Perhaps Paul does, but I do not think the Gospels, which depend on Mark, can be said to be equal to other ancient documents as I do not think it’s clear at all that they were written from a historical point of view (as, say, Josephus wrote).
65-70 is the date of Mark and the clear date of the empty tomb/resurrection narrative. I do not believe that it’s intellectually fair to conflate this with the views of Paul since Paul does not speak of the life of Jesus at all AND I do not think the evidence is at all clear that Paul was speaking of a physical resurrection.
Further, the earliest Gospels do contain myth and I think they contain theological embellishment - but I suppose it depends on what you mean here. If you compare Mark, the earliest Gospel, with the later Gospels, I think it’s clear the later ones embellished Mark (in fact an ‘ending’ was added to Mark).
“Within the early church” as though there were one monolithic early church is incredibly vague and unhelpful.
Finally, getting close to 30 AD is not the same thing as getting close to the event, since it presupposes that Jesus did die at 33AD. Paul can support the early Church, but certainly not the life of Jesus and not a death in 33AD. For a minute, let’s assume that it could be established that Jesus died in 33 AD - does that give us any further reason to believe in the resurrection?
The answer is no. It does not.
If it did, then the miracles of Sabbatai Zevi - which were spread during his lifetime would be credible. This idea that getting close to the time of the events (if they did occur then!) somehow adds credibility to them is a smoke and mirror trick of apologists.
No one doubts that conservative scholars (and apologists like WLC) share your views - what is in doubt is the rationality of those views. Look at how Mike Licona has been chastized by Habermas for putting forth the inkling of doubt with regard to the Saints jumping out of their graves. Out of those scholars you listed, how many of them have to sign statements of faith? I can count a few (Habermas and Craig). Further, what is their evidence for their beliefs? Linking to amazon books is not impressive and I’ve already pointed out the problems with relying on Paul.
You might be suprised, but you link to professional debaters/apologists - people like Craig who are skilled at rhetoric.
I agree that Craig wins debates. I do not agree that his arguments are particularly good.
Craig is good for the same reason that Duane Gish and Kent Hovind are good - they employee the Gish Gallop. If that doesn’t give you pause, then I don’t know what to tell you.
No, the standard you use is the standard that apologists use (you cite both Craig and Habermas, for instance) - otherwise the miracles of Vespasian would convince you of their authenticity as they are even better attested than the NT.
It’s odd that you accuse skeptics of begging the question when you’ve begged several yourself.
For instance:
That Paul was speaking of a physical resurrection.
That proximity to events lends some credibility to them.
That the authority of conservative christian scholars is meaningful.
As to your fallacy of appealing to consequence, I’m not afraid of the evidence. The early Christian beliefs, the beliefs of people at the time, and the history around them were a significant reason for my falling from the faith.
Your rhetoric is noted though - can you please start presenting evidence in favor of your beliefs?
We will see.
This begs the question.
Paul’s experience is equally explainable with a spiritual Jesus - in fact, more so, since Paul doesn’t really give a physical description of Jesus. Further, Paul’s experience is more rationally explained with a mental phenomenon.
This all begs the question. What evidence do you have that the early church first arose in the 30’s? We can start there and then go to the further claims.
Maybe in countries where Catholics have been heavily oppressed, but I assure you that Mary (and the saints) were and still are very much worshipped in other countries.
Way off topic… I’d never heard that phrase before… Looked it up… Laughed immoderately!
I once saw Gish in debate, and, yeah, that’s what he did!
At one point, he was even sneering at scientists for believing in invisible, odorless gases. I wanted to scream, “What are you breathing, then?” I’m happy to learn that “wanting to scream” is not uncommon among people hearing a Gish Gallop!
It’s actually a good debate strategy - it promotes inflation of your opposing side’s argument. Hovind and William Lane Craig do it as well. Roughly speaking, it takes twice as long to respond to an assertion/argument than it does to spit it out.
It’s just one reason why ‘debates’ aren’t helpful for sussing out the truth. They are helpful, IMO, for determining what interests you about a given subject.
First, all of the gospels do not depend on just Mark. Scholars think there are at least 5 sources for the gospels, Mark, Q, M (the independent material in Matthew), L (the independent material in Luke) and John. These sources may be comprised of other sources, like for instance a passion narrative which may form part of Mark. The gospels are not just one source written out four times.
