Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

The Nature Of Evidence


OrdinaryClay

Recommended Posts

Guest Valkyrie0010

Good point.

 

1Co 15:14

(14) And if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation is worthless, and your faith is also worthless.

 

The reason I start with the supernatural in general is because of the reasoning used in Hume's Abject Failure. I believe that if any supernatural exists then the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob follows inevitably. I realize many disagree, but I believe a very rational case can be made for such a position.

 

On that. If you are dealing with solely supernatural ideas. How can one prove anything.

Debating the resurrection for example, if hypothetically naturalist explanations have all failed. That then leaves only supernatural explanations remaining. All a Muslim has to say is there version of the devil tricked the apostles. You then can't disprove that. Hope you see the difficulty.

Take a look at how I allow for distinguishing the supernatural from the natural. The supernatural is detectable but not predictable. If it is detectable then I can make evaluations about what is happening.

 

Even if you don't believe in the supernatural, in order to answer your question directly assume for a moment that the supernatural did exist. If it did I could use what I detect to distinguish the type of supernatural events. Assuming every event is some how the same only follows if you assume a priori no supernatural exists (which is begging the question). In your example, suppose someone came to the conclusion the resurrection existed because all the natural explanations failed as you state. This clearly means you evaluated facts about the resurrection to come to this conclusion (given your questions I suspect you have dug into this some). In order to deal with any Muslim claim you need to apply the same rigor to their claim as you did the Christian claim. What facts would allow you to believe the Muslim claim.

 

If you studied the resurrection then you know that no one is just making a bald claim of the resurrection. The claim is based on historical evidence. The historical evidence is the surrounding evidence, i.e. what we can detect about the event - the circumstances.

You missed my point. You can't prove a thing in the supernatural only because,

 

Even if you somehow prove that a supernatural event occurred based off the evidence we have, it doesn't automatically prove the events happened in the way the text claims. Remember we are dealing in this situation with the supernatural.

Not anywhere do you truly get a explanation because using your words.

 

 

"The supernatural is detectable but not predictable."

 

The standards and things we can do to evaluate claims in the natural realm does not apply since it is beyond nature.

 

How can you tell a Muslim that there version of the devil didn't just trick the apostles.

 

Like I said when you are arguing in the supernatural anything is possible. And also anything can be claimed. And since we have no standard to evaluate the supernatural(outside of different religions) we are at a stalemate of sorts.

 

I think a quote from Christopher Hitchens describe are difficulty.

 

"A argument that explains everything, explains nothing."

 

Interpret in this situation to mean

 

When dealing with purely supernatural elements nothing is for certain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • OrdinaryClay

    21

  • Shyone

    10

  • Ouroboros

    9

  • oddbird1963

    8

By the same token, the sacred texts of the Greeks document the birth of Athena (not Hera - sorry about that).

Do you consider these texts on par(Historiographically) with the New Testament?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the same token, the sacred texts of the Greeks document the birth of Athena (not Hera - sorry about that).

Do you consider these texts on par(Historiographically) with the New Testament?

 

 

Irrelevant question. Though the presentations may be different in form, these are both works of mythology. "Historiographically" is really meaningless to their purpose.

 

Any correlation with actual events of history are coincidental and beside the point. They may serve to bolster a sense of realness to the mythos, but both sets of works are shared narratives of faith and culture through which religious faith and national identity can be expressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the same token, the sacred texts of the Greeks document the birth of Athena (not Hera - sorry about that).

Do you consider these texts on par(Historiographically) with the New Testament?

 

 

Irrelevant question. Though the presentations may be different in form, these are both works of mythology. "Historiographically" is really meaningless to their purpose.

 

Any correlation with actual events of history are coincidental and beside the point. They may serve to bolster a sense of realness to the mythos, but both sets of works are shared narratives of faith and culture through which religious faith and national identity can be expressed.

You assume the Bible is invalid a priori. Who determines the Historicity of the Bible are Historians and Scholars. Not bald claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the same token, the sacred texts of the Greeks document the birth of Athena (not Hera - sorry about that).

Do you consider these texts on par(Historiographically) with the New Testament?

 

 

Irrelevant question. Though the presentations may be different in form, these are both works of mythology. "Historiographically" is really meaningless to their purpose.

 

Any correlation with actual events of history are coincidental and beside the point. They may serve to bolster a sense of realness to the mythos, but both sets of works are shared narratives of faith and culture through which religious faith and national identity can be expressed.

