Explanation For False Apostles

[bluegreenearth]

2 Corinthians 11:13 - "For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ."

According to Paul, there were false apostles walking around and deceiving some Christians into following improper theologies during his lifetime. If identifying as an apostle for Christ was fraught with persecution, imprisonment, and even a painful death in many circumstances, what would be the advantage of deliberately misrepresenting yourself as a Christian apostle during the 1st century? Could these "false apostles" have strongly yet mistakenly believed they actually experienced the resurrected Jesus to have been willing to suffer the same or similar hardships as the traditionally accepted apostles? If false apostles could come to a mistaken belief through some unidentified means, then why rule-out this possibility for the accepted apostles?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 49 by Goose]

I should add that I've some idea how you could mistakenly arrive at that conclusion but will wait for your response rather than argue against a potential straw-man.

[Goose]

Ironically, your argument goes towards strengthening the historical case for the resurrection not weakening it. The former, I suspect, was not your intention but the latter was.

I assume you are going to describe how this is the case and permit me the opportunity to evaluate the situation?

Historical Methodology suggests your argument strengthens the historical case.

The basic idea here is that, not only are you arguing one source that held to a belief, but two sources held the same belief thereby strengthening the historical case for that belief. But your argument goes further still because you aren't merely arguing for two sources but two sources who otherwise disagree and are in opposition to one another. This latter point strengthens the historical case even more so. It doesn't weaken the case.

Remove yourself from the resurrection for a moment. The political enemies Cicero and Mark Antony agree that Caesar was assassinated. This is strengthens the historical case for the assassination of Caesar, it doesn't weaken it.

[bluegreenearth]

Ironically, your argument goes towards strengthening the historical case for the resurrection not weakening it. The former, I suspect, was not your intention but the latter was.

I assume you are going to describe how this is the case and permit me the opportunity to evaluate the situation?

Historical Methodology suggests your argument strengthens the historical case.

The basic idea here is that, not only are you arguing one source that held to a belief, but two sources held the same belief thereby strengthening the historical case for that belief. But your argument goes further still because you aren't merely arguing for two sources but two sources who otherwise disagree and are in opposition to one another. This is strengthens the historical case even more so. It doesn't weaken the case.

Are you suggesting that because my argument strengthens the historical case that there was a disagreement between groups of people who believed a supernatural resurrection occurred, you are somehow justified in concluding their shared belief was true?

[Goose]

Ironically, your argument goes towards strengthening the historical case for the resurrection not weakening it. The former, I suspect, was not your intention but the latter was.

I assume you are going to describe how this is the case and permit me the opportunity to evaluate the situation?

Historical Methodology suggests your argument strengthens the historical case.

The basic idea here is that, not only are you arguing one source that held to a belief, but two sources held the same belief thereby strengthening the historical case for that belief. But your argument goes further still because you aren't merely arguing for two sources but two sources who otherwise disagree and are in opposition to one another. This is strengthens the historical case even more so. It doesn't weaken the case.

Are you suggesting that because my argument strengthens the historical case that there was a disagreement between groups of people who believed a supernatural resurrection occurred, you are somehow justified in concluding their shared belief was true?

How I justify my belief is irrelevant here. I'm suggesting that your argument, unwittingly, strengthens the historical case for the resurrection. You don't seem to be arguing against that. Indeed you seem to concede it here.

[bluegreenearth]

Ironically, your argument goes towards strengthening the historical case for the resurrection not weakening it. The former, I suspect, was not your intention but the latter was.

I assume you are going to describe how this is the case and permit me the opportunity to evaluate the situation?

Historical Methodology suggests your argument strengthens the historical case.

The basic idea here is that, not only are you arguing one source that held to a belief, but two sources held the same belief thereby strengthening the historical case for that belief. But your argument goes further still because you aren't merely arguing for two sources but two sources who otherwise disagree and are in opposition to one another. This is strengthens the historical case even more so. It doesn't weaken the case.

Are you suggesting that because my argument strengthens the historical case that there was a disagreement between groups of people who believed a supernatural resurrection occurred, you are somehow justified in concluding their shared belief was true?

How I justify my belief is irrelevant here. I'm suggesting that your argument, unwittingly, strengthens the historical case for the resurrection. You don't seem to be arguing against that. Indeed you seem to concede it here.

It doesn't strengthen the historical case for the resurrection. At best, it might strengthen the historical case that some ancient people "believed" a resurrection occurred. Just because there may be a historical case for the claim that ancient people might have believed a resurrection occurred doesn't demonstrate that a resurrection "actually" occurred. If you want to use my argument to strengthen the historical case that these ancient people "believed" a resurrection occurred, you are welcome to do so. However, it would be intellectually sloppy to conflate the concept of "some ancient people believed a resurrection occurred" with "a resurrection actually occurred."

[Goose]

It doesn't strengthen the historical case for the resurrection.

Argued by pure assertion. I've already given the reasoning and historical method which implies your argument strengthens the historical case.

At best, it might strengthen the historical case that some ancient people "believed" a resurrection occurred.

It's not merely that some ancient people believed X. It's that independent sources affirmed X. And further than that, independent sources who opposed one another affirmed X.

Just because there may be a historical case for the claim that ancient people might have believed a resurrection occurred doesn't demonstrate that a resurrection "actually" occurred.

You're knocking down a big fat strawman here. I said nothing about demonstrating a resurrection, or any event from ancient history for that matter, "actually" occurred. We can't demonstrate ancient events "actually" occurred. What we do is build an historical case. And you've nicely argued in such a way as to strengthen that case.

