, at best,
"claimed witness of others claiming to be eyewitnesses," and quite
likely not even that.
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7:00:24?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 05:44:43 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Please lay out a general set of criteria which you use to evaluate claims of miraculous events. Otherwise "comparable to the evidence in the gospels" simply means "comparably conformable to my preferred religious beliefs".
OK, my final effort at this.
evidentiary depends on natural laws being reliable, objects don't appear out of thin air, scientific assays on material evidence do not give random answers, signatures on affidavits do not magically change. Once you say that natural laws are not really
By definition, miraculous or supernatural claims can't be tested
scientifically - I can't provide a direct cite but I'm sure you have
expounded that principle on a number of occasions in the past. We
therefore have to evaluate in overall - and subjective - the
*circumstantial* evidence given in support of the claims. That
subjectivity applies both ways, something I tried to explain earlier
but apparently my explanation was too clumsy.
The problem I see here is that once you admit the possibility of miraculous violations of natural law evidence simply becomes meaningless, not inconclusive, or merely circumstantial, but entirely meaningless. Everything that normally makes evidence
do. You adduce evidence (call it circumstantial or inconclusive as much as you like, but it's offered as evidence) of a miraculous resurrection, but you consider a miraculous Christian resurrection inherently more likely than any number of miraculousviolations of natural law that could undermine the chain of evidence.
laws.
I'm open to correction by Burkhard in the following but, as I
understand it, the first step in examining circumstantial evidence is
to decide whether it is *admissible* and that is essentially what we
are debating here. I have said from the very start that the eyewitness
testimony in the Gospels is *supporting* evidence not *conclusive*
evidence; the counterargument from you and others, as I understand it,
is that the evidence is worthless, effectively "not admissible".
See above, the counterargument is that in a world in which miraculous violations of natural law can occur, evidence is meaningless, not merely inconclusive, because everything that makes evidence of anything credible relies on the reliability of natural
In legal procedures, the question of admissibility is decided by a
judge, not by a jury. I think that process in regard to the eyewitness
testimony in the Gospels versus sightings of Elvis might go something
along the following lines. (Note: in a real court case, the issues
would be debated by the prosecution and defence with the judge as
referee and final arbiter; for simplicity, I am presenting it here as
the judge asking the questions which will eventually help him make up
his mind about the admissibility.)
You've written a lot here and I am sorry if it looks like I am paying no attention.
The issue is not Jesus versus Elvis.
The issue is, given 100 claims of miraculous violations of natural law, what criteria do you use, in general terms, to decide whether purported evidence is relatively strong or relatively weak? These could be things like
1. Is the witness available for examination?
2. What is the provenance of a document?
3. What is the political, personal or religious agenda of the author of a document?
4. What fraction of people who accept the claim are willing to kill or be killed in defense of its truth?
5. How many independent sources report the event?
6. How soon after the event allegedly occurred was it documented?
The best way to avoid claims of special pleading is to address these criteria in the abstract, without trying to apply them to any specific miraculous claim, still less to one made by your preferred religion. My own approach is not directed against youror anybody else's religion. My own approach does not deny the possibility of miracles, my only claim is that if miracles occur, then there can be no meaningful evidence for them.
Source of testimony
=============
Resurrection of Jesus: the eyewitnesses are all dead but we have the
testimony of a number of authors who investigated the testimony and
were happy that it was recorded accurately. We also have numerous
scholars who have scrutinised the Gospels and, whilst there are a
number of areas of disagreement, the scholars generally accept that
the records of accounts of the testimony are an accurate reflection of
what the eyewitnesses said.
Elvis alive: there is no dispute about what the witnesses said, some
of whom are still alive and available for questioning.
Background of the Witnesses:
===================
Resurrection of Jesus: the main witnesses were highly reputable
public figures who preached with lives based on openness and honesty,
those lives having been subjected to intense scrutiny over *almost*
2000 years.
Elvis alive: nothing is known about the background to the witnesses,
whether or not they were reputable people or whether or not they were
prone to bursts of vivid imagination; anyone who has talked to them as
part of a structured investigation has been convinced by their
accounts.
Did the witnesses know the person?
=======================
Resurrection of Jesus: the eyewitnesses were people who lived and
travelled with Jesus for several years before his death.
Elvis alive: none of the witnesses knew Elvis before he died, their
judgement is based on his appearance in movies, television and photos.
Did the Witnesses interact with the person after their death?
=================================================
Resurrection of Jesus: yes, the witnesses spent considerable time in
his company on a number of occasions, they shared food with him and
listened to his teaching and instructions.
miracles of your religion against the miracles of other religions.
Elvis alive: no, physical sightings were visual only, based on people
whom the witnessses thought looked like Elvis. In at least one case,
it was based on seeing someone who looked like Elvis in the background
of a popular movie.
Did the subject of the testimony actually claim to be that person?
==========================================
Resurrection of Jesus: Yes, the person encountered by the disciples
claimed that he was Jesus Christ.
Elvis alive: no known case of the subject of sightings claiming to be
Elvis.
Has the evidence been scrutinised by anyone hostile to the witnesses?
============================================
Resurrection of Jesus: St Paul initially rejected the eyewitnesses'
testimony, persecuting them for giving it. After spending time with
the eyewitnesses, he came to believe them and spent the rest of his
life promoting what they had said.
Elvis alive: writer Kenneth Partridge checked out the stories and in
many of them, he found directly contradicting evidence [1]. For
example, the first person who claimed to see Elvis said that he saw "a
man bearing a striking resemblance to Elvis purchasing a one-way
ticket from Memphis International Airport to Buenos Aires in 1977.
There were not flights from Memphis to Buenos Aires at that time. The
second claimed sighting was somebody who thought that a shadowy figure
in a photo taken at Elvis's pool house. Joe Esprito, a good buddy of
Elvis, said it wasn't, it looked more like Al Strada, another
associate of Elvis.
I could go on, but I think there is more than enough there to show a
considerably stronger case for the admissibility of the Gospel
evidence than Elvis sightings. Is it strong enough to be *admissible*?
I think so but if it were the equivalent of a court case and I were
the judge, I would be emphasising strongly to the jury that they
should not be over-reliant on it in deciding whether the Resurrection
really happened, they would need further evidence to arrive at that
conclusion.
The alternative to that further evidence is indeed faith but that does
not mean the faith can rely on the limited evidence alone, it has to
be based on much more than that. It certainly is in my case and all
committed Christians that I know.
My argument is that you are looking for trouble if you ask the resurrection (or your miracle of choice) to be treated as subject to evidential support (even circumstantial evidential support). You will end up, inevitably, in special pleading for the
Given that the a priori probability of a miraculous event is inherently infinitesimal (otherwise it would not be a miracle), no pile of evidence would be enough to shift your a posteriori probability anywhere near one, so differences in the quality ofallegedly supporting evidence are not particularly meaningful anyway.
