This post is a bit disorganized, but hopefully you can follow along. I should update this at some point.
Here is a sample of the "minimal facts" from Gary Habermas:
1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
9. The Church was born and grew.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).
Flawed Methodology:
Objection One)
Can a miracle from a specific source ever be the best explanation?
A miracle, by definition, is a very improbable occurrence and an event that happens despite natural laws. We know, for example, that humans can not traverse oceans with water-walking abilities. We can get a large group of people and ask them to walk on water and all will almost certainly fail. We can look at what we know about human anatomy, the density of water, and other justified background assumptions to come to the conclusion that the probability of a human walking on water is very, very, very low. If we presented some information surrounding a specific person who went to the ocean, was not found, and had followers claim he/she walked on water (this is essentially what the minimal facts advocates are doing, but I'll go more in detail later), a miracle would not be the best explanation because water-walking is tremendously unlikely. We might offer some other naturalistic explanations/alternative hypotheses to better explain the information we have. A naturalistic explanation is always more probable that a supernaturalistic one. Even if the naturalistic explanation is very unlikely, it's still more likely than the occurrence of a miracle.
The appeal to "the best explanation is a miracle" may commit an informal logical fallacy known as an argument from ignorance. The inability to come up with a plausible naturalistic explanation does not warrant a supernatural conclusion. Why shouldn't we just say "I don't know" instead of jumping to supernatural conclusions?
Can a miracle be assigned to a specific source? How we we possibly arrive at the conclusion of "God raised Jesus from the dead" rather than "Advanced alien technology raised Jesus from the dead?" Can we say that God is more likely to raise Jesus from the dead than advanced alien technology (or some other source)? Even if the miracle happened, how can we say what caused the miracle?
Objection Two)
People are trying to use a historical method to come to theological conclusions. They can't possibly do this and they can't have it both ways.
Historians can't tell you what certainly happened in the past because we are unable to replicate events concerning people that have happened. (And forget the notion of absolute certainty. Don't even go there.) Historians can determine what probably happened in the past. In order to do this, historians want to collect a great deal of evidence from many sources who are disinterested and contemporaries at the time of these events. Historians want to take data from reliable sources and must sift the myths and exaggerations. We can take information from the Iliad, for example, to learn about geography and some other facts, but must discount the supernatural claims and the myths associated with the story.
Those who use the minimal facts approach are using the conclusions of historians to reach a theological claim, but this is unwarranted for several reasons. Theology simply is not history. The claim "God rose Jesus from the dead" is not a historical claim, but rather a theological claim that historians can't make. Historians deal with the natural world and the probable, not some sort of supernatural realm and the improbable (miracles). Historians can't reach the conclusion, while doing history, that God raised Jesus from the dead.
Dealing with the minimal facts:
Minimal Facts One and Two: Jesus died by crucifixion and He was buried.
These facts have nothing to do with whether or not Jesus was raised from the dead. There are many other facts about Jesus such as "Jesus was a male, Jesus was put on trial by Pilate, etc," but none of these have anything to do with whether or not Jesus came back from the dead. No matter how Jesus died (he could have been hanged, drowned, suffocated, etc), he still could have been raised from the dead. The method of death and the subsequent burial has nothing to do with this. The burial might as well be put with the empty tomb (which is admittedly the most contested of the facts).
Minimal Fact Three: His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
This makes sense and is very plausible. Jesus' disciples were part of his travelling ministry and were very close to Jesus. The disciples were, as most people would be, stricken with grief when someone whom they really loved died. If the disciples believed that Jesus would be raised from the dead/he was God, they be quite distraught when they learned that their messiah was to be killed. This fact, though, has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus was raised from the dead.
Minimal Fact Four: The tomb was empty.
Minimal facts advocates claim that since Jesus' tomb was empty, he must have been raised from the dead, but this is jumping to a conclusion with supernatural content. This fact is the most contested by historians and if false, the entire enterprise seems to unravel. Here is a naturalistic explanation that while improbable is still more probable than "a miracle happened."
- Followers of Jesus raided the tomb and took the body so that people believed he was raised from the dead. While doing this in the dead of night while guards were not around (do guards patrol tombs, anyway?), the followers were eventually found and killed. All of the bodies were then put into a common grave and the body of Jesus was never found/identified.
Might this have happened? Probably not...but this is still more probable than "a miracle happened."
Minimal Fact Five: The disciples had experiences in which they believed were literal experiences of a risen Jesus.
It is important to note that this is what the disciples believed had happened. It's very plausible to come to a conclusion that this is what the disciples thought had happened. People who love others dearly can believe that they are speaking with those who are deceased and actually do (although they don't get any responses). The site I linked above notes that "there is no such thing as a grief hallucination in the DSM-4," but this doesn't matter because a grief hallucination (or any hallucination, really) need not be indicative of a mental disorder. People have hallucinations when they use drugs, are waking from sleep, etc. Hallucination need not be a negative term.
Imagine, for a moment that a wife and husband had been married for sixty years and the wife recently lost her husband and was not able to tell him a secret she had held throughout their entire relationship. The wife might really believe that she sees her husband and may "have a conservation" with him talking about the secret. This account is very plausible and can be linked to the disciples' visions. Imagine that the disciples were in a crowd of people and starting talking "to the air" and others thought that they were actually speaking to Jesus. News spreads, stories evolve, and eventually you get "the disciples literally spoke to a risen Jesus." Changing of stories within religious traditions is quite common. Buddhism, for example, has evolved over centuries and has many elements that were not included in the "original version." The Buddha stayed silent regarding various metaphysical questions such as the afterlife, but later traditions believe that by following the Buddha's advice, there actually are answers (while some believe that there are no answers). Regardless, stories change and traditions evolve.
One tradition in Syriac Christianity alleges that Jesus had a twin brother. Imagine that after the crucifixion Jesus' twin brother (if he indeed had one) appeared to many and he was mistaken for Jesus. In some of the Gospel narratives, people didn't really even know who Jesus was and mistaked him for John the Baptist. Perhaps someone else looked like Jesus and Jesus didn't have a twin brother, but people thought that they saw Jesus after he was crucified. This is a plausible explanation of how people"saw Jesus."
