> That's not a fundamental difference. You seem to be mistaken here. If you subscribe to the traditional authors of the Gospels, both Mark and Luke were corroborating outsiders.
No. The gospels "Mark and Luke" are chapters of the same book. In other words, still the source of the claim. This is not corroborating outside evidence when it all comes from the same source.
> I consider the cases for traditional authorship to be stronger than the cases against
That's your prerogative.
> Dr. Craig Keener
An unbiased source, please. "professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary" doesn't do it for me.
> Neither is the source of the claim the only evidence for the resurrection of Jesus
Yes it is, and you prove me right later in your own sentence:
> There was some material evidence (the empty tomb)
As reported in the bible.
> there was consequential evidence (the birth of the Church)
Which is responsible for the compilation of the Bible, but in no way proves a man rose from the dead.
> and there was logical evidence (the preaching of the apostles)
I'm not convinced the apostles were real. Why? You guessed it: because the only evidence for their existence is stories in the bible.
> But I'm well aware that many people still deny the resurrection. There are also scientists who deny global warming.
A fraction of a percentage of the scientific community denies global warming. Historians do not accept the evidence of Christ's resurrection. Apples to Oranges comparison.
Board index ‹ Faith and Knowledge
Re: Blind faith isn’t okay.
by jimwalton » Thu Aug 29, 2019 11:39 am
> The gospels "Mark and Luke" are chapters of the same book
This is completely false. Mark are Luke are two separate books in the anthology we call the Bible. Mark and Luke were written in separate locations, in different years, by different authors, with different themes and different purposes. It's completely false to consider them just successive chapters in the same book.
> This is not corroborating outside evidence when it all comes from the same source.
That's where I'm telling you you are wrong. Mark is a completely different source from Luke. Mark is a Palestinian Jew; Luke is a non-Palestinian Gentile.
> That's your prerogative.
Thank you, but it's not really prerogative, but rather research.
> An unbiased source, please. "professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary" doesn't do it for me.
One's station, belief, or profession doesn't automatically make him biased, or else we can't listen to stories of the Holocaust from Jews, the horrors of sexual abuse in the #MeToo movement from women, or anything about slavery from an African-American.
> As reported in the bible.
In other words, you won't accept evidence from the eyewitnesses, anyone close to the events, or anyone who was there.
> I'm not convinced the apostles were real.
Have you studied this or looked into the historical record? At least some of them, Peter and Paul in particular, to name a few, are confirmed as historical characters.
> Why? You guessed it: because the only evidence for their existence is stories in the bible.
This is not true. It seems you haven't done your homework on many of these issues, which makes me wonder about your own bias. It appears that you've drawn conclusions before doing research.
Peter's martyrdom is reported by Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Aphrahat, Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius, and more. Paul is mentioned by Ignatius, Dionysus, and others. The historicity of Peter and Paul are not doubted.
This is completely false. Mark are Luke are two separate books in the anthology we call the Bible. Mark and Luke were written in separate locations, in different years, by different authors, with different themes and different purposes. It's completely false to consider them just successive chapters in the same book.
> This is not corroborating outside evidence when it all comes from the same source.
That's where I'm telling you you are wrong. Mark is a completely different source from Luke. Mark is a Palestinian Jew; Luke is a non-Palestinian Gentile.
> That's your prerogative.
Thank you, but it's not really prerogative, but rather research.
> An unbiased source, please. "professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary" doesn't do it for me.
One's station, belief, or profession doesn't automatically make him biased, or else we can't listen to stories of the Holocaust from Jews, the horrors of sexual abuse in the #MeToo movement from women, or anything about slavery from an African-American.
> As reported in the bible.
In other words, you won't accept evidence from the eyewitnesses, anyone close to the events, or anyone who was there.
> I'm not convinced the apostles were real.
Have you studied this or looked into the historical record? At least some of them, Peter and Paul in particular, to name a few, are confirmed as historical characters.
> Why? You guessed it: because the only evidence for their existence is stories in the bible.
This is not true. It seems you haven't done your homework on many of these issues, which makes me wonder about your own bias. It appears that you've drawn conclusions before doing research.
