[
Replying to Difflugia in post #0]
[
Replying to Difflugia in post #330]
Your response is a mess of apologetic quote mining and unsupported claims, most of which themselves don't support the overall argument that you're trying to make. If you legitimately want to discuss some of this, I will, but you need to focus on one argument at a time. When I've rebutted any one of your arguments, you've responded by spamming a bunch of different arguments to the point that it's become an incoherent Gish gallop.
That is a nice strawman argument. That is typical when a person does not have an answer when facts are presented.
Broadly, here are the main things wrong with your argument:
No matter how early it was, the belief in a spiritual resurrection isn't evidence for a physical resurrection.
What are you saying with this statement? Are you conceding that fact that belief in the resurrection was early? If you are then your allegorical theory falls apart.
You like to act like others do not present any evidence for their argument but you have a really bad habit of doing that. You have given no evidence that they believed that the resurrection was spiritual.
Since you're trying to establish the historicity of later traditions, interpreting earlier traditions by reading the later traditions back into them is a circular argument.
What are you talking about? I am assuming you mean the Ezekial passage. Jews believed the Old Testament was the word of God. They based their lives and their beliefs on the Old Testament. So if bones were resurrected in the Old Testament, that is how they would believe a resurrection happened. The same would be true about the Sabbath.
I really am not understanding how you call that circular. You may wish it were circular or something that you had a counterargument to but evidently, you do not.
You seem to think that the idea that Luke was writing allegorical fiction must explain something other than the form of the Gospel of Luke and Acts. It doesn't have to. You're confusing your argument that Luke/Acts is historiography with the argument that the resurrection actually happened. The reality of a physical resurrection isn't an argument against Luke/Acts being fiction. Granted, the resurrection is the least plausible thing in the overall narrative, but that's still just one detail in the overall story. If you want to switch to arguing the historicity of the resurrection, we can, but that's not what this debate is about.
This makes no sense whatsoever.
So are you conceding that your allegorical theory does not explain the facts, like the very early belief in the resurrection?
I was really just showing how ridiculous your allegorical theory was since that was your counterargument to the historicity of Luke. The death and resurrection of Jesus is the main event in all of the Gospels. If it is not then you cannot explain why belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus is the central message of Christianity.
Now, if you want me to keep discussing this with you, I'll expect a few things:
I could care less whether you do or not. When the fire gets hot under people's feet that is when they want to jump. That's a metaphor.
Now, I take it we're done with the prologue as such. Are you now arguing that there are more literary reasons to treat Luke as historiography or are you arguing that the things Luke wrote about are true for nonliterary reasons? You can believe both and intend to eventually argue both, but let's try to keep the argument from galloping away again.
Comparing theories using the normal way historians compare theories is the argument galloping away? I will say that the plausibility of your allegorical theory is galloping away.
Since I went to the trouble of addressing some of your claims before I lost track of how they're supposed to apply to your argument, I'll include what I got to.
Oh, you mean when your argument started to fall apart.
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 11:56 am
This is another problem with your allegorical reasoning. It is predicated on a predetermined philosophical argument, not on historical evidence.
The normal way to assess differing historical hypotheses is by using the "inference to the best explanation" method. This method uses criteria like explanatory power, explanatory scope, plausibility, degree of ad hoc-ness, and concordance with accepted beliefs.
That's absolutely correct. "Fictional story about magic" is a far better fit for each of those criteria than "magic."
It has not been so far. If you would like to show how your theory can explain the facts you are more than welcome to try. Your theory has not been doing so well so far.
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 11:56 am
Your allegorical hypothesis lacks explanatory power and explanatory scope.
What exactly do you think "Luke wrote religious fiction" fails to explain and why?
1. The moving of the day of worship to the first day of the week.
2. The resurrection being the central message of Christianity
3. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus
4. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
5. Paul was converted to the faith
6. Jesus died by crucifixion.
7. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 11:56 am
Your allegorical theory also has a large degree of ad hoc theories needed to make the allegory possible.
