Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8801 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-18-2017 5:09 AM
336 online now:
frako, PaulK (2 members, 334 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 822,604 Year: 27,210/21,208 Month: 1,123/1,714 Week: 331/525 Day: 6/67 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3839
40
4142
...
50NextFF
Author Topic:   The Tension of Faith
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1411
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 586 of 748 (823529)
11-11-2017 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 574 by Percy
11-10-2017 6:20 PM


Re: ting Re: How Faith is based on evidence and yet a gift
Percy writes:


I remain puzzled that GDR is arguing the point. I at first thought he was supporting Faith's position that faith is backed by evidence, but he says no. But he also says that he believes the Bible *does* contain evidence, citing Corinthians 15:3-8. So I'm, as I said, puzzled. Why is he arguing that evidence exists in the Bible if his faith has no need of the backing of evidence?

So what's your position about faith and evidence? Does faith require evidence, otherwise there's no reason to believe, as Faith would argue the point? Or is faith something believed without evidence or perhaps without sufficient evidence?

I believe that the earth orbits around the sun, not vice-versa. This belief is based on a variety of evidence. Geocentrists also claim evidence for their position, but I believe that the evidence for heliocentrism is much stronger and more compelling.

Likewise, evidence can be amassed both for and against the basic tenets of the Christian faith. I believe that the evidence for the Christian faith is strong and compelling. The atheists here believe otherwise.

Percy writes:

I'm treating the word "evidence" the same way the dictionary treats it. There isn't an ounce of difference between us. Here's the Corinthians passage GDR gave as providing supporting evidence for the Gospel accounts:

quote:
15:3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born,...
Where do you see evidence in this passage?


In this passage, vv. 3-5 are part of a very early Christian creed, dating back to just a few years after the crucifixion. Vv. 6-7 are Paul's addition.

In the creed, Jesus' burial is presented as evidence that he really had died, and his appearances are presented as evidence that he had risen from the dead. Yes, there is certainly evidence presented in this early creed.

(Sorry to be so brief in my reply; I am on vacation with little time and only an iPhone for internet access.)

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 574 by Percy, posted 11-10-2017 6:20 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 587 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-11-2017 11:01 PM kbertsche has not yet responded
 Message 593 by Percy, posted 11-12-2017 1:07 PM kbertsche has responded
 Message 596 by Phat, posted 11-12-2017 1:46 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 978
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 587 of 748 (823531)
11-11-2017 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 586 by kbertsche
11-11-2017 10:42 PM


The body will be sun,moon, and star stuff NOT flesh and blood. Flesh remains dead.
quote:

The Resurrection Body
35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.

42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[f]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we[g] bear the image of the heavenly man.

50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 586 by kbertsche, posted 11-11-2017 10:42 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 978
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 588 of 748 (823532)
11-11-2017 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 580 by Faith
11-11-2017 3:41 PM


The issue is which Mark manuscripts were USED not what we have found archaeologically
quote:

There are no "unhistorical additions," there are, however, subtractions galore showing an anti-supernatural bias in the so-called "earliest" manuscripts which are heretical forgeries.

See page 97 of this text to see (The Greek text is on 95-96) a good English translation of Eusebius saying that the USED MANUSCRIPTS lack verses 16:9-20.

https://books.google.com/books?id=X6K37XkDai8C&printsec=f...

quote:

accurate copies end their text of the Marcan account with the words of the young man whom the woman saw, and who said to them: "'Do not be afraid; it is Jesus the Nazarene that you are looking for, etc. ...' ",after which it adds: "And when they heard this, they ran away, and said nothing to anyone, because they were frightened." That is where the text does end, in almost all copies of the gospel according to Mark.

This site attempts to say that the archaeological evidence shows preservation of way more manuscripts with 16:9-20

quote:

(8) “Some manuscripts have the Shorter Ending after Mark 16:8, and some have verses 9-20 after 16:8.” This is technically true, but the term “some” is so vague that it deceives the reader. The number of Greek manuscripts that contain the Shorter Ending in any way at all is six. (A footnote in the NET gives the false impression that the number is higher – partly by listing the same manuscript twice, as 083 and as 0112.) The number of Greek manuscripts in which 16:8 is followed by 16:9 is over 1,640. (In the medieval manuscript 274, the Shorter Ending is written in the lower margin, linked by asterisks to 16:8, which is followed in the text by 16:9 which begins on the same line on which 16:8 ends.)