If you want to use my argument to strengthen the historical case that these ancient people "believed" a resurrection occurred, you are welcome to do so.

Thank you, I will.

However, it would be intellectually sloppy to conflate the concept of "some ancient people believed a resurrection occurred" with "a resurrection actually occurred."

I'm not conflating those two propositions.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 56 by Goose]

The historical method only applies to claims that have an implicit empirical basis. A supernatural resurrection has no implicit empirical basis. People mistakenly believing a supernatural resurrection occurred does have an implicit empirical basis because we know it is possible for people to develop sincerely held false beliefs. Therefore, the only conclusion we can honestly support is that some ancient people held a mistaken belief that a resurrection occurred.

[Goose]

The historical method only applies to claims that have an implicit empirical basis.

Says who? The Historical Method says nothing about an implicit empirical basis. What do you mean by implicit empirical basis anyway? Prove your claim the Historical Method only applies to claims that have an implicit empirical basis.

The claim Paul affirmed the resurrection is not itself a supernatural claim. The claim that opponents to Paul affirmed the resurrection is not itself a supernatural claim. The argument here pertains to the sources making the claim, not the claim itself. So your introduction of an implicit empirical basis is quite irrelevant at this point.

A supernatural resurrection has no implicit empirical basis.

Depending on what you mean by implicit empirical basis that may very well be the case. It may also be the case that no historical claim has an implicit empirical basis.

People mistakenly believing a supernatural resurrection occurred does have an implicit empirical basis because we know it is possible for people to develop sincerely held false beliefs. Therefore, the only conclusion we can honestly support is that some ancient people held a mistaken belief that a resurrection occurred.

Youre arguing in a circle here. Youre assuming the belief was mistaken and false. Youve yet to prove that.

[bluegreenearth]

The claim Paul affirmed the resurrection is not itself a supernatural claim. The claim that opponents to Paul affirmed the resurrection is not itself a supernatural claim. The argument here pertains to the sources making the claim, not the claim itself. So your introduction of an implicit empirical basis is quite irrelevant at this point.

I thought you were arguing that the resurrection was historical. The historical method cannot be used to support the claim that a resurrection occurred. However, if you are merely arguing that some people historically believed a resurrection occurred, then that is not in dispute.

A supernatural resurrection has no implicit empirical basis.

Depending on what you mean by implicit empirical basis that may very well be the case. It may also be the case that no historical claim has an implicit empirical basis.

A historical claim has an implicit empirical basis if it refers to something that we know is empirically possible. For example, the historical claim that Jesus was crucified has an implicit empirical basis because the described crucifixion process could be reproduced to demonstrate it is empirically possible for a human being to have been crucified. Meanwhile, the historical claim that Jesus was supernaturally resurrected cannot be reproduced to demonstrate it would have been empirically possible for such an event to have occurred in history.

Youre arguing in a circle here. Youre assuming the belief was mistaken and false. Youve yet to prove that.

No, I'm demonstrating where my claim has an implicit empirical basis. I don't need to prove my claim is true to demonstrate where it is superior to the supernatural claim. The claim that people could have mistakenly believed a resurrection occurred has an implicit empirical basis because we know it is empirically possible for people to arrive at a mistaken belief. Because my claim has an implicit empirical basis, I have a justification for preferring that natural explanation to a supernatural explanation which has no implicit empirical basis.

[Goose]

I thought you were arguing that the resurrection was historical.

What Ive been arguing is that your argument, unwittingly, strengthens the historical case. Ive made no explicit argument, yet, that the resurrection was historical.

The historical method cannot be used to support the claim that a resurrection occurred.

Yeah youve asserted that already but cant seem to explain why that must be the case.

However, if you are merely arguing that some people historically believed a resurrection occurred, then that is not in dispute.

Ironically, its your argument that implies people who otherwise opposed one another believed there was a resurrection. Its far less likely that members of opposing groups who disagree about numerous important points regarding X would both independently and mistakenly come to affirm a false belief about X than members of the same group. There must be very good reasons for both opposing groups to hold the belief since they would otherwise disagree if there werent. This strengthens the case.

A historical claim has an implicit empirical basis if it refers to something that we know is empirically possible. For example, the historical claim that Jesus was crucified has an implicit empirical basis because the described crucifixion process could be reproduced to demonstrate it is empirically possible for a human being to have been crucified. Meanwhile, the historical claim that Jesus was supernaturally resurrected cannot be reproduced to demonstrate it would have been empirically possible for such an event to have occurred in history.

Im not sure what you mean by empirically possible. I presume you mean something like physically possible? But all this does is establish a baseline of possibility. It says nothing about what did happen, only what could happen given what we think we know is physically possible. I see no reason to limit myself to only that which is physically possible. There are other types of possibilities such as epistemic, metaphysical, and logical possibilities for example. In other words, that which is empirically possible (physically possible?) does not fully capture all that is possible.

No, I'm demonstrating where my claim has an implicit empirical basis. I don't need to prove my claim is true to demonstrate where it is superior to the supernatural claim.

But you havent demonstrated that its superior. Youve simply assumed it is because youve assumed that which is empirically possible is the only type of possibility.

The claim that people could have mistakenly believed a resurrection occurred has an implicit empirical basis because we know it is empirically possible for people to arrive at a mistaken belief. Because my claim has an implicit empirical basis, I have a justification for preferring that natural explanation to a supernatural explanation which has no implicit empirical basis.

But now all you are saying is why you have a justification for preferring your belief. Thats fine, but also something very different than what said earlier, Therefore, the only conclusion we can honestly support is that some ancient people held a mistaken belief that a resurrection occurred.