What parts of my theory require any sort of ad hoc explanation? Considering that your own explanation involves the reality of angels and a supernatural resurrection, I'm a bit skeptical that you understand what ad hoc means in this context.
1. Other forms of Christianity. That is a theory that you need to save your theory.
2. The resurrection not being the central message until the 2nd century.
3. Jews not worshiping on Saturday
4. Jews do not have a view of what resurrection is.
5. There are not any early writings about the resurrection.
First, the only support that you've offered that "most scholars" agree to your "facts" is that Gary Habermas says so.
I gave many more than Habermas.
Second, none of the "facts" are explained more by a physical resurrection than by some sort of mystical resurrection.
There is one of your ad hoc theories again. The resurrection could not be mystical, because that is not the way that Jews
Your ad hoc mystical resurrection does not explain why:
The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus, and they touched Jesus physically.
Third, you've got a bit of your logic backwards. Luke's writing doesn't need to "explain" why Christians believed in some sort of resurrection, but that belief does explain why Luke included a resurrection in his religious story.
Another ad hoc theory. You already conceded above that the resurrection account was very early 30's. Paul's creed was very early 30's so no Luke would have to explain the resurrection.
Your allegorical theory cannot explain the early accounts of the resurrection. So you have to have this theory to save your theory.
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 11:56 am
Plausibility would be a draw because in this case, it would simply be a statement of faith.
That's not what "plausible" means. Your belief that there's a god to perform supernatural events doesn't somehow make the odds 50/50.
There are only 2 possibilities either God performed a miracle or there is no God and there is a naturalistic explanation. That would be 50/50
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 11:56 am
You believe that the resurrection cannot happen because there is not God to perform the resurrection. I believe that the resurrection can happen because there is a God in heaven to perform the resurrection.
Whether gods exist or not, resurrections don't happen. There are way more stories about resurrections than actual resurrections. If I were to write a story about Joseph Biden running around nude on the Whitehouse lawn shouting about the brisk weather, it would probably be fictional because that's not something he has a history of doing. Joseph Biden and the Whitehouse lawn both exist, so it's more plausible than gods resurrecting someone, but it's still pretty implausible.
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 11:56 am
Based on the normal historical method the resurrection account makes much more sense than your allegorical account.
If you can find me a single historian that used the "normal historical method" to infer the historicity of any nonbiblical supernatural event, I'll consider your claim.
Habermas
Craig
Licona
Lastly, both
Crossan and Wright readily agree that the resurrection of Jesus in some sense indicates that the truth of Christian belief ought to lead to its theological outworkings, including the radical practice of ethics. As Crossan states, “Tom and I agree on one absolutely vital implication of resurrection faith . . . that God’s transfiguration of this world here below has already started . . .” To be sure, Crossan’s chief emphasis is to proceed to the meaning of Jesus’ resurrection in the world today, contending that we must live out the literal implications of this belief in “peace through justice.” Just as Jesus’ appearances inspired the disciples’ proclamation of God’s victory over sin and the powers of Caesar’s empire, we must “promote God’s Great Clean-Up of the earth” and “take back God’s world from the thugs.
Wright argues that, for both the New Testament authors like Paul and John, as well as for us today, the facticity of Jesus’ resurrection indicates that Christian theology is true, including doctrines such as the sonship of Jesus and his path of eternal life to those who respond to his message.[76] The resurrection also requires a radical call to discipleship in a torn world, including responses to the political tyranny of both conservatives as well as liberals, addressing violence, hunger, and even death. As Wright says, “Easter is the beginning of God’s new world. . . . But Easter is the time for revolution. . . .
