Historical Evidence for the Resurrection (Again)

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
liamconnor
Prodigy
Posts: 3170
Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 1:18 pm

Historical Evidence for the Resurrection (Again)

Post #1

Post by liamconnor »

(Preliminary: this thread is not about "The Bible". It is about an historical situation--i.e. the origins of the early church--i.e. the claimed resurrection. No document will be judged "better" or "more reliable" simply on the grounds that "it's in the Bible". We will use the same thing used in all historical investigations--common sense and historical methodology)

It seems that folks on this thread still do not understand how history is done and what amounts to historical evidence; analogies between N.T. studies and present day courtroom scenes are made— since we cannot cross examine so-called eyewitnesses of the N.T., clearly Christianity is a sham. As if we could cross examine ANY historical figure!

As Aristotle pointed out to us, every science yields its own degree of knowledge and to require more is not an indication of the science’s weakness but of your own. History is conducted by analyzing and comparing documents; the degree of knowledge it yields ranges from implausible to beyond reasonable doubt. One can always doubt an historical claim; whether one can do so reasonably is another question. Anybody claiming on a thread entitled “Historical Evidence for the Resurrection� that “eyewitness testimony is not evidence� simply does not know what he is talking about and should refrain from commenting on such threads. There is just no point in debating with such a person on the level of history—stick to geometrical problems.

To reinforce the initial preliminary, I quote DI
The reason that Christianity is a "sham" is because it doesn't merely claim to be history, it claims to be the TRUTH. And it even accuses everyone who refuses to believe in it of having "rejected God" and having chosen evil over good etc.
This is an historical investigation. Please drop all questions about the ancient documents' "divine status"; all assumptions that you know what "Christians believe" or even what "Christianity has believed" about the Bible are to be suspended. We will treat them as we treat Josephus or an anthology of ancient Roman historians.

To begin this thread, I analyze what is probably the earliest Christian creed we have, from 1 Cor. 15. I ask that we do some real, mature history: the kind of history done with all ancient documents.

I care very much for structure, and so here is how I’ve structured my argument: 1) I give the proposition with a defense; 2) I voice a common objection; 3) I meet that objection in a rejoinder; 4) I give my conclusion.

1 Cor 15:1—8: (I have italicized what is probably not part of the original creed—that is, certain phrases which disrupt the rhythm of the Greek, and are “Pauliocentric�. These are most likely editorial or introductory remarks from Paul. I have also emboldened two key words. Everything in plain print I (as well as numerous scholars) believe to be original to the oral tradition.)

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,
2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received,


that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 and that He was buried,
and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
5 and that He appeared to Cephas,
then to the twelve.
6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;
7 then He appeared to James,
then to all the apostles;
8 and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. (1Co 15:1-8 NAS)

Proposition #1 Paul recalls to the Corinthians a list he received of persons whom he claims saw the risen Jesus.

Defense: The two terms in bold are in this context technical terms signifying both the transmission of oral tradition and its reception—Jews highly valued the importance (almost sanctity) of oral tradition; Paul was no different, even when the tradition was regards Jesus and not Torah (Cf. Gal 1:14). The Corinthians received what Paul handed over to them; what Paul handed over to them Paul claims he himself received.

Objection: Paul is lying.

Rejoinder: 1) This is conjecture without any historical warrant: you are just making stuff up. 2) If Paul were lying, he would surely have left out all names, and said that most if not all of the recipients of this encounter were dead. That is how good liars work—leave no room for investigation or keep the circle very, very small. Instead, Paul gives leads for readers to investigate: Peter, James, and just less than 500 whom the Corinthian church could’ve inquired into (i.e. we know they sent him a letter; we know he had visited them). 3) And yet we have no paper trail calling Paul out for a lie. We know that the Corinthian church was not shy of criticizing Paul—yet they never cried out “Liar� regards his list of witnesses. What we do have is at least three independent attestations of one apostle, James (1 Cor, Acts and Josephus). Outside of the Corinthian correspondence we have named apostles who are resident at the letter’s designation (Rom 16:7). People traveled back then more than today; they didn’t have the telephone or the internet; traveling is how information was conveyed—someone somewhere was always traveling with some news. A lie on the level of Paul in 1 Cor. (as well as in other letters where he names apostles) would have exposed him as a sham and the probability of that sham appearing in history is overwhelming--the very fact that Paul's letters continued to circulate as authoritative is evidence that no one called "liar"--and we know from his own letters (GAlatians and Corinthian correspondence) that people were willing to impugn him publicly.
So, 1) We have ZERO paper trail of Paul lying about this list 2) the list itself is vulnerable to investigation—it gives names and is made up of at least 500 individuals.