[1]
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/503466/suspicious-minds-bizarre-40-year-history-elvis-presley-sightings
I don't know anything about
bunyips ( I never heard of them until you mentioned them here) but
I've certainly never heard anyone[1] claiming to have met a leprechaun >> >> >> or Santa Claus - have you?
For bunyips, you may need to travel to Australia. Or ask a[1] Young children excluded.
librarian and read the written accounts. (The Wikipedia article has >> >> >> >several references. I don't remember which of my several Australian >> >> >> >myth books I encountered them in.)
On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 04:45:47 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:evidentiary depends on natural laws being reliable, objects don't appear out of thin air, scientific assays on material evidence do not give random answers, signatures on affidavits do not magically change. Once you say that natural laws are not really
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7:00:24?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:Despite saying that it would be my final effort, I'll zoom in on a few points that I think are particularly important.
On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 05:44:43 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Please lay out a general set of criteria which you use to evaluate claims of miraculous events. Otherwise "comparable to the evidence in the gospels" simply means "comparably conformable to my preferred religious beliefs".
OK, my final effort at this.
By definition, miraculous or supernatural claims can't be tested
scientifically - I can't provide a direct cite but I'm sure you have
expounded that principle on a number of occasions in the past. We
therefore have to evaluate in overall - and subjective - the
*circumstantial* evidence given in support of the claims. That
subjectivity applies both ways, something I tried to explain earlier
but apparently my explanation was too clumsy.
The problem I see here is that once you admit the possibility of miraculous violations of natural law evidence simply becomes meaningless, not inconclusive, or merely circumstantial, but entirely meaningless. Everything that normally makes evidence
violations of natural law that could undermine the chain of evidence.do. You adduce evidence (call it circumstantial or inconclusive as much as you like, but it's offered as evidence) of a miraculous resurrection, but you consider a miraculous Christian resurrection inherently more likely than any number of miraculous
natural laws.
I'm open to correction by Burkhard in the following but, as I
understand it, the first step in examining circumstantial evidence is
to decide whether it is *admissible* and that is essentially what we
are debating here. I have said from the very start that the eyewitness
testimony in the Gospels is *supporting* evidence not *conclusive*
evidence; the counterargument from you and others, as I understand it,
is that the evidence is worthless, effectively "not admissible".
See above, the counterargument is that in a world in which miraculous violations of natural law can occur, evidence is meaningless, not merely inconclusive, because everything that makes evidence of anything credible relies on the reliability of
You are coming close to scientism here by insisting that evidentiary evidence must conform to natural laws. Courts of law do not adopt that approach - evidence about motives and relationships, for example, are
often entirely subjective.
In legal procedures, the question of admissibility is decided by a
judge, not by a jury. I think that process in regard to the eyewitness
testimony in the Gospels versus sightings of Elvis might go something
along the following lines. (Note: in a real court case, the issues
would be debated by the prosecution and defence with the judge as
referee and final arbiter; for simplicity, I am presenting it here as
the judge asking the questions which will eventually help him make up
his mind about the admissibility.)
You've written a lot here and I am sorry if it looks like I am paying no attention.It would have been useful if you had indicated whether or not you
accept at least the broad thrust of it.
The issue is not Jesus versus Elvis.It wasn't me who introduced Elvis into the debate, I'm not sure
whether it was you or Mark but you have both used it several times as
a reference point for comparison.
The issue is, given 100 claims of miraculous violations of natural law, what criteria do you use, in general terms, to decide whether purported evidence is relatively strong or relatively weak? These could be things like
1. Is the witness available for examination?It would have been useful to hear what you found wrong with the sample criteria I gave as examples rather than just introducing alternative criteria.
2. What is the provenance of a document?
3. What is the political, personal or religious agenda of the author of a document?
4. What fraction of people who accept the claim are willing to kill or be killed in defense of its truth?
5. How many independent sources report the event?
6. How soon after the event allegedly occurred was it documented?
your or anybody else's religion. My own approach does not deny the possibility of miracles, my only claim is that if miracles occur, then there can be no meaningful evidence for them.The best way to avoid claims of special pleading is to address these criteria in the abstract, without trying to apply them to any specific miraculous claim, still less to one made by your preferred religion. My own approach is not directed against
Source of testimony
=============
Resurrection of Jesus: the eyewitnesses are all dead but we have the
testimony of a number of authors who investigated the testimony and
were happy that it was recorded accurately. We also have numerous
scholars who have scrutinised the Gospels and, whilst there are a
number of areas of disagreement, the scholars generally accept that
the records of accounts of the testimony are an accurate reflection of
what the eyewitnesses said.
Elvis alive: there is no dispute about what the witnesses said, some
of whom are still alive and available for questioning.
Background of the Witnesses:
===================
Resurrection of Jesus: the main witnesses were highly reputable
public figures who preached with lives based on openness and honesty,
those lives having been subjected to intense scrutiny over *almost*
2000 years.
Elvis alive: nothing is known about the background to the witnesses,
whether or not they were reputable people or whether or not they were
prone to bursts of vivid imagination; anyone who has talked to them as
part of a structured investigation has been convinced by their
accounts.
Did the witnesses know the person?
=======================
Resurrection of Jesus: the eyewitnesses were people who lived and
travelled with Jesus for several years before his death.
Elvis alive: none of the witnesses knew Elvis before he died, their
judgement is based on his appearance in movies, television and photos.
Did the Witnesses interact with the person after their death?
=================================================
Resurrection of Jesus: yes, the witnesses spent considerable time in
his company on a number of occasions, they shared food with him and
listened to his teaching and instructions.
Elvis alive: no, physical sightings were visual only, based on people
whom the witnessses thought looked like Elvis. In at least one case,
it was based on seeing someone who looked like Elvis in the background
of a popular movie.
Did the subject of the testimony actually claim to be that person?
==========================================
Resurrection of Jesus: Yes, the person encountered by the disciples
claimed that he was Jesus Christ.
Elvis alive: no known case of the subject of sightings claiming to be
Elvis.
Has the evidence been scrutinised by anyone hostile to the witnesses?
============================================
Resurrection of Jesus: St Paul initially rejected the eyewitnesses'
testimony, persecuting them for giving it. After spending time with
the eyewitnesses, he came to believe them and spent the rest of his
life promoting what they had said.
miracles of your religion against the miracles of other religions.
Elvis alive: writer Kenneth Partridge checked out the stories and in
many of them, he found directly contradicting evidence [1]. For
example, the first person who claimed to see Elvis said that he saw "a
man bearing a striking resemblance to Elvis purchasing a one-way
ticket from Memphis International Airport to Buenos Aires in 1977.
There were not flights from Memphis to Buenos Aires at that time. The
second claimed sighting was somebody who thought that a shadowy figure
in a photo taken at Elvis's pool house. Joe Esprito, a good buddy of
Elvis, said it wasn't, it looked more like Al Strada, another
associate of Elvis.
I could go on, but I think there is more than enough there to show a
considerably stronger case for the admissibility of the Gospel
evidence than Elvis sightings. Is it strong enough to be *admissible*?