Some minimal facts advocates may object and say that groups of people saw Jesus, so they can't all be wrong, but this is a fallacious appeal to the masses. Just because many people believe something doesn't mean it is true. The Book of Mormon, for example, starts with a signed witness testimony of people who believe that the events in the book are true. Millions of followers of recently deceased Sathya Sai Baba believe in his miracles. Can they all be wrong? Of course they can. The idea of evolving stories and embellishments can easily account for a plausible explanation of the disciples' visions.
Minimal Fact Six: The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
Doubters frequently become bold proclaimers. So what?
Minimal Facts Seven + Eight : The resurrection was the central message + They preached the resurrection message in Jerusalem.
This is an interesting claim, but it also leads us to a "so what" conclusion. Followers of Jesus, after they realized their messiah died, could have tried to make sense of what happened by looking to old scriptures and even what Jesus said. Even if Jesus said that he was going to come back from the dead, this doesn't mean that because people believed he came back from the dead we're warranted in believing that he actually did. The resurrection might "make sense" of this fact coupled with others, but it's certainly not the simplest explanation because it requires a supernatural explanation and another supernatural entity. "Jesus was raised from the dead by God" raises more questions that the conclusion answers. Preaching a message also doesn't entail that it is true.
Minimal Fact Nine: The Church was born and grew.
The fact that the Church was born and grew can be explained without its central ideas being true. Look at groups today like Scientology, Seventh Day Adventists, and Mormons...
Minimal Fact Ten: Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
So what? This doesn't entail that the resurrection happened.
Minimal Fact Eleven: James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
This is essentially the same as fact 6 and can be dealt with using the same explanation that I offered.
Minimal Fact Twelve: Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).
Paul did not literally see Jesus, but rather had a vision on the road to Damascus. The New Testament also talks of other "appearances" like these regarding Elijah and Moses. Are we really going to believe that the literal bodies of Moses and Elijah also appeared to people and equivocate appeared?
Afterthoughts...
The minimal facts approach is inadequate to arrive at a conclusion of "God raised Jesus from the dead." Minimal facts proponents want to use historical information to reach a theological claim, but this is not operating within a historical framework/approach. Historians can't say that God raised Jesus from the dead because this is not a historical claim, but rather a theological claim. A miracle, as I previously noted can't be the best explanation for events because it is, by definition, the least probable occurrence.
Even if Jesus did raise from the dead, how can we even possibly establish that the Christian god raised Jesus from the dead? Is this conclusion more likely than "advanced technology made a clone of Jesus or fooled people" or "advanced technology left a body double of Jesus on the cross and teleported him back after wiping his memory of the teleportation?" My explanations of alternative supernatural claims may seem really funny, but I want to demonstrate a point. Even if a miracle happened, we can't establish its source. Adding God to the picture, just like adding advanced technology, is making the explanation even more unlikely because, as I previously mentioned, more questions are raised than are answered.
Even if all of my naturalistic explanations are very unlikely, they are still more likely than "God raised Jesus from the dead." If we see some facts relating to a series of events and can't come to a conclusion, we should say "I don't know" instead of positing supernatural entities and explanations that raise more questions than they answer.
There are also various problems with the historicity of the Gospels, problems with eyewitness testimony, contradictions in the New Testament, etc, but I won't go into this in this post.
The "God raised Jesus from the dead [GRJD]" hypothesis is not simple. It requires an extra entity, God, along with various supernatural elements such as a supernatural realm (Jesus went to Heaven).
The GRJD hypothesis is not conservative. It goes against what we already know about death. People who are dead for three days simply don't come back. Bodies that have begun decomposition don't animate and come to life.
The GRJD hypothesis isn't fruitful. It doesn't make predictions that can be verified.
The GRJD hypothesis doesn't have good explanatory power because it raises more questions than it answers. Why was Jesus the only person raised from the dead? How do we know God exists (Saying that we know that God exists because Jesus was raised from the dead by God would be begging the question)? How did a dead body come back to life? How does the supernatural/non-physical effect the physical? Why wouldn't this event happen at some other time so that we would have good reason to believe it/why did this happen in such a remote place before advanced technology existed? How do we know God, rather than someone or something else, raised Jesus from the dead? Although the GRJD hypothesis would explain the minimal facts, we have many more questions to consider (and we need good reason to accept this claim rather than "It would explain all of the facts." Aliens made a body double of Jesus and teleported him to the people after one of the bodies died would also explain the facts, but would also raise more questions than it answers.
Naturalistic explanations that I have offered are more likely explanations that are more simple, conservative, fruitful, and has more explanatory power. Even if I don't have a good explanation for the minimal facts, we're still not epistemically justified in saying a miracle happened and bridging the gap from "I don't know" to "God did it." Miracle proponents can't possibly distinguish between possible sources of miracles and thus can't assign a specific entity, such as God, to a miracle; even if a resurrection happened, how can we know that God did it? As Arthur C. Clarke said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Encountering some real objections that directly address my post:
Objection 1:
All of nature's operations does not count against a miracle because a miracle does not undermine natural laws. Hume was wrong on two counts here because God's action in history, which would be extraordinary and not assumed to be impossible given that nothing is being undermined, acts upon established laws, and probability theory shows that an extraordinary event does not require extraordinary evidence. For instance, You can have five decks of cards and I can predict exactly which three you will pull next. All that is required here for evidence is to show the cards, which is not so extraordinary. Therefore argument to the best explanation can indeed include a supernatural explanation without being classified as ignorant.
A further problem here is just how much evidence would one need to not call a miracle an ignorant explanation. If it is never acceptable as an explanation then it would seem that one can never use a supernatural explanation even if there's a robust supernatural context one can posit and approach it with. According to you, such a context could NEVER be established.