Peter's martyrdom is reported by Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Aphrahat, Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius, and more. Paul is mentioned by Ignatius, Dionysus, and others. The historicity of Peter and Paul are not doubted.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Blind faith isn’t okay.
by Not Clever Enough » Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:04 pm
> Here are a few: https://www.charismanews.com/world/50329-proof-of-resurrectionhttps://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/june/miracles-resurrections-real-raisings-fake-news-keener-afric.html
I'd like some confirmed cases please. Also, yeah, people "die" and then are brought back to life after 20 minutes or whatever. Some cases they go many hours having been dead. I remember one case of a girl who was frozen in snow, I think from an avalanche. They brought her back after like 8 hours or something. The extreme cold helped preserve her enough.
This isn't really the same as the resurrection of Jesus, right?
This also reeks of bias. Christianity today. Okay. This seems like the same level we have for bigfoot sightings, or alien sightings. This is enough for you?
You don't have any widely accepted, mainstream scientific data we can point to? Its just this fringe stuff?
I googled Kreener. "Keener goes on to admit that he is not a medical expert and that detailed medical confirmation of the medical cure claims in his book are limited. He admits that he had no research assistants and no research funds. "
I duno man, this doesn't sound rock solid.
> There's plenty to go on about the evidence they had back then, just as with Alexander the Great, Augustus Caesar, Nero, and Galileo.
You'll notice we don't accept miracle claims about those people. That's a huge difference.
> We can't be so closed minded and presentist as to assume that only our culture knows what evidence and truth are, and that anything not provable now is verifiably false.
I didn't say its false. I'm saying we shouldn't believe it. There isn't enough justification to believe it. You are misrepresenting me here. It is not my position that we need to conclude every claim not provable now is false.
I haven't said that.
> Now please give me your rebuttal evidence.
> It's very noticeable that I asked for your evidence and you have yet to give any. It's actually fairly typical of my conversations on this forum. There is rarely any, if ever, evidence from the other side.
I think this is a misunderstanding on your part. The point isn't that there is a bunch of evidence against, the point is that there isn't enough evidence for the claim.
> We have more than the Gospel texts, as I've already mentioned.
Hmm? What more did you mention? Are you talking about actual evidence, like a thing we actually have? Extra text? Archaeological evidence? Because that's what I'm asking for.
> But I'll admit I get tired of continuing to present evidence when no rebuttal evidence is EVER given in these conversations.
Again, I think this is a misunderstanding on your part. Think about bigfoot. We don't have evidence against it. Imagine if a bigfoot believer said "im sick and tired of all these people saying its not real, WHERES THE EVIDENCE OF THAT".
That's not how it works. That's not the issue. The problem is that there isn't enough reason to believe in bigfoot, not that we have a ton of evidence that bigfoot doesn't exist.
See what I'm saying?
> Of course I recall it. In other words, you have no evidence to support or substantiate your position.
It baffles me how you think this is the take away from what we've been saying here. The take away is that I don't need an alternate explanation. Agreed?
>OK, I get it. In a courtroom, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution.
You see ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this man is clearly guilty of the crime. We have 4 texts, we're not sure who wrote them, they were written decades after the event, they conflict each other and it seems they plagiarized each other. This is clearly enough to convict.
That doesn't sound like it'd hold up. And that's for just a mundane crime. Imagine if the prosecution was trying to prove that the defendant used magic powers to commit the crime.
> It would probably be better to pick a subject and go into detail rather than settle for generalities. Authorship of one of the Gospels? Jesus's resurrection?
The general claim is that the evidence is not good enough to warrant belief.
> The earliest manuscript we have is 100 years later, true, but that's not what the discussion was. All the evidence we have points to the fact that the Gospels were all written in the 1st century. Only the most minimalist scholars claim otherwise.
I have no problem with this at this time. I was just correcting my own summary of the evidence, that's all.
So if you do want to focus on one subject, lets try this: why do you feel that a mundane claim and a super super rare, supernatural miracle claim, should have the same standard of evidence for them?
As an example, if a friend told me he has a pet dog, I'd believe him. If he told me he drove to the moon in his subaru last year, should I believe him just as easily? It doesn't seem like I should. What do you think?