I think so but if it were the equivalent of a court case and I were
the judge, I would be emphasising strongly to the jury that they
should not be over-reliant on it in deciding whether the Resurrection
really happened, they would need further evidence to arrive at that
conclusion.
The alternative to that further evidence is indeed faith but that does
not mean the faith can rely on the limited evidence alone, it has to
be based on much more than that. It certainly is in my case and all
committed Christians that I know.
My argument is that you are looking for trouble if you ask the resurrection (or your miracle of choice) to be treated as subject to evidential support (even circumstantial evidential support). You will end up, inevitably, in special pleading for the
My points about the evidence in the Gospels is about the particular
event described in those Gospels. Handwaving about undefined features
of other religions seems little more than a red herring.
allegedly supporting evidence are not particularly meaningful anyway.Given that the a priori probability of a miraculous event is inherently infinitesimal (otherwise it would not be a miracle), no pile of evidence would be enough to shift your a posteriori probability anywhere near one, so differences in the quality of
[1]
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/503466/suspicious-minds-bizarre-40-year-history-elvis-presley-sightings
I don't know anything about
bunyips ( I never heard of them until you mentioned them here) but >> >> >> I've certainly never heard anyone[1] claiming to have met a leprechaun
or Santa Claus - have you?
For bunyips, you may need to travel to Australia. Or ask a[1] Young children excluded.
librarian and read the written accounts. (The Wikipedia article has
several references. I don't remember which of my several Australian
myth books I encountered them in.)
As Burkhard and I have tried to convince you, this seems a poor way to use faith, and it will inevitably lead to treating your faith's miracles on a par with those of other faiths and even with the oddest beliefs of eccentric cults and conspiracytheorists.
On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 05:10:37 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]theorists.
As Burkhard and I have tried to convince you, this seems a poor way to use faith, and it will inevitably lead to treating your faith's miracles on a par with those of other faiths and even with the oddest beliefs of eccentric cults and conspiracy
I have stated several times that what I have said about evidence in
this discussion has no bearing on my faith. Apparently, you are
convinced that you and Burkhard know more about the foundations of my
faith than I do.
[...]Should have specified I was using the indefinite "you". I find "one" an awkward pronoun to use repeatedly. I've been talking about the relationship between evidence and faith in general. Specifically I think that one cannot choose which of many
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:55:24 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:though the patient was not dead in the first place? On what basis can you evaluate the relative probability of two incompatible violations of natural laws?
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7:50:24 AM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7:00:24 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
[ . . . ]
The problem I see here is that once you admit the possibility ofI do believe I understand your position but I'm forced to disagree.
miraculous violations of natural law evidence simply becomes
meaningless, not inconclusive, or merely circumstantial, but
entirely meaningless. Everything that normally makes evidence
evidentiary depends on natural laws being reliable, objects don't
appear out of thin air, scientific assays on material evidence do
not give random answers, signatures on affidavits do not magically
change. Once you say that natural laws are not really laws, just
things that usually, but not always, happen, then there's no way
at all to assess any evidence. I can think of two ways to proceed
(1) accept, as a matter of method, that there is no way to assess
evidence for any miraculous violation of natural law (2) as a matter
of faith decide that only certain sorts of violations of natural law
happen (you'd be in the company of Descartes in this, in his denial
of the possibility of a deceptive God). That seems to me to be
exactly what you do. You adduce evidence (call it circumstantial
or inconclusive as much as you like, but it's offered as evidence)
of a miraculous resurrection, but you consider a miraculous
Christian resurrection inherently more likely than any number
of miraculous violations of natural law that could undermine
the chain of evidence.
The problem, as I see it, is a false dichotomy. If our treasured
"laws of nature" are trustworthy in greater than 99.999% of all
events, then we can do science as we know it. A pedant can find
an example where we need even higher levels of reproducibility
but the exact number isn't the point. The point is that there exists
a __mostly__ that is associated with natural behavior sufficient
to our needs. And in context, those needs are the ability to detect
an event which is a bold exception.
We occasionally hear a story about somebody who was declared
dead, transported to a funeral home or morgue and then turns
up alive! As best I know, these are not miracles. Rather, they
are mistakes made by people who failed to detect a pulse.
But let's imagine a case where we had a full suite of advanced
medical monitors hooked up and a patient flat lined. We lost all
cardiac activity, circulation stops, and brain activity stops. A hour
later they are quietly removed to the morgue. And another hour
later dear Lazarus is found sitting up and wondering where they
are. I guess we could invent stories about broken wires or
malfunctioning equipment or other ad hoc excuses, but then again
it just might be that exception to all that we know.
That is a good example of the problem. If the laws of nature could be suspended to allow the Lazarus fellow to return to life, why couldn't they be suspended to allow an apparently normally functioning EKG without broken wires to show a flat line even
On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 9:40:25?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:theorists.
On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 05:10:37 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
As Burkhard and I have tried to convince you, this seems a poor way to use faith, and it will inevitably lead to treating your faith's miracles on a par with those of other faiths and even with the oddest beliefs of eccentric cults and conspiracy
I have stated several times that what I have said about evidence inShould have specified I was using the indefinite "you". I find "one" an awkward pronoun to use repeatedly.
this discussion has no bearing on my faith. Apparently, you are
convinced that you and Burkhard know more about the foundations of my
faith than I do.
[...]
I've been talking about the relationship between evidence and faith in general.
- if one wants to or not, it inevitably naturalises religion because it has to assume the divine leaves naturalistic traces and can thus be cajoled into answering our questions)[]
There is a simple and a more complex answer on this [accepting miracles as evidence]. The simple one is: even if you treat it as just "some" weak supporting" evidence, it still assumed that spiritual/supernatural events leave natural traces. That meansyou have to play by the rules of naturalistic evidence assessment, and that comes with a whole baggage of corollaries, inevitably. So I don't think the idea of a harmonious "supportive" relation works, not if you follow though through with the reasoning.
Specifically I think that one cannot choose which of many miraculous violations of natural law to accept without faith and that therefore Abner was correct to claim that belief that Jesus is currently alive is a matter of "pure faith." There is noreasonable set of criteria that would allow one to pick out a tiny subset of all the many possible and actual claims of miraculous violations of natural law as sufficiently better evidenced than the others and that they therefore should get the benefit
reasons for that in the bits you snipped.
On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 07:15:46 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:theorists.
On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 9:40:25?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 05:10:37 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
As Burkhard and I have tried to convince you, this seems a poor way to use faith, and it will inevitably lead to treating your faith's miracles on a par with those of other faiths and even with the oddest beliefs of eccentric cults and conspiracy
That still makes it a general principle you are stating which wouldI have stated several times that what I have said about evidence inShould have specified I was using the indefinite "you". I find "one" an awkward pronoun to use repeatedly.
this discussion has no bearing on my faith. Apparently, you are
convinced that you and Burkhard know more about the foundations of my
faith than I do.
[...]
include me by default. It would also include the many committed
Christians I know whose faith is not at all dependent on the Gospel
stories about the Resurrection.