Secondly, do you have any argument that shows that Mark and the other gospels were not written from a historical point of view? The consensus is that the gospels are examples of ancient biography which, while different to ideas of biography today were still considered historical pieces of writing.
First, your view of Mark and the empty tomb is far too simplistic. Really we don’t know with a great deal of certainty when Mark was actually written. 65-70AD is really the latest possible dates, but it may have been written earlier. Also many scholars believe that the passion narrative with Mark itself comes from an earlier source that also includes the empty tomb account. Read about it here. The possible dates for the passion narrative go back to 30AD, giving a solid historical basis for the resurrection accounts.
Secondly, I think there is no reason to think that Paul was talking of a spiritual resurrection as you seem to want to assert. The reasons are:
“Ressurrection” as a pre-Christian Jewish idea was a physical resurrection. Spiritual resurrection in that context is an oxymoron.
Paul, before becoming a Christian was a Pharisee (Philippians 3:5), and the Pharisees believed in a physical resurrection at the end of days.
The word used for resurrection by the rest of the NT to mean “physical resurrection” (anastasis) is also used by Paul when describing the resurrection. If Paul meant a different concept he would have used a different word to differentiate the meaning.
Paul talks in different places as Jesus resurrection as being a resurrection “from the dead” or even “out of death” (eg: Philippians 3:11). In the ancient world spirits were considered “dead”, as life was a property of material beings. Therefore these passages make no sense in the context of a spiritual resurrection.
The typical passage used to support the spiritual resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:44) does not support the view of a spiritual resurrection. Paul uses the phrases psychikos soma “natural body” and pneumatikos soma “spiritual body” to describe the transformation from the present to the resurrection bodies. The word “soma” here always meant the physical material of the body. Soma is even used in some places to refer to corpses. This is the opposite meaning for the spiritual resurrection. If Paul meant to talk of a spiritual resurrection he would have simply used the word pneuma or “spirit”. Pneumatikos soma does not carry the meaning required for the spiritual resurrection.
Related to this Paul uses a similar phrase in Philippians 3:21, saying that Christ has a glorious body, or doxa soma. Here, without the ambiguous word for spirit, it is clear that Paul envisages that Jesus has a physical body, and therefore was resurrected physically.
By the time of the gospels it is clear that they teach a physical resurrection. It seems incongruous that Paul would teach a spiritual resurrection given that everything that went before and after him taught a physical resurrection. The necessary evidence that Paul believed in a spiritual resurrection is simply not there.
Can you give any concrete examples of what you consider the mythological elements and theological embellishment of the gospels? It is one thing to just simply assert it, but without defining what you mean it is not really possible to discuss it.
Again though again I think that the evidence disagrees with your position. I would take myth to mean something like the “urban legend”, stories that have no real historical grounding (like place, time, people involved, ect) and therefore simply cannot be determined if they are true or not. If you compare Mark with Matthew and Luke and also the later pseudopigraphal gospels you can see that the later pseudopigraphal gospels definately do contain myth and theological embellishment. However when looking at the synoptics, I think that the opposite is observed. In writing Matthew and Luke the authors have put in more concrete, historical data to ground the narrative, thereby making even less mythical than Mark’s account.
With the ending of Mark it is widely acknowleged that everything after Mark 16:8 is a later addition, because it is not in the oldest manuscripts that we have. For that reason I would argue that this part of Mark is not useful historically, and therefore does not form part of my argument for the resurrection. Textural criticism tells us that this addition to Mark is really the exception, not the rule, and that with a few minor exceptions the gospels, and certainly the resurrection accounts have not been added to by later people. Also the typical dates for the additions to Mark are much later than the other gospels, so this is an addition that really belongs in the time of the psedopigraphal gospels rather then the canonical ones.
The historical evidnece that we have from Acts shows that the church had an athority structure and accepted (and rejected) beliefs. It was not simply a free for all. Do you have any evidence that contradicts this view?
It is a fundamental assumption of history that, all other things being equal, people writing closer to an event (whether in time or space or both) should know more about it than people writing further away. If Paul is writing closer to the date of the resurrection then we can assume that his account is more trustworthy. Paul is also important because of the common (especially to “skeptics” who want to believe it) view that Christianity and the resurrection is a myth that developed over time. Paul writing close to the resurrection shows that this myth theory is impossible because there simply is not enough time for the myth to develop.
