tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post8028298847764701451..comments2024-03-25T02:16:16.247-07:00Comments on Christ the Tao: Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-51333634912128655312011-05-26T21:26:53.334-07:002011-05-26T21:26:53.334-07:00[split for space, part 2]
"The effect of Jes...[split for space, part 2]<br /><br />"The effect of Jesus' life is part of the totality of evidence that must be taken into account to access prior probability."<br /><br />"Of course it threatened Roman power, that's why they persecuted. It didn't threaten to OVERTHROW Roman power, but it put limits on that power. "<br /><br />So how does Christianity being imposed on the Roman empire by its emperors, with paganism and heresies being persecuted by force, comport with the "god is on the side of the weak" and "christianity threatened roman power" hypotheses? Hint: they don't. Christians were often persecuted for refusing to support imperial cult orthopraxy, not genuinely threatening Roman power in any meaningful way. Christian emperors accepted christian-derived limitations without much bickering. Such restrictions were irrelevant to the exercise of power: Constantine enslaved millions by inventing and imposing peasantry, a full exercise of power that suppressed the weak. Some influence.<br /><br />"Actually, that story is a GREAT example of God favoring the weak over powerful oppressors. Do go back and read it more carefully -- you've missed the point. "<br /><br />David gets to repent and get away with a civil war and an heir whose name became a by-line for wisdom. His first child by Bathsheba? Dies by illness. God punishes the weak--his concubines, his child, Israelis who have no part in his crime--without even touching David, reinforcing backward notions of patriarchy and honor. God privileges the powerful and throws everyone else under the bus. 1 Kings 2:45. You were saying?<br /><br />"The event that led to Paul's conversion is described as a visual and auditory phenomena, which was not limited to Paul himself."<br /><br />The accounts are a) inconsistent b) not well described in Paul's own letters c) highly similar to Pentheus' story in <i>The Bacchae</i>. All of these things militate against such a straightforward reading of his conversion. Did Paul's companions see a light, or merely hear sounds? If the former, why didn't it blind his companions, too? If the latter, why couldn't they understand it? In either case, why weren't the companions converted too? Both cases are consistent with the companions merely observing Paul act weird and being confused by it. None of these are inconsistent with hallucination, symptoms such as blindness are vulnerable to being psychologically "faked", and the more fantastical elements are consistent with invention a la Cicero inventing speeches based on what the occasion called for. Like I keep saying, we don't accept Herodotus' story, based on eyewitness interviews, of swords and shields animating and fighting of their own accord during battle: if not that, why accept this much less fantastical account in which the eyewitnesses are not identified and the use of their accounts is not critically examined by the author--which is what a good historian is supposed to do? Christians have engaged in pious invention throughout history: Christian partisans are seldom trustworthy when it comes to the facts, and I wouldn't expect a follower of Paul to be any different, especially since his initial credibility was so low. <br /><br />"like Paul, would not have died for the claim that they had seen Jesus alive"<br /><br />Paul didn't die for that claim, he was persecuted for preaching against following the old laws and circumcision. I see no good evidence of any of Jesus' first followers dying for the claim that they had seen him alive, let alone that they had any chance to retract the claim. For most of them, the cause of death is not known and the stories which accumulate even around the best ones are plainly legend.Moewicusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-28799480013713107842011-05-26T20:59:29.466-07:002011-05-26T20:59:29.466-07:00"When I talk about "prior probability,&q..."When I talk about "prior probability," I mean prior to examining the strictly historical evidence for the resurrection, not prior chronologically."<br /><br />Your line of argument is confused. You examine and reject Martin Luther King, jr. as a candidate for resurrection based on the total package--but MLK jr is not poorly documented like Jesus, nor is he thought to have resurrected. Examining Jesus' effect as a package including the effects of belief in his resurrection as a candidate for resurrection is circular. No doubt if MLK were claimed to have resurrected and spawned a religion his influence would be similarly enduring. Were he similarly poorly documented, he would be as amenable to being on <i>every</i> side, often the wrong side, of every great reform in human history--just like Jesus. People whose thinking we think of as "good" today, many of whom are demonstrably better than Jesus as I've already established, have existed in just about every culture. The historical accidents of Christianity's success thus do not argue for increased prior probability for Jesus' resurrection.<br /><br />Furthermore, prior to examining the strictly historical evidence for the resurrection, we see that many religions and cults spread based on charismatic individuals who all have miracle stories centered around them. Did they all perform miracles, or do charismatic individuals surrounded by superstitious people accrue miracle stories? Either one diminishes the prior probability of Jesus actually being the messenger of God. Your question "within the Socratic world-view, what sense would a resurrection make?" also diminishes the prior probability, since the Jews had a prior tradition of resurrection stories. The more surprising supernatural tale has more prior plausibility, since the cultural mediation of experience has a strong influence on thinking.<br /><br />"Yes, people die for lie, as I think Josh McDowell put it -- but not for what they know to be lies. "<br /><br />Way to miss the point. People will die for, and believe fervently in, things they can't know about. As I pointed out in a previous comment that was either deleted by you or eaten by the software, Mark originally ends at 16:8, with the women who went to the tomb being afraid and saying nothing. How do we know this wasn't the basis of resurrection belief--that the women waited for a while, told of their experience later, and the experience was interpreted as a resurrection after the fact? McDowell's line is an exercise in psychological naivete even on its own terms. People are fully able to convince themselves of lies, convince each other they saw things they didn't, and report the utterly fantastical on a whim. If such beliefs happen to include the idea of heaven, being justified through faith, etc, why wouldn't people die for such ideas? People can also be too entrenched in a lie to back out. Joseph Smith was repeatedly harassed by opponents of Mormonism, and could have been killed multiple times before he actually was. That doesn't make me believe his racist theology any more than it does backwards Christian theology.