We have no testimony from anyone ever claiming to have witnessed such events.
This doesn’t make sense at all. If it’s not objective, it’s not objective. Period.
What evidence would that be? I don’t think you really understand what constitutes scientific evidence.
All you’re going to get back is either (yet again)“Well, you need to tell me what you would accept as evidence”, or(for the hundredth time) “I have evidence, but you wouldn’t accept it anyway, so why should I show it to you?”
How about the scientific standard for evidence? It actually has to demonstrate something.
Bully for him but that means that I am justofied in assuming he doesn’t exist and that he cannot make any moral judement on non-believers.
No, it’s not like that at all. Not even a little bit. The teenager knows his parents exist.
This is logically false. An omnipotent God can perform the same miracle as many times as he wants. What makes an event “miraculous” is a violation of physical laws, not singularity of occurrence. Changing water into wine does not cease to be miraculous the 2nd time you do it.
The problem is that there has never seen a single verifiable miracle in all of human history. Just one would be sufficient.
Occam dictates that fraud is always more likely than magic. Not that there is any evidence that anyone ever claimed that Jesus performed the nature miracles.
I disagree with your analysis of 1 Corinthians 15. I think Paul is writing in reference to three possibilities, spiritual resurrection, physical resurrection (that i, rising to life in a new body) and re-animation (that is, rising to life in your old body). Paul argues for physical resurrection. The fools comment comes about because it appears that some are confusing re-animation with resurrection, and so Paul calls that confusion foolish, not the idea that we are resurrected with new bodies.
In Galatians, yes, although it is also worth noting that he also says there that he later consulted with the wider church, and found that they agreed with him.
To the contrary, I think his letters tell us a great deal. Most importantly it gives us insight into the beliefs commonly held amoungst the churches at that time. So for instance one of the really striking parts about 1 Corinthians 15 is that it is talking about the resurrection of Jesus as if it is something commonly believed by the Corinthians, which he then uses to justify the resurrection of believers.
A few points:
-
Some liberal scholars place the date of Mark at around 65AD, which would only make it about 30 (32 to be precise) years. Other conservative scholars place it even earlier than that.
-
When it comes to precisely when Mark was written and by who, there is little conclusive evidence either way in the text itself. The tradition of the early church however states that it was written by Mark, who was recording the stories of Peter, who was an eyewitness to Jesus. Personally I find this far more compelling than the other late dating theories, which are based on IMHO rather dubious presuppositions.
-
When it comes to recording history, 40 years is an incredably short time. We routinely accept accounts written far later in time. It is only because the Gospels talk about God that they are mistrusted. If they were secular documents they would be accepted without question.
Calculon
You are mistaken. Paul specifically says that the physical body rots and that the resurrected body is spiritual.
They agreed with what, exactly?
[quote]
To the contrary, I think his letters tell us a great deal. Most importantly it gives us insight into the beliefs commonly held amoungst the churches at that time. So for instance one of the really striking parts about 1 Corinthians 15 is that it is talking about the resurrection of Jesus as if it is something commonly believed by the Corinthians, which he then uses to justify the resurrection of believers[/.quote]
The striking thing is that it says nothing about an empty tomb or a physical resurrection.
Mainstream consensus is that it was 65-70 with most leaning to a post 70 date. That’s 40 years after the alleged crucifixion. The crucifixion did not occur in 33 CE, at least not if he was 33 years old when it happened. Jesus was not born in 1 CE but 4-6 BCE. The crucifixion would have occurred c. 28-30 CE (or possibly earlier). There is no serious NT scholarship which argues for an earlier date (even the 60’s is pushing it for the mainstream). Those arguments are made within apologetic contexts, not scholarly ones.
Also, there is no such thing as “liberal NT scholarship.” There is good scholarship and there is bad scholarship. “liberal and conservative” has nothing to do with it.
Allow me to enlighten you then.
The tradition that Mark was written by a secretary of Peter’s is based on a single claim by Papias (c. 130 CE) who is quoted by Eusebius as saying a secretary of Peter’s wrote down Peter’s words in no particular order. Papias claims he got this info from a guy named John the Presbyter (not to be confused with the apostle). Eusebius and others connected this alleged memoir with the Canonical Gospel of mark, but Papias gves no indication that this identification is accurate and an examination of GMark show that such an identification is all but impossible to support.
First, the author of Mark does not identify himself by name and does not say that he knew Peter, talked to Peter, ever met Peter or got any information from any eyewitness.