This is simply a red herring. The miracles of Sabbatai Zevi really have nothing to do with the resurrection, as they are completely independant claims. Christian theology also pre-supposes that other “non-Christian” miracles do happen, so if they did happen then that is not a defeator for Christian belief. I don’t categorally deny that they did happen, so really this point is completely irrelevant.
First of all this is a classic ad hominem fallacy. Whether or not the scholars involved have signed statements of faith has nothing to do with the quality of their arguments. You are simply attacking the person and not the argument. Secondly the point of linking to the books is to demonstrate and to provide reference for their arguements and the evidence that they cite. Your position appears to be that there is no evidence for the resurrection and no reason to believe it. These books clearly show that there is evidence and arguments for the resurrection being made by credible scholars. You can choose to ignore them if you want, but you can’t claim that they simply don’t exist. You are going to have to interact with the arguments if you want to maintain intellectual credibility.
I would also point out that of the people arguing here I appear to be the only one making any reference to scholarly works. All you appear to be bring is just bold assertion.
I think you are completely mis-characterising Craig. It always surprises me the amount of hate that Craig gets from atheist websites and the like. Craig is clearly more than just a good rhetoritician. He holds PhDs in both theology and philosphy from secular universities, and has written several books and articles on philosophy making an important contribution to the field. Debating is really only a small part of his overall work on philosophy and theology.
From listening to some of his talks I don’t think that Craig goes into debates with the idea of “winning” them so much as just having the chance to get a fair hearing for the Christian worldview. Where Craig does “win” the debate it is usually for a few different reasons. Craig is undoubtedly good at the skill of debating itself. Also, many of his opponents seem under-prepared for their debates. I think though this is really more to do with the tendancy of many atheists to simply not take Christianity seriously, and so many appear to assume that Craig would be easy to debate because, as a Christian, it is self evident that his arguments are fallacious. However I do think that Craigs arguments are persuasive, and that is also a reasonable part of why he tends to win debates.
I also think you are entirely off on accusing Craig of using the “Gish gallop” debating method. Craig has been using effectively the same set of arguments in debates for the last 20 years. There are really no surprises when debating him. If it were so easy to refute all of these statements by Craig then someone should be able to craft a response before the debate and just read it out. The reason that no-one does this is that I think his arguments have merit and simply cannot be dismissed within a few pithy lines.
The standard of the “best explaination” is the standard that historians use. No-one else has provided another consistent standard for judging historical claims. The reference to Vespasian is again another irrelevant red herring. Whether or not the miracles of Vespasian happened has nothing to do with the resurrection. Thirdly you are just asserting that the miracles of Vespasian are better attested. I pointed out to you before that John Meier in “A Marginal Jew” states that many Tacitus scholars do not take his account as historical because Tacitus himself does not take it seriously, and you have not really responded to that. While it is irrelevant I dispute your premise that the miracles of Vespasian are actually as well attested as the NT. I think that they are clearly not.
I don’t think you understand what begging the question actually refers to. Begging the question, or circular arguments, is where the conclusion of your argument is contained within the premises. So for instance the general argument here that “the resurrection didn’t happen because there is no evidence because all of the supposed evidence is fake because the resurrection didn’t happen” is clearly circular. The arguments that you cite are not circular in that way and do not beg the question. I have provided several reasons why Paul was speaking of the physical resurrection. The proximity of events lending credence to them is a standard assumption of history (really I don’t understand why you would question that).
With the authority of conservative Christian scholars being meaningful, if my argument was “the resurrection happened because these scholars say it did”, then that might be a fallacy of appealing to authority. However the reason that I cite these people is not because they are authoritative, but because I agree with their arguments. I cite them simply as reference, not as authority that proves my point, and so it is not fallacious. If you know of scholars that reflect your views then please provide some reference to them. As I say I appear to be the only one really trying to interact with scholarship on this issue. It is also worth noting that your accusation of fallacy itself contains an implicit ad hominem fallacy. By describing them as conservative Christian scholars you are seeking to discount their arguments not on the merits of the arguments, but on the basis of who is making them. That is again simply ad hominem.