Of the five Greek manuscripts in which the Shorter Ending is between 16:8 and 16:9, Codex L and 083 have a note preceding 16:9 (to the effect of, “In other copies, the following material appears after ‘for they were afraid’”) which is also found in the Greek-Sahidic lectionary 1602. This establishes this arrangement of the text as a localized Egyptian treatment – that is, four of the Greek manuscripts with the Shorter Ending between 16:8 and 16:9 display a distinctly Egyptian form of the text, indicating that the Shorter Ending originated in Egypt (which suggests, in turn, that only in Egypt did the text of the Gospel of Mark lack verses 9-20 in the early centuries in which the Gospel of Mark was circulated).

http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/...g-out-some-common.html


(go to www.google.com with key words " Jerome Mark 16:9-20 " find relevant sites)

Preservation is one thing.

Use is another thing.

What do you think about the difference? Is my point legitimate or is it a distinction without a difference?

Why should the archaeological remains dictate what we think the majority used? Why not just listen to the devout Christian Church Fathers in their survey and observations?

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 580 by Faith, posted 11-11-2017 3:41 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16151
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 589 of 748 (823541)
11-12-2017 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 575 by NoNukes
11-10-2017 10:03 PM


Re: How Faith is based on evidence and yet a gift
Sorry for the delay. Yesterday was a travel day and we're home now. What a shock, 80° yesterday morning and 22° this.

NoNukes writes:

All I'm really saying is that there's a difference between original evidence and descriptions of the original evidence. Original evidence is all that really counts.

Is that how you evaluate, for example, claims that Jews were tortured during World War 2? Do you think it is important that your descendants require the same kind of original evidence?

After this paragraph I'm going to leave this advance into near-Godwin territory because it tends to be a topic distraction (though I'm curious why you used the example of torture instead of mass murder), but my answer remains the same. Even books by Primo Levi, that most sincere of Holocaust survivors, contain only information or descriptions or whatever you want to call them whose accuracy can only be assessed by evidence. How else do you tell the difference between a work by Primo Levi and a work by a Nazi apologist but for evidence? Levi says Auschwitz was a Nazi extermination camp, the apologist says it was a work camp contributing to the war effort. Where in either's writing is there any evidence of which account is true?

I think you are expressing a hard line that nobody actually uses for anything and insisting that we apply it to the Bible when we don't apply it to anything else.

I think I'm applying the standard we apply frequently. How else does one distinguish between fact and fiction but for evidence? In this discussion some are claiming that the mere act of writing something down, or of something haven been written down, represents evidence. It doesn't, because people can write literally anything. What they normally can't do is fabricate evidence.

There is a difference between the accounts of Jesus ministry, his death, and his resurrection, and a story of Lincoln's life and death,...

You're covering a lot of territory here, both Jesus' and Lincoln's entire life and death. All these many, many accounts contain some things of undoubtable fact (e.g., perhaps a Jesus or Lincoln historian wrote at some point, "The sun rose each morning"), to some things that are easily possible but unevidenced (e.g., Jesus asked the servants to fill the jars with water), to some things that are clearly impossible *and* unevidenced (e.g., Jesus turned the water to wine).

So I'm asserting two things:

  1. Written material does not contain the evidence of its own truth or accuracy (beyond the trivial, like the example of the sun rising each morning).

  2. You can't judge the truth or accuracy of written material without evidence.

Some people are trying to turn it into a vote, where the more people who share an opinion the more likely it must be true, but this is the "50 million Frenchmen can't be wrong fallacy," plus we know how just during our lifetimes the course of the events of history have been reinterpreted. The recent Burns documentary on Vietnam is a good example, where our knowledge of events was hindered not just by the cloud of war, but by the flat out lying of our leaders. How many articles in the New York Times archives contain blatant falsehoods provided by the then administrations?

...but I sincerely doubt that you have accepted one account and rejected the other account based on anything like the line of reasoning you've used here.

While we haven't actually discussed Lincoln in this thread, I think you'll find that in this thread about faith that I would apply the same standards. For example, did president-elect Lincoln on his way to Washington D.C. really get whisked through Baltimore on a secretly scheduled train to avoid hostile crowds? If so, what is the evidence for this that has survived until today? Is it just words on paper? For the most part yes, and so how do you evaluate their truth and accuracy? It isn't actually an easy problem.