I've been talking about the relationship between evidence and faith in general.Did you read my response to Burkhard on this a few days ago, where I
asked him if accepting miracles as evidence of faith somehow dilutes
faith, why did Jesus perform them? He didn't have time to answer
before going on holiday, perhaps you would address it.
I also talked about miracles being a "doorway" to faith. Here are the
most relevant bits:
===============================================
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/qR3fuyqIAAs/m/1RoJv_4IAAAJ
[Burkhard}
[匽
- if one wants to or not, it inevitably naturalises religion because it has to assume the divine leaves naturalistic traces and can thus be cajoled into answering our questions)[匽
[Me]
So how does that reconcile with Jesus performing miracles to
demonstrate that he truly was the Son of God? Were those miracles not "evidence" and did people like the blind man and Lazurus not count as naturalistic traces whilst they were alive?
[匽means you have to play by the rules of naturalistic evidence assessment, and that comes with a whole baggage of corollaries, inevitably. So I don't think the idea of a harmonious "supportive" relation works, not if you follow though through with the
[Burkhard}
[匽
There is a simple and a more complex answer on this [accepting miracles as evidence]. The simple one is: even if you treat it as just "some" weak supporting" evidence, it still assumed that spiritual/supernatural events leave natural traces. That
[匽
[Me]
I think that what you argue there really only applies if someone tries
to make the evidence into some sort of conclusive proof. To me, the
evidence is really only a starting point; various people say that they
saw Jesus resurrected. Most people listening likely laughed off the
idea but some people decided to probe a bit more; it is that probing,
in my opinion, that eventually leads to faith. To put it another way,
the evidence both for miracles and for the Resurrection open a door to
faith but the person still has to step through it and the decision to
step through is the first step into faith. That is the significant difference I see between "Jesus is alive" and "Elvis is alive"; the
former opens up a whole new vista and sense of purpose but the latter
just leads to "so what , even if it were true?"
==============================================reasonable set of criteria that would allow one to pick out a tiny subset of all the many possible and actual claims of miraculous violations of natural law as sufficiently better evidenced than the others and that they therefore should get the benefit
Specifically I think that one cannot choose which of many miraculous violations of natural law to accept without faith and that therefore Abner was correct to claim that belief that Jesus is currently alive is a matter of "pure faith." There is no
reasons for that in the bits you snipped.
On 4/18/23 3:03 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:even though the patient was not dead in the first place? On what basis can you evaluate the relative probability of two incompatible violations of natural laws?
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:55:24 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7:50:24 AM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7:00:24 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> [ . . . ]I do believe I understand your position but I'm forced to disagree.
The problem I see here is that once you admit the possibility of
miraculous violations of natural law evidence simply becomes
meaningless, not inconclusive, or merely circumstantial, but
entirely meaningless. Everything that normally makes evidence
evidentiary depends on natural laws being reliable, objects don't
appear out of thin air, scientific assays on material evidence do
not give random answers, signatures on affidavits do not magically
change. Once you say that natural laws are not really laws, just
things that usually, but not always, happen, then there's no way
at all to assess any evidence. I can think of two ways to proceed
(1) accept, as a matter of method, that there is no way to assess
evidence for any miraculous violation of natural law (2) as a matter
of faith decide that only certain sorts of violations of natural law
happen (you'd be in the company of Descartes in this, in his denial
of the possibility of a deceptive God). That seems to me to be
exactly what you do. You adduce evidence (call it circumstantial
or inconclusive as much as you like, but it's offered as evidence)
of a miraculous resurrection, but you consider a miraculous
Christian resurrection inherently more likely than any number
of miraculous violations of natural law that could undermine
the chain of evidence.
The problem, as I see it, is a false dichotomy. If our treasured
"laws of nature" are trustworthy in greater than 99.999% of all
events, then we can do science as we know it. A pedant can find
an example where we need even higher levels of reproducibility
but the exact number isn't the point. The point is that there exists
a __mostly__ that is associated with natural behavior sufficient
to our needs. And in context, those needs are the ability to detect
an event which is a bold exception.
We occasionally hear a story about somebody who was declared
dead, transported to a funeral home or morgue and then turns
up alive! As best I know, these are not miracles. Rather, they
are mistakes made by people who failed to detect a pulse.
But let's imagine a case where we had a full suite of advanced
medical monitors hooked up and a patient flat lined. We lost all
cardiac activity, circulation stops, and brain activity stops. A hour
later they are quietly removed to the morgue. And another hour
later dear Lazarus is found sitting up and wondering where they
are. I guess we could invent stories about broken wires or
malfunctioning equipment or other ad hoc excuses, but then again
it just might be that exception to all that we know.
That is a good example of the problem. If the laws of nature could be suspended to allow the Lazarus fellow to return to life, why couldn't they be suspended to allow an apparently normally functioning EKG without broken wires to show a flat line
Both of you have good points. As I see it,
1. Miracles are logically possible if the universe is *mostly* reliable.
2. When and if such miracles occur, we can never know it, because an (unknown) natural explanation is always an option. And as Roger's
example shows, even if you do grant a miracle, we can't be sure where
the miracle lies.
Yesterday, for example, two miracles occurred: First, the archangel
Raphael, in flowing, glowing robes, appeared among the assembled
Congress and chastised their behavior for over an hour. Second, the
angel and its effects remained undetectable to everyone and everything throughout the event. Nobody can prove otherwise.
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 10:45:24 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:even though the patient was not dead in the first place? On what basis can you evaluate the relative probability of two incompatible violations of natural laws?
On 4/18/23 3:03 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:55:24 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7:50:24 AM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7:00:24 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> [ . . . ]I do believe I understand your position but I'm forced to disagree.
The problem I see here is that once you admit the possibility of
miraculous violations of natural law evidence simply becomes
meaningless, not inconclusive, or merely circumstantial, but
entirely meaningless. Everything that normally makes evidence
evidentiary depends on natural laws being reliable, objects don't
appear out of thin air, scientific assays on material evidence do
not give random answers, signatures on affidavits do not magically
change. Once you say that natural laws are not really laws, just
things that usually, but not always, happen, then there's no way
at all to assess any evidence. I can think of two ways to proceed
(1) accept, as a matter of method, that there is no way to assess
evidence for any miraculous violation of natural law (2) as a matter >>> of faith decide that only certain sorts of violations of natural law >>> happen (you'd be in the company of Descartes in this, in his denial >>> of the possibility of a deceptive God). That seems to me to be
exactly what you do. You adduce evidence (call it circumstantial
or inconclusive as much as you like, but it's offered as evidence)
of a miraculous resurrection, but you consider a miraculous
Christian resurrection inherently more likely than any number
of miraculous violations of natural law that could undermine
the chain of evidence.
The problem, as I see it, is a false dichotomy. If our treasured
"laws of nature" are trustworthy in greater than 99.999% of all
events, then we can do science as we know it. A pedant can find
an example where we need even higher levels of reproducibility
but the exact number isn't the point. The point is that there exists
a __mostly__ that is associated with natural behavior sufficient
to our needs. And in context, those needs are the ability to detect
an event which is a bold exception.