Secondly, the author is extremely hostile to Peter. Mark is a decidedly Pauline, anti-Jewish and anti-Petrine diatribe. Mark is very hostile to the apostles in general and to Peter in particular. He takes every opportunity to depict the apostles as being dense and not getting Jesus’ true message (reflecting the tension between Pauline communities and the Jerusalem cult in the last half of the first century). More to the point (and this is important) Mark does not give Peter any redemption after his betrayal. Mark does not grant Peter and appearance from Jesus. Mark’s Peter denies Jesus, runs away and that’s it. Now why would a Petrine memoir not include a Petrine witness of the resurrection? Wouldn’t that be the most important part? How does it make any sense to exclude it?
Thirdly, the book is quote obviously a literary construction and is manifestly not a transcription of oral anecdotes. The literary structure of Mark, both in its chiastic forms and its use of the Hebrew Bible as a allusory template or “hypotext” preclude the possibility of transcribed oral tradition. GMark is a carefully constructed literary work.
It should also be mentioned that Mark is a Greek composition which shows no signs of translation from Aramaic, the language of Peter and the language he would have dictated his memoirs in.
Fourth, Mark makes a number of errors regarding Palestininan geography and Jewish laws and customs which show that his information could not have been collected from a Palestinian Jew. Mark’s passion, in particular, is so riddled with factual. historical and legal inaccuracies that it cannot be historical and cannot have come from an eyewitness. (I will address the specific errors in detail if you wish)
Fifth, the book could not have been written during the lifetime of Peter. Mark knows about the destruction of the Temple which means that Peter was dead (at least by Christian tradition) when the book was written.
To summarize, the canonical Gospel of Mark is an anonymous book written outside of Palestine in a Gentile language to a Gentile audience sometime during or after the Jewish-Roman War. The author is hostile to Jews and to the apostles. He does not know Jewish laws or customs. He does not know the geography of Palestine. He does not like Peter. He never makes any claim to have known Peter or to have ever been to Palestine.
In 130 CE some guy said he heard from another guy that a secretary of Peter wrote his memoirs. If such a memoir ever existed, it isn’t canonical Mark.
It is a common claim from apologists that historians accept the veracity of non-Biblical or “secular” texts without question. This claim is completely and utterly false. Historians do no such thing. Nothing is accepted without corroboration, but some claims at least have the advantage of not being impossible.
Should the claims of Homeric or Mahabharatic epics be accepted at face value? Why should the Bible get special treatment, especially when so much of it is demonstrably ahistorical?
This is appalling. First of all, no one would ever claim that the nonexistence of egg-laying mammals was “proven”. Science does not work on proof, but rather hypotheses and theories, all of which can be falsified. Similarly, no one claims that one can prove that god doesn’t exist. First of all, you’d need to carefully define god before we could even get started. Since there are an almost infinite number of possible gods, some of which would have no interaction with humanity, you’d have a problem. You might be able to prove that certain gods contain logical contradictions, but that is very limited.
So why don’t we believe in god? The same reason we don’t really believe in the unfalsifiable IPU. It is nonsense to believe in extraordinary things without very strong evidence. Dio is now dealing with your supposed evidence (worth the prices of admission, IMO).
You also do not understand the use of the null hypothesis. Far from proving anything, it is the default which we try to disprove. For instance, if we are trying to see if a drug cures cancer, the null hypothesis is that it does not, and we collect and analyze evidence to see what the probability is that the results can’t be explained by the null hypothesis. Because of the number of possible gods, the null hypothesis here is that none exist. That is not a proof, and no one claims it to be, but that is the only thing to provisionally accept without solid evidence for a particular god.
Your belief in the NT is clearly very selective. I am not Islamic, but your Messiah lasted about five minutes in the big time, while their prophet not only lived but became powerful. If I were a Martian, I’d think they had a better case. (More historical also.) It doesn’t prove anything, but your rejection of Islam is just as justified as your rejection of the IPU, and with less evidence to support it.
I’ve got into the proper null hypothesis above. Evidence against your god? How about contradictions in the Bible? It’s scientific and historical inaccuracy? Jesus cured someone by driving out demons. Do you believe in demons?
Look, less than 20 years after Washington’s death Parson Weems was writing about the miracle of him hurling a dollar across the Potomac. Do you buy that also? You might reread Pecos Bill also. Without the special pleading (the thing the IPU analogy is all about) the Bible would be considered a valuable insight into a culture but no more accurate than the Greek myths.