I never claimed that miracles violated the laws of nature, but rather claimed that the probability of someone walking on water, for example, is very unlikely given our background assumptions. In the case of being raised from the dead after being dead for three days, we have never verified this phenomenon/seen this happening. Even if Jesus was raised from the dead by God, the percentage of people who have been raised from the dead is close to zero. Whether or not a miracle violates the laws of nature is a red herring.
This commenter uses a false analogy when he mentions predicting the next three cards from a deck of five decks of cards. The chances of predicting the cards, assuming that you are not cheating, is quite low, but not as low as someone being raised from the dead. Unlike the GRJD hypothesis, predictions of cards are not supernatural events and do not go against what we know about the world. The commenter says "all we would need to do is show the cards" to confirm the prediction, but this is much different than what the minimal facts advocates are doing. Showing the cards would confirm that the prediction is correct. No abduction is used here. We aren't even using minimal facts! In the card prediction example, the entire process is naturalistic and no supernaturalistic explanation is given, much unlike the GRJD hypothesis.
If the precautions were not taken, the best explanation would be "This person was more likely to be cheating rather than really guessing.
More, but not necessary....
The commenter says that the confirmation of this prediction/event would not require extraordinary evidence because one would just need to show the cards, but he's missing more information here that would need to be shown to establish that this happened (and this certainly can happen by chance if people tried long enough and the reshuffling of the cards was instant or very fast - it would be inevitable). I'm not quite clear if the commenter is proposing a one-shot guess or a guess over many tries, but if someone were to establish that it were a one shot guess done by one person at one time without cheating, there would need to be extraordinary evidence and precautions that would give us good reason to believe that this actually happened. Here's an example: various expert dealers would inspect the cards to make sure that they aren't marked, shuffle all of the cards outside of the guesser's vision, deal the three cards outside of the guesser's vision, and record the results by sealing them in an envelope and giving them to an uninterested party. The guesser would then type his prediction on a computer system that was brought in by a disinterested party that was verified by computer experts (so that there is no cheating involved) that was saved before the cards were revealed. All of this could be shown on live TV, viewed by a panel of skeptics and experts so that they ensure that there was no cheating, etc. Regardless of all these precautions, if enough people made predictions, a correct prediction would be inevitable.
The commenter says that, according to me, a miracle could never be a justified explanation. The commenter asks just how much evidence would we need to not call a miracle a result of an argument from ignorance. The evidence presented for the GRJD hypothesis is supplemented by very little evidence that is not good evidence (as I mentioned above) to warrant a conclusion that a miracle happened. "How much evidence would we need to establish that a miracle happened" is an interesting question. Even if miracles happened, as I mentioned, we still would not be able to establish exactly what caused this miracle. Was it God? Was it Satan? Was it advanced alien technology? The minimal facts advocates not only claim that Jesus raised from the dead, but rather that GOD raised Jesus from the dead. Can we honestly say that "God raised Jesus from the dead" is more or less likely than "Satan raised Jesus from the dead?" I mentioned this after objection one, but will now go back and add this to objections.
Objection 2:
Historians do the work of saying which historical facts are most likely. The more diverse the historians and the more of them that agree make the proposition in question more likely. The conclusion to explain historical data however is not the work of historians, but the work of philosophers. I've seen Bart Ehrman make the same claim as you do, but he is an historian trying to do philosophy, which ends up being quite flawed given his ignorance of modern probability theory. He is to be respected as far as his contribution to the data, but his inference must draw on the best philosophy, which is a leap beyond historical instruments.
It's possible to raise an objection like this to anything by saying something like, "Computer scientists aren't doing computer science when they are fixing a computer because they are using abduction when they decide what is probably causing a problem with the computer. The conclusion to explain computer data is not the work of the computer scientist, but the work of philosophers." It's quite easy to see why, when "computer scientist" is added, this objection fails. Historians and computer scientists do derive explanations of data when they consider data and while this may be inductive reasoning, they're working within their own field when they do so. The philosopher need not step in to make this conclusion.
From the Wikipedia page on historian:
The process of historical analysis involves investigation and analysis of competing ideas, facts and purported facts to create coherent narratives that explain "what happened" and "why or how it happened".
Here are some further debate resources:
Mike Licona vs. Dan Barker:
Bart Ehrman vs. William Lane Craig:
Bart Ehrman vs. Mike Licona:
Other related videos:
Miracles Prove Nothing
More on Miracles
Those minimal facts take for granted that Jesus existed and did and said the things attributed to him in the gospels, and that the described events actually happened. We have no evidence that these thing ever actually happened at all, so calling them "facts" is really stretching to begin with.
ReplyDeleteJustin:
ReplyDeleteThe reason that atheism is so hypocritical is because y’all spend so much time on self-focused, self-aggrandizing projects like this lil’ beauty that you’ve produced.
The only part of Christianity that is self-focused is a Christian’s concern for his own salvation and ongoing conversion to holiness. After that, everything is other-centered, as sublimely described by JP2 in Section 43 of Novo Millennio Ineunte:
"43. To make the Church the home and the school of communion: that is the great challenge facing us in the millennium which is now beginning, if we wish to be faithful to God's plan and respond to the world's deepest yearnings.
But what does this mean in practice? Here too, our thoughts could run immediately to the action to be undertaken, but that would not be the right impulse to follow. Before making practical plans, we need to promote a spirituality of communion, making it the guiding principle of education wherever individuals and Christians are formed, wherever ministers of the altar, consecrated persons, and pastoral workers are trained, wherever families and communities are being built up. A spirituality of communion indicates above all the heart's contemplation of the mystery of the Trinity dwelling in us, and whose light we must also be able to see shining on the face of the brothers and sisters around us. A spirituality of communion also means an ability to think of our brothers and sisters in faith within the profound unity of the Mystical Body, and therefore as "those who are a part of me". This makes us able to share their joys and sufferings, to sense their desires and attend to their needs, to offer them deep and genuine friendship. A spirituality of communion implies also the ability to see what is positive in others, to welcome it and prize it as a gift from God: not only as a gift for the brother or sister who has received it directly, but also as a "gift for me". A spirituality of communion means, finally, to know how to "make room" for our brothers and sisters, bearing "each other's burdens" (Gal 6:2) and resisting the selfish temptations which constantly beset us and provoke competition, careerism, distrust and jealousy. Let us have no illusions: unless we follow this spiritual path, external structures of communion will serve very little purpose. They would become mechanisms without a soul, "masks" of communion rather than its means of expression and growth."