We occasionally hear a story about somebody who was declared
dead, transported to a funeral home or morgue and then turns
up alive! As best I know, these are not miracles. Rather, they
are mistakes made by people who failed to detect a pulse.
But let's imagine a case where we had a full suite of advanced
medical monitors hooked up and a patient flat lined. We lost all
cardiac activity, circulation stops, and brain activity stops. A hour >> later they are quietly removed to the morgue. And another hour
later dear Lazarus is found sitting up and wondering where they
are. I guess we could invent stories about broken wires or
malfunctioning equipment or other ad hoc excuses, but then again
it just might be that exception to all that we know.
That is a good example of the problem. If the laws of nature could be suspended to allow the Lazarus fellow to return to life, why couldn't they be suspended to allow an apparently normally functioning EKG without broken wires to show a flat line
Both of you have good points. As I see it,
1. Miracles are logically possible if the universe is *mostly* reliable. 2. When and if such miracles occur, we can never know it, because an (unknown) natural explanation is always an option. And as Roger's
example shows, even if you do grant a miracle, we can't be sure where
the miracle lies.
Yesterday, for example, two miracles occurred: First, the archangel Raphael, in flowing, glowing robes, appeared among the assembledTo expand a bit more, I think that when we establish that naturalistic explanations are a __mostly__ robust expectation, it's something that
Congress and chastised their behavior for over an hour. Second, the
angel and its effects remained undetectable to everyone and everything throughout the event. Nobody can prove otherwise.
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
we can take to be a default explanation. And so, taking an example
of an apparent miracle and retorting with : "well if we allow that A.) happened miraculously (some verifiably dead Lazarus sat up in the
morgue showing clear signs of life), we might as well say the miracle
was that the miracle was a coincidence of malfunction of an B). EKG,
C.) an EEG, D.) blood pressure, E.) Oxygen saturation, F.) temperature monitoring, and the observation from the orderly that rigor mortis had
set in.
Bill seems to say, if one potential miracle was observed, it is somehow trivial to extrapolate that to a larger suite of miracles to explain the same phenomenon. This is inconsistent with our accepted prior that the
world __mostly__ operates naturalistically. This seems to be pushing
a perversely slippery slope. In fact, it's more of immediately transporting us to the bottom of a very long slope if we start contemplating that
first step.
To press the metaphor, the point is that we mostly avoid that slope.
And we avoid that slope because the world without taking a step down
that slope is perfectly satisfactory for most everything we experience
in our lives. And that success tethers us to the flat space above the slippery slope, enough so that should that a truly exceptional observation occur, that tethering could allow us to take that limited single step without
requiring that we rapidly slide all the way down.
Allow me to defend my position a bit. Hume's argument is pretty simple, you should way whether it seems more probable that a miracle occurred or that the person reporting the miracle was either deceived or attempting to deceive you. Given a robustenough confidence in the reliability of natural law, it will always be less likely that a miracle occurred than that the witness was deceived or deceiving.
OK. Now consider a world in which it is a given that miracles happen, albeit only very rarely. Someone appears to have spontaneously recovered from a far advanced lethal cancer. There is a finite, but low probability that the cancer miraculouslyregressed. But in a miraculous world, there is also a finite, but low probability that the original biopsy results which should have been normal were miraculously changed to indicate advanced cancer. How can you determine which of those low probability
change in the biopsy results.diseased tissues, resurrections require even more. So I think there's no easy way around the fact that once you admit miracles, unless you have a faith-based restriction on what sort of miracles can happen, evidence ends up being unreliable.
You can try to worm around this by claiming that a healing is a single miracle, but that a miraculous misdiagnosis would require lots of separate miracles, but there's no easy what to count miracles - a miraculous healing requires multiple changes in
On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 4:45:27 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 10:45:24 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/18/23 3:03 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:55:24 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7:50:24 AM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
Allow me to defend my position a bit. Hume's argument is pretty simple, you should way whether it seems more probable that a miracle occurred or that the person reporting the miracle was either deceived or attempting to deceive you. Given a robustenough confidence in the reliability of natural law, it will always be less likely that a miracle occurred than that the witness was deceived or deceiving.
OK. Now consider a world in which it is a given that miracles happen, albeit only very rarely. Someone appears to have spontaneously recovered from a far advanced lethal cancer. There is a finite, but low probability that the cancer miraculouslyregressed. But in a miraculous world, there is also a finite, but low probability that the original biopsy results which should have been normal were miraculously changed to indicate advanced cancer. How can you determine which of those low probability
You can try to worm around this by claiming that a healing is a single miracle, but that a miraculous misdiagnosis would require lots of separate miracles, but there's no easy what to count miracles - a miraculous healing requires multiple changes indiseased tissues, resurrections require even more. So I think there's no easy way around the fact that once you admit miracles, unless you have a faith-based restriction on what sort of miracles can happen, evidence ends up being unreliable.
On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 5:35:27 PM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:enough confidence in the reliability of natural law, it will always be less likely that a miracle occurred than that the witness was deceived or deceiving.
On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 4:45:27 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:[ and back and forth, except without personal invective ]
On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 10:45:24 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/18/23 3:03 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 5:55:24 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7:50:24 AM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
Allow me to defend my position a bit. Hume's argument is pretty simple, you should way whether it seems more probable that a miracle occurred or that the person reporting the miracle was either deceived or attempting to deceive you. Given a robust
regressed. But in a miraculous world, there is also a finite, but low probability that the original biopsy results which should have been normal were miraculously changed to indicate advanced cancer. How can you determine which of those low probabilityOK. Now consider a world in which it is a given that miracles happen, albeit only very rarely. Someone appears to have spontaneously recovered from a far advanced lethal cancer. There is a finite, but low probability that the cancer miraculously
diseased tissues, resurrections require even more. So I think there's no easy way around the fact that once you admit miracles, unless you have a faith-based restriction on what sort of miracles can happen, evidence ends up being unreliable.You can try to worm around this by claiming that a healing is a single miracle, but that a miraculous misdiagnosis would require lots of separate miracles, but there's no easy what to count miracles - a miraculous healing requires multiple changes in
I think I've come of a way that seems to capture our differences,I think you've got my point, and I'm not bothered by your paraphrase. Only a couple of things I'd tweak. In the case of Hume's argument you are comparing the probability of a violation of natural laws with the probability of error or deception. Since the
albeit in a manner that is somewhat more flattering of my point
of view (imagine that I should pick such!).
It is as if I am judging a miracle to be, observationally, something
with an extremely low probability. I will assert that such that the
miracle includes some "influencer" capable of usurping what we
understand to the Laws of Nature, this low probability subsumes
the seeming low probability that such an influencer exists. But in
this perspective, not all miracles are 'created equal'.
In your view, it appears that it fits a model where all miracles
are created equal and have a probability of 1/infinity. Superficially
all miracles in that framework have equal probability, as do
two or three coincident ones. But that falls apart with hierarchical concepts of infinity.
