Inventing a character with the magical ability to do things

[rikuoamero]

In a recent thread of mine, John Human said the following

However, there was continued bleeding, and Ancient Demon knew that Jesus could potentially lose too much blood. So Ancient Demon entered the body of Jesus and made a point of affecting the blood vessels to make them constrict. This had the result of ensuring that Jesus didn’t bleed to death.

So this is a claim. That Jesus didn't die on the cross, that he only appeared to be dead. How did he survive? An "Ancient Demon", apparently invisible to all at the crowd, somehow entered the body of Jesus, and magically constricted the blood vessels, thus preventing a loss of too much blood.
John did not provide evidence to support this claim of his. He might as well have made it all up, but this is what he did. He has a belief that Jesus didn't die, and to support that belief, he imagines a character with all the magical supernatural abilities necessary to accomplish it.
I'd like to ask the site's resident Christians how this is anything different to what they believe. When they say God created the world, created the universe, resurrected Jesus, that Jesus resurrecting is the only viable explanation for the origin of Christianity etc., how is inventing a character with all the magical supernatural abilities but no evidence of those abilities anything different to what John Human did here? If you disbelieve JH about his Ancient Demon, if you scoff at the thought of a supernatural entity casting illusions and deceiving people...how is it you are sure you yourselves are not deceived, or deceiving yourselves?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 10 by bjs]

The belief that Jesus is the Messiah who fulfilled the prophesies of the Old Testament is a central belief to all forms of orthodox Christianity: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant.

So applying this central doctrine to the fifth chapter of Micah would in no way be ad hoc. Rather, it is the application of a doctrine that is intended to be generalized throughout the whole of the OT.

It is how the conversation proceeds. The claim is made that Jesus Christ fulfilled prophecy. Okay, says I, or a person like myself. What prophecies? Micah 5 is typically trotted out, and I scan it, only to say "Hold on a second...Jesus was never king". Now, in order to prop up their initial claim that Jesus fulfilled prophecy, they have to explain that Jesus is king in a theological or spiritual sense. In other words, in some fashion that cannot be verified.
This to me looks to be ad hoc. It even fits in with the example from the very rationalwiki you linked to, with the conversation between Bob and Alice. Alice could have been saying "It is clearly said in the Bible that Jesus fulfilled Isaiah", Bob replies by saying "Jesus was never crowned king, in fact the placard we see on crosses, the letters INRI is supposed to have been a mockery by the Romans" only for Alice to say "It's possible that Jesus fulfilled it by being King of Kings and Lord of Lords in a spiritual sense, that he was given dominion over all things by God the Father". Notice that Bob (or I) is not convinced, her ad hoc claim is unsupported by evidence and he is thus unmoved.

The fact that your opening example is not ad hoc leaves me to ask: In what way do you see Christianity has being ad hoc?

Even according to the Bible, we have Old Testament writings which tell of a messiah, a Jewish military commander, descendant of David, who will become king, defeat Israel's enemies and rule over them. When Jesus got nailed to the cross...suddenly now the explanation is that contemporary Jewish understanding of those prophecies was wrong, that the prophecies meant something else entirely.

Certainly individual Christians or groups of Christians hold beliefs that not all Christians agree to.

This puts paid to your earlier claim that an outsider observer (a non-Christian) would observe "internal consistency". No, there is not internal consistency. JWs for one refer to other denominations, most especially Roman Catholicism, as being the "Whore of Babylon". Each group might say they follow a Jesus Christ, an incarnate god who taught peace and love your fellow man...and then they go out and brutally murder one another, and start holy wars amongst themselves. The Protestant Reformation and the Thirty Years War comes to mind, as but two examples.

Perhaps John’s example about an “ancient demon� is just his personal belief and not an actual doctrine of his faith. If that is so, it means that his argument is ad hoc while his faith on the whole is not.

What is the difference between a Christian who believes X personally and many Christians who believe X personally? Is it simply when the number of people reaches a critical mass and it becomes then official doctrine?
What would you call it if many people listened to John Human and took his Ancient Demon seriously?

If that is all, then would not make Christian doctrine ad hoc.