We just had a thread about this. Parting the Red Sea would be cool. In Exodus God does all sorts of convincing tricks. Why none today?
I just wanted to say I’m getting a religious education just from Diogenes the Cynic’s excoriation.
Dio, are you a member of the fallen or just a ‘know your enemy’ type?
Neither really, I just have a historical interest in the Bible and in the ancient Middle East. Christian origins is a particular topic of fascination for me.
Verifiable evidence that makes it objectively reasonable to assume god exists. I’m not asking for absolute truth sine that’s impossible, and I’m not asking for something that will only convince me, since that would be futile.
God isn’t obliged to do anything. But I’ve never understood why a being that so clearly and easily could prove its existence (but maybe not its absolute godhood) today and according to legend did so regularly a couple of thousand years ago and apparently has plans for mankind and likes attention would hide itself. At least not if those intentions were good for us. As an aside: the argument that faith excludes evidence is crap; even if god would prove himself to exist, that wouldn’t mean that I would necessarily believe in his good intentions or his god-hood.
They’re all very old stories and have no evidence besides hear-say. Unless of course you’re a dogmatic catholic or belief some other sect that seems to come up with a few unproven miracles every couple of years.
There are plenty of people alive right now who are making a claim for god-like status. And jesus probably wouldn’t have had to be that good a magician; and as I said, it’s all age old stories. Which does not make them automatically more believable.
There is a lot of controversy whether jesus actually existed. Most of what is written comes long after his theoretical demise. Many may be worshiping some one who did not exist and are not aware of it.
Heck, I’m a Jewish atheist and I accept with a shrug that Joshua bar-Joseph probably existed. The story is actually more plausible with him as a charismatic cult leader who died young (and thus didn’t live long enough to undermine himself with middle-aged craziness) rather than a complete fabrication.
My feelings as a Christian points me to a lord and savior as a fighter. It points to a man once in loneliness , surrounded by a few followers, recognized these jews for what they are , and summoned men to fight against them. And who gods truth was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and a man ,I read the the passages which tells how the lord at last rose to his might and seized the scourge to drive out of the temple the blood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight for the world against the jewish poison.
Adolph Hitler
speech April 12, 1922
And so it goes …
Calculon
post December 13, 2007
We cannot prove that the people who claim to have seen the resurrection were telling the truth any more than the people who have claimed to see Elvis or John Kennedy. It is a matter of who or what one believes. I could say I witnessed a UFO but that doesn’t make it fact. Some may believe me, some not.
Monavis
We don’t even have to go that far. It isn’t necessary to evaluate “resurrection” testimony until it is first proven that any such claims ever existed in the first place. We have no direct evidence – no first hand claim – that anyone ever claimed to have seen Jesus rise from the dead.
I’m interested. Where does Paul say this about physical resurrection?
What are the historical implausibilities of Mark’s account of the empty tomb?
Good point about the contradictons with the four Gospels. There is no reason for Paul to leave off the primacy of the women as witnesses, and it isn’t likely that the older disciples would give him so much info, yet leave off the women. It’s far more likely that the later-written Gospels involved additional lore that Paul would not and could not have heard of, because of the timing. (And of course it’s interesting that only “John” has Mary of Magdala believing only after at least one disciple, although she still sees the empty tomb ahead of Peter and the Beloved Disciple.)
(Look to the top to see the member name… - Me.)
1 Corinthians 15:35-55
I’ll link you to Peter Kirby’s piece on the Historicity of the Empty Tomb.
The major implausibility is that the Romans did not turn over bodies for burial and it is highly unlikely that Pilate would have done so for a jewsh insurgent. There are numerous other problems with the story, though.
Are you serious? How can a position that is, after all, logically correct, be supportable only with ridicule? Surely ridicule is the tool of weak positions, not strong ones!
I fail to see how using ridicule is an effective debating technique. That’s my whole point. It is “effective” only in playing to an audience that already agrees with you. It isn’t needed in this case.
Nothing wrong with asking for evidence - I don’t see that as “ridicule”. Unlike the old Santa Claus comparison, you might even develop a good debate out of it.
As for the “comparison with Santa Claus” thing, I’ve already posted an example upthread of how this could be done in a non-inherently insulting manner, before your post. To quote myself:
Is this not more effective than “Your god is no more real than Santa Claus - disprove that, huh, huh”?
Not exactly how I put it, but if it makes you feel any better…
Why don’t you go ahead and start a thread on the topic with that selfsame quote as the OP, and we’ll see how calmly the theologians respond.