We read and trust the WSJ article because the WSJ has a long history of reliable and accurate reporting, and there is corroborating reporting from equally reliable sources

I am personally suspicious of stories I read in the WSJ.

I continued with the example of the WSJ that you introduced in your Message 535 just to be consistent. I don't actually read the WSJ myself because it's behind a paywall. Now I'm confused why you referenced a source you don't trust.

I think there is a tendency to give the stories in our modern publications more credence primarily because they are describing ordinary events. If I read an article in the WSJ or Scientific American about a perpetual motion machine, I would be extremely skeptical.

Agreed. Accounts of the miraculous *should* be viewed skeptically.

In short, the stories in the Bible are descriptions of extraordinary events, and you rightly or wrongly require stronger evidence before you will believe them. I believe that such behavior is completely logical.

Here we agree, but only because you didn't include the claim that the Biblical passages are their own evidence of their truth and accuracy.

A WSJ article about Trump's meetings in Asia? That's information.

I have no idea what point this statement makes. Is there something more here than an expression that you would accept such an account as factual? Should someone reading the same story 1000 years from now make the same assumptions that you make about the stories credibility, or would he simply say that the story is a statement of what people of that past millennium believed to be true?

Here you bring a key point to the forefront: the past is delicate and begins decaying the moment it forms. As much as we would like to preserve history, it isn't possible. A multiplicity of forces work against its preservation. For example, we would like to tear down the monuments to Southern heroes because they were erected long after the war as symbols of white supremacy, and this is something I now agree with, but it cannot be denied but in changing their locations or destroying them altogether that we are destroying the evidence of the history of the period when they were erected. Some may argue the damage is minor, some great, but it can't be denied that it is the destruction of history.

The march of the destruction of history proceeds through all facets of life. It happens whenever we change anything, because everyplace is a record of what happened there before. When you install your backyard swimming pool you're probably not destroying any history of note, but when we built Hoover Dam to create Lake Meade we destroyed a great number of archaeological sites. History is disappearing all the time, and how much we can trust the words left behind will always be a subject of argument.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 575 by NoNukes, posted 11-10-2017 10:03 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 595 by Phat, posted 11-12-2017 1:42 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16151
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 590 of 748 (823542)
11-12-2017 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 576 by Faith
11-10-2017 10:18 PM


Re: How Faith is based on evidence and yet a gift
Faith writes:

And the gospels are clearly written records, description of actual events,...

And your evidence for this is?

...and your calling them "religious works," whatever that is, makes discussion with you impossible.

You're denying that the Gospels are religious works? Whatever else could they be? Will you next deny that Christianity is a religious faith? Will you next argue that the tenets of Christianity don't comprise a religion but a set of facts?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 576 by Faith, posted 11-10-2017 10:18 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 600 by Faith, posted 11-12-2017 5:53 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16151
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 591 of 748 (823543)
11-12-2017 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 579 by PaulK
11-11-2017 2:06 PM


Re: The Evidence Of 1 Corinthians 15:5-8
PaulK writes:

I see evidence that Jesus was not physically resurrected.

Okay, I think you're saying you see evidence of a spiritual rather than physical resurrection. You contintue

The passage tells us that at the time of Paul - still quite early - the main line of argument for the resurrection was that various people claimed to have - in some sense - seen Jesus after his death, at various times. While the claims may have been (and likely were) exaggerated by the time of writing down, it seems likely that there was some basis for it.

So would I be correct in summarizing this as that you see words about claims of seeing Jesus after his death (whether spiritually or physically) as some kind of basis of evidence that such things actually took place?

Since one of these sightings was a visionary experience the qualifier “in some sense” is certainly needed. The passage gives no real details of any of them, so we can’t be sure what any of the other “appearances” actually were.

I'm glad you noted that Paul's experience was visionary, because in that Corinthiians 15:3-8 passage Paul makes no distinction between the way Jesus appeared to everyone else and the way Jesus appeared to him, not to mention that it occurred after the ascension.

Also, it is certainly odd that if Jesus were physically resurrected his followers would only know of it through scattered sightings.