Before Jesus Christ died, was there or was there not an expectation, from Jews and those who became his followers, that the Hebrew Messiah was to be a warrior-king? After he died, what happened among his followers regarding this expectation? What did they start saying amongst themselves?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by rikuoamero]

In a recent thread of mine, John Human said the following

Quote:
However, there was continued bleeding, and Ancient Demon knew that Jesus could potentially lose too much blood. So Ancient Demon entered the body of Jesus and made a point of affecting the blood vessels to make them constrict. This had the result of ensuring that Jesus didn’t bleed to death.


So this is a claim. That Jesus didn't die on the cross, that he only appeared to be dead. How did he survive? An "Ancient Demon", apparently invisible to all at the crowd, somehow entered the body of Jesus, and magically constricted the blood vessels, thus preventing a loss of too much blood.
John did not provide evidence to support this claim of his. He might as well have made it all up, but this is what he did. He has a belief that Jesus didn't die, and to support that belief, he imagines a character with all the magical supernatural abilities necessary to accomplish it.

I'd like to ask the site's resident Christians how this is anything different to what they believe. When they say God created the world, created the universe, resurrected Jesus, that Jesus resurrecting is the only viable explanation for the origin of Christianity etc., how is inventing a character with all the magical supernatural abilities but no evidence of those abilities anything different to what John Human did here?

I'll only deal with the last, Jesus' resurrection, since that is the only event which the OP's alternative hypothesis deals with: and also, because that is the only event that can be assessed by standard historical methods: Creation is the creation of history, and therefore beyond historical assessment.

Historical methods assess the data and conclude:

1) Jesus most certainly was killed on a cross. (so already we have deviated from our demon theory).

2) He was buried in a tomb that was later discovered empty, discovered SPECIFICALLY by women.

3) Later, his disciples reported that he had been bodily raised from the grave. The linguistic connotations of the Greek against the background of 1st c. Jewish ideology tells us that this was something perhaps more than physical, but not less--that they believed he was tactile. Knowledge of this of course requires training in the relevant ancient languages and familiarity with the relevant literature of the time.

4) Later still, a Jew (Saul/Paul) hostile to Christianity (since it pose a threat to the tradition he so loved) came to agree with the very movement he persecuted.


A neutral historian asks, "What happened to explain all this?"

By "neutral" I mean an historian who has not made a decision about the supernatural, one way or another.

Such an historian will come to see that mere natural explanations (which can be reduced to idiocy, conspiracy, or widespread and cohesive pathology) fail to meet historical criteria.

He thus comes to believe that a dead Jew did come back to life.

At this point, he need not believe in God. That, I grant, is not an historical inference from these conclusions.

If you disbelieve JH about his Ancient Demon, if you scoff at the thought of a supernatural entity casting illusions and deceiving people...how is it you are sure you yourselves are not deceived, or deceiving yourselves?

I try not to scoff at anything a priori.

[bjs]

[Replying to post 10 by bjs]

The belief that Jesus is the Messiah who fulfilled the prophesies of the Old Testament is a central belief to all forms of orthodox Christianity: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant.

So applying this central doctrine to the fifth chapter of Micah would in no way be ad hoc. Rather, it is the application of a doctrine that is intended to be generalized throughout the whole of the OT.

It is how the conversation proceeds. The claim is made that Jesus Christ fulfilled prophecy. Okay, says I, or a person like myself. What prophecies? Micah 5 is typically trotted out, and I scan it, only to say "Hold on a second...Jesus was never king". Now, in order to prop up their initial claim that Jesus fulfilled prophecy, they have to explain that Jesus is king in a theological or spiritual sense. In other words, in some fashion that cannot be verified.
This to me looks to be ad hoc. It even fits in with the example from the very rationalwiki you linked to, with the conversation between Bob and Alice. Alice could have been saying "It is clearly said in the Bible that Jesus fulfilled Isaiah", Bob replies by saying "Jesus was never crowned king, in fact the placard we see on crosses, the letters INRI is supposed to have been a mockery by the Romans" only for Alice to say "It's possible that Jesus fulfilled it by being King of Kings and Lord of Lords in a spiritual sense, that he was given dominion over all things by God the Father". Notice that Bob (or I) is not convinced, her ad hoc claim is unsupported by evidence and he is thus unmoved.