The point of my statement was trying to establish by what standards of evidence do you find the resurrection lacking? So far several posters have been arguing that the normal rules of evidence do not apply to the resurrection (extraordinarly claims require extraordinary evidence and all that), but no-one has provided a reasonable description of what standard of belief is reasonable, and why appealing to that standard is simply not just self-referrential (ie: based entirely on your own pre-concieved ideas of what should be real).
Really? I know it is an atheist statement of faith that there is no evidence for the existence of God, but I have provided plenty of justification for my beliefs. My argument in a nutshell is:
The NT is broadly historically reliable
The NT describes Jesus as rising from the dead
No naturalistic theory (aparant death, wrong tomb, hallucinations, myth, ect) adequately accounts for the historical evidence for the resurrection in the NT and other extant writings
The only credible possibility is therefore that Jesus rose from the dead.
This doesn’t beg the question as it is not circular. Paul’s writings show that he believed that Jesus rose physically from the dead, so that would be the natural way in which we should understand his claim to have seen the risen Christ.
I don’t think that mental phenomenon are really more rational. A mental “hallucination” theory pre-supposes that the resurrection was spiritual, for which there is no good evidence. Secondly when we start saying that historical accounts that we simply don’t like are the result of “mental phenomenon”, then why not just assume that any and every experience that we have is merely a “mental phenomenon”. Without pinning it down with a specific phenomenon with good reasons for it then I think this is simply meaningless. It also makes no sense in the context of the early church since Paul also writes that several other people (up to 500 at once) saw the risen Jesus, and so while we may be able to write off Paul, we can’t simply discount the others, which brings into question the whole theory.
If you want to argue that Paul experienced some sort of “mental phenomenon”, please specify exactly what you are proposing happened, and why you think that phenomenon in particular explains the events.
Really?
From getting together the information in the NT (Pilate was governor, Jesus crucified on a Friday before passover, ect), the possible dates for the crucifixion are either 30 or 33AD. The evidence states (ie: Acts) and common sense dictates that Christianity would have started soon after this event. Certainly by the 60’s Christians were already in places like Corinth, Rome, the region of Galatia, ect as they were recieving Pauls letters. Even non-Christian sources point to Christianity existing as a movement as early as 64AD, as Christians were in Rome, getting blamed for the great fire and being persecuted by Nero.
Really it puzzles me that you would question this sort of simple history as it is not really disputed by any scholars. What actually happened at the start of Christianity (ie: whether Jesus rose from the dead or not) is disputed, but not really the fact that Jesus died and that Christianity started soon after that. What do you suppose the early history of the church was, and what evidence do you have to support your view?
I think rather then dealing with all of the data at hand, you are really ignoring it.
You don’t deal with any of the specific evidence for the resurrection and simply bring up a parade of frankly irrelevant points. You are again slipping into this lazy way of thinking that all miracle claims are essentially the same and therefore can be treated the same. This is simply false. Whether or not Yogic masters can levitate has no bearing on whether Jesus was raised from the dead. The two are separate claims and need to be evaluated separately.
Even if we grant that the miracles that you list do not or have not happened, no rule of logical inference allows you to conclude that therefore the resurrection did not happen. The argument is simply logically invalid and therefore demonstrates nothing.
That isn’t quite the point… Instead, the point is to explore why you accept some miracle claims and reject others. Why do you accept the New Testament, but reject the Book of Mormon?
Nearly everyone here would agree: all claims need to be evaluated separately.
The issue is: are they being evaluated by the same means? Or are Christians engaged in “special pleading.” What comes from your book of miracles is true; what comes from someone else’s book of miracles is false.
That’s why we bring up other miracles. Not to equate them. No one here is so foolish as to say, “Because Zeus and Odin and Osiris are false, Jehovah must be false also.” (Although that is an induction, it is not a deduction.) Rather, we ask, why do you say that Zeus and Odin and Osiris are false, yet say that Jehovah is true? Not because all miracles are equal, but because some miracles are getting favoritism in the process of evaluation.
Anyway…that’s the way it appears to some of us.
(I once actually had someone say to me that the evidence for Jesus was greater than the evidence for Napoleon Bonaparte!)
Why does anyone accept some claims and not others? Simply the epistemic warrant for different claims is different. Some claims are well supported by evidence and are believeable, others are not.