<br /><br />[comment split for space, part 1]Moewicusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-52859242559048031362011-05-26T17:40:24.949-07:002011-05-26T17:40:24.949-07:00Moe: When I talk about "prior probability,&qu...Moe: When I talk about "prior probability," I mean prior to examining the strictly historical evidence for the resurrection, not prior chronologically. The effect of Jesus' life is part of the totality of evidence that must be taken into account to access prior probability. To give an analogy, Superman is more credible as an alien than, say, the guy who fills your tank at the gas station. Why would someone come all the way from another star system to pump gas? <br /><br />What evidences the Resurrection is not that total picture, but the birth of the Church in its first 100 years. <br /><br />Plus, even if I HAD engaged in circular reasoning at that one point, which I did not, that would not make the argument as a whole circular. <br /><br />"Who would martyr themselves for something they couldn't know, but believed anyway? The answer: a lot of people."<br /><br />Here's you're missing an important distinction, one often made by apologists. Yes, people die for lie, as I think Josh McDowell put it -- but not for what they know to be lies. Jesus' first followers, like Paul, would not have died for the claim that they had seen Jesus alive, if they had not. <br /><br />"And in any case, yes, passively accepting Roman persecution is in fact submission. It threatens Roman power not one whit."<br /><br />Of course it threatened Roman power, that's why they persecuted. It didn't threaten to OVERTHROW Roman power, but it put limits on that power. <br /><br />DM: "This is a common theme in the OT -- God choosing the insignificant over the big-shot."<br /><br />Moe: "Like how king David, the man after God's own heart, sent a man off to war to get him killed so he could take his wife? That's a pretty clear example of God favoring the big-shot over the little guy."<br /><br />How long has it been since you've read the story? Actually, that story is a GREAT example of God favoring the weak over powerful oppressors. Do go back and read it more carefully -- you've missed the point. <br /><br />The event that led to Paul's conversion is described as a visual and auditory phenomena, which was not limited to Paul himself. Paul does describe this, after telling the story, as an οπτασια, which NT Wright describes as "a general word for something which is seen in a way one would not normally expect." This is usually translated as "vision," but clearly it did not mean "hallucination," which would be limited to Paul alone, would not cause him to go temporarily blind, and would not cause a stranger to come and knock on his door and cure his blindness. You appear to be flailing.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-20782419337211865202011-05-26T14:22:35.493-07:002011-05-26T14:22:35.493-07:00"Lin wasn't talking about Socrates, he wa..."Lin wasn't talking about Socrates, he was talking about Chinese thought."<br /><br />You're the one who brought him up without any qualification, i.e. relative to chinese thought. "As no man has taught" is simply mistaken.<br /><br />"I didn't say Jesus' teachings agree with the modern liberal consensus about ethics. Who cares? That would be, as the Chinese say, like a frog looking at the sky from a well."<br /><br />Yes, it's so small minded to think that human beings aren't perfect and it is irrational to try to get them to be, that people have every right to feel their inborn desires, etc.. Jesus is the frog in this analogy. Remember, he says he came to complete the law that said picking up sticks on the Sabbath merits a death sentence. Don't bring up the "cast the first stone" anecdote: that is a late addition to John.<br /><br /><b>"The Resurrection makes a priori sense because of the whole package of who Jesus was and what he said and did, and the impact that would have."<br /><br />This is absurd. You argue that the resurrection explains Christianity's success, then you argue that it makes sense to resurrect Jesus because his message would be a success. This is circular reasoning, David. Remember, your post was about assessing the prior plausibility of Jesus' resurrection. Choosing Jesus based on the success of a religion which includes his resurrection is completely breaking the rules of reasoning. To me this is tantamount to admitting your argument is wrong.</b><br /><br />"If the early Christians were so submissive, as you claim, why did they keep on getting thrown in prison and executed? "<br /><br />Funny, I don't recall arguing that Christians were submissive, but that the "<i>holy</i>" scriptures tell them to be. "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" would seem to indicate that passive resistance to Roman orthopraxy, i.e. making sacrifices to and praising the genius of the emperor, was unjustified for a Christian, but yet many martyred themselves in this way anyway--and <i>none</i> of these people were in any position to know whether Jesus actually resurrected or not! Who would martyr themselves for something they couldn't know, but believed anyway? The answer: a lot of people. And in any case, yes, passively accepting Roman persecution is in fact submission. It threatens Roman power not one whit.<br /><br />"Your alternative ideas for how God should have arranged things strike, frankly, as less interesting that how he really arranged things."<br /><br />Less interesting than Caesar rising from the dead, repudiating the entire Roman system, casting down its idols, repudiating his former way of life, then writing down God's laws in some hard to tamper with way? That's pretty darn interesting to me. Way more interesting than some poorly documented guy maybe or maybe not resurrecting.<br /><br />"This is a common theme in the OT -- God choosing the insignificant over the big-shot."<br /><br />Like how king David, the man after God's own heart, sent a man off to war to get him killed so he could take his wife? That's a pretty clear example of God favoring the big-shot over the little guy. Blatant exceptions--i.e. whenever a Jew was powerful--aside, you're right: the Jews wrote their Bible alongside a history of any number of indignities perpetrated on them by the larger powers around them. Gee, I wonder why the God who chose them just so happens to favor the little guy so much. Really, it's a tremendous coincidence.<br /><br />"I Corinthians 15 is NOT just hearsay."