Conclusion: 1) Paul delivers a list of persons who claim they saw the risen Jesus, and this list includes two explicitly named individuals, and perhaps eleven or twelve implicitly named individuals (that no one in Corinth would've asked "who are these twelve?" is preposterous). 2) This list is prior to Paul’s writing to the Corinthians: scholars (of ALL types) agree that the letter was composed about 50 AD (twenty years after the dead of Jesus); hence the creed itself is prior to 50 AD. 3) The list is comprised of eyewitnesses of post-crucifixion appearances. This list, in light of the considerations above, counts as eyewitness testimony. It is not FROM those eyewitnesses; but then we are not in a courtroom--we are doing history. Most of your historical beliefs are based on eyewitness testimony at multiple removes.

Next Question (after hearing reasonable responses): When did Paul receive this creed and from whom? Is there a paper trail of this transmission?
Last edited by liamconnor on Sat Apr 23, 2016 3:09 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Kapyong
Banned
Banned
Posts: 332
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 6:39 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post #351

Post by Kapyong »

Gday all,

For_The_Kingdom wrote: In other words, the book of Mark is the only one that he [Ignatius] didn't quote in the New Testament.
False.
Ignatius never once formally names a gospel, or says he quotes from one.

Instead he gives passages that are similar to SOME books of the NT :
G.Matthew, G.Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 Cor., Eph., and 1 Thess.

Ignatius certainly does NOT quote G.Mark or G.John or many other NT books.

Here is the evidence from NTcanon.org :
Image
http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml

Ignatius is the left column.

BTW - Ignatius says some very strange things, suggesting he is into magic mushrooms. No joke.
His writings are extremely corrupt, and were quite obviously forged - probably around the 130s.


Kapyong

User avatar
Kapyong
Banned
Banned
Posts: 332
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 6:39 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post #352

Post by Kapyong »

Gday all,
For_The_Kingdom wrote: Well, lets see; Ignatius stated in letter to believers in Smyrna, 3:1-2..

"For myself, I am convinced and believe that even after the resurrection he was in the flesh. Indeed, when he came to Peter and his friends, he said to them, "Take hold of me, touch me and see that I am not a bodiless ghost.". And they at once touched him and were convinced, clutching his body and his very breath. For this reason they despised death itself, and proved its victors. Moreover, after the resurrection he ate and drank with them as a real human being, although in spirit he was united with the Father."

Compare that to Luke 24:37-42,

"37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.�

40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?� 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence."



Hmmm.
Hmmm, what ?

This is obviously NOT a quote at all.
Ignatius does NOT say "according to the Gospel of Luke" ...
The words in Ignatius are different to Luke.
Ignatius never ONCE even mentions Luke.

Instead - Ignatius knows the STORY, that is also found in G.Luke.

Do you see the difference ?


Kapyong

WinePusher
Scholar
Posts: 457
Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 2:57 am

Re: Historical Evidence for the Resurrection (Again)

Post #353

Post by WinePusher »

rikuoamero wrote: [Replying to post 343 by For_The_Kingdom]
If any one of them were off by just the tiniest degree, life would not be permissible in the universe.
To correct you (again) on that - life as we recognise it would not be possible (I don't think the word permissible fits in there). For all we know, a universe with different constants could have life but it could be something completely alien to our minds.
It is the height of arrogance to think that life as it exists on our planet is the
only way for life to occur, period, and therefore if the conditions for life are not as they are observed to be now, there therefore cannot be any life period.
Probably the worst objection to the fine tuning argument I've ever seen. There are far better objections to the fine tuning argument that you should acquaint yourself with.