You assume the Bible is invalid a priori. Who determines the Historicity of the Bible are Historians and Scholars. Not bald claims.

 

NO. You assume that I assume the Bible is invalid a priori. And I determine the historicity of the Bible or anything else. I evaluate the claims of Historians and scholars to see if what they say makes sense. I weigh the pros and cons and I take ownership of my opinion.

 

You are trying to justify appeal to authority fallacies. Don't just drop names and quote assertions. You'll have to include their evidence and reasoning. Otherwise you're being just another dime-a-dozen McDowellite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the same token, the sacred texts of the Greeks document the birth of Athena (not Hera - sorry about that).

Do you consider these texts on par(Historiographically) with the New Testament?

 

 

Irrelevant question. Though the presentations may be different in form, these are both works of mythology. "Historiographically" is really meaningless to their purpose.

 

Any correlation with actual events of history are coincidental and beside the point. They may serve to bolster a sense of realness to the mythos, but both sets of works are shared narratives of faith and culture through which religious faith and national identity can be expressed.

You assume the Bible is invalid a priori. Who determines the Historicity of the Bible are Historians and Scholars. Not bald claims.

 

NO. You assume that I assume the Bible is invalid a priori. And I determine the historicity of the Bible or anything else. I evaluate the claims of Historians and scholars to see if what they say makes sense. I weigh the pros and cons and I take ownership of my opinion.

 

You are trying to justify appeal to authority fallacies. Don't just drop names and quote assertions. You'll have to include their evidence and reasoning. Otherwise you're being just another dime-a-dozen McDowellite.

No, you are incorrect. The majority of scholars consider the Bible a much more of an historical document then any Greek Mythology.

 

Here is an example of Bart Erhman (respected scholar and a non-believer) practically ridiculing a Jesus Mythicist. There are two parts if you enjoy the first part.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRx0N4GF0AY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait a minute Clayman, have you even looked into what Bart Ehrman believe and say about the historicity of the Bible? He's not as much on your side as you think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me quote Ehrman from a debate he had with Craig (yes, the William Lane Craig).

 

Part of his opening statement:

Let me begin by explaining in simple terms what it is that historians do. Historians try to

establish to the best of their ability what probably happened in the past. We can’t really know the

past because the past is done with. We think we know that past in some instances because we

have such good evidence for what happened in the past, but in other cases we don’t know, and in

some cases we just have to throw up our hands in despair.

 

And

What do we have with the Gospels of the New Testament? Well, unfortunately we’re not as well

off as we would like to be. We’d like to be extremely well off because the Gospels tell us about

Jesus, and they are our best sources for Jesus. But how good are they as historical sources? I’m

not questioning whether they’re valuable as theological sources or sources for religious

information. But how good are they as historical sources? Unfortunately, they’re not as good as

we would like. The Gospels were written 35 to 65 years after Jesus’ death—35 or 65 years after

his death, not by people who were eyewitnesses, but by people living later. The Gospels were

written by highly literate, trained, Greek-speaking Christians of the second and third generation.

They’re not written by Jesus’ Aramaic-speaking followers. They’re written by people living 30,

40, 50, 60 years later. Where did these people get their information from? I should point out that

the Gospels say they’re written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But that’s just in your

English Bible. That’s the title of these Gospels, but whoever wrote the Gospel of Matthew didn’t

call it the Gospel of Matthew. Whoever wrote the Gospel of Matthew simply wrote his Gospel,

and somebody later said it’s the Gospel according to Matthew. Somebody later is telling you

who wrote it. The titles are later additions. These are not eyewitness accounts. So where did they

get their stories from?

 

Ehrman's standpoint on Jesus's resurrection is that it didn't happen. You know that, right? At least not in the sense of a real, physical event, but rather a religious experience, like vision or metaphorical language. Just like you say "my wife is the most beautiful woman in the world," and everyone knows that it's not true, but it's true to you. Your hyperbole is used to express you intense feeling.

 

But go on, don't let me bother you with details. Keep on referring to Ehrman to prove your point. It benefits us more than you.

 

I'm surprised though, because most apologists claim that Ehrman isn't a True Historian™ or a True Scholar™, and therefore anything Ehrman says is wrong. However, Craig knows everything there is to know in all subjects in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait a minute Clayman, have you even looked into what Bart Ehrman believe and say about the historicity of the Bible? He's not as much on your side as you think.