<br /><br />Verse 3: <i>For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures...</i><br /><br />This establishes most of what he says as hearsay. The only logical exception is what he claims he saw, already aware of resurrection claims--and the word he uses to describe it is <i>vision</i>. In other words, hearsay and hallucination.Moewicusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-92014936531068097442011-05-25T19:43:49.847-07:002011-05-25T19:43:49.847-07:00Moe: You tell me "Lin Yutang is wrong," ...Moe: You tell me "Lin Yutang is wrong," because you like Socrates' teaching better. It's hard to make heads or tales of that argument. Lin wasn't talking about Socrates, he was talking about Chinese thought. My argument isn't based on your or my opinions: I'm appealing to people who have made a name as great thinkers. Lin was a literary genius, he could also provide an outside perspective as an authority on another great tradition. His opinion is to be valued. <br /><br />I didn't say Jesus' teachings agree with the modern liberal consensus about ethics. Who cares? That would be, as the Chinese say, like a frog looking at the sky from a well. <br /><br />Within the Socratic worldview, what sense would a resurrection make? The Resurrection makes a priori sense because of the whole package of who Jesus was and what he said and did, and the impact that would have. <br /><br />"Moreover, if God was on the side of the weak, why do the Gospels say multiple times to submit to the temporal authorities?"<br /><br />If the early Christians were so submissive, as you claim, why did they keep on getting thrown in prison and executed? But no serious student of the Gospels that I know of denies my premise in this case -- are you sure you're not just arguing to avoid the conclusion? <br /><br />Your alternative ideas for how God should have arranged things strike, frankly, as less interesting that how he really arranged things. Making a Jewish peasant the hero was much more interesting, and revolutionary, than working through yet another puffed-up ruler. This is a common theme in the OT -- God choosing the insignificant over the big-shot. I think Lao Zi's teachings on the power of weakness might help you understand why this way of doing things was, after all, better than the Way of Power. <br /><br />Actually, Paul says he saw Jesus. I'm not going to get into the nitty-gritty of Resurrection argument, though -- other people have done that better than I can, and there's no reason for me to repeat their work. <br /><br />I Corinthians 15 is NOT just hearsay. Paul says HE saw Jesus, along with many people he knows. He also says this is the reason he has fought wild animals and endured all kinds of dangers. What is especially persuasive about the 500 is the off-hand way in which he gives this information, but with the add-on: "most are still alive, though some have fallen asleep." It sounds like he knows these people well, too, is able to keep track fo them, and has heard their stories. And some of the eyewitnesses are risking their necks for the Gospel, too. <br /><br />But again, this is more conventional apologetics.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-56129427211384828812011-05-25T15:59:51.544-07:002011-05-25T15:59:51.544-07:00=====
David said:
(4) Jesus has changed the world ...=====<br />David said:<br />(4) Jesus has changed the world far more radically than a hundred Caesars. Look at the date on today's newspaper. <br />=====<br /><br />It says "Wednesday," which is derived from Wodenesdaeg, meaning "the day of Wodan", which is the Germanic form of the name "Odin," ruler of Asgard and chief deity of Norse mythology.<br /><br />And this has what to do with Jesus's influence on the world?<br /><br />Whereas Ceasar survives in the 37 "Czars" of arguably the most powerful man on Earth, President Obama -- not to mention the 49 Czars of his predecessor, or the 8 of his predecessor, or ...Dr Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-66862973456721806882011-05-25T15:14:24.662-07:002011-05-25T15:14:24.662-07:00=====
David says:
There were no "witnesses&qu...=====<br />David says:<br />There were no "witnesses" to the resurrection itself; many to Jesus after he arose.<br />=====<br />Not to be <i>too</i> facetitious, but, the same can be said for Elvis.Dr Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-65614794573006002292011-05-25T15:12:05.240-07:002011-05-25T15:12:05.240-07:00=====
David says:
You seem to assume, here, that i...=====<br />David says:<br />You seem to assume, here, that if X reports A + B, and Y reports A + C, the two are in conflict.<br />=====<br />Heh, doing the semantic two-step I see. Let's see if I can clean it up:<br /><br />If X reports A + B, and Y reports A + (C <i>instead of</i> B), then yes, the two are indeed in conflict.<br /><br />=====<br />But that's how history is pieced together from independent sources. <br />=====<br />And why anecdotal reports are inherently weak evidence.<br /><br /><br />=====<br />That means you can be more confident of A than B or C, all else being equal, but does not mean the two sources "conflict" about B or C.<br />=====<br />If you are garnering X and Y's report immediately after the event that <i>might</i> be true.<br /><br />But you are hearing your information from Z32, who heard it from Z31, who heard from Z28 that Z30 read it in a letter from Z29 ... on back to Z1. And Z1 may or may not have his information direct from X and Y, and he may or may not have had an agenda which included "A" being more important than "B" or "C", therefore he chose to emphasize A, and brush off the conflict between B and C.<br /><br />And you read Z32's comments in a 9th generation translation and take his words as -- literally -- gospel.Dr Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-70171216841354958982011-05-24T21:09:08.125-07:002011-05-24T21:09:08.125-07:001) Everybody today knows what happens to a body--...1) Everybody today knows what happens to a body--but a significant number of them think the mind can persist as a ghost, quite without sufficient evidence. As you probably know, the section of Mark after 16:8 is thought to be an apocryphal addition. So I ask: how do you distinguish between the later gospels' accounts of skepticism and legendary accretion? For all we know, these women visited the tomb, heard some strange noise, and ran to tell the others and the tale transformed into the later resurrection account. People interpret experiences in culturally mediated ways, ways which include the supernatural even when events are not especially weird at all. Bear in mind the early conflict over Docetism, which the accounts of bodily inspection seem designed to counter. The various apocryphal gospels illustrate this debate and the way in which it was waged--through making stuff up. They can't all be right.