Yes, that struck me, too.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 579 by PaulK, posted 11-11-2017 2:06 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 592 by PaulK, posted 11-12-2017 12:35 PM Percy has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13297
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 592 of 748 (823544)
11-12-2017 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 591 by Percy
11-12-2017 12:21 PM


Re: The Evidence Of 1 Corinthians 15:5-8
quote:

Okay, I think you're saying you see evidence of a spiritual rather than physical resurrection. You contintue

If I had meant that I would have said it. I said and I meant evidence against a physical resurrection. In fact the reason I didn’t mention a spiritual resurrection is because the case against it is necessarily weaker than the case against a physical resurrection since it predicts far less. (I might have argued for evidence of a belief in a spiritual rather than physical resurrection but again that is a different thing).

quote:

So would I be correct in summarizing this as that you see words about claims of seeing Jesus after his death (whether spiritually or physically) as some kind of basis of evidence that such things actually took place?

I take it as evidence that some people thought that they saw Jesus after he died. Not necessarily the exact list as given here (the 500, for instance is very likely an exaggerated number, even if that part is original, which is not certain)

quote:

I'm glad you noted that Paul's experience was visionary, because in that Corinthiians 15:3-8 passage Paul makes no distinction between the way Jesus appeared to everyone else and the way Jesus appeared to him, not to mention that it occurred after the ascension.

The Ascension is only significant in the context of Christian belief (I don’t believe it had been invented at the time 1 Corinthians was written). But yes, we know that the “appearances” don’t have to be physical - although cases of mistaken identity would be and it would hardly be surprising if there were some in there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 591 by Percy, posted 11-12-2017 12:21 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 594 by Percy, posted 11-12-2017 1:23 PM PaulK has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16151
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 593 of 748 (823545)
11-12-2017 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 586 by kbertsche
11-11-2017 10:42 PM


Re: ting Re: How Faith is based on evidence and yet a gift
kbertsche writes:

Likewise, evidence can be amassed both for and against the basic tenets of the Christian faith. I believe that the evidence for the Christian faith is strong and compelling. The atheists here believe otherwise.

I'm not an atheist, but I'm not a Christian, either. But isn't there a great deal of significant variation about what even Christians accept as "the evidence for the Christian faith"?

In the creed, Jesus' burial is presented as evidence that he really had died, and his appearances are presented as evidence that he had risen from the dead. Yes, there is certainly evidence presented in this early creed.

Where is there any evidence that Jesus existed, let alone that he was dead and buried and arose and appeared to many? Where you see evidence I see only words. If words are evidence then, "Jesus never existed, the miracles never took place, and Christianity is the invention of Paul," is evidence contradicting your claims.

(Sorry to be so brief in my reply; I am on vacation with little time and only an iPhone for internet access.)

What a coincidence! We just returned from vacation yesterday, and GDR is on vacation, too.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 586 by kbertsche, posted 11-11-2017 10:42 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 624 by kbertsche, posted 11-13-2017 10:15 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16151
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 594 of 748 (823546)
11-12-2017 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 592 by PaulK
11-12-2017 12:35 PM


Re: The Evidence Of 1 Corinthians 15:5-8
PaulK writes:

quote:

Okay, I think you're saying you see evidence of a spiritual rather than physical resurrection. You continue


If I had meant that I would have said it.

Okay.

I said and I meant evidence against a physical resurrection. In fact the reason I didn’t mention a spiritual resurrection is because the case against it is necessarily weaker than the case against a physical resurrection since it predicts far less.

Why does there need to be evidence against either a physical or spiritual resurrection? Doesn't the burden lie in the other direction to produce evidence that one or the other took place?

I take it as evidence that some people thought that they saw Jesus after he died. Not necessarily the exact list as given here (the 500, for instance is very likely an exaggerated number, even if that part is original, which is not certain)

How is it evidence rather than just a story with no supporting evidence?

The Ascension is only significant in the context of Christian belief (I don’t believe it had been invented at the time 1 Corinthians was written).

That's a significant detail I hadn't heard of before. If you're arguing that the Ascension is an invention, then why aren't you also arguing that the other events, like a resurrection and and appearances to individuals and to 500 or some number, are also inventions? What is different about these accounts that makes one of them seem like evidence to you that they may be based upon real events (even if the people were mistaken in some way and didn't really see Jesus), while the other seems unevidenced and an invention?