I'd like some confirmed cases please. Also, yeah, people "die" and then are brought back to life after 20 minutes or whatever. Some cases they go many hours having been dead. I remember one case of a girl who was frozen in snow, I think from an avalanche. They brought her back after like 8 hours or something. The extreme cold helped preserve her enough.
This isn't really the same as the resurrection of Jesus, right?
This also reeks of bias. Christianity today. Okay. This seems like the same level we have for bigfoot sightings, or alien sightings. This is enough for you?
You don't have any widely accepted, mainstream scientific data we can point to? Its just this fringe stuff?
I googled Kreener. "Keener goes on to admit that he is not a medical expert and that detailed medical confirmation of the medical cure claims in his book are limited. He admits that he had no research assistants and no research funds. "
I duno man, this doesn't sound rock solid.
> There's plenty to go on about the evidence they had back then, just as with Alexander the Great, Augustus Caesar, Nero, and Galileo.
You'll notice we don't accept miracle claims about those people. That's a huge difference.
> We can't be so closed minded and presentist as to assume that only our culture knows what evidence and truth are, and that anything not provable now is verifiably false.
I didn't say its false. I'm saying we shouldn't believe it. There isn't enough justification to believe it. You are misrepresenting me here. It is not my position that we need to conclude every claim not provable now is false.
I haven't said that.
> Now please give me your rebuttal evidence.
> It's very noticeable that I asked for your evidence and you have yet to give any. It's actually fairly typical of my conversations on this forum. There is rarely any, if ever, evidence from the other side.
I think this is a misunderstanding on your part. The point isn't that there is a bunch of evidence against, the point is that there isn't enough evidence for the claim.
> We have more than the Gospel texts, as I've already mentioned.
Hmm? What more did you mention? Are you talking about actual evidence, like a thing we actually have? Extra text? Archaeological evidence? Because that's what I'm asking for.
> But I'll admit I get tired of continuing to present evidence when no rebuttal evidence is EVER given in these conversations.
Again, I think this is a misunderstanding on your part. Think about bigfoot. We don't have evidence against it. Imagine if a bigfoot believer said "im sick and tired of all these people saying its not real, WHERES THE EVIDENCE OF THAT".
That's not how it works. That's not the issue. The problem is that there isn't enough reason to believe in bigfoot, not that we have a ton of evidence that bigfoot doesn't exist.
See what I'm saying?
> Of course I recall it. In other words, you have no evidence to support or substantiate your position.
It baffles me how you think this is the take away from what we've been saying here. The take away is that I don't need an alternate explanation. Agreed?
>OK, I get it. In a courtroom, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution.
You see ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this man is clearly guilty of the crime. We have 4 texts, we're not sure who wrote them, they were written decades after the event, they conflict each other and it seems they plagiarized each other. This is clearly enough to convict.
That doesn't sound like it'd hold up. And that's for just a mundane crime. Imagine if the prosecution was trying to prove that the defendant used magic powers to commit the crime.
> It would probably be better to pick a subject and go into detail rather than settle for generalities. Authorship of one of the Gospels? Jesus's resurrection?
The general claim is that the evidence is not good enough to warrant belief.
> The earliest manuscript we have is 100 years later, true, but that's not what the discussion was. All the evidence we have points to the fact that the Gospels were all written in the 1st century. Only the most minimalist scholars claim otherwise.
I have no problem with this at this time. I was just correcting my own summary of the evidence, that's all.
So if you do want to focus on one subject, lets try this: why do you feel that a mundane claim and a super super rare, supernatural miracle claim, should have the same standard of evidence for them?
As an example, if a friend told me he has a pet dog, I'd believe him. If he told me he drove to the moon in his subaru last year, should I believe him just as easily? It doesn't seem like I should. What do you think?
- Not Clever Enough
Re: Blind faith isn’t okay.
by jimwalton » Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:15 pm
> I'd like some confirmed cases please.
Do your own homework. If you really care, you'll do the work necessary.
> This isn't really the same as the resurrection of Jesus, right?