<br /><br />And by Stark I assume you mean Rodney Stark's work on early Christianity. Can't comment on it.<br /><br />2) Has your miracle been subjected to critical investigation? Has it been borne out? If yes, then I retract my statement, but the burden of proof is on you. I do not take anyone's word for anything not already well supported by evidence: miracles aren't. If "I know what I saw" were taken seriously and <i>consistently</i>, the bar for what we accept would be so low it would include completely contradictory ideas.<br /><br />Were you there when Joseph Smith talked to Moroni?<br /><br />4) Apparently you misunderstood my argument: we have much better evidence of Caesar's existence than we do for the existence of Jesus, let alone Jesus' resurrection. Caesar struck coins, wrote letters and books, was assailed by his contemporary opponents (like Cicero), and lead armies. Jesus maybe had some followers who later wrote about what he maybe did. Even the time he attacked the temple is not recorded. His interaction with Pontius Pilate is probably not real, since even the Romans thought he was too rough. One very well documented man and one poorly, even contradictorily documented man. If your point is "who would God choose" based on prior plausibility, it is clearly Caesar or Augustus or any of his contemporaries, at the very least on the grounds of not having an inconsistent record. Does God object to Caesar's character? Then make Caesar repudiate Rome and his life as he lived it and lay down alternative rules. Or why can't God make it happen?<br /><br />5)Isaiah 41:8-9: <i>But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend... Thou art my servant; I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away.</i><br />Israel is the servant. Moreover his punishment is in the past tense, and is described as later having children and prolonged days. Rabbis have applied to to a individual, past or future-<b>and to Israel</b>. It is a poem about Babylonian captivity and because it's in a religious book the religious use it like new agers use Nostradamus's quatrains. If you want to call something a prophecy, it should be at least better than Nostradamus.<br /><br />6) "Original" does not beg the question, something is either original or it is not. An original statement: "colorless green ideas sleep furiously". Of course the question quickly becomes original in what sense? The notion of a resurrecting God is not original. Putting a resurrecting God into the Jewish linear time concept is. What you don't get, which other less honest apologists do, is that--like how miracles would logically take place against a background of regularity--such strong precursors militate against the Christ story having literal significance. Hence church fathers claiming the devil was just paving the road for Christ with lies. These responses illustrate is that one can do with the God hypothesis whatever one wants and have it remain intact. It's not even wrong.Moewicusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-90295653434343692572011-05-24T18:12:54.011-07:002011-05-24T18:12:54.011-07:00Moe: (1) First of all, it's not necessarily a ...Moe: (1) First of all, it's not necessarily a class thing. Jesus' disciples were from the working class, but exhibited plenty of skepticism. This is hardly surprising: fishermen know what happens to a body after it dies. <br /><br />Also, Stark suggests that Christianity was not at all concentrated in the lower classses -- in fact, peasants were probably the last to convert. <br /><br />(2) I don't know how you know that "no miracle has been borne out under critical investigation." I was there, you were not. I don't recall you investigating what happened. It strikes me that you are making a sweeping historical claim that you will have trouble backing up. <br /><br />(4) Jesus has changed the world far more radically than a hundred Caesars. Look at the date on today's newspaper. <br /><br />(5) It is actually quite clear Isaiah is NOT talking about the nation of Israel, for several reasons: (a) He speaks of him as a single person; (b) He describes him as innocent, sinless, ect, which is the opposite of what Isaiah and the prophets always say; (c) He speaks of him as redeeming Israel, "crushed for our iniquity" "for the transgression of my people he was stricken" (53:9)-- how can innocent Israel be crushed for wicked Israel's iniquity? The text makes no sense whatsoever that way, which is why even many Jewish rabbis have applied it to an individual, past or future.<br /><br />(6) The word "original" begs the question. Of course Christianity is highly original. But equally obviously, its originality does not consist of simply repudiating truth in other cultures. "Don't think I've come to do away with the Law and Prophets . . . I've come to fulfill." <br /><br />On that issue, I'll debate anyone in the world: and having made these claims in hundreds of conservative churches around the world, I know my argument will go over well with most evangelicals. You may be reading the wrong people.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-55384070954953749562011-05-24T17:30:58.078-07:002011-05-24T17:30:58.078-07:00(cont'd from second part, last one, I swear)
...(cont'd from second part, last one, I swear)<br /><br />What eyewitness testimony begins with a neo-platonic account of the creation of the universe? In my encounters with apologists they usually put John forward as an eyewitness testimony and diminish the other Gospels. Could this be because only John tells us that Jesus is God incarnate, the Gospel that best matches modern doctrine? Hm. However, the argument that John is an eyewitness has evidence against it, for instance the time Jesus says "you must be born from above". In this scene the confusion of Jesus' interlocutor over what this means is based on an ambiguity in the Greek language. Was Jesus speaking Greek in the middle of Judaea?<br /><br />In paragraph 6, you conflate a saying being <i>unique</i> with it being <i>accurate</i>. With nothing to compare these sayings to, how do we know they're accurate? With no physical evidence except writings made years after the fact, how do we know the idea of resurrection started with an actual resurrection? You cherry pick a few conclusions from the Jesus Seminar to support your point, but ignore the fact that they conclude that almost nothing attributed to Jesus is what he actually said. If Christians were willing to make up so much to be part of their faith, why not a resurrection, too?<br /><br />Finally, you write:<br />"We know that an earthquake occurred in Japan recently, not only because people and instruments that were there report it, but even more because of the enormous effect it had on the countryside. The resurrection of Jesus was the tsunami that changed human history."