GCT, for the sake of argument, we can accept that all of these things actually happened and it would make no difference because of my objections to the methodology :) There is indeed a consensus by historians surrounding many if not all of these facts, though (the empty tomb is the most contested). I lay out epistemic objections, state why the best explanation of these facts can't be a miracle, etc.
ReplyDeleteConsciousness Raiser, I'm not interested in preaching. I'm interested in argument, evidence, and reason.
ReplyDelete"Atheism is hypocritical" is a nonsensical statement because the word atheism is merely an indication of a person who doesn't believe in any gods.
How, exactly, is this post a "self-aggrandizing project?" The main point of this post is to consider arguments that Christians use to establish that a resurrection happened.
Sorry, Justin, but it appears that we’ll never be able to have real communication, so I’ll refrain from polluting your blog with further “nonsensical” comments. You want to debate, I’m interested in authentic dialogue. You want argument, evidence and reason, while I work with personal experience, faith, and Truth.
ReplyDeleteWill you allow me one final admonition? This is what lies in prospect for you if you are wrong:
St Faustina’s visit to Hell: (from Section 741 in her diary)
Today, I was led by an Angel to the chasms of hell. It is a place of great torture; how awesomely large and extensive it is! The kinds of tortures I saw: the first torture that constitutes hell is the loss of God; the second is perpetual remorse of conscience; the third is that one's condition will never change; the fourth is the fire that will penetrate the soul without destroying it -- a terrible suffering, since it is a purely spiritual fire, lit by God's anger; the fifth torture is continual darkness and a terrible suffocating smell, and, despite the darkness, the devils and the souls of the damned see each other and all the evil, both of others and their own; the sixth torture is the constant company of Satan; the seventh torture is horrible despair, hatred of God, vile words, curses and blasphemies. These are the tortures suffered by all the damned together, but that is not the end of the sufferings. There are special tortures destined for particular souls. These are the torments of the senses. Each soul undergoes terrible and indescribable sufferings, related to the manner in which it has sinned. There are caverns and pits of torture where one form of agony differs from another. I would have died at the very sight of these tortures if the omnipotence of God had not supported me. Let the sinner know that he will be tortured throughout all eternity, in those senses which he made use of to sin. I am writing this at the command of God, so that no soul may find an excuse by saying there is no hell, or that nobody has ever been there, and so no one can say what it is like.
I, Sister Faustina, by the order of God, have visited the abysses of hell so that I might tell souls about it and testify to its existence. I cannot speak about it now; but I have received a command from God to leave it in writing. The devils were full of hatred for me, but they had to obey me at the command of God. What I have written is but a pale shadow of the things I saw. But I noticed one thing: that most of the souls there are those who disbelieved that there is a hell. When I came to, I could hardly recover from the fright. How terribly souls suffer there! Consequently, I pray even more fervently for the conversion of sinners. I incessantly plead God's mercy upon them. O my Jesus, I would rather be in agony until the end of the world, amidst the greatest sufferings, than offend You by the least sin.
When I say that the statement "atheism is hypocritical," I'm raising a semantic objection to what you wrote. The sentence just don't make sense.
ReplyDeleteWe can have discussion (and I encourage it), but preaching is not a means to attain truth. It's just stating what people believe, the consequences for non-belief, etc. Faith is not a pathway to truth, but rather is the willingness to belief without adequate evidence.
Your statements about Hell are nothing more than an appeal to fear...which doesn't work because I don't find any good reason to suggest that Hell exists.
If you want to object to anything I've posted, I welcome it, but to do so you should talk about why I'm wrong and why you believe what you believe by citing reason, argument, and evidence.
I don't have time to pick apart your numerous errors J, but let me just throw the following out there for your consideration.
ReplyDelete#1. Please devote 2 minutes of your time to this short video from William Lane Craig.
#2. Given there are exactly zero widespread competeing claims from the 1st century AD concerning what happenened to the body of Jesus of Nazereth, doesnt this lend greater crediblity to the eyewitness account attested to in the Gospels/Acts?
JD,
ReplyDeleteThere are televangelists who will today, in the 21st century with all the wonders of media, look right into the camera and tell gullible supporters that he has raised people from the dead (usually in some obscure African community), and nobody bothers to advance a 'competing claim' against them. That a first century victim of crucifixion was raised from the dead was hardly more verifiable then than it is today, and the claim itself was only of interest to those who were advancing it. Therefore, the lack of competing claims is more a testament to the fact that hardly anyone on the outside of the early Christian cult was concerned with it. There is no reason why there should have been any competing claims, so no this does not lend any greater credibility, if anything - less.
There are televangelists who will today, in the 21st century with all the wonders of media, look right into the camera and tell gullible supporters that he has raised people from the dead (usually in some obscure African community), and nobody bothers to advance a 'competing claim' against them
ReplyDeleteAny claim such is this is seperate from the claim of the apostles and must be weighed in light of any supporting evidence. For example, were there numerous eyewitnesses? Were there even any eyewitnesses at all?
That a first century victim of crucifixion was raised from the dead was hardly more verifiable then than it is today, and the claim itself was only of interest to those who were advancing it
How was it of interest of "those who were advancing it" when they wound up being exiled (in John's case) or even crucified (Peter) or beheaded (Paul), stoned to death (Stephen) or thrown off of a building (James) for it? Why not just STHU about it? I would posit that nobody is willing to die for that which is a complete lie.