Jesus was physically dead for about 36 hours. It's the same if the person is really dead and they really come alive again. The difference between 8 hrs and 36 isn't meaning if the person is truly dead. Dead is dead.
> This also reeks of bias. Christianity today. Okay. This seems like the same level we have for bigfoot sightings, or alien sightings. This is enough for you?
The source of the reporting has nothing to do with the quality of the research. I heard there used to be awesome interviews in Playboy. Do we discredit it because PB was the publisher? Apparently not. It's the quality of the work that is the ground of our assessment, not the reporting media. Suppose Christianity Today published your latest posts on this forum. Would that invalidate anything you said? Of course not.
Please watch out for your own bias.
> You'll notice we don't accept miracle claims about those people. That's a huge difference.
You weren't talking about miracles, but instead about the quality and credibility of evidence, as if anything old was disregardable. Ya can't just move the goalposts. You were saying evidence then is different from evidence now. I said it's not: if it was true then, it's still true, even if we can't prove it anymore. Then I gave examples that we accept plenty of "old" evidence. Age doesn't change its truthfulness. That's what we're talking about.
> The point isn't that there is a bunch of evidence against, the point is that there isn't enough evidence for the claim.
My point is that the evidence for is more substantial than the evidence against. And for repeated time, it seems that you have no rebuttal case. In a debate, silence from the rebuttal is a victory for the affirmative.
> Hmm? What more did you mention? Are you talking about actual evidence, like a thing we actually have? Extra text? Archaeological evidence? Because that's what I'm asking for.
Please engage the arguments. Your avoidance is getting glaring. You have no rebuttal facts, evidence, substantiation, or case. You seem, by what you've presented, to have an empty hand.
> "bigfoot" See what I'm saying?
It's impossible to prove a negative, because bigfoot doesn't exist. Jesus existed. That's a matter of historical record. His crucifixion is well-established in history. We know certain things about him, particularly that he was born shortly before the death of Herod. We know that he circulated in Galilee and Judea. John the Baptist is confirmable history. That Jesus was a miracle-worker is also possibly supported. His crucifixion is a settled matter. Now there's a claim of resurrection. There are evidences to go by. This is not at all like bigfoot. There's nothing in common.
Do you see what I'm saying?
> The take away is that I don't need an alternate explanation. Agreed?
No, not agreed. To not present rebuttal, any evidence to substantiate your belief, or a credible alternate explanation is a cop out. It's an admission that you have nothing to support what you think.
> "We have 4 texts, we're not sure who wrote them, they were written decades after the event, they conflict each other and it seems they plagiarized each other. This is clearly enough to convict." That doesn't sound like it'd hold up.
Of course it wouldn't hold up. I gave you much evidence to the contrary which is weightier than the evidence you gave. I would expect the jury to rule in favor of the greater evidence.
> The general claim is that the evidence is not good enough to warrant belief.
This is what you want to discuss? Great. Let the games begin. Give me you're affirmative.
> why do you feel that a mundane claim and a super super rare, supernatural miracle claim, should have the same standard of evidence for them?
OK, I'll start on this one.
OK, your turn: "Why do you feel that a mundane claim and a super super rare, supernatural miracle claim, should have the same standard of evidence for them?"
Do your own homework. If you really care, you'll do the work necessary.
> This isn't really the same as the resurrection of Jesus, right?
Jesus was physically dead for about 36 hours. It's the same if the person is really dead and they really come alive again. The difference between 8 hrs and 36 isn't meaning if the person is truly dead. Dead is dead.
> This also reeks of bias. Christianity today. Okay. This seems like the same level we have for bigfoot sightings, or alien sightings. This is enough for you?
The source of the reporting has nothing to do with the quality of the research. I heard there used to be awesome interviews in Playboy. Do we discredit it because PB was the publisher? Apparently not. It's the quality of the work that is the ground of our assessment, not the reporting media. Suppose Christianity Today published your latest posts on this forum. Would that invalidate anything you said? Of course not.
Please watch out for your own bias.
> You'll notice we don't accept miracle claims about those people. That's a huge difference.