<br /><br />The cause of the damage from the tsunami is the material fact of water moving over land and carrying large amounts of energy into buildings. The root cause was an earthquake. The analogy is appreciated, but it is lacking, because every successful social movement we know of is based on widespread discontentment, not a single event. Jesus being persecuted by the powerful would mean nothing in an egalitarian society: but Paul, who was "all things to all men" was taking advantage of a time in history in which the weak were oppressed and any challenge to the omnipotent, brutal Roman empire was always and inevitably squashed. The only ideas that could spread were those which reaffirmed Roman power, which is exactly what institutional Christianity did for hundreds of years and what Christian holy documents told them to do. The change in human history was the material fact of Christian proselytization and Roman toleration: Jesus didn't resurrect every time somebody needed to convert, and in fact he was irrelevant to this, just as irrelevant as the material existence of the golden plates are to the existence of Mormonism. The root cause is human psychology: a genuine event is irrelevant, because the tectonics are psychological, not physical.Moewicusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-71250079293323479842011-05-24T17:23:01.571-07:002011-05-24T17:23:01.571-07:00(cont'd due to character limit)
On point 7), ...(cont'd due to character limit)<br /><br />On point 7), Lin Yutang is wrong, if "taught" is taken to refer to general moral points. Socrates would seem to be a superior moral teacher to me: Socrates argued against retribution, like Jesus, but never called lust evil, so Socrates wins in that comparison. If you want to argue that Jesus utter pacifism was unique, the utter pacifism of Jainism predates Christianity by at least six centuries. Jesus isn't especially good or especially original.<br /><br />On point 8) I refer to my response on point 4). One fact that subtracts from your point is that, as far as model people go, we don't have much on Jesus' actual life. It would make more sense to resurrect someone very well known, have them repudiate their former behavior, and then lay out the good model in some way that couldn't be easily tampered with--unlike the Bible.<br /><br />On point 9) I refer again to my responses on point 4) and 8). Moreover, if God was on the side of the weak, why do the Gospels say multiple times to submit to the temporal authorities? This time in history saw no shortage of atrocities committed by governments. Did God just not know about these things? The NT looks more like what the weak would write from their perspective: don't rock the boat, because you can't win in this world, but have hope because you will win in the next. On the other hand, given a God on the side of the weak willing to do miracles, why not resurrect Caesar after his assassination, have him destroy a bunch of Roman idols, and denounce the might-makes-right philosophy of the Roman elite in the middle of Rome? Either God is not really on the side of the weak or God <i>is</i> weak.<br /><br />Section II:<br />Throughout your post you refer to people dying for their belief in Jesus' resurrection as evidence for the fact. Only a few people had access to this information. I challenge you to find me one verifiable event in which one of these people had access to this information and had the opportunity to recant to save their life, but chose not to and was killed for that fact. (No, Paul doesn't count, he says that he saw a vision. I'm talking about the whole <i>empty tomb</i> thang.<br /><br />The statement that "if all we had for an ordinary historical event were 1 Cointhians 15... that alone would be sufficient to establish any ordinary historical claim" is silly because it establishes itself as hearsay in verse 3. We don't believe Herodotus when he reported <i>eyewitness accounts</i> of swords and shields being animated and fighting of their own accord, so why believe the information in 1 Cor 15? Paul is writing that he has received doctrine, not telling us about evidence. Even the baloney that he used to be a Pharisee is suspect: what can we make of hearsay from someone whose story simply doesn't add up?<br /><br />(cont'd again, sigh)Moewicusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-62507297079066565312011-05-24T17:21:15.954-07:002011-05-24T17:21:15.954-07:00I find it amazing how your post, which takes for g...I find it amazing how your post, which takes for granted things which other apologists take pains to deny, nevertheless manages to twist things--consciously or unconsciously--towards your favored conclusion.<br /><br />On point 1), you claim that ancient people were sophisticated enough to doubt a resurrection account, much as modern people are, and so must have been convinced by good evidence. But you only cite one example in which educated people were addressed: the majority of early converts, however, were lower class and less likely to be so educated, as reported by Christianity's early critics. But even in the Mars Hill scene, a few are intrigued by Paul and some of those go off with him. Why? Because a certain percentage of educated people are more likely to entertain supernatural ideas, despite their education. People were not so hardened against the idea of resurrection, even in the social elite: a resurrection story even appears in Plato's <i>Republic</i>. The premise you want to establish, that people must have been convinced by evidence, is contradicted by what we know about the times and people in general.<br /><br />On point 2), no miracle story has even been borne out under critical investigation. I consider it significant that, when the event the miracle is associated with is verifiable, such as the Fatima miracle or "miraculous" cancer remissions, it can be explained by natural psychological and statistical means, but when e.g. a disciple allegedly survives being boiled in oil--patently impossible without a true miracle--the event is not verifiable.<br /><br />On point 3) I more or less agree. For a miracle to be a sign uniquely from God then there should be some backdrop of otherwise immutable events. Why then have so many Christians attributed the miracle stories of other religions, and even doctrines strikingly similar to Christian beliefs, to the workings of Satan? To listen to Christians, I would think that I can't take miracle stories as any kind of unique proof.<br /><br />Regarding point 4), one would think that if God wanted to make a point by resurrecting someone he would do it to someone who left some material trace on the world through their verified personal writings and material effects on the world. The best we have for Jesus is writings of uncertain origins and uncertain authorship from decades after his death. This lowers the utility of raising this particular person. Why not raise Caesar, who struck coins, lead armies, and had debates with his opponents--and have him repudiate the whole Roman system with his zombie vocal chords? According to the Gospels, God can make descendants of Abraham out of stones, so surely he isn't limited to resurrecting only people he completely agrees with from the outset.