Apart from eyewitness accounts, what other evidence from the first century, other than the conversion of the worst persecutor of the early church, Saul of Tarsus, would convince you?
Therefore, the lack of competing claims is more a testament to the fact that hardly anyone on the outside of the early Christian cult was concerned with it
Is it your belief that Jewish communities that were competeing for members from Rome to Jerusalem were not "concerned with it"? Interesting.
There is no reason why there should have been any competing claims, so no this does not lend any greater credibility, if anything - less
This entire sentence is completely wrong from beginning to end.
You seem to accept the fact that there are no popular and documented competeing claims from the first century.
If there was no reason why there should be another widely accepted, competeing claim to the resurrection, then the fact that Jesus Christ arose from the dead and made multiple appearances to a large number of people is then the most likely scenario.
“Any claim such is this is seperate from the claim of the apostles and must be weighed in light of any supporting evidence. For example, were there numerous eyewitnesses? Were there even any eyewitnesses at all?”
ReplyDeletePerhaps, perhaps not. Does it really matter? Claims are made all the time as I've demonstrated, and people believe in them without sufficient evidence, in spite of the fact that we have way more means of documenting and proving an event today than the ancients ever dreamed of. How much more susceptible would be the people living in a superstitious first century Palestine? Furthermore, were there really eye witnesses for the resurrection? How do you know? Because Paul said there were? Is that good enough evidence to stake life on? If that's so, I've got a nice bridge to sell you...
“How was it of interest of "those who were advancing it" when they wound up being exiled (in John's case) or even crucified (Peter) or beheaded (Paul), stoned to death (Stephen) or thrown off of a building (James) for it? Why not just STHU about it? I would posit that nobody is willing to die for that which is a complete lie.”
So what? Really. People have died and will die for their convictions, it doesn’t matter whether those convictions are grounded in sound reasons. More over, we really don’t know what the fate of the apostles actually was, aside from stories circulating well after the purported events would have taken place. But no, in any case, I’m not impressed by conviction. That seems easy enough to come by. Plus neither Paul nor Stephen are even purported to be eye-witnesses.
“Apart from eyewitness accounts, what other evidence from the first century, other than the conversion of the worst persecutor of the early church, Saul of Tarsus, would convince you?”
I’m even less convinced by Paul, who never had any contact at all with the historical Jesus. By his own testimony his faith was grounded in metaphysical experiences and religious ideology.
“Is it your belief that Jewish communities that were competeing for members from Rome to Jerusalem were not "concerned with it"? Interesting.”
ReplyDeleteWhether Jews were competing for converts is absolutely irrelevant. You still haven’t provided any reason why we should expect there to be “widespread competing claims.” The resurrection claim was hardly any more verifiable then than it is now. You imagine that the early Jesus sect was some magnanimous force to be reckoned with in Jerusalem, you imagine that they were objective thinkers who checked their sources, etc. But that’s all on you. In reality all we have is a claim from a fringe cult within Judaism which claimed that their messiah figure rose from the dead (and that this was a sign of the immanent end of the age, to boot). You also assume that Jesus’ execution was a big deal at the time (crucifixion was not an uncommon punishment), and you assume that he really was buried in a tomb and not just thrown in a mass grave or something, which would be more likely to have happened, and in which case nobody would have any means of verifying the claims either way.
Note that nobody in the early church was persecuted and tried on suspicion of stealing a body - which would indeed have been a serious offense. If there was a body verifiably missing, why wasn't anybody brought up on those charges? After all, you have a body missing and then you have people preaching on the streets that the body rose from the dead. It wouldn't take the authorities long to put two-and-two together and arrest them on suspicion of stealing a body.
But alas, no, early Christians were only persecuted for teaching weird theological ideas about somebody who the vast majority of people in Jerusalem didn’t know, about things which were theological and unverifiable: they were theological claims based on mystical experiences, propaganda and narrative. That you imagine there should be competing claims assumes that people on the outside saw there to be an actual tangible case which legitimately needed to be addressed. If the resurrection was an actual issue that was of interest to anyone outside the cult itself, you’d expect there to be widespread disputations, but the utter silence on the matter actually works against you.
Moreover, it is probable that some of the narrative (like Jesus' burial by Joseph of Arimathia) developed in response to some objections people had to the resurrection claim. The gospels themselves may represent some apologetics to try to convince people of some common objections - but arguing for 'widespread competing claims' is a ridiculous expectation. Unless, again, there really was something magnanimous going on, in which case you'd expect there to be competing claims no matter what.
ReplyDeleteThe resurrection claim was hardly any more verifiable then than it is now.
ReplyDeleteYes, and isn't it interesting that the story of the empty tomb was not invented until after 70AD meaning that it would be no longer possible to check if the story was factual if anyone had the inclination.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Does it really matter?
ReplyDeleteDoes it really matter that one claim is supported by multiple eyewitness accounts and another is not?
Are you actually asking this question?
Claims are made all the time as I've demonstrated, and people believe in them without sufficient evidence
You are using an arbitrary term "sufficient evidence" and cannot you cannot define what constitutes "sufficiente evidence" unless you could cite a widely held threshold for claims that are made.
in spite of the fact that we have way more means of documenting and proving an event today than the ancients ever dreamed of
The standards of evidence were remarkable for that time and the account is so well preserved that its almost mind-boggleing.
Because there is improvement upon certain methods of evidence collection/analysis, this does not negate eyewitness accounts already recorded.
No judge in the world is going to favor scientific evidence to trump the testimony of multiple eyewitnesses. If you don't believe me, ask Richard Dawkins who bemoans that this in fact IS the case.
Can scientific evidence be tainted? Of course.
Can scientific evidence be manipulated? Verifiably so.
Can scientific evidence be planted? Yes.
And judges realize that science is ever changing. New theories are discovered and others are discarded and what might be poplular today might be be unreliable tomorrow.
Eyewitness evidence has always been accepted though.
Note that nobody in the early church was persecuted and tried on suspicion of stealing a body - which would indeed have been a serious offense. If there was a body verifiably missing, why wasn't anybody brought up on those charges?