The hidden assumption in asking about other miracles is that the evidence for the other miracles are equal or better to the evidence for the resurrection. I don’t think this is the case. In the case of the resurrection we have credible historical testimony as to the reality of this event. Additionally there is no simple naturalistic explaination that suffices to explain all of the events surrounding the resurrection. For other miracles this evidence is simply not there, and therefore belief in the claim is less warranted. If you are aware of historical evidence for other miracles then feel free to present it.
So to take up your example of the Book of Mormon (BOM), I think you don’t really appreciate the historical problems that the BOM has. The gospels are clearly historically plausible, in that they accurately represent the political situation and life in Israel at the time. People like Pilate and Caipahas were real people who lived at that time. The BOM tells the story of two groups of Israelites that went from Judea around 600BC to the Americas, set up civilisations there and then killed each other off before the arrival of Columbus. This story fundamentally contradicts everything that we know about the history of the Americas both from archaeology and also from the history of the native American people themselves. Even if we removed all of the miracle accounts from the BOM it still would not be seen as historical or even credible since it is just so incorrect. The other problem is that while the BOM claims to be written much earlier, portions can be shown to be dependent on sources only available much later like the King James bible and “View of the Hebrews”.
Faced with these problems the LDS church itself does not even appear to be primarily arguing for the historicity of the BOM. Typically the LDS church urges people to accept Mormonism not because the BOM is an accurate history of the Americas, but because reading it produces a subjective “burning in the bosom” of the individual. When the faith community that revers the particular book themselves implicitly believe that it is not historical, I see no reason why I should believe it.
The other problem with your argument, and why it is irrelevant, is that even if I accepted some of the other miracles that are being tossed about (like the Vespasian one), that still does not mean that Christianity is somehow false. The Vespasian miracles are easily understandable in a Christian context, so whether I accept them or not makes absolutely no difference to my argument for the resurrection.
How is this “hidden?” I state it overtly! Yes, the evidence for some other miracles is VASTLY better documented than the evidence for the resurrection. I have photographs of the yogi lifting the 70-ton iron beam. The event was eye-witnessed by dozens of people (many are visible in the photographs.)
(By the way, just for completeness, I don’t have the photographs. They were shown to me by a friend, and I don’t have a source. So, now that what I say is only second-hand – it begins to be of approximately the same value, here, to everyone else, as the evidence for the resurrection. The point of this aside is that evidence degrades very rapidly. It’s “half life” is grievously short.)
Here, alas, all I can do is flatly disagree. I think that is far from true. And that leads to an impasse.
Well, there is one: “It didn’t happen that way.” Simple, naturalistic, and explains everything. (It’s also the explanation I use for the yogi lifting the massive iron beam.)
I’ve got to track down that doggone photograph!
I do, believe me! I reject the BOM as an absurdity. The only point here is that, as a miracle, it is better attested than the miracle of the resurrection. We have Joseph Smith’s eyewitness testimony, and the supporting testimony of several others who saw the golden plates. The resurrection doesn’t have any direct eyewitness testimony.
I don’t think evidence for either is convincing. But the evidence for the BOM is greater, and much more immediate and direct, than the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection.
Why do that? Leave 'em in. I don’t ask that the miracle accounts be removed from the Bible. I just ask for evidence of them.
True: but they do still argue for the miracle of its revelation: the appearance of an angel to Joseph Smith, the real existence of the golden plates, and so on. And, again, this is presented as eyewitness testimony, something not existing in the Bible.
To me, it’s like the difference between reading a UFO account in the Weekly World News, and having a friend tell me he saw a UFO. The latter account is better evidence. Still so weak that I won’t accept it, but stronger, more direct, and immediate. It isn’t good enough, but it is stronger.
Well, again, that’s the real reason I posted: that isn’t my argument!
My argument is that you (generic “you” as in Christians in general) are not using the same standards of evidence in assessing orthodox Christian miracles than you are when assessing the others that have been put forward.
(Carefully phrased to remove any doubt that I think the LDS faith is, itself, Christian. I think it is, just not “orthodox” Christian. As a friend said, “It’s a big bulge in the side of the tent, but it is still inside the tent.”)
It’s a charge of erroneous process, not a disproof in itself.