I understand that if someone doesn’t know anything about Christianity then it might feel ad hoc, but that is not the same thing as it being ad hoc. The belief that Jesus is King and that Jesus fulfilled OT prophesies are central and intertwined doctrines. As opposed to being applied only in this one case, they are generalized beliefs consistently applied.

Again, verification has nothing to do with being ad hoc. I’m not sure what argument you are looking for, but it’s not ad hoc.

The fact that your opening example is not ad hoc leaves me to ask: In what way do you see Christianity has being ad hoc?

Even according to the Bible, we have Old Testament writings which tell of a messiah, a Jewish military commander, descendant of David, who will become king, defeat Israel's enemies and rule over them. When Jesus got nailed to the cross...suddenly now the explanation is that contemporary Jewish understanding of those prophecies was wrong, that the prophecies meant something else entirely.

Saying that a specific interpretation is incorrect, and that a different understanding is correct, is not ad hoc. That is simply not what the phrase means. You could argue that the Christian interpretation is wrong, but not that it is ad hoc.

Certainly individual Christians or groups of Christians hold beliefs that not all Christians agree to.

This puts paid to your earlier claim that an outsider observer (a non-Christian) would observe "internal consistency". No, there is not internal consistency. JWs for one refer to other denominations, most especially Roman Catholicism, as being the "Whore of Babylon". Each group might say they follow a Jesus Christ, an incarnate god who taught peace and love your fellow man...and then they go out and brutally murder one another, and start holy wars amongst themselves. The Protestant Reformation and the Thirty Years War comes to mind, as but two examples.

Perhaps John’s example about an “ancient demon� is just his personal belief and not an actual doctrine of his faith. If that is so, it means that his argument is ad hoc while his faith on the whole is not.

What is the difference between a Christian who believes X personally and many Christians who believe X personally? Is it simply when the number of people reaches a critical mass and it becomes then official doctrine?

Think of it this way: Some atheists believe that Jesus was not a historical person. That does not mean that you have to believe this in order to be an atheist. People can hold specific individual views while recognizing that those views are not a necessary part of a certain belief system.

What would you call it if many people listened to John Human and took his Ancient Demon seriously?

I would still call it ad hoc. The number of people who believe it has nothing to do with it being ad hoc. It is ad hoc because it is a belief that was created specifically for this circumstance and has no application beyond that.

If that is all, then would not make Christian doctrine ad hoc.

Before Jesus Christ died, was there or was there not an expectation, from Jews and those who became his followers, that the Hebrew Messiah was to be a warrior-king? After he died, what happened among his followers regarding this expectation? What did they start saying amongst themselves?

Again, I don’t know what fallacy you are going for but it is clearly not ad hoc. The accuracy or inaccuracy of people’s expectations has nothing to do with something being ad hoc or not.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 12 by liamconnor]

Such an historian will come to see that mere natural explanations (which can be reduced to idiocy, conspiracy, or widespread and cohesive pathology) fail to meet historical criteria.

He thus comes to believe that a dead Jew did come back to life.

At this point, he need not believe in God. That, I grant, is not an historical inference from these conclusions.

You and I have argued this before. I will ask you this again: in your view, in your theology, is it possible for a dead man to come back to life sans (French for without) God being involved, without God even existing? You have, if I recall correctly, answered in the negative to this question, so your conclusion is erroneous. Your "logic" runs thus: you need a God in order for the resurrection to even happen, and you need the resurrection to happen to show that there is a God.
It's viciously circular.

Besides, you left out legend among your possible conclusions.

[1213]

…Argumentum ad populum. You keep doing this, over and over on this site. Keep making incredibly simple arguments, that because people believed it, because some people were convinced, therefore it's true….

I would rather say, therefore I believe it to be true. I am sure that for some, there is nothing that would convince them.

We have the words of the Prophet Muhammed, yet I don't see you believing that he flew on a winged horse.

I think it is irrelevant matter. What difference it would really make, even if it would be true that Muhammed flew on a winged horse? Would his words then be correct automatically? Would you then believe that you should believe what Jesus told, as Quran says people should do?

Why not? John Human actually names his source. It's the Ancient Demon, who was there 2,000 years ago. The Gospel writers don't name their sources.

Ok, so the source for the information is the demon? How is John Human in contact with the demon?