You weren't talking about miracles, but instead about the quality and credibility of evidence, as if anything old was disregardable. Ya can't just move the goalposts. You were saying evidence then is different from evidence now. I said it's not: if it was true then, it's still true, even if we can't prove it anymore. Then I gave examples that we accept plenty of "old" evidence. Age doesn't change its truthfulness. That's what we're talking about.
> The point isn't that there is a bunch of evidence against, the point is that there isn't enough evidence for the claim.
My point is that the evidence for is more substantial than the evidence against. And for repeated time, it seems that you have no rebuttal case. In a debate, silence from the rebuttal is a victory for the affirmative.
> Hmm? What more did you mention? Are you talking about actual evidence, like a thing we actually have? Extra text? Archaeological evidence? Because that's what I'm asking for.
Please engage the arguments. Your avoidance is getting glaring. You have no rebuttal facts, evidence, substantiation, or case. You seem, by what you've presented, to have an empty hand.
> "bigfoot" See what I'm saying?
It's impossible to prove a negative, because bigfoot doesn't exist. Jesus existed. That's a matter of historical record. His crucifixion is well-established in history. We know certain things about him, particularly that he was born shortly before the death of Herod. We know that he circulated in Galilee and Judea. John the Baptist is confirmable history. That Jesus was a miracle-worker is also possibly supported. His crucifixion is a settled matter. Now there's a claim of resurrection. There are evidences to go by. This is not at all like bigfoot. There's nothing in common.
Do you see what I'm saying?
> The take away is that I don't need an alternate explanation. Agreed?
No, not agreed. To not present rebuttal, any evidence to substantiate your belief, or a credible alternate explanation is a cop out. It's an admission that you have nothing to support what you think.
> "We have 4 texts, we're not sure who wrote them, they were written decades after the event, they conflict each other and it seems they plagiarized each other. This is clearly enough to convict." That doesn't sound like it'd hold up.
Of course it wouldn't hold up. I gave you much evidence to the contrary which is weightier than the evidence you gave. I would expect the jury to rule in favor of the greater evidence.
> The general claim is that the evidence is not good enough to warrant belief.
This is what you want to discuss? Great. Let the games begin. Give me you're affirmative.
> why do you feel that a mundane claim and a super super rare, supernatural miracle claim, should have the same standard of evidence for them?
OK, I'll start on this one.
- Evidence is based on credibility and reliability, not on the size or quality of the subject at hand. Whether the ownership of a pet dog or that my dog drove me to the moon, the credibility of the evidence is based on being able to substantiate it from reliable, authoritative sources. The claim doesn't change the nature of what supports the claim.
- No matter what the subject matter ( a pet dog or an astronaut dog), evidence has to be evaluated for its strength or weakness. Even outrageous claims, if supported by strong evidence from reliable, authoritative sources can be supported as true or shown to be true.
- There are numerous types of evidence: material (physical), direct, circumstantial, testimonial, documentary, scientific, digital, and personal. Each type of evidence should be brought to bear regardless of the banality or rarity of the claim on the table. It's the weight of evidence that wins the case, not the mundanity or rareness of matter at hand.
- Both quantity and quality of evidence are important, regardless of the mundanity or rarity of the subject at hand.
- Regardless of the subject at hand, there are degrees of strength in a case: stronger than the opposition, beyond a reasonable doubt (plausibility), probability, and proof.
OK, your turn: "Why do you feel that a mundane claim and a super super rare, supernatural miracle claim, should have the same standard of evidence for them?"
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Blind faith isn’t okay.
by Orpheus » Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:38 pm
> Unless, of course, Jesus is God. Then it's fairly easy. So it depends more on one's evaluation of the deity of Jesus than any law of science.
Unless he wasn’t. Try to think of this entire thing without supernatural abilities, but resorting to “unless he was God” might show that it’s not possible. Either way, he wasn’t only the Son of God but also the Son of Man.
> Unless, of course, he was God. (2x)
Or if he wasn’t (much more likely). Either way, Jesus is a loving person and says to “Love thy neighbour”. So if he was God, then why wouldn’t he solve the problem of evil? Just as God doesn’t, it may be because he may not have had supernatural powers.
And not to sound rude again, but the fact that you are resorting to his supernatural claims rather than use science or logic may prove my point on blind faith once more.