Fuller elsewhere refers to the disciples’ belief in the resurrection as “one of the indisputable facts of history.” What caused this belief? That the disciples’ had actual experiences, characterized as appearances or visions of the risen Jesus, no matter how they are explained, is “a fact upon which both believer and unbeliever may agree.”[82]
An overview of contemporary scholarship indicates that Fuller’s conclusions are well-supported. E.P. Sanders initiates his discussion in The Historical Figure of Jesus by outlining the broad parameters of recent research. Beginning with a list of the historical data that critics know, he includes a number of “equally secure facts” that “are almost beyond dispute.” One of these is that, after Jesus’ death, “his disciples . . . saw him.”[83] In an epilogue, Sanders reaffirms, “That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgment, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know.”[84]
John Meier lists “the claim by some of his disciples that he had risen from the dead and appeared to them” as one of the “empirically verifiable historical claims.” Paul, in particular, was an eyewitness to such an appearance, and James, the brother of Jesus, appears in the pre-Pauline list of appearances.[88]
James D.G. Dunn asserts: “It is almost impossible to dispute that at the historical roots of Christianity lie some visionary experiences of the first Christians, who understood them as appearances of Jesus, raised by God from the dead.” Then Dunn qualifies the situation: “By `resurrection’ they clearly meant that something had happened to Jesus himself. God had raised him, not merely reassured them. He was alive again. . . .”[89]
Bart Ehrman explains that, “Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus’ resurrection, since this is a matter of public record. For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution.” This early belief in the resurrection is the historical origination of Christianity.[91]
As we have mentioned throughout, there are certainly disagreements about the nature of the experiences. But it is still crucial that the nearly unanimous consent[92] of critical scholars is that, in some sense, the early followers of Jesus thought that they had seen the risen Jesus.
This conclusion does not rest on the critical consensus itself, but on the reasons for the consensus, such as those pointed out above. A variety of paths converge here, including Paul's eyewitness comments regarding his own experience (1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8), the pre-Pauline appearance report in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, probably dating from the 30s, Paul's second Jerusalem meeting with the major apostles to ascertain the nature of the Gospel (Gal. 2:1-10), and Paul's knowledge of the other apostles' teachings about Jesus' appearances (1 Cor. 15:9-15, especially 15:11). Further, the early Acts confessions, the conversion of James, the brother of Jesus, the transformed lives that centered on the resurrection, the later Gospel accounts, and, most scholars would agree, the empty tomb. This case is built entirely on critically-ascertained texts, and confirmed by many critical principles such as eyewitness testimony, early reports, multiple attestation, discontinuity, embarrassment, enemy declarations, and coherence.[93]
These same data indicate that Jesus’ followers reported visual experiences, witnessed by both individuals and groups. It is hardly disputed that this is at least the New Testament claim. The vast majority of scholars agree that these persons certainly thought that they had visual experiences of the risen Jesus. As Helmut Koester maintains, "We are on much firmer ground with respect to the appearances of the risen Jesus and their effect." In addition to Paul, "that Jesus appeared to others (Peter, Mary Magdalene, James) cannot very well be questioned."[94]
The point here is that any plausible explanations must account for the disciples’ claims, due to the wide variety of factors that argue convincingly for visual experiences. This is also recognized by critical scholars across a wide theological spectrum. As such, both natural and supernatural explanations for these occurrences must be entertained. Most studies on the resurrection concentrate on cognate issues, often obstructing a path to this matter. What really happened? I certainly cannot argue the options here, but at least the possibilities have been considerably narrowed.
http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_ ... 2_2005.htm
None of these support your ad hoc theory that the resurrection narrative started in the 2nd century. Erhman does not even support your ad hoc theory.
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 11:56 am
Yes and this is one of those facts that your theory cannot explain. Without denying other facts that most scholars agree on like how early the gospel message came into existence.
John Drane
"The Earliest evidence we have for the resurrection almost certainly goes back to the time immediately after the resurrection event is alleged to have taken place. This is the evidence contained in the early sermons in Acts of the Apostles... there can be no doubt that in the first few chapters of Acts its author has preserved material from very early sources." (Case for Christ )
First, quoting a Christian theologian as an argument from authority shouldn't be expected to carry much weight in a debate about the historicity of the Christian message. If you think Drane makes a compelling case with which you agree, find it and present it.