(Also, I want to distance myself from any charge of deliberate or moral error. I will never say, “You’re being dishonest.” I think that you are in error, but that’s okay, because, surely, you think that of me. If it is possible for one to be a “good atheist,” I am trying hard to be one.)
I went a-searching, and could not turn up the photograph I alluded to. I’ll keep working on it.
I did stumble over the miracles of St. Joseph of Cupertino, who, apparently, was seen – eye-witnessed – by many people performing miracles of levitation. This would seem to be stronger evidence than for the resurrection, for being immediate and direct. However, none of those witnesses seem to have left testimony in their own words: there are only others who say the miracles were witnessed. Awkward.
Anyway…I think there are many miracle tales that are better attested to than the resurrection miracle – and that Christianity dismisses them while accepting the lesser evidence. That’s really my only point here: the assessment process appears to have a bias in it. (The “special pleading” charge.)
And you of course will have the final decision as to whether or not it has any bearing on the case? I’ve read your posts in this thread and already know how that game is played. For all intents and purposes, you’ve answered the question to my satisfaction.
Before we get too far into this, do you yourself think that the yogi lifted the 70-ton iron beam? One of the things that I expect from a debate like this is that people should only argue positions that they themselves actually hold. I have no interest in explaining why I don’t believe in a list of 1,000,000 randomly selected events that no-one in the discussion actually believes in.
Perhaps you can explain why you think this is far from true. While obviously not all Jesus scholars agree on the reality of the resurrection, nearly all agree that the gospels at least contain some historical information about Jesus. Do you at least agree with that premise?
“It didn’t happen” is not an explanation of anything. For instance it does not account for how the photos came into existence. Similarly for the resurrection this is not an explanation of anything. It does not explain what actually happened to Jesus, why the disciples believed that he was raised from the dead, ect.
I’ve got to track down that doggone photograph!
In considering the BOM we have to consider all of the available evidence, which includes all of the historical and source problems. To just pick out some of the data is misleading. Given the total picture of each I think that the resurrection is vastly more likely, since there is no strong disconfirming evidence in this event as there is with the BOM.
My point is that my problem with the BOM has nothing to do with miracles and everything to do with the fact that the history contained in there is wrong. Miracles or no miracles I would not accept it.
The history of the witnesses to the golden plates is far from a strong point in Mormonism. There are many conflicting accounts of what it was the witnesses actually saw (did they see the plates themselves, or things they were told contained the plates, or did they just see the plates in visions?), and whether they actually believed it, as many of the witnesses left the Mormon church over the later years, despite being either family or close friends of Joseph Smith. There are also several other events in the early life of the Mormon church, like the lost 116 pages, or the Kinderhook plates, which strongly suggests that Mormonism was a conscious fraud on the part of Joseph Smith.
I suggest you actually go and look into it some more, as the Mormon story is far from well established historically, not because of lack of evidence, but because there is a lot of evidence that contradicts it.
Here I think you are engaging in special pleading. Do you always not believe your friends when they tell you something, or only when it contradicts your pre-conceived ideas of what should be real? What if your friend told you he saw a soccer match yesterday, would you also doubt that? If they are both supposed eyewitness testimony why accept one and not the other?
My response is that I reject the charge that I am applying different standards of history to Christian and non-Christian accounts. Where relevant I have given reasons why I think other non-Christian accounts are not as reliable as the gospels. I also think that your presentation of the evidence for Mormonism is hopelessly simplistic, and that you just don’t appreciate the multitude of contradictions and problems in Mormon history.
Moreover the argument is pointless in the sense that many of these other miracle claims do not impact on the bible. Even if you could demonstrate that I was somehow mistaken in my application of historical standards, that would not mean that the resurrection did not happen.
This line of argument is also in many ways a dishonest debating trick, as you draw the person off their actual argument and weigh them down with a huge list of spurious claims that no-one in the debate actually accepts. In many ways this is an application of the “Gish gallop”, but from an atheist point of view. From now on I am not going to answer these types of “what about this other miracle” question unless the person involved actually believes that the miracle took place and it contradicts Christian theology. If you were genuinely a Mormon then I would be happy to debate with you. Since you don’t take Mormonism seriously then I think it is a waste of time for us to discuss it, as we both agree that the evidence for it is not compelling.