As of now, what we know about life is that it is carbon based. If the fundamental constants of the universe were perturbed even slightly then all life which is based on carbon would cease to exist. Sure, there may exist lifeforms out there on different planets in completely different galaxies which are not based on carbon, but rather on some other element such as silicon. But even so, any perturbation of the four fundamental forces would alter the way elements are formed by directly impacting the life cycle of stars. So it doesn't matter either way.

What does matter is the great irony of nonbelievers clinging to beliefs in completely un-evidenced propositions like non-carbon based life and multiple universes. Before criticizing others for believing in things without evidence, please take a good look at your own beliefs.

Inigo Montoya
Guru
Posts: 1333
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:45 pm

Re: Historical Evidence for the Resurrection (Again)

Post #354

Post by Inigo Montoya »

WinePusher wrote:
rikuoamero wrote: [Replying to post 343 by For_The_Kingdom]
If any one of them were off by just the tiniest degree, life would not be permissible in the universe.
To correct you (again) on that - life as we recognise it would not be possible (I don't think the word permissible fits in there). For all we know, a universe with different constants could have life but it could be something completely alien to our minds.
It is the height of arrogance to think that life as it exists on our planet is the
only way for life to occur, period, and therefore if the conditions for life are not as they are observed to be now, there therefore cannot be any life period.
Probably the worst objection to the fine tuning argument I've ever seen. There are far better objections to the fine tuning argument that you should acquaint yourself with.

As of now, what we know about life is that it is carbon based. If the fundamental constants of the universe were perturbed even slightly then all life which is based on carbon would cease to exist. Sure, there may exist lifeforms out there on different planets in completely different galaxies which are not based on carbon, but rather on some other element such as silicon. But even so, any perturbation of the four fundamental forces would alter the way elements are formed by directly impacting the life cycle of stars. So it doesn't matter either way.

What does matter is the great irony of nonbelievers clinging to beliefs in completely un-evidenced propositions like non-carbon based life and multiple universes. Before criticizing others for believing in things without evidence, please take a good look at your own beliefs.

There may or may not be better objections to the joke that is the fine tuning argument, but this one is good enough for Sean Carroll to have slapped Billy Lane Craig around with easily enough. I encourage you to watch their debate, or its highlights, if you haven't. He nicely addresses your perturbation assertions as well.

Your comments here, while predictably unnecessarily aggressive, are simply misinformed. It matters to you apparently, but who cares? Non-believers don't believe in non carbon based life or multiple universes as a rule. Nothing about non-theism requires an opinion be one way or another regarding cosmogony or various types of "life" configurations.

You are simply trying to draw a parallel with unreasonable beliefs where one doesn't exist.

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: Historical Evidence for the Resurrection (Again)

Post #355

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 352 by WinePusher]
What does matter is the great irony of nonbelievers clinging to beliefs in completely un-evidenced propositions like non-carbon based life and multiple universes.
When did I ever say I believe in non-carbon based life and/or multiple universes? Last I checked, the jury was still out on those concepts.
The gist of my last comment on this thread was that there are certain people who say that the laws of physics are fine tuned and they say this because if said laws were even just the tiniest bit different, life wouldn't exist. I pointed out that this is a red herring, because this person is only allowing for an extremely narrow definition of life. Our current definition on what constitutes life is based on the tiniest fraction of the universe that we've been able to explore; thus, it's extremely small minded for anyone to say "Life is like this XYZ, and can only EVER be XYZ"
You even hypothesize it yourself, you mention the possibility of silicon based life.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

WinePusher
Scholar
Posts: 457
Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 2:57 am

Re: Historical Evidence for the Resurrection (Again)

Post #356

Post by WinePusher »