And perhaps at essence, it seems to me that you are effectively
placing the probability of the existence of some "influencer" to
be infinitely unlikely. As such, it seems in many ways to be an
article of faith. Using a less loaded word, it seems to be an epistemological foundation. It isn't simply deducible from the
fact that miracles are extremely rare as both our individual
experiences, and collective human experience is finite.
Admittedly, you have not framed your argument in the above
terms but it seems to me that your argument reduces to so.
Claiming that no observation has any credibility if it is even
remotely possible that there was some interference means
what? Does it mean we are just as likely to be brains in a
vat or part of a computer simulation?
How does one establish that coincidence in equivalence of
unlikely probabilities as part of a whole that also asserts that
a more likely reality has a world without the mystery influencer.
I don't suppose you will be comfortable with the implied
assertion that you are setting the probability of some mystery
influence, seemingly the equivalent of a god, at infinitely
unlikely. Such can't be deduced empirically. It requires a rather
aggressive extrapolation. I'm not proposing this as an accusation
but rather as a thought exercise in how to model our differences.
I can't fault someone for taking that leap as a matter of personal
belief but I can't justify it as anything other than a desire to
simplify that risks over-simplification. I stop short with "I don't
know" which leaves probabilities finite unlikelihoods which,
at least in concept, might be judged as more or less likely
than each other, and where multiplied unlikely events become
less likely in combination.
I'm considering writing this as conditional probabilities but
that's probably overkill and it would take a miracle for me to
do it without including some confusing typo.
On 2023-04-17 17:43:08 +0000, israel socratus said:
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 5:05:15 PM UTC+3, Kalkidas wrote:
Happy Easter, everyone!-------
1882. Charles Darwin died.
Jesus Christ was crucified on Friday 7-4 BC. --
Around the time he was born?
and He rose from the dead on Sunday morning
On 18-Apr-23 8:20, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-04-17 17:43:08 +0000, israel socratus said:
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 5:05:15 PM UTC+3, Kalkidas wrote:
Happy Easter, everyone!-------
1882. Charles Darwin died.
Jesus Christ was crucified on Friday 7-4 BC. --
Around the time he was born?
and He rose from the dead on Sunday morning
Some kind of tax dodge?
On 4/18/23 12:56 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 12:25:23 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:[snip to the part I'm interested in]
Folklore is a very broad category. It includes "fairy tales", virtually >> all religious tradition, jokes, quilt patterns, superstitions,
lullabies, and a great deal more. Stories which purport to tell a
history but which were influenced by retellings are legend. Legend too
is folklore, and the gospels fall in this category.
Not everything in the gospels, not by a long shot.
(I think Paul's letters, and probably Revelation, are the only parts of the Bible which
are not folklore.)
These are two starkly contrasting things. Revelation is the *alleged* recounting
of a vision, but its resemblance to visions in the OT books of Ezekiel and Daniel
has caused scholars to make it part of a genre with elaborate conventions of narrative.
I know of no such conventions in Paul's letters.
Neither genre nor style have anything to do with it. What separates
folklore from non-folklore is its source. Folklore comes from the
"folk", generally by multiple anonymous conventions and ideas circulated
in a community. Non-folklore usually comes from individual authors or
small collaborations.
You also forget that the first person accounts of Luke in "Acts of the Apostles".
are as far removed from visions and folklore as one can get. Also, Luke's "Acts"
includes the story of Paul's conversion, begun by a vision of Jesus
saying "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" [Acts 9: 3-8]. Paul is shown corroborating
this in Acts 22: 6-11 and part way in Acts 26: 13-15. He also confirms this event
firsthand in I Corinthians 15:8.
It is possible Acts is not folklore, or is a borderline case.
But if I wrote a story about three pigs who built houses of different materials,
and a wolf who blew down two of them, I would still be writing (or transcribing) folklore. If the material which Acts covers was stories
in general circulation, then I would still consider it folklore.
In the case of the gospels, they are part of the
religion, but in other cases legend gets taken seriously as a historical >> basis for customs, which can also lead to people taking it literally.
The example that pops to mind is that the legend of St.Nicholas has become the basis
of customs in Europe on Dec. 6 [the feast of St. Nicholas in the Catholic Church] and
their elaborate American modification about Santa Claus on Christmas Eve. Did you have others in mind?
There are a couple flood myths (I forget which just at the moment) where
the flood survivor is said to be the originator of the ruling clan,
which deserves to rule due to its noble ancestry. (The flip side of
that is the disparagement heaped upon those claimed to be the
descendants of Ham.)
Part of the purpose of trickster tales such as most Coyote tales is to
be outlandish enough that people will not take them literally, but will >> still see serious lessons in them. This reminds people that "literally" >> and "seriously" are very different concepts, and one does not imply the >> other. I think many Americans need such lessons.
This reminds me of the two very different meanings of the word "myth."
The older one had Greek mythology as its most familiar exemplar for Americans.
The modern one includes the use that you describe under the heading of "tales."
Of course, the modern one is about purposes that go back to Greek myths. Homer's Iliad and Odyssey contain innumerable serious lessons while relating myths
about gods and goddesses and fantastic creatures.
And most serious of all: Odysseus's visit to the realm of the dead, where the shade of
Achilles tells him that he would rather be the lowliest of servants on earth than king of all the dead.
The two definition of "myth" that I know of (and I just checked a dictionary) are 1) A traditional story; and 2) A widely held but false belief. The definition that I prefer to the first, though, I owe to
Alan Dundes; it is: A sacred narrative. I think most people would agree
that "The Three Little Pigs" is definitely traditional and definitely a story, but it is not a myth in the same sense as stories about Theseus
or Thor; it is not sacred.
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 6:30:24 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/18/23 12:56 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 12:25:23 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:[snip to the part I'm interested in]
Folklore is a very broad category. It includes "fairy tales", virtually >>>> all religious tradition, jokes, quilt patterns, superstitions,
lullabies, and a great deal more. Stories which purport to tell a
history but which were influenced by retellings are legend. Legend too >>>> is folklore, and the gospels fall in this category.
Not everything in the gospels, not by a long shot.
(I think Paul's letters, and probably Revelation, are the only parts of the Bible which
are not folklore.)
These are two starkly contrasting things. Revelation is the *alleged* recounting
of a vision, but its resemblance to visions in the OT books of Ezekiel and Daniel
has caused scholars to make it part of a genre with elaborate conventions of narrative.
I know of no such conventions in Paul's letters.
Neither genre nor style have anything to do with it. What separates
folklore from non-folklore is its source. Folklore comes from the
"folk", generally by multiple anonymous conventions and ideas circulated
in a community. Non-folklore usually comes from individual authors or
small collaborations.
You also forget that the first person accounts of Luke in "Acts of the Apostles".
are as far removed from visions and folklore as one can get. Also, Luke's "Acts"
includes the story of Paul's conversion, begun by a vision of Jesus
saying "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" [Acts 9: 3-8]. Paul is shown corroborating
this in Acts 22: 6-11 and part way in Acts 26: 13-15. He also confirms this event
firsthand in I Corinthians 15:8.