…doesn't make it so for all people. Your logic is that because you believe Jesus to be the Messiah...therefore he is.

For those who keep him as their king. But I don’t think all will keep Jesus as their king anyway, even when it is absolutely clear that he is real. If person can be king only after all people keep him as the king, how would any nation have a king?

[polonius]

Even with all thee arguments I still can't find anything in the Bible about Jesus sitting on the throne of Israel and driving out the Romans (as the Messiah is prophesied to do)/

Am I missing some pages from my Bible?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 15 by 1213]

I would rather say, therefore I believe it to be true. I am sure that for some, there is nothing that would convince them.

So your logic is...some people believed this thing X, therefore I believe it to be true...?

What difference it would really make, even if it would be true that Muhammed flew on a winged horse?

What difference would it make if Jesus turned water into wine, or conjured up fishes and loaves?

Would his words then be correct automatically?

Would Jesus's, if he turned water into wine?

Would you then believe that you should believe what Jesus told, as Quran says people should do?

Quran says the resurrection was an illusion.

Ok, so the source for the information is the demon? How is John Human in contact with the demon?

You'll have to ask John Human that. But notice what you're doing here. You're critiquing claims of supernatural knowledge. You're asking for sources.
Can you do this with the Bible? Can you talk with the Bible authors, ask them how and where they got their information?

For those who keep him as their king.

So if someone believes Jesus to be king, does that mean that (according to you) this means Jesus IS King (notice the capitals), in an objective sense, that he really is there, ruling as king, over all things. That he really does have dominion?

If person can be king only after all people keep him as the king, how would any nation have a king?

Can a person be a king of a nation if only a handful of people say he is? What about the rest of the people?
Take the Russian Revolution for example. Tsar Nicholas II was forced to abdicate. He still had his supporters even afterward. Does this mean the person Nicholas was still the Tsar of Russia, even while the majority of the country had risen up in arms against him?

[rikuoamero]

Even with all thee arguments I still can't find anything in the Bible about Jesus sitting on the throne of Israel and driving out the Romans (as the Messiah is prophesied to do)/

Am I missing some pages from my Bible?

He wasn't supposed to drive out the Romans. He was supposed to drive out the Assyrians. Funny how the "prophecy" of Micah 5 got the name of his supposed adversary wrong.

[1213]

Even with all thee arguments I still can't find anything in the Bible about Jesus sitting on the throne of Israel and driving out the Romans (as the Messiah is prophesied to do)/

Am I missing some pages from my Bible?

It is interesting question, what does the thrown mean. If we believe what the Bible tells, Jesus sits on a thrown, but it is not earthly thrown.

[1213]

So your logic is...some people believed this thing X, therefore I believe it to be true...?

It is not that simple, but I think this is not meaningful matter for the debate.

What difference would it make if Jesus turned water into wine, or conjured up fishes and loaves?

For me, the words of Jesus are the point and the real miracle, not the basic material miracles. Even without the material miracles, the words Jesus preached would be the important matter.

Quran says the resurrection was an illusion.

Can you say in what part?

Quran also says Jesus is the prophet of Allah and we should believe what the prophet says. Not many seems to believe that, so I don’t see why then believe that the resurrection was an illusion.

Can you do this with the Bible? Can you talk with the Bible authors, ask them how and where they got their information?

Bible tells for example in the Luke that Luke wrote what he heard from those who had witnessed those things. Obviously one can claim they lied or there really was no one who told it, but at least we have something about how the message came. And for me, at this point, it is enough. After that I can evaluate the credibility of the claim. But without the explanation, it would be more difficult to estimate the legitimacy of the claim.

So if someone believes Jesus to be king, does that mean that (according to you) this means Jesus IS King (notice the capitals), in an objective sense, that he really is there, ruling as king, over all things. That he really does have dominion?

For those who keep him as the king, he is ruling. But is he ruling all things, I think that you will know later.

Take the Russian Revolution for example. Tsar Nicholas II was forced to abdicate. He still had his supporters even afterward. Does this mean the person Nicholas was still the Tsar of Russia, even while the majority of the country had risen up in arms against him?

He was Tsar for those who kept him as the Tsar. But when he lost his power, he was not the Tsar of Russia.