But yes, we know that the “appearances” don’t have to be physical - although cases of mistaken identity would be and it would hardly be surprising if there were some in there.

Why do there have to be any actual events forming a basis for such accounts? Why couldn't they just be invented?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 592 by PaulK, posted 11-12-2017 12:35 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 597 by PaulK, posted 11-12-2017 2:09 PM Percy has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 10026
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 595 of 748 (823548)
11-12-2017 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 589 by Percy
11-12-2017 9:51 AM


Re: How Faith is based on evidence and yet a gift
percy writes:

How else does one distinguish between fact and fiction but for evidence?

Intuition, perhaps?

Granted I also have to allow for the possibility that I am wrong. The more information I gather, the more I feed it into my internal computer. If I am wise, I dont simply feed in information that validates my beliefs.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 589 by Percy, posted 11-12-2017 9:51 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10026
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 596 of 748 (823549)
11-12-2017 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 586 by kbertsche
11-11-2017 10:42 PM


Re: ting Re: How Faith is based on evidence and yet a gift
I believe that the evidence for the Christian faith is strong and compelling. The atheists here believe otherwise.
Do you mean the evidence that Christ is a real influence in many peoples lives? Perhaps a year or so from now, someone can interview the survivors of that church shooting in Texas to see how it affected their faith. To me, the data would be useful.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 586 by kbertsche, posted 11-11-2017 10:42 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13297
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 597 of 748 (823557)
11-12-2017 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 594 by Percy
11-12-2017 1:23 PM


Re: The Evidence Of 1 Corinthians 15:5-8
quote:

Why does there need to be evidence against either a physical or spiritual resurrection? Doesn't the burden lie in the other direction to produce evidence that one or the other took place?

There doesn’t need to be, but the fact that the evidence is there, in their own scriptures really does undermine the Christian position.

quote:

How is it evidence rather than just a story with no supporting evidence?

There has to be some reason why they said it. That it is based on something that did happen seems to me more likely than that it was a complete fabrication. If they were going to make something up, I would have expected something a bit more detailed and more impressive than people thinking they saw Jesus.

quote:

That's a significant detail I hadn't heard of before. If you're arguing that the Ascension is an invention, then why aren't you also arguing that the other events, like a resurrection and and appearances to individuals and to 500 or some number, are also inventions?

Well, I’m hardly suggesting that there was a real resurrection. But the main reason for suspecting Luke/Acts to be full of invention and elaboration is that after Mark and Matthew go for a low key approach to the appearances in Galilee Luke/Acts follows on with more impressive and detailed stories which move the action to Jerusalem - with a story that seems to me to be aimed at denying the Galilee appearances - and the Luke/Acts Stories don’t agree that well with 1 Corinthians. Also consider that 1 Corinthians is notably earlier (and even then I think that the number 500 is an exaggeration, as I have already said)

quote:

Why do there have to be any actual events forming a basis for such accounts? Why couldn't they just be invented?

There don’t have to be, but it seems more likely to me that something happened to spark the belief in the resurrection (it wouldn’t take much). The lack of detail and the comparative neglect of the stories in the Gospels imply that they were unimpressive, and there are events that would plausibly - even probably - occur that would fit the bill for at least most of them. Granted, that is because of the vagueness of 1 Corinthians but that vagueness is likely because nothing much happened.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 594 by Percy, posted 11-12-2017 1:23 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 598 by Percy, posted 11-12-2017 4:44 PM PaulK has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16151
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 598 of 748 (823565)
11-12-2017 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 597 by PaulK
11-12-2017 2:09 PM


Re: The Evidence Of 1 Corinthians 15:5-8
PaulK writes:

quote:

Why does there need to be evidence against either a physical or spiritual resurrection? Doesn't the burden lie in the other direction to produce evidence that one or the other took place?


There doesn’t need to be, but the fact that the evidence is there, in their own scriptures really does undermine the Christian position.

Okay, I think I understand what you're saying now. When you look at this passage from Corinthians 15:3-8:

quote:
15:3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born,...