ReplyDeleteThe resurrection points towards a likely answer.
Why isnt there anything remotely like the "Biff and Rocco from Haifa stole the body and threw it in the Med"?
We don't have these competeing cliams because they do not exist.
It wouldn't take the authorities long to put two-and-two together and arrest them on suspicion of stealing a body
The lack of an arrest and charges implies that there was no evidence that they stole the body.
Preaching that someone rose from the dead does not equal someone stole a body.
early Christians were only persecuted for teaching weird theological ideas about somebody who the vast majority of people in Jerusalem didn’t know
This ignores Christian communities from the India (see Thomas), the Middle East, Africa, Asia Minor, Greek cities and Rome.
People have died and will die for their convictions, it doesn’t matter whether those convictions are grounded in sound reasons
We are not discussing adherents to a faith that die because they hope that something is true, but rather eyewitnesses to a claimed event and I hope you can tell the difference.
These apostles and early Christians knew for a fact whether or not Christ rose from the dead and given that none of them ever recanted, even at the point of horrific martyerdom, points towards they were telling the truth.
You still haven’t provided any reason why we should expect there to be “widespread competing claims
Rises to completely unchartered levels of cluelessness when I specifically pointed out that "there are exactly zero widespread competeing claims from the 1st century AD concerning what happenened to the body of Jesus of Nazereth".
If there were other widespread claims, which you agree there are not, that would bolster your case.
You also assume that Jesus’ execution was a big deal at the time (crucifixion was not an uncommon punishment), and you assume that he really was buried in a tomb and not just thrown in a mass grave
All four gospels are unanimous that Jesus was laid in a tomb supplied by Joseph of Arimethia and sealed with a stone. Thats four documents to your none that state otherwise.
it is probable that some of the narrative (like Jesus' burial by Joseph of Arimathia) developed in response to some objections people had to the resurrection claim
Mere speculation on your part unless you would like to substantiate this.
"[I]f Christianity is not true then it is a massive fraud and hoax perpetrated by evil men bent on making the world a place where Christ's commandment to 'Love thy neighbor' reigns supreme, which is the antithesis of the criminal mind, and hence the theory that Christianity is a fraud is entirely incompatible with logic and human nature"
ReplyDeleteD. James Kennedy
J,
ReplyDeleteCheck your SPAM box. I think my first comment wound up in there somehow.
Thanks
“Preaching that someone rose from the dead does not equal someone stole a body.”
ReplyDeleteUh, when you have an actual case of a body gone missing it comes pretty darn close. I'll put this to you again, because apparently you didn't follow what was written:
Body disappears and someone starts preaching how that very same body is now ‘risen’ - you would expect that person to be arrested and questioned about it. But no, again, they are not even questioned about it - they are told only not to preach a strange and unverifiable theology about this Jesus guy.
“This ignores Christian communities from the India (see Thomas), the Middle East, Africa, Asia Minor, Greek cities and Rome.”
What are you on about? Did the purported events happen in Jerusalem or not?
“We are not discussing adherents to a faith that die because they hope that something is true, but rather eyewitnesses to a claimed event and I hope you can tell the difference.”
Your belief that these accounts represent eye-witnesses is merely that, a belief: a very convenient assumption for you, but there is no pressing reason why I should accept that assumption given the lack of evidence in its favor.
“These apostles and early Christians knew for a fact whether or not Christ rose from the dead and given that none of them ever recanted, even at the point of horrific martyerdom, points towards they were telling the truth.”
Yawn. Again, more claims without any substance.
“Rises to completely unchartered levels of cluelessness when I specifically pointed out that "there are exactly zero widespread competeing claims from the 1st century AD concerning what happenened to the body of Jesus of Nazereth".”
Already addressed that. Next.
“If there were other widespread claims, which you agree there are not, that would bolster your case.”
Nope, it would actually bolster yours, because it would demonstrate that the empty tomb was a real controversy and not a made-up one.
“All four gospels are unanimous that Jesus was laid in a tomb supplied by Joseph of Arimethia and sealed with a stone. Thats four documents to your none that state otherwise.”
So what? Four documents from ambiguous sources decades after the events.
“Mere speculation on your part unless you would like to substantiate this.”
You’re the one weighing the world on your belief in the accuracy of the texts. It’s all on you, buddy.
"[I]f Christianity is not true then it is a massive fraud and hoax perpetrated by evil men bent on making the world a place where Christ's commandment to 'Love thy neighbor' reigns supreme, which is the antithesis of the criminal mind, and hence the theory that Christianity is a fraud is entirely incompatible with logic and human nature"
This quote is a total joke and negates the complexity of the nature of religious thought and practice. D. James Kennedy obviously didn’t know what he was talking about.
Maybe there’s some substance in your missing first post, ‘til, then, take care.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"So what? Four documents from ambiguous sources decades after the events."
ReplyDeleteActually let me revise that: One ambiguous document (Mark) that served as the primary source for three other ambiguous documents.
"Does it really matter that one claim is supported by multiple eyewitness accounts and another is not?
ReplyDeleteAre you actually asking this question?"
It doesn't matter for someone like you apparently, who accepts any account so long as it sounds sincere and agrees with your metaphysical beliefs. As long as the televangelist says there were eyewitnesses, well, then there must have been eyewitnesses. As long as Paul says there were eyewitnesses, there were. You read in it your favorite book, therefore it must be true, after all, if it weren’t true, it wouldn’t be in your book. You neglect the fact that people believe in things for bad reasons all the time, and you just assume that the early Christians were magically immune to that very human quality.
"You are using an arbitrary term "sufficient evidence" and cannot you cannot define what constitutes "sufficiente evidence" unless you could cite a widely held threshold for claims that are made."
I can tell you what does not constitute sufficient evidence: an ideological document from an ambiguous source.
"The standards of evidence were remarkable for that time and the account is so well preserved that its almost mind-boggleing."