Inigo Montoya wrote:There may or may not be better objections to the joke that is the fine tuning argument, but this one is good enough for Sean Carroll to have slapped Billy Lane Craig around with easily enough. I encourage you to watch their debate, or its highlights, if you haven't. He nicely addresses your perturbation assertions as well.
Never heard of Carroll and I'm not a fan of Craig, so no I haven't seen it. Try summarizing Carroll's argument in your own words and posting them.
Inigo Montoya wrote:Your comments here, while predictably unnecessarily aggressive, are simply misinformed.
If the so called “aggression� is too much to handle consider ignoring my posts as I often do to yours. Note that “aggression� appears to be a common trademark among many nonbelievers on this website. Do you complain when they do it or just me? Oh, btw, pointing out the internal inconsistencies in one’s beliefs is hardly aggressive. I suggest you look up the definition of aggressive in the dictionary.
Inigo Montoya wrote:It matters to you apparently, but who cares? Non-believers don't believe in non carbon based life or multiple universes as a rule. Nothing about non-theism requires an opinion be one way or another regarding cosmogony or various types of "life" configurations.

You are simply trying to draw a parallel with unreasonable beliefs where one doesn't exist.
I never suggested that ALL non-believers cling to un-evidenced propositions. Apparently quite a number of them do though, as evidenced by this thread and your remarks, so what’s there to argue about? If you believe in non-carbon based life and infinitely many universes, you are believing in propositions that have NO evidence. It's really that simple.

WinePusher
Scholar
Posts: 457
Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 2:57 am

Re: Historical Evidence for the Resurrection (Again)

Post #357

Post by WinePusher »

rikuoamero wrote:When did I ever say I believe in non-carbon based life and/or multiple universes?
You very clearly said:

"To correct you (again) on that - life as we recognise it would not be possible (I don't think the word permissible fits in there). For all we know, a universe with different constants could have life but it could be something completely alien to our minds."

Anybody familiar with this line of thinking would know that whenever a nonbeliever suggests that alternate forms of life are possible (and I am assuming you're a non-believer, correct me if I'm wrong though) they are talking about non-carbon based life. Carol Sagan was a notable promoter of this idea, and so is Victor Stenger. If you aren't talking about non-carbon based life, and what you're talking about is life which isn't based upon one of the 94 natural elements, then you are using a completely warped definition of the word "life" which is meaningless.
rikuamero wrote:Last I checked, the jury was still out on those concepts.
The jury is still out on theism and intelligent design as well. So why are you hostile towards the latter but not the former?
rikuamero wrote:The gist of my last comment on this thread was that there are certain people who say that the laws of physics are fine tuned and they say this because if said laws were even just the tiniest bit different, life wouldn't exist.
Which is a fact that even physicists and atheists affirm.
rikuamero wrote:I pointed out that this is a red herring, because this person is only allowing for an extremely narrow definition of life. Our current definition on what constitutes life is based on the tiniest fraction of the universe that we've been able to explore; thus, it's extremely small minded for anyone to say "Life is like this XYZ, and can only EVER be XYZ."
Like I said in my response to you, as of now what we know about life is that it is based on carbon. The conclusion of the fine tuning argument is that if the universe were altered carbon based life wouldn't exist. This statement is a fact. Suggesting that there exists forms of life not based on carbon is NOT a refutation of that fact. It is also a suggestion for which there is no evidence.
rikuamero wrote:You even hypothesize it yourself, you mention the possibility of silicon based life.
I don't hypothesize it, but I do recognize that it's a real possibility like how the existence of an intelligent designer is a real possibility.

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: Historical Evidence for the Resurrection (Again)

Post #358

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 356 by WinePusher]
The conclusion of the fine tuning argument is that if the universe were altered carbon based life wouldn't exist. This statement is a fact. Suggesting that there exists forms of life not based on carbon is NOT a refutation of that fact.
I agree. If the universe's physical constants were altered, then carbon based life wouldn't exist.
However, to move from carbon based life, to just life, is unwarranted (in this argument). There could be life elsewhere in the universe. Notice that I am not saying there IS, I am saying the possibility of it.

Let's give an analogy. Let's pretend that moss has a mind and can think. Moss finds itself growing on a wall. It (somehow) examines its local environment and comes to the conclusion that it is a life form, it is alive. It examines its local environment and assumes that the wall it is growing on was most assuredly put there, designed, so that it could grow there. It comes up with a definition for life that only accounts for itself.