In this you see evidence against a physical appearance of Jesus? If so, I'm not seeing it myself. I know you said earlier that Paul's version of the appearance was visionary, and that the scattered appearances were odd, but where is the evidence against a physical appearance? Whatever it is you're looking at, calling it evidence, even negative evidence, implies, well, evidence. I just don't see any evidence, only stories. You say a bit more about this in the current message:

quote:

How is it evidence rather than just a story with no supporting evidence?

There has to be some reason why they said it. That it is based on something that did happen seems to me more likely than that it was a complete fabrication.

Why? Some argued that even if Clinton wasn't actually running a pedophilia ring out of the basement of a pizza parlor, that it is based upon something true seems more likely than that it was a complete fabrication. Why?

Or it could have been based upon some existing religious mythology.

If they were going to make something up, I would have expected something a bit more detailed and more impressive than people thinking they saw Jesus.

I understand your argument, but others might have different opinions (Faith, for example), and this isn't evidence.

Well, I’m hardly suggesting that there was a real resurrection. But the main reason for suspecting Luke/Acts to be full of invention and elaboration is that after Mark and Matthew go for a low key approach to the appearances in Galilee Luke/Acts follows on with more impressive and detailed stories which move the action to Jerusalem - with a story that seems to me to be aimed at denying the Galilee appearances - and the Luke/Acts Stories don’t agree that well with 1 Corinthians. Also consider that 1 Corinthians is notably earlier (and even then I think that the number 500 is an exaggeration, as I have already said)

I of course agree because it fits with my own characterization of the Bible as part truth, part fallacy, part internal or external contradictions or both, part unverifiable, part impossible.

There don’t have to be, but it seems more likely to me that something happened to spark the belief in the resurrection (it wouldn’t take much).

Sure. Throughout human history ideas have spontaneously arisen that captured people's imagination.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 597 by PaulK, posted 11-12-2017 2:09 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 599 by PaulK, posted 11-12-2017 5:22 PM Percy has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13297
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 599 of 748 (823567)
11-12-2017 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 598 by Percy
11-12-2017 4:44 PM


Re: The Evidence Of 1 Corinthians 15:5-8
quote:

In this you see evidence against a physical appearance of Jesus? If so, I'm not seeing it myself. I know you said earlier that Paul's version of the appearance was visionary, and that the scattered appearances were odd, but where is the evidence against a physical appearance?

As I said, I see it as evidence against a physical resurrection. And that is because a physical resurrection raises the problem of where Jesus was when he wasn’t being seen, and because the evidence - such as it is - can be easily explained without one.

quote:

Why? Some argued that even if Clinton wasn't actually running a pedophilia ring out of the basement of a pizza parlor, that it is based upon something true seems more likely than that it was a complete fabrication. Why?

That’s because they hate Clinton. To the point of irrationality. There never was any real evidence - just a few emails with slightly odd phrasing - so we know that the rest was made up.

On the other hand post mortem hallucinations, dreams about dead people, mistaken identifications are all things that happen quite commonly. And from there cognitive dissonance makes it quite likely that the disciples - some of them, at least - might come up with the idea of the resurrection. But if they wanted to manufacture evidence - as later Christians may well have done - then a vague list of disconnected appearances isn’t exactly a likely choice.

quote:

Or it could have been based upon some existing religious mythology.

Do you have any evidence it was ?

quote:

I understand your argument, but others might have different opinions (Faith, for example), and this isn't evidence.

An argument isn’t evidence but it explains why the text may be considered evidence, and I certainly don’t think that Faith would argue that Paul made it up.

But really this is inference to the best explanation. If you accept that Jesus existed then I have a parsimonious explanation of why the belief in the resurrection started, why there is so little about the appearances prior to Matthew and why we find so much variance in the Gospel (plus Acts) accounts of the appearances. That’s pretty good going, for a question of history.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 598 by Percy, posted 11-12-2017 4:44 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 601 by Percy, posted 11-12-2017 7:39 PM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26589
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 600 of 748 (823568)
11-12-2017 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 590 by Percy
11-12-2017 10:29 AM


Re: How Faith is based on evidence and yet a gift
One does not speak of an historical account of actual events in the real world as a "religious work." That implies something like a treatise, not a report of observations of real events. The gospels are historical accounts, not religious works.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 590 by Percy, posted 11-12-2017 10:29 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 602 by Percy, posted 11-12-2017 7:42 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
3839
40
4142
...
50NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017