> Not in the ancient world, the days of the Bible.
I don’t think you realise how wrong this can look.
Ancient Greece had laws and legal systems that were very much like today because they are the legal systems that inspired the ones we use today. Ancient Greek law consists of the laws and legal institutions of Ancient Greece. The existence of certain general principles of law is implied by the custom of settling a difference between two Greek states, or between members of a single state, by resorting to external arbitration.
Also Ancient Greece was the founder of Democracy. It also began and ended before Jesus was even born (323 BC).
This doesn’t include Mycenaean Greece as well (1600-1100 BC) and the periods after that until Classical Hellenic Greece.
Ancient Rome was also very similar and frankly more popular.
Unless he wasn’t. Try to think of this entire thing without supernatural abilities, but resorting to “unless he was God” might show that it’s not possible. Either way, he wasn’t only the Son of God but also the Son of Man.
> Unless, of course, he was God. (2x)
Or if he wasn’t (much more likely). Either way, Jesus is a loving person and says to “Love thy neighbour”. So if he was God, then why wouldn’t he solve the problem of evil? Just as God doesn’t, it may be because he may not have had supernatural powers.
And not to sound rude again, but the fact that you are resorting to his supernatural claims rather than use science or logic may prove my point on blind faith once more.
> Not in the ancient world, the days of the Bible.
I don’t think you realise how wrong this can look.
Ancient Greece had laws and legal systems that were very much like today because they are the legal systems that inspired the ones we use today. Ancient Greek law consists of the laws and legal institutions of Ancient Greece. The existence of certain general principles of law is implied by the custom of settling a difference between two Greek states, or between members of a single state, by resorting to external arbitration.
Also Ancient Greece was the founder of Democracy. It also began and ended before Jesus was even born (323 BC).
This doesn’t include Mycenaean Greece as well (1600-1100 BC) and the periods after that until Classical Hellenic Greece.
Ancient Rome was also very similar and frankly more popular.
- Orpheus
Re: Blind faith isn’t okay.
by jimwalton » Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:38 pm
> Unless he wasn’t. Try to think of this entire thing without supernatural abilities, but resorting to “u less he was God” might show that it’s not possible.
Right, Agreed. if Jesus wasn't God, if there are no supernatural abilities, then the whole show goes dark and the doors are closed and locked.
> Or if he wasn’t (much more likely).
You can't just toss this out without comment. You have to give a case. If it's "much more likely" that Jesus was not God, then substantiate your claim. "Much more likely" presumes research, thought, and a case. Please share it.
> I don’t think you realise how wrong this can look.
I don't care how it looks, what I care about is the facts, and the research.
> Ancient Greece had laws and legal systems that were very much like today because they are the legal systems that inspired the ones we use today.
I'm talking about ancient Israel, the ancient Near East. But even at that, jurisprudence by precedent (interpretation of previous legislation and courtroom cases) started not even in the Greek or Roman era. The Greeks and Romans perceived that law emanated from the gods as the source of rationality and reason. In The Greco-Roman era, law was understood as having the function fo providing moral foundation. They were more legislative than the ANE, but still legal wisdom. The idea of studying collections housed in books of previous cases, of "statutory law," and of using precedent to decide the present became standard consensus only in the late 19th century (though its roots are found in classical Greece). Ancient Greece and Rome were NOT, however, statutory law practitioners. This is a fairly recent development (think Abraham Lincoln and onward, though even Lincoln operated under a different system).
Right, Agreed. if Jesus wasn't God, if there are no supernatural abilities, then the whole show goes dark and the doors are closed and locked.
> Or if he wasn’t (much more likely).
You can't just toss this out without comment. You have to give a case. If it's "much more likely" that Jesus was not God, then substantiate your claim. "Much more likely" presumes research, thought, and a case. Please share it.
> I don’t think you realise how wrong this can look.
I don't care how it looks, what I care about is the facts, and the research.
> Ancient Greece had laws and legal systems that were very much like today because they are the legal systems that inspired the ones we use today.