<br /><br />On point 5), Isaiah is pretty clearly talking about Israel as the suffering servant, referring to the Babylonian captivity. The irony of your statements in regards to NT prophecy fulfillment is that the NT writers do in fact alter OT prophecies in order to make them fit Jesus better. Matthew alters "<i>she</i> will call him Emmanuel" to "<i>they</i> will call him Emmanuel". Looks like the NT writers weren't so sure!<br /><br />On point 6) you admit of things which other apologists would hate to admit. Christianity is not original. Such things argue more strongly for Christianity being a legend based on prior pagan beliefs than for God's unique action in the world.<br /><br />Continued in a second comment for character limit...Moewicusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-61458177025537583022011-05-20T09:30:35.117-07:002011-05-20T09:30:35.117-07:00"The last words of the Messiah, Son of God; w..."The last words of the Messiah, Son of God; whether not a supernatural being or beings (angels) appeared to mere mortals; whether anybody noticed the correct day on which a resurrection occured; who the actual witnesses were to this astonishing event were -- these are "small details"?<br /><br />You seem to assume, here, that if X reports A + B, and Y reports A + C, the two are in conflict. But that's how history is pieced together from independent sources. That means you can be more confident of A than B or C, all else being equal, but does not mean the two sources "conflict" about B or C. <br /><br />There were no "witnesses" to the resurrection itself; many to Jesus after he arose.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-90087738624600680902011-04-28T16:25:00.762-07:002011-04-28T16:25:00.762-07:00==========
DM: The passion accounts agree on the ...==========<br />DM: The passion accounts agree on the big stuff, differ on small details, like those you detail. <br />==========<br />The last words of the Messiah, Son of God; whether not a supernatural being or beings (angels) appeared to mere mortals; whether anybody noticed the correct day on which a resurrection occured; who the actual witnesses were to this astonishing event were -- these are "small details"?<br /><br />If nothing else, they are the details required in order to tell how much (if any) veracity the other details have.<br /><br />==========<br />DM: Have you got my point, now?<br />==========<br /><br />That we differ significantly on what we consider to be important details?<br /><br />Am I getting warmer?Dr Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12556054257610269618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-88233263869438027142011-04-28T16:09:55.704-07:002011-04-28T16:09:55.704-07:00==========
DM: So which of these eleven did not c...==========<br />DM: So which of these eleven did not correct what they perceived as errors in previous theology?<br />==========<br /><br />I don't see the point of that question, unless you mean to assert that you think theology=religion.<br /><br />I know a couple of theologists who might dispute such an assertion.Dr Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12556054257610269618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-84279861745433018762011-04-27T19:25:32.510-07:002011-04-27T19:25:32.510-07:00Dr. H: That's exactly what I said. The passio...Dr. H: That's exactly what I said. The passion accounts agree on the big stuff, differ on small details, like those you detail. <br /><br />The birth accounts ARE harder to reconcile, possibly for the reasons I gave. One cannot make a very strong historical case that Jesus was born in Bethleham (whether he was or not); one can make such a case for the resurrection. <br /><br />Have you got my point, now?David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-40513902867407397892011-04-27T18:36:18.600-07:002011-04-27T18:36:18.600-07:00==========
DM: All the examples you give of alleg...==========<br />DM: All the examples you give of alleged "blatant contradictions" between the Gospels have to do with Jesus' birth, not his death.<br />==========<br />{sigh} Is this a requisite technique of modern apologetics: taking a generic example of a general point, and pretending it was intended as a <i>specific</i> argument against a specific point? <br /><br />If so you guys need to develop some new strategies, because this one really doesn't hide the strawman.<br /><br />The point my handful of examples were intended to illustrate is that the information provided by your four favorite gospels must be considered suspect because (among other reasons) of internal contradiction and continuity lapses which indicate that either events were not as reported (they couldn't have been) or that one or more of the reports is inaccurate, embellished, or fabricated.<br /><br />I didn't deem it necessary to list ALL of the contradictions in the Gospels, for many reasons, among which I'm pretty sure that as a scholar of said texts you are probably already familiar with them. So what purpose you could have in making me drag more of them out, other than simple distraction, eludes me.<br /><br />But fine, I can play that game, too.<br /><br />* Jesus curses a fig tree for not having figs (out of season) and the tree withers: Matthew.: instantly;<br />Mark: not until the next day.<br /><br />* Matthew, Mark, and Luke (the Synoptics) state that the Last Supper takes place on the first day of Passover; <br />John says it was the day before and that Jesus was crucified on the first day of Passover.<br /><br />* Matt. cites Judas' payment for the betrayal as being prophesized by Jeremiah, then procedes to quote <i>Zechariah</i> instead.<br /><br />* John says Jesus was taken to Annas first, and then sent to Caiaphas; <br />the Synoptics say he was taken directly to Caiaphas.<br /><br />* John says Jesus was questioned by Caiaphas; the Synoptics say that he was questioned by 'priests and scribes' as well -- except Mark says this happened <i>after</i> Jesus saw the high priest; Matthew says it happened <i>before</i> he was brought to the high priest; and Luke says it happened the day after.<br /><br />* Luke says Jesus was sent by Pilate to Herod; none of the other three Gospels mentions this.<br /><br />* John: Barabas was a thief; <br />Mark, Matt: Barabas was a murderer.<br /><br />* Jesus's last words:<br />John: "It is finished."<br />Mark, Matt.: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"<br />Luke: "Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit."<br /><br />* John: Mary Magdalene alone found Jesus' tomb open; <br />Matt: it was her and some other,unspecified Mary; <br />Mark: it was her,Mary,mother of James,and Salome; <br />Luke: it was a whole flock of women from Galilee, including both aforementioned Marys and Joanna.<br /><br />* When [whoever] gets to the tomb they find: <br />Mark: a young man sitting inside the tomb; <br />Matt.: an angel outside the tomb; <br />Luke: <i>two</i> men/angels somewhere around the tomb; <br />John: just an empty tomb.<br /><br />* On finding the empty (or angel-haunted) tomb the women (whoever they were) tell: <br />Luke: the disciples and a bunch of Jesus followers; <br />Matt.: just the disciples; <br />Mark: no one.<br /><br />==========<br />DM: What's the difference? At least 30 years. <br />===========<br />Yes, we find the Gospels as rife with contradictions at the end of those 30 years as at the begining of those 30 years.<br /><br />And your point was...?Dr Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-10796100929139602752011-04-27T17:27:58.246-07:002011-04-27T17:27:58.246-07:00From what I can recall of your previous argument o...From what I can recall of your previous argument on Amazon, your recent blog seems rather similar. I didn't find anything here that jumped out at me that didn't before. If you want to point out your updates I'll comment on them.<br /><br />But some general comments. First, Hume begged no questions in his argument for miracles. If he said "There are no miracles therefore there are no miracles" then indeed this would beg the question. But Hume's argument was evidentiary. Hume's argument is the evidence against the occurrence of miracles is far stronger than the evidence for it, and one clear reason to believe so is that events that are called miraculous are perceived as such. We can imagine a world where Hume's argument would not work at all well. A world where science had worked out a basic rubric of laws, but where on a daily basis these laws were defied. In such a world I might claim that my fork suddenly levitated and others would say "Yea, happens all the time--makes it tough at dinner time." We don't live in such a world, and thus the evidence is against the occurrence of miracles. Note this is not the bald statement that miracles never happen.<br /><br />Second, and I think I've noted this before, you tend to be quite liberal in what you will allow to be a miracle. Of course we use this language all the time. "That was a miracle." Doug Flutie's pass in 1984 that secured a win in the last seconds of a ball game is called "miraculous" all across the internet. Just do the search. But no one would suggest that God aided Flutie by changing the laws of motion. People speak of "miraculous cures." But in the more sober context of medical science this is known as the phenomenon of "spontaneous remission," something that calls for serious study, not simply dropped at the door step of God. And indeed there is active research that has born fruit concerning some of the circumstances that are responsible. We also know that some medical conditions do not allow for spontaneous remission, such as death. You speak of stories of people whose prayers have been answered "miraculously." First, this is apocryphal evidence, not to be trusted. Second, can you cite any such example where the prayer was for a suspension of the laws of nature? Third, to evaluate this we would need to know about the instances in which the prayed for result was not experienced. How many people through the centuries have prayed that they or a loved one not die, only to have the feared death occur?<br /><br />Another point. The success of Christianity doesn't provide any evidence for the plausibility of the resurrection. You seem to be trying to in some fashion pull in the hypothetico-deductive method of science. If A then B will be observed, B was observed, thus it is more likely that A is correct. But there's no way this could work with the resurrection. Even supposing the Resurrection did occur, it of itself offers nothing in terms of scientifically tracable consequences.<br /><br />In the end I think the one think that raises the prior probability of the resurrection to a significantly higher value for you than for me is simply your belief in God. If a God, who by definition can do anything, is around, then risings from the dead would be possible. But then you are begging the question, not me.<br /><br />Another point I might make that I haven't made in the past. Much is made of the supposed "witnesses" of the resurrection. Of course there were no witnesses to the resurrection itself, but simply stories of sightings of Jesus. It is clear that in the time of Paul some people, such as the one named, did believe such a thing occurred. But why didn't more people believe? Why didn't the Jews of the time, who were much closer to the "evidence" than we are, not accept this evidence? <br /><br />Richard FieldAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-14786916765784430932011-04-27T17:10:10.832-07:002011-04-27T17:10:10.832-07:00==========
DM: Human testimony can and often does ...==========<br />DM: Human testimony can and often does provide a high degree of certainty. I proved this with that old experiment I did in Japan, when we argued epistemology before, and with many examples since.<br />==========<br />Hogwash, poppycock, and balderdash. You conducted one or two off-the-cuff, uncontrolled, unblinded experiments on a handful of students, ignored all the sources I cited of decades of research contradicting what you think you found, then dismissed my critiques, declared victory, and moved on.<br /><br />It was like the "psychic" standing on a street corner and <i>willing</i> the green light to turn red, then when the light turns red, he crosses the street, goes home, kicks back and has a beer, confident in his supernatural power to alter events.<br /><br />==========<br />DM: Talking with a flight controller recently, he agreed with the point I made then completely: air traffic control is just one of many examples of how human beings have reasonably risked their lives not on scientific grounds, but on what you call "anecdotal" grounds -- trusting what believable people have to say.<br />==========<br />And I've explained to you why that is baloney. Pilots don't sit blindfolded in their cockpits with only the celestial voice of the tower controller to guide them in to a miraculous landing. Were that the case we would have had several major disasters recently when said tower controllers dozed off on the job.<br /><br />There are things called /instruments/: altimeters; air speed indicators; compasses; radar; GPS; runway markers and lights. They are not just there for decoration, and the information they provide is not anecdotal.Dr Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-86200025042154986822011-04-27T16:57:44.067-07:002011-04-27T16:57:44.067-07:00==========