Yes, I'm aware, that is why I used his position. He is in a sense a hostile witness. He believes Jesus was a real man. No scholar thinks Zeus was real, ergo, the Bible is more historical then greek mythology so any attempt to equate the two is false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait a minute Clayman, have you even looked into what Bart Ehrman believe and say about the historicity of the Bible? He's not as much on your side as you think.

Yes, I'm aware, that is why I used his position. He is in a sense a hostile witness. He believes Jesus was a real man. No scholar thinks Zeus was real, ergo, the Bible is more historical then greek mythology so any attempt to equate the two is false.

So when Ehrman says that the historicity of Jesus existence, as a person, it is a support that the Bible is a reliable historical document.

 

But when Ehrman says that the Bible is not a reliable historical document to prove that Jesus was resurrected, then he is wrong and Ehrman is not a good support to disprove the reliability of the Bible.

 

Am I correct?

 

So why is Ehrman right when it comes to one question about the historicity, but he is not when it comes to the other? Why is he an authority one when it benefit you?

 

And as an FYI, I believe Jesus was a historical person, but not the son of God--just like Ehrman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the same token, the sacred texts of the Greeks document the birth of Athena (not Hera - sorry about that).

Do you consider these texts on par(Historiographically) with the New Testament?

After careful consideration, I'd say they are pretty close. With the discovery of Troy, the historicity of many of the texts was validated. The characters lives are sometimes believable, sometimes not in both the bible and the Greek sacred texts. The sacred texts deal with things in another realm, but in a more realistic way than Revelation, for example. To the extent that they document the interaction between humans and gods, I would say that they are of equal value historiographically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you are incorrect. The majority of scholars consider the Bible a much more of an historical document then any Greek Mythology.

"More" of an historical document? On what scale? How is it measured?

 

Would you agree that the majority of "schoars" who "consider the bible" more historical are religious scholars? Do you think that might affect their opinion?

 

Would you say that War and Peace is more historical than the Bible?

 

Ultimately, a work of mythology that uses real life people and places (as do both the bible and greek mythology) is still mythology. Even if you or others consider one or the other "more historical."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who determines the Historicity of the Bible are Historians and Scholars.

 

I can determine such things for myself, thank you very much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who determines the Historicity of the Bible are Historians and Scholars.

 

I can determine such things for myself, thank you very much.

When your whole life swirls around a doctrine regarding someone else's authority, it is easy to fall prey to the fallacy of the argument from authority.

 

And then it gets down to "My scholar is better than your scholar" or "Most theologians believe..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait a minute Clayman, have you even looked into what Bart Ehrman believe and say about the historicity of the Bible? He's not as much on your side as you think.

Yes, I'm aware, that is why I used his position. He is in a sense a hostile witness. He believes Jesus was a real man. No scholar thinks Zeus was real, ergo, the Bible is more historical then greek mythology so any attempt to equate the two is false.

 

Well, I think that Jesus was a real man. However that is as much as one can say about him. You know that Davy Crockett was a real man, but that doesn't mean he kilt him a bar when he was only three.

 

Just because Jesus was a real man doesn't mean his mama was a virgin, that he walked on water, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, or saved you from your sin. You are having difficulty distinguishing history and legend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the same token, the sacred texts of the Greeks document the birth of Athena (not Hera - sorry about that).

Do you consider these texts on par(Historiographically) with the New Testament?

 

Irrelevant question. Though the presentations may be different in form, these are both works of mythology. "Historiographically" is really meaningless to their purpose.

 

Any correlation with actual events of history are coincidental and beside the point. They may serve to bolster a sense of realness to the mythos, but both sets of works are shared narratives of faith and culture through which religious faith and national identity can be expressed.

You assume the Bible is invalid a priori. Who determines the Historicity of the Bible are Historians and Scholars. Not bald claims.

 

NO. You assume that I assume the Bible is invalid a priori. And I determine the historicity of the Bible or anything else. I evaluate the claims of Historians and scholars to see if what they say makes sense. I weigh the pros and cons and I take ownership of my opinion.

 

You are trying to justify appeal to authority fallacies. Don't just drop names and quote assertions. You'll have to include their evidence and reasoning. Otherwise you're being just another dime-a-dozen McDowellite.