When in fact, no, the wall was not put there so that moss could grow. It's either the side of a cliff, or the wall was built by humans (a life form it does not recognise) for purposes that have nothing at all to do with allowing moss to grow (to give two examples).
It's certainly possible that the universe's physical laws are designed. But I think the argument is nonsensical because those who argue in favour of it assume that the design's purpose has to do with allowing humans to exist. That's a completely unwarranted assumption in my view. Even if there is a design, why does it automatically have to be something for humans? For all these ID'ers know, the design has to do with some other purpose.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

WinePusher
Scholar
Posts: 457
Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 2:57 am

Re: Historical Evidence for the Resurrection (Again)

Post #359

Post by WinePusher »

WinePusher wrote:The conclusion of the fine tuning argument is that if the universe were altered carbon based life wouldn't exist. This statement is a fact. Suggesting that there exists forms of life not based on carbon is NOT a refutation of that fact.
rikuoamero wrote:I agree. If the universe's physical constants were altered, then carbon based life wouldn't exist.
However, to move from carbon based life, to just life, is unwarranted (in this argument). There could be life elsewhere in the universe. Notice that I am not saying there IS, I am saying the possibility of it.
And if there is life elsewhere in the universe, the likelihood of it being carbon based life is much greater than it being non-carbon based. And if this life were non-carbon based then it would have to be based on one of the other remaining 93 naturally occurring elements, such as silicon.
rikuoamero wrote:Let's give an analogy. Let's pretend that moss has a mind and can think. Moss finds itself growing on a wall. It (somehow) examines its local environment and comes to the conclusion that it is a life form, it is alive. It examines its local environment and assumes that the wall it is growing on was most assuredly put there, designed, so that it could grow there. It comes up with a definition for life that only accounts for itself.
While I commend you for the well written and original analogy, it is just a reiteration of the tired old "puddle in the hole" argument. The moss, along with the puddle, would be justified in asking why it's there and where it came from.
rikuoamero wrote:When in fact, no, the wall was not put there so that moss could grow. It's either the side of a cliff, or the wall was built by humans (a life form it does not recognise) for purposes that have nothing at all to do with allowing moss to grow (to give two examples).
So the implication of your analogy is that the moss is just an unintended byproduct of the wall. Even so, this doesn't give any reason to doubt that the wall itself were intelligently designed. Additionally, water will always fit in any hole and moss will tend to grow on just about any wall given the right conditions, and these conditions are not rare. The conditions for a life permitting universe are in fact very rare, as shown by the fact that any little alteration of the fundamental forces would cause life to die out.
rikuoamero wrote:It's certainly possible that the universe's physical laws are designed. But I think the argument is nonsensical because those who argue in favour of it assume that the design's purpose has to do with allowing humans to exist. That's a completely unwarranted assumption in my view. Even if there is a design, why does it automatically have to be something for humans? For all these ID'ers know, the design has to do with some other purpose.
While it is part of Christian theology that God designed the universe specifically for human beings, and while this is something that I personally believe, I agree that it isn't established by the fine tuning argument.

What the fine tuning argument establishes is that the universe was intelligently designed, that it didn't come into existence based on pure chance and randomness. The fine tuing argument doesn't necessitate the idea that human beings are the primary intention of this design, nor does it claim to prove this. As I have always said, the fine tuning argument, along with the cosmological argument and the ontological argument, establish the existence of a deistic God, not any theistic God.

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Re: Historical Evidence for the Resurrection (Again)

Post #360

Post by Zzyzx »

.
WinePusher wrote: As I have always said, the fine tuning argument, along with the cosmological argument and the ontological argument, establish the existence of a deistic God, not any theistic God.
Arguments do NOT establish anything. They are simply attempts to persuade.
In logic and philosophy, an argument is a series of statements typically used to persuade someone of something or to present reasons for accepting a conclusion. The general form of an argument in a natural language is that of premises (typically in the form of propositions, statements or sentences) in support of a claim: the conclusion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument
It seems common for Apologists to mistakenly think that their arguments (particularly if given fancy names) ESTABLISH truth or fact (or the existence of their favorite gods).

Perhaps this relates to believing that unverified ancient tales establish truth or fact -- and explain why many Apologists seem to think they have THE answers based on arguments and stories that cannot be shown to be anything more than imagination.
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

Post Reply