As do I, I suspect. Even if I were to answer this question to your satisfaction, no doubt you have a huge list of other possible miracles for me to work through one by one until I give up and you claim victory. The simple fact is that this issue is not relevant to the historicity of the resurrection.
The fact is, you won’t answer the one question no matter how it is coached, and “the huge list of other possible miracles” that exists only in your mind is a convenient strawman. If you had a valid reason to dismiss any miracles but those in the Bible you would have gladly done so long ago.
Do you accept the miracles of Vespasian? If not, then why do you think I should? It would be one thing if you were at least honest in your questions and were present alternative miracles that you yourself found credible. Asking about miracles that you yourself don’t accept is hardly an honest debate tactic.
Secondly, I have made no statement in this thread to the effect that I deny all miracles except those in the bible. This is the real strawman in this argument. I actually accept that a wide range of miracles, including those of the type done by Vespasian, are in fact possible. As I have stated my problem with the miracles of Vespasian is that it appears that Tacitus, in the sarcastic way he describes the miracle, does not appear to take it seriously. This is also the view of several scholars, including John Meier. If the supposed ancient recorders of the miracle do not take it seriously, then why should we today? In contrast the NT writers do appear to take their accounts seriously and therefore we should take them seriously. There is no special pleading, but merely determinations based on the evidence.
What I do believe is that the evidence for the man lifting the 70 ton beam is stronger than the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. It involves a photograph, with eye-witnesses.
I don’t think either miracle is true.
I think the recent miracle, within living memory, photographed, attested to by eye-witnesses, is better supported by evidence than the resurrection of Jesus.
You are under no burden of explaining why you don’t believe in such events. You are under the burden of explaining why you reject better-attested miracles and accept lesser-attested ones.
Sure. No problem.
It lacks in detailed explanatory power, I agree. I would hold that the photographs were faked or staged, that the weight was somehow supported by other means, etc. I would hold that the events surrounding the resurrection were confused, garbled, incorrectly reported, and quite possibly made up by later writers.
“It didn’t happen” is an entirely valid response to all sorts of claims, from UFOs and Ancient Astronauts, to Uri Geller’s miracles, and so on.
And I’m stuck disagreeing again.
The historical claims of the BOM are disconfirming…just as the falsity of the wandering in the desert or the great flood is disconfirming. But, as you yourself said, we have to take each claim by itself. For you now to rely on such “linkage” is as unfair as it would be for me to. I’m talking only about the miracle of the Angel, the Golden Plates, and the translation, not about the absence of walled cities in North America.
I’m trying to stick to a procedure that you, yourself, brought forward: “The two are separate claims and need to be evaluated separately. . . .”
All of this is still beside the point: the evidence, flawed as it may be, is still stronger than the evidence for the resurrection, for being immediate, and eye-witness. It is better evidence. It was attested to within a short time of the event, and people who claimed to have seen it themselves wrote of this.
The evidence for the resurrection comes decades afterwards, and is only second or third hand.
I’m not claiming the Book of Mormon is true. I’m only pointing out that the evidence for it is stronger than the evidence for the resurrection. Yet you follow a process that allows you to accept the lesser evidence and reject the greater.
I think that there is a consensus on what kinds of events are likely, and what kinds of events are not. It isn’t my own, personal, idiosyncratic prejudice that UFOs are unlikely and soccer games aren’t. It isn’t “special pleading” to want better evidence for highly unlikely events. It’s just good common sense!
Agreed. And my friend might actually have seen a UFO, too. But the “argument from ignorance” carries little weight. The little scrawny guy in a loincloth might actually have lifted 70 tons, too.
Ah, well, we were at an impasse anyway. Still, I am disappointed.
I can only see this as a retreat from honest inquiry and open debate. Why should I have to believe in something false in order to compare it to something else I think is false?
I guess we’ve got nothing to talk about…but I honestly did try.
IMHO, Calculon makes a fair objection that rather little scholarship for the skeptical view has been cited in this thread. I should like to point out, though, that it’s not like such scholarship doesn’t exist. The Secular Web, for example - also known as Internet Infidels - has numerous articles on the Historicity of Jesus and the Resurrection. Of particular interest for purposes of this thead is Peter Kirby’s essay on The Historicity of the Empty Tomb Evaluated. Notably, this is the same Peter Kirby cited by Calculon in Post #365 (“Read about it here”).