I'm talking about ancient Israel, the ancient Near East. But even at that, jurisprudence by precedent (interpretation of previous legislation and courtroom cases) started not even in the Greek or Roman era. The Greeks and Romans perceived that law emanated from the gods as the source of rationality and reason. In The Greco-Roman era, law was understood as having the function fo providing moral foundation. They were more legislative than the ANE, but still legal wisdom. The idea of studying collections housed in books of previous cases, of "statutory law," and of using precedent to decide the present became standard consensus only in the late 19th century (though its roots are found in classical Greece). Ancient Greece and Rome were NOT, however, statutory law practitioners. This is a fairly recent development (think Abraham Lincoln and onward, though even Lincoln operated under a different system).
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Blind faith isn’t okay.
by Splash » Fri Aug 30, 2019 9:01 am
> This is completely false. Mark are Luke are two separate books in the anthology we call the Bible. Mark and Luke were written in separate locations, in different years, by different authors
Sure, but the jury is still out on who those authors were, and they were taken and compiled into a book by the Catholics "under the divine guidance of god". Plenty of writings from that time were also discarded because they didn't fit the narrative. They're chapters in a book, written with access to the previous writings. The character Mark is a Palestinian Jew. Please don't make the assumption that they were real when this hasn't been established.
> Thank you, but it's not really prerogative, but rather research.
No, it's prerogative. Research implies reading more than one book and having credible sources.
> One's station, belief, or profession doesn't automatically make him biased, or else we can't listen to stories of the Holocaust from Jews, the horrors of sexual abuse in the #MeToo movement from women, or anything about slavery from an African-American.
Here you go again making dishonest comparisons. I asked you for scientifically confirmed, modern day, human resurrections and all you could produce was a novel written by a Christian. Obviously, I am justified in dismissing this "evidence" on the grounds that A) it isn't what I asked for and B) it's an obviously biased source. I can easily corroborate claims by Jews that the holocaust occurred, or claims by African Americans that slavery occurred. There is no substantial evidence for a human resurrection, period.
> In other words, you won't accept evidence from the eyewitnesses, anyone close to the events, or anyone who was there.
Correction, I won't accept a single source that claims there were eyewitnesses, when none of the authors were alive at the time of the events, so the authors themselves were not eyewitnesses, nor could they possibly confirm that there were any.
> Have you studied this or looked into the historical record? At least some of them, Peter and Paul in particular, to name a few, are confirmed as historical characters.
Confirmed by whom? If you say Christian historians I'm going to dismiss this immediately.
> This is not true. It seems you haven't done your homework on many of these issues, which makes me wonder about your own bias. It appears that you've drawn conclusions before doing research.
I was raised Catholic, I've done plenty of research. Historians are similarly unconvinced that the apostles were in fact real people. Even if I grant you Peter and Paul, does that grant any validity to the remaining apostles? I think not.
In either case, we're getting majorly off course here. You've claimed that human resurrections still occur in the modern day and have yet to provide any proof of this in spite of being pressed to do so repeatedly. Please back up your claims or admit you were lying.
Sure, but the jury is still out on who those authors were, and they were taken and compiled into a book by the Catholics "under the divine guidance of god". Plenty of writings from that time were also discarded because they didn't fit the narrative. They're chapters in a book, written with access to the previous writings. The character Mark is a Palestinian Jew. Please don't make the assumption that they were real when this hasn't been established.
> Thank you, but it's not really prerogative, but rather research.
No, it's prerogative. Research implies reading more than one book and having credible sources.
> One's station, belief, or profession doesn't automatically make him biased, or else we can't listen to stories of the Holocaust from Jews, the horrors of sexual abuse in the #MeToo movement from women, or anything about slavery from an African-American.
Here you go again making dishonest comparisons. I asked you for scientifically confirmed, modern day, human resurrections and all you could produce was a novel written by a Christian. Obviously, I am justified in dismissing this "evidence" on the grounds that A) it isn't what I asked for and B) it's an obviously biased source. I can easily corroborate claims by Jews that the holocaust occurred, or claims by African Americans that slavery occurred. There is no substantial evidence for a human resurrection, period.
> In other words, you won't accept evidence from the eyewitnesses, anyone close to the events, or anyone who was there.
Correction, I won't accept a single source that claims there