And yet we don't see any actual legal disputes over the missing body of Jesus, so your point here is nonexistent. All we have, then, are stories which are beyond verification. My point was that today we have means to proving the veracity of a claim well beyond what anybody in the ancient world could imagine. We now have all kinds of video and audio media, reporters often travel internationally to cover stories, we have instant communication, etc, etc. In the ancient world, we have stories of ambiguous origin with practically no way of verifying those stories. Your comments about legal documentation in the ancient world and about the scientific method are well beside the point.
"the account is so well preserved that its almost mind-boggleing."
ReplyDeleteWhat are you talking about here?
What is mind-boggling to me is how people can maintain the aura of certainty about what is obviously an unverifiable claim. But I also realize that you must do this, your whole life hangs on this belief.
Body disappears and someone starts preaching how that very same body is now ‘risen’ - you would expect that person to be arrested and questioned about it
ReplyDelete"Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy. They arrested the apostles and put them in the public jail. But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the jail and brought them out. “Go, stand in the temple courts,” he said, “and tell the people the full message of this new life.”
At daybreak they entered the temple courts, as they had been told, and began to teach the people.
When the high priest and his associates arrived, they called together the Sanhedrin—the full assembly of the elders of Israel—and sent to the jail for the apostles. But on arriving at the jail, the officers did not find them there. So they went back and reported, “We found the jail securely locked, with the guards standing at the doors; but when we opened them, we found no one inside.” On hearing this report, the captain of the temple guard and the chief priests were puzzled, wondering what would come of this.
Then someone came and said, “Look! The men you put in jail are standing in the temple courts teaching the people.” At that, the captain went with his officers and brought the apostles. They did not use force, because they feared that the people would stone them.
Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.”
Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than men! The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”
When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. Then he addressed them: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”
His speech persuaded them. They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.
The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name. Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ."
Acts 5:17-42
I see that this is getting long michadelic. I'll post some of your more pertinant questions over at my blog in a day or two on it's own thread.
ReplyDeleteIt's moderated over there and thus we don't have to be bothered by a straight-up racist, cyber-stalking bigot like JC Birthner butting in with non-sensical, historically inacurate and easily refuted, time wasting objections.
Michadelic, don't bother posting on JD Curtis' blog.
ReplyDeleteCheck out his post called "The Pink Swastika"
http://treesforlunch.blogspot.com/2010/03/pink-swastika.html
Butch Sarah,
ReplyDeleteHe already has quite frequently in the past and and just might actually be capable of free thought despite your admonition to close-mindededness.
You're quite welcome to refute anything I've ever posted.
Actually, anyone was freely able to comment on any topic ever posted over there. That is before the site was inundated with ATVLC-like free speech bigots.
Hi Sarah,
ReplyDeleteYeah, I've had a debate on his blog before, he just wants his buddies to weigh in on the matter. Translation, he's getting in over his head and it's time to call back-up.
JD,
It's strange how I didn't read anything in that long passage about the actual body of Jesus. The reason being, of course, because there was no legal ramifications relating to any missing body. The reason for their arrest and persecution was clearly because of their disruptive preaching of fringe ideological and theological ideas and had nothing to do with any purported missing body. Clearly Gamaliel saw no connection to an actual missing body - according to this story all he was dealing with were theological, unverifiable claims that only time would show to be true or not, not data related to a case of a possibly stolen body. Ironic, isn't it? Time. 2,000 years, and still nothing...
M,
ReplyDeleteI couldnt care less if any "buddies weigh in" at all.
Truth be known, some people with a Christian worldview offer up comment on my blog, but not a whole lot.
True, some people are still allowed to comment on JD's blog that disagree with him, most are banned, however. Because at some point it always gets too hot for JD and he looks for an excuse to get rid of those who point out his fallacies, errors, and bad argumentation.
ReplyDeleteBut, JD does serve some purpose I suppose, in that he points out why my first comment was so important to make. He's swallowed the lie, hook, line, and sinker, that the writers of the gospels were sitting around with Jesus when it happened and then wrote it all down and then were persecuted for it. It's all fake though. It's all written down and made up after the fact. Of the 12 purported apostles, we really only know what happened to 2 of them - who met violent ends in a time that was pretty violent and unstable - not very compelling. We also know that the gospels are not eye-witness accounts and that they were cribbed as Mich. pointed out.
One thing to add though is that at times there were anti-Xian writings that ridiculed and argued against the Xian beliefs. We also know that early Xians destroyed these writings to simply get rid of their critics. We don't know that anyone disputed the pro-empty tomb account at the time, but no one was pushing the pro-empty tomb account until much later when it couldn't be verified, so there's a good reason why we wouldn't find any such writings.
And, may I add for Consciousness Raiser:
ReplyDelete1. If you're going to use big words, please actually know what they mean and how to use them.
2. What do you mean, 'You people?' - OK, I'm taking liberties, but what was written sorta screams it.
3. As soon as you admitted that you're uninterested in evidence and reason, preferring faith and emotional experience, you lost.
"the account is so well preserved that its almost mind-boggleing."
ReplyDeleteWhat are you talking about here?
What is mind-boggling to me is how people can maintain the aura of certainty about what is obviously an unverifiable claim. But I also realize that you must do this, your whole life hangs on this belief.