No but the dozen or so above does.
Second, The Case for Christ is notorious for selectively and misleadingly quoting even other Christian apologists. If you want to quote an authority from The Case for Christ, look up the original and quote that.
You are free to have that opinion. Feel free to present your evidence of how these quotes are misleading.
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022, 11:56 am
A.N. Sherwin-White, the respected Greco-Roman classical historian from Oxford University, said it would have been without precedent anywhere in history for legend to have grown up that fast and significantly distorted the gospels". (Case for Christ pp. 220)
This is The Case for Christ quoting William Lane Craig, who is in turn paraphrasing an unsourced quotation. Even as an argument from authority, this is about as tenuous as it gets.
Sherwin-White is the author of the 2 generation rule.
The focal point of Sherwin-White’s case for the historical reliability of the Gospels was a two-generation rule he derived from his extensive experience with other ancient literature: “…Even two generations [about seventy years total] are too short a span to allow the mythical tendency to prevail over the hard historical core of the oral tradition.”4 Based on this, Sherwin-White argued that there should be enough history about Jesus in the Gospels that “the history of his mission” can be written.5
https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/2013/kom378030
We are talking about a time much shorter than even one generation.
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 11:56 am
This is what being raised from the dead meant to a Jewish person in the 1st century.
Ezekiel was written in the sixth century B.C.
Does your theory also need the ad hoc theory that the Jews also did not read the Old Testament? Wow the number of ad hoc theories continues to grow.
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022, 11:56 am
Your reference to 1 Cor. 15 is actually another problem for your allegory theory because this is Paul doubling and tripling down on his resurrection account.
Whether or not Paul believed in a resurrection, your argument requires that the resurrection can't be spiritual or mystical. Paul's "glory" language suggests both of those.
Who believes that besides for you?
What is Paul's "glory" language?
I am saying that the Jews would have interpreted it as a bodily resurrection because of Ezekial 37. That is unless none of them could read.
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 11:56 am
How can your allegorical theory explain this? A world-class scholar building his entire theology on the historical evidence for the resurrection that you say is vague.
That's one of the weirdest arguments from authority that I think I've encountered.
You said that Paul's creed was vague. And yet a world-class scholar built his entire theology around your so-called vague statement. The conclusion, it is only vague to you because your theory has to have it as vague. Another ad hoc thoery.
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 11:56 am
“The paper concludes that Hume"s arguments are unjustifiable to refute the possibility of a miracle, being that miracle as a paranormal phenomenon could not be subjected to empirical investigation.”
I don't have to treat miracles as impossible to argue that they're hallmarks of fiction, only that they're grossly improbable. Whether or not gods exist, claims about them can be subject to empirical investigation, particularly statistical analysis. Events that are common are more probable, events that are rare are improbable. The President of the United States holding a meeting in the Oval Office is probable because it has happened frequently. The President streaking nude across the Whitehouse lawn while telling onlookers, "Hail to this, Chief!" is improbable because neither that nor anything similar has happened in the past. Nothing is impossible about either one, but we can weigh their relative probabilities. The inclusion of the former in a story wouldn't itself be evidence of fiction, but the inclusion of the latter would be.
Whether or not gods exist, there are clearly far more fictional stories about resurrections than there are actual resurrections. Based on that alone, it is far more likely that the resurrection story is fictional. It's not a logical proof, just like a nude, screaming president isn't proof of fiction, but it's still very strong evidence of fiction.
The order of the investigation you are making is not an example of a historical investigation. A historian would look at the facts and then come up with a conclusion that best fits the facts.
1. Eyewitnesses testifying to the fact that the president did not have clothes on while they were singing.
2. Police reports of people walking away in disgust with what they saw.
Then the historian would make a hypothesis about what the best explanation of the facts is.
To make one further point, the claim that supernatural events cannot be empirically investigated is an actual ad hoc argument.
No that is a philosophical fact. The ad hoc argument is the belief that any supernatural event could not happen simply because it is said to be supernatural.