It is possible Acts is not folklore, or is a borderline case.
To me, Acts is a historical narrative by Luke in which I think everything Luke tells in the first person, or implicitly as an eyewitness, is reliable. That part has two "miracles," one being the prediction by Paul that no lives would be lost in the storm that is raging around them, "but only the ship." But that could be dismissed as a lucky guess, "conveniently forgotten" if
it had not come true. The other is Paul being bitten by a poisonous snake
and showing no ill effects; but there are naturalistic explanations for that.
I'd estimate that half of the rest is second-hand from Paul, about all the events to which Paul was privy, beginning with the stoning of Stephen.
Paul had ample time in his journeys with Luke to give a detailed account of them to him.
The rest seems to be third or fourth hand, most of it via Paul. The story of Philip traveling
with an Ethiopian in a carriage must have reminded Luke of his own travels with Paul
even though the outcomes were very different.
But if I wrote a story about three pigs who built houses of different materials,
and a wolf who blew down two of them, I would still be writing (or
transcribing) folklore. If the material which Acts covers was stories
in general circulation, then I would still consider it folklore.
That's a big "If": unlike Luke's Gospel, we have no other writings
of the time that write about any of the same things in Acts.
In the case of the gospels, they are part of the
religion, but in other cases legend gets taken seriously as a historical >>>> basis for customs, which can also lead to people taking it literally.
The example that pops to mind is that the legend of St.Nicholas has become the basis
of customs in Europe on Dec. 6 [the feast of St. Nicholas in the Catholic Church] and
their elaborate American modification about Santa Claus on Christmas Eve. >>> Did you have others in mind?
There are a couple flood myths (I forget which just at the moment) where
the flood survivor is said to be the originator of the ruling clan,
which deserves to rule due to its noble ancestry. (The flip side of
that is the disparagement heaped upon those claimed to be the
descendants of Ham.)
The only other flood myths with which I am familiar are in the Epic of Gilgamesh,
and another where survivors threw stones behind their backs, and these turned into people.
Where do you see any customs arising from them?
Part of the purpose of trickster tales such as most Coyote tales is to >>>> be outlandish enough that people will not take them literally, but will >>>> still see serious lessons in them. This reminds people that "literally" >>>> and "seriously" are very different concepts, and one does not imply the >>>> other. I think many Americans need such lessons.
This reminds me of the two very different meanings of the word "myth."
The older one had Greek mythology as its most familiar exemplar for Americans.
The modern one includes the use that you describe under the heading of "tales."
Of course, the modern one is about purposes that go back to Greek myths. >>> Homer's Iliad and Odyssey contain innumerable serious lessons while relating myths
about gods and goddesses and fantastic creatures.
And most serious of all: Odysseus's visit to the realm of the dead, where the shade of
Achilles tells him that he would rather be the lowliest of servants on earth than king of all the dead.
The two definition of "myth" that I know of (and I just checked a
dictionary) are 1) A traditional story; and 2) A widely held but false
belief. The definition that I prefer to the first, though, I owe to
Alan Dundes; it is: A sacred narrative. I think most people would agree
that "The Three Little Pigs" is definitely traditional and definitely a
story, but it is not a myth in the same sense as stories about Theseus
or Thor; it is not sacred.
It is almost the opposite of sacred, which makes me wonder why
you write so much about it here.
Peter Nyikos
On 4/25/23 6:54 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 6:30:24 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/18/23 12:56 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 12:25:23 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:[snip to the part I'm interested in]
Folklore is a very broad category. It includes "fairy tales", virtually >>>> all religious tradition, jokes, quilt patterns, superstitions,
lullabies, and a great deal more. Stories which purport to tell a
history but which were influenced by retellings are legend. Legend too >>>> is folklore, and the gospels fall in this category.
Not everything in the gospels, not by a long shot.
(I think Paul's letters, and probably Revelation, are the only parts of the Bible which
are not folklore.)
These are two starkly contrasting things. Revelation is the *alleged* recounting
of a vision, but its resemblance to visions in the OT books of Ezekiel and Daniel
has caused scholars to make it part of a genre with elaborate conventions of narrative.
I know of no such conventions in Paul's letters.
Neither genre nor style have anything to do with it. What separates
folklore from non-folklore is its source. Folklore comes from the
"folk", generally by multiple anonymous conventions and ideas circulated >> in a community. Non-folklore usually comes from individual authors or
small collaborations.
You also forget that the first person accounts of Luke in "Acts of the Apostles".
are as far removed from visions and folklore as one can get. Also, Luke's "Acts"
includes the story of Paul's conversion, begun by a vision of Jesus
saying "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" [Acts 9: 3-8]. Paul is shown corroborating
this in Acts 22: 6-11 and part way in Acts 26: 13-15. He also confirms this event
firsthand in I Corinthians 15:8.
It is possible Acts is not folklore, or is a borderline case.
To me, Acts is a historical narrative by Luke in which I think everything Luke tells in the first person, or implicitly as an eyewitness, is reliable.
That part has two "miracles," one being the prediction by Paul that no lives
would be lost in the storm that is raging around them, "but only the ship."
But that could be dismissed as a lucky guess, "conveniently forgotten" if it had not come true. The other is Paul being bitten by a poisonous snake and showing no ill effects; but there are naturalistic explanations for that.
I'd estimate that half of the rest is second-hand from Paul, about all the events to which Paul was privy, beginning with the stoning of Stephen. Paul had ample time in his journeys with Luke to give a detailed account of them to him.
The rest seems to be third or fourth hand, most of it via Paul. The story of Philip travelingA problem with sacred folklore (oftentimes legends, too) is that many
with an Ethiopian in a carriage must have reminded Luke of his own travels with Paul
even though the outcomes were very different.
people take them literally. That does not make them literal history. I
don't know enough about Acts and the other narratives of the day to say
how much of it was folkloric. I think it is safe to say, however, that
it was never intended to be history. I would call it biography.
But if I wrote a story about three pigs who built houses of different materials,
and a wolf who blew down two of them, I would still be writing (or
transcribing) folklore. If the material which Acts covers was stories
in general circulation, then I would still consider it folklore.
That's a big "If": unlike Luke's Gospel, we have no other writings
of the time that write about any of the same things in Acts.
In the case of the gospels, they are part of theThe example that pops to mind is that the legend of St.Nicholas has become the basis
religion, but in other cases legend gets taken seriously as a historical
basis for customs, which can also lead to people taking it literally. >>>
of customs in Europe on Dec. 6 [the feast of St. Nicholas in the Catholic Church] and
their elaborate American modification about Santa Claus on Christmas Eve.
Did you have others in mind?
There are a couple flood myths (I forget which just at the moment) where >> the flood survivor is said to be the originator of the ruling clan,
which deserves to rule due to its noble ancestry. (The flip side of
that is the disparagement heaped upon those claimed to be the
descendants of Ham.)
The only other flood myths with which I am familiar are in the Epic of Gilgamesh,There are about 800 more flood myths that you don't know, then. As I
and another where survivors threw stones behind their backs, and these turned into people.