No, you are incorrect. The majority of scholars consider the Bible a much more of an historical document then any Greek Mythology.

 

Here is an example of Bart Erhman (respected scholar and a non-believer) practically ridiculing a Jesus Mythicist. There are two parts if you enjoy the first part.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRx0N4GF0AY

 

Appeal to authority!! All wrapped up tightly with a bandwagon appeal. You are going to have to do better than this. You are sounding like a Habermasian McDowellite. Show the facts these scholars put out there or don't mention them. You waste time and space by posting appeals to authority like this.

 

I respect Erhman and will finish the audio later. But stipulating, for the moment, the existence of Jesus, a human rabbi around whom the New Testament stories were spun, that does not show that the New Testament is not mythological. There can be highly historically factual elements in a myth and the shared narrative of the faith community still be symbolic and mythological in character.

 

So, present actual facts for analysis and quit trying to brow beat this forum with appeals to authority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valkyrie0010

I don't mean to slightly hijack the thread, but you(clay) still haven't even addressed the problem of even if we could prove a supernatural event taken place, could we tell what happened.

 

By what epistemology due you gauge the supernatural outside of religion, where well all is in the favor of the particular religion in question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you are incorrect. The majority of scholars consider the Bible a much more of an historical document then any Greek Mythology.

 

Here is an example of Bart Erhman (respected scholar and a non-believer) practically ridiculing a Jesus Mythicist. There are two parts if you enjoy the first part.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRx0N4GF0AY

 

Appeal to authority!! All wrapped up tightly with a bandwagon appeal. You are going to have to do better than this. You are sounding like a Habermasian McDowellite. Show the facts these scholars put out there or don't mention them. You waste time and space by posting appeals to authority like this.

 

I respect Erhman and will finish the audio later. But stipulating, for the moment, the existence of Jesus, a human rabbi around whom the New Testament stories were spun, that does not show that the New Testament is not mythological. There can be highly historically factual elements in a myth and the shared narrative of the faith community still be symbolic and mythological in character.

 

So, present actual facts for analysis and quit trying to brow beat this forum with appeals to authority.

You are mistaken. It is only an argument from authority if one's claim is based on the mere fact that because the authority says so it is true. I base my argument on the fact that their research is reliable and peer reviewed, not simply stated from authority. This truth is obvious. The entire scientific community builds on each others positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mean to slightly hijack the thread, but you(clay) still haven't even addressed the problem of even if we could prove a supernatural event taken place, could we tell what happened.

 

By what epistemology due you gauge the supernatural outside of religion, where well all is in the favor of the particular religion in question?

I think I understand your question. It seems it is closely related to the question you asked here. Read my answer there(when it shows up) and see if it does not answer both posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you are incorrect. The majority of scholars consider the Bible a much more of an historical document then any Greek Mythology.

 

Here is an example of Bart Erhman (respected scholar and a non-believer) practically ridiculing a Jesus Mythicist. There are two parts if you enjoy the first part.

(video)

 

Appeal to authority!! All wrapped up tightly with a bandwagon appeal. You are going to have to do better than this. You are sounding like a Habermasian McDowellite. Show the facts these scholars put out there or don't mention them. You waste time and space by posting appeals to authority like this.

 

I respect Erhman and will finish the audio later. But stipulating, for the moment, the existence of Jesus, a human rabbi around whom the New Testament stories were spun, that does not show that the New Testament is not mythological. There can be highly historically factual elements in a myth and the shared narrative of the faith community still be symbolic and mythological in character.

 

So, present actual facts for analysis and quit trying to brow beat this forum with appeals to authority.

You are mistaken. It is only an argument from authority if one's claim is based on the mere fact that because the authority says so it is true. I base my argument on the fact that their research is reliable and peer reviewed, not simply stated from authority. This truth is obvious. The entire scientific community builds on each others positions.

 

Yet you did not present any facts in your statement. Just the assertion that 'the majority of scholars' blah blah blah. I'm sorry, but that is not good enough. This is where you Habermasian apologists fall short (at least the ones that post to this website). You want us to take your word for it that you have done your homework and come to sound conclusions based on the sources, the facts and the analysis of the facts.

 

You need to present the facts on which YOU base your conclusions. Present your analysis and we will evaluate. Of course you need to cite your sources. We may want to examine those sources. But you need to also present your case. Until then, it is argument from authority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.