DM: Science by nature involves reprodu...==========<br />DM: Science by nature involves reproducible events.<br />==========<br />That is a common misconception of non-scientists which is neither necessarily nor universally true. In some branches of science, those done in the lab, it is admittedly the ideal situation we would like to have: set up 50 petri dishes as controls and another 50 in which only a single variable is altered; record results; lather; rinse; repeat.<br /><br />But a great deal of science is done in the field, and outside the lab nature is rarely so accomodating. We can -- and do -- also study things scientifically by observing apparently similar sorts of phenomena, taking measurements, and then noting in what ways they actually are similar and in what ways they differ. Individual mechanisms may be singled out for lab treatment to confirm or refute a particular point, but it is not necessary for nature to repeat itself exactly in order for a natural phenomenon to be scientifically studies.<br /><br />We do, after all, study supernovae, earthquakes, hurricanes, and the Big Bang, without having to (or being able to) recreate them <i>in toto</i>.<br /><br />==========<br />DM: Miracles by nature are wilfull,<br />==========<br />What an extraordinary statement to make after claiming that miracles are not a part of nature. If they're not of nature, then they can't be studied, and you can't possible know whether their "nature" is wilfull or otherwise.<br /><br />You have been caught in a circle of your own construction.<br /><br />==========<br />DM: and (like subatomic particles) the presence of an observer seems to effect what is observed.<br />==========<br />Yet we study subatomic particles scientifically. And quite successfully.<br /><br />==========<br />DM: Miracles can therefore be evaluated historically, but not scientifically.<br />==========<br />Then it can never be established that there are such things.<br /><br />==========<br />DM: I've explained why that's not true.<br />==========<br />You've explained why you would wish for it not to be true.<br /><br />==========<br />DM: Science is not, as much as you may like to think, omniscience:<br />==========<br />I have not ever claimed that it is. What I have stated, repeatedly and truly, is that science is an epistemology -- a means by which we acquire knowledge. And it is demonstrably the most successful and productive epistemology yet devised.<br /><br />==========<br />DM: it is impotent to access much of the <b>real world</b>, which does not mean none of what it fails to access, can be accessed.<br />==========<br />Note emphasis added: if science cannot access "it", then "it", by definition, and by your own admission, is not of the <b>real world</b>.Dr Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-37168083698278652222011-04-27T16:46:59.778-07:002011-04-27T16:46:59.778-07:00Dr. H: You said a religion "cannot correct it...Dr. H: You said a religion "cannot correct its errors." I asked you to read a little theology. You then gave a list of eleven "theologists" you have, apparently, read. <br /><br />So which of these eleven did not correct what they perceived as errors in previous theology?David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-38187342159140914472011-04-27T16:31:28.497-07:002011-04-27T16:31:28.497-07:00==========
DM: Thanks for your fine recital from ...==========<br />DM: Thanks for your fine recital from the Skeptical Catechism. Give the good Dr. two stars.<br />==========<br />Only two?<br /><br />==========<br />DM: But of course, religion DOES "correct its errors." That's what Greco-Roman pagans did when they embraced Christianity.<br />==========<br />No they didn't. They <i>changed religions</i>; not at all the same thing as correcting the mistakes in their own religion.<br /><br />==========<br />DM: And Christians, too, have corrected many of our errors,<br />==========<br />It's true, the Pope did actually concede that the Earth goes around the sun -- a mere 359 years after the Church condemned Galileo for making that claim.<br /> I guess the Church had to wait until a couple thousand satellites were successfully placed in orbit, a couple hundred people orbited the Earth, and a dozen more walked on the moon to be <i>absolutely</i> sure.<br /> Talk about requiring extraordinary evidence!<br /><br /><br />==========<br />DM: and those of our pagan and atheist forebares<br />==========<br />Telling someone else that they've made mistakes is also not the same thing as correcting one's own mistakes.<br /><br />==========<br />DM: -- you ought to read some good theology, some time.<br />==========<br />Huh. So N.T. Wright's not a good theologist? Paul Tillich? Karl Barth? <br /><br />How about Thomas Aquinas? Martin Luther? Ignatius Loyola? Augustine? <br /><br />No? Maybe Kierkegaard? Swedenborg? von Hildebrand? Schaeffer?<br /><br />Damn. Sorry I wasted my time with all of these hacks.<br /><br />But seriously, while I would never claim to be as widely read in this area as you, neither have I exactly neglected theology as a part of my philosophical studies.<br /><br />==========<br />DM: There is hardly anything in human knowledge that is not embraced (if not discovered) by some theologian, somewhere.<br />==========<br />If so, it's likely just because there were so many of them. The same statement could probably be made with the same degree of accuracy about drunkards.Dr Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-56123171413317764042011-04-27T15:43:11.594-07:002011-04-27T15:43:11.594-07:00==========
DM: Jesus' resurrection was clearl...==========<br />DM: Jesus' resurrection was clearly different from that of Lazarus. The latter was (it seems) restored to normal human life, to live out his days. Jesus was raised to a new life, of some sort -- you could touch him, he could eat, you could recognize him, but he could also do things we can't, naturally.<br />==========<br />Um... according to the Gospels he could do plenty of things we can't, well <b>before</b> he died and came back: walk on water; control the weather; restore sight to the blind; magically make loaves and fishes reproduce; raise the dead; forsee the future -- you know, little things like that.Dr Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-31557370765493233682011-04-27T15:37:42.716-07:002011-04-27T15:37:42.716-07:00==========
DM: Anon vs. Anon: This is confusing! ...==========<br />DM: Anon vs. Anon: This is confusing! Don't be shy -- please take off the paper bags, or at least make up a name by which we can distinguish you. Thanks.<br />==========<br /><br />I think one of those "anon's" is me hitting "publish" when I meant to hit "preview," before I signed the post.<br /><br />Heat of the moment, and all that -- you know how excitable we anarchists can become when we don't have something at hand to blow up. :-)Dr Hnoreply@blogger.com