Where do you see any customs arising from them?
said, I don't remember which myth it is; I vaguely recall it was
southeast Asia or Polynesia.
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 11:50:32 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/25/23 6:54 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 6:30:24 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:A problem with sacred folklore (oftentimes legends, too) is that many
On 4/18/23 12:56 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 12:25:23 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:[snip to the part I'm interested in]
Folklore is a very broad category. It includes "fairy tales", virtually >>>>>> all religious tradition, jokes, quilt patterns, superstitions,
lullabies, and a great deal more. Stories which purport to tell a
history but which were influenced by retellings are legend. Legend too >>>>>> is folklore, and the gospels fall in this category.
Not everything in the gospels, not by a long shot.
(I think Paul's letters, and probably Revelation, are the only parts of the Bible which
are not folklore.)
These are two starkly contrasting things. Revelation is the *alleged* recounting
of a vision, but its resemblance to visions in the OT books of Ezekiel and Daniel
has caused scholars to make it part of a genre with elaborate conventions of narrative.
I know of no such conventions in Paul's letters.
Neither genre nor style have anything to do with it. What separates
folklore from non-folklore is its source. Folklore comes from the
"folk", generally by multiple anonymous conventions and ideas circulated >>>> in a community. Non-folklore usually comes from individual authors or
small collaborations.
You also forget that the first person accounts of Luke in "Acts of the Apostles".
are as far removed from visions and folklore as one can get. Also, Luke's "Acts"
includes the story of Paul's conversion, begun by a vision of Jesus
saying "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" [Acts 9: 3-8]. Paul is shown corroborating
this in Acts 22: 6-11 and part way in Acts 26: 13-15. He also confirms this event
firsthand in I Corinthians 15:8.
It is possible Acts is not folklore, or is a borderline case.
To me, Acts is a historical narrative by Luke in which I think everything >>> Luke tells in the first person, or implicitly as an eyewitness, is reliable.
That part has two "miracles," one being the prediction by Paul that no lives
would be lost in the storm that is raging around them, "but only the ship." >>> But that could be dismissed as a lucky guess, "conveniently forgotten" if >>> it had not come true. The other is Paul being bitten by a poisonous snake >>> and showing no ill effects; but there are naturalistic explanations for that.
I'd estimate that half of the rest is second-hand from Paul, about all the >>> events to which Paul was privy, beginning with the stoning of Stephen.
Paul had ample time in his journeys with Luke to give a detailed account of them to him.
The rest seems to be third or fourth hand, most of it via Paul. The story of Philip traveling
with an Ethiopian in a carriage must have reminded Luke of his own travels with Paul
even though the outcomes were very different.
people take them literally. That does not make them literal history. I
don't know enough about Acts and the other narratives of the day to say
how much of it was folkloric. I think it is safe to say, however, that
it was never intended to be history. I would call it biography.
There are about 800 more flood myths that you don't know, then. As IBut if I wrote a story about three pigs who built houses of different materials,
and a wolf who blew down two of them, I would still be writing (or
transcribing) folklore. If the material which Acts covers was stories
in general circulation, then I would still consider it folklore.
That's a big "If": unlike Luke's Gospel, we have no other writings
of the time that write about any of the same things in Acts.
In the case of the gospels, they are part of theThe example that pops to mind is that the legend of St.Nicholas has become the basis
religion, but in other cases legend gets taken seriously as a historical >>>>>> basis for customs, which can also lead to people taking it literally. >>>>>
of customs in Europe on Dec. 6 [the feast of St. Nicholas in the Catholic Church] and
their elaborate American modification about Santa Claus on Christmas Eve. >>>>> Did you have others in mind?
There are a couple flood myths (I forget which just at the moment) where >>>> the flood survivor is said to be the originator of the ruling clan,
which deserves to rule due to its noble ancestry. (The flip side of
that is the disparagement heaped upon those claimed to be the
descendants of Ham.)
The only other flood myths with which I am familiar are in the Epic of Gilgamesh,
and another where survivors threw stones behind their backs, and these turned into people.
Where do you see any customs arising from them?
said, I don't remember which myth it is; I vaguely recall it was
southeast Asia or Polynesia.
If only there were a useful link. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html
On 4/25/23 6:54 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 6:30:24 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/18/23 12:56 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 12:25:23 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:[snip to the part I'm interested in]
Folklore is a very broad category. It includes "fairy tales", virtually >>>> all religious tradition, jokes, quilt patterns, superstitions,
lullabies, and a great deal more. Stories which purport to tell a
history but which were influenced by retellings are legend. Legend too >>>> is folklore, and the gospels fall in this category.
Not everything in the gospels, not by a long shot.
(I think Paul's letters, and probably Revelation, are the only parts of the Bible which
are not folklore.)
These are two starkly contrasting things. Revelation is the *alleged* recounting
of a vision, but its resemblance to visions in the OT books of Ezekiel and Daniel
has caused scholars to make it part of a genre with elaborate conventions of narrative.
I know of no such conventions in Paul's letters.
Neither genre nor style have anything to do with it. What separates
folklore from non-folklore is its source. Folklore comes from the
"folk", generally by multiple anonymous conventions and ideas circulated >> in a community. Non-folklore usually comes from individual authors or
small collaborations.
You also forget that the first person accounts of Luke in "Acts of the Apostles".
are as far removed from visions and folklore as one can get. Also, Luke's "Acts"
includes the story of Paul's conversion, begun by a vision of Jesus
saying "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" [Acts 9: 3-8]. Paul is shown corroborating
this in Acts 22: 6-11 and part way in Acts 26: 13-15. He also confirms this event
firsthand in I Corinthians 15:8.
It is possible Acts is not folklore, or is a borderline case.
To me, Acts is a historical narrative by Luke in which I think everything Luke tells in the first person, or implicitly as an eyewitness, is reliable.
That part has two "miracles," one being the prediction by Paul that no lives
would be lost in the storm that is raging around them, "but only the ship."
But that could be dismissed as a lucky guess, "conveniently forgotten" if it had not come true. The other is Paul being bitten by a poisonous snake and showing no ill effects; but there are naturalistic explanations for that.
I'd estimate that half of the rest is second-hand from Paul, about all the events to which Paul was privy, beginning with the stoning of Stephen. Paul had ample time in his journeys with Luke to give a detailed account of them to him.
The rest seems to be third or fourth hand, most of it via Paul. The story of Philip traveling
with an Ethiopian in a carriage must have reminded Luke of his own travels with Paul
even though the outcomes were very different.
A problem with sacred folklore (oftentimes legends, too) is that many
people take them literally. That does not make them literal history. I
don't know enough about Acts and the other narratives of the day to say
how much of it was folkloric. I think it is safe to say, however, that
it was never intended to be history.
I would call it biography.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 27:30:36 |
| Calls: | 9,830 |
| Calls today: | 9 |
| Files: | 13,761 |
| Messages: | 6,192,325 |
| Posted today: | 1 |