I am the person from whom you found that link from, and I lost interest in what you had to say in your first sentence when you said, "Can a miracle from a specific source ever be the best explanation?" There are multiple sources. We have 45 ancient sources mentioning 129 facts about Jesus. Of those 24 speak of his resurrection. So your single source theory falls apart. If you would like to get more focused, respond here to the Minimal Facts Approach. I only engage the discussion with those who recognize an error when they have committed one. http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?3476
ReplyDeleteYou said, "Just because many people believe something doesn't mean it is true." You're misunderstanding the argument. It is not that they believe it that it must be true for that could then just be a delusion and subject to scrutiny. They themselves didn't just believe something, but it was what they said they saw with their own two eyes, and group hallucinations are impossible, grief or otherwise. Since no viable naturalistic explanation can explain this, this is a perfect proof for the resurrection of Jesus proving He is God. In fact, there can be no better proof. It is the best proof our Creator can ever devise. There is no room for embellishment here because those very same early eyewitness Apostles that spent 3 years with Jesus who saw Him alive from the dead over the 40 days in various group settings, situations and circumstances (many occurrences but 12 mentioned in the Bible), set up the early churches on their eyewitness testimony, not someone elses'. It wasn't something they heard from someone else, but their own eyewitness accounts in various group settings multiply corroborated. For example, Paul said he spent 15 days with Peter, and with John and James, the brother of Jesus, in 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2. Some scholars debate which are absolutely Paul's writings, but they all agree these three chapters are definitely Paul all the way. The brother of Jesus also said he saw Jesus resurrected, and years later Paul was with them again with the same testimony. Now people don't willingly die for what they know is a lie, and all these eyewitnesses all died for their eyewitness testimony, except for John who was imprisoned. Paul was almost killed 7 times for his final martyrdom in the Neronian persecutions with Peter. Clement of Rome around 70 AD notes this in his writings that both Paul and Peter were martyred. Polycarp reports the martyrdoms and said he was a student of John who knew him personally. And Clement of Rome said he was friends with Peter which suggests the very same Clement of Rome in the NT is the same Clement of Rome that knew Peter. What I would like to say next is that since you can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the original Apostles then you should give your life to Christ. Nothing you have written has been able to find a naturalistic explanation. Therefore, if you are someone who values good reason then you will give your life to Christ because that is the evidence. If you don't then you are a liar and only say you favor good reason when in reality you don't. You're talking out the side of your face.
ReplyDeleteWhen I said "specific source," I didn't mean from a text, eyewitness account or something, but rather the miracle-maker.
ReplyDeleteI wrote, after going over some background information, "Can a miracle be assigned to a specific source? How we we possibly arrive at the conclusion of "God raised Jesus from the dead" rather than "Advanced alien technology raised Jesus from the dead?" Can we say that God is more likely to raise Jesus from the dead than advanced alien technology (or some other source)? Even if the miracle happened, how can we say what caused the miracle?"
"group hallucinations are impossible, grief or otherwise."
ReplyDeleteI don't like to use the word hallucination because it carries some mental illness baggage that some might find improper. Anyway, it is certainly possible for entire crowds of people to misinterpret images/see something that is not there. How about the "Fatima Miracle stories" for instance?
"Since no viable naturalistic explanation can explain this, this is a perfect proof for the resurrection of Jesus proving He is God."
Why the jump from "I can't explain explain this" from "Jesus raised from the dead and proved he is god?" Why go from "I don't know" to "miracle?" This is a fallacy known as the argument from ignorance that would be quite similar to "I can't explain how the electricity flows through the wires, therefore pixies must be doing it." Further, let's suppose, for sake of argument that the miracle happened. Why is God raising Jesus from the dead the best explanation? Can you really rule out advanced technology that we are unaware of?
" In fact, there can be no better proof. It is the best proof our Creator can ever devise."
If God is all-knowing, surely there can be a better proof that could convince everyone, right? We're very removed in history from these events. Where are the miracles today?
"There is no room for embellishment here because those very same early eyewitness Apostles that spent 3 years with Jesus who saw Him alive from the dead over the 40 days in various group settings..."
There is a tremendous amount of embellishment in the Gospels. Do you accept the other miracle stories, too? If so many of the stories like Jesus casting the swine off the cliffs, multiplying food, walking on water etc are recognized as 'truthful fiction,' 'parables,' or something else, why can't the raising from the dead also be?
"Now people don't willingly die for what they know is a lie, and all these eyewitnesses all died for their eyewitness testimony, except for John who was imprisoned."
Just because someone dies for a belief does not entail that the belief is true. People actually would die for a lie, too: imagine a mother who lies about her child to protect him/her and is killed for doing so. How about martyrs in other traditions? All that 'dying for a lie' shows is that people really believed that what they believed was true, not that the actual belief was true. Even if they were all martyed, this doesn't demonstrate that their belief was true. Myself and 10,000 other people, for example, can say that we have a very strong conviction that all that exists is the natural world and that we would die for this belief...and if we were all killed, this doesn't suddenly make our belief more or less true.
"What I would like to say next is that since you can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the original Apostles then you should give your life to Christ."
ReplyDeleteEven if I would say "I don't know how to explain the eyewitness testimony," it simply doesn't follow that I would be justified in believing that God exists, created the universe, raised Jesus from the dead, etc. Why should one take the leap from "I don't know" to belief in supernatural ocurances...and why is "God raised Jesus from the dead" the conclusion, if there is no naturalistic explanation that I can think of? This seems quite similar to people like Michael Behe who say that since you can't explain the evolution of the bacterial flagellum, you should believe that it was intelligently designed (and presumably by God, but he even admits that the evidence would and could lead you to believing in alien technology!).
Eyewitness testimony is the lowest form of evidence. We reject the eyewitness testimony of individuals who say that they have encountered aliens, Bigfoot, Loch Ness monster, etc...and for good reasons. There are other problems, even before addressing the eyewitness testimony. In the case of God raising Jesus from the dead, what's the reason to belief in God? If you try to argue for God because Jesus raised from the dead, you're committing the fallacy of begging the question - you're asserting that which you are trying to demonstrate in the argument.
What does setting churches up have to do with the truth of the claim "Jesus was raised from the dead?" All sorts of people in all sorts of times set up churches/places of worship...and this doesn't show that their belief is justified.
Jesus is the most documented person in antiquity with 45 ancient sources within 150 years of his life. Caesar only had 4, Tiberius who died 4 years after Jesus only had 9. If you want to assume Jesus never existed then you would have to throw out all individuals in antiquity so not even Plato, Caesar, etc ever existed. I think most people when they the consider the facts will given into the overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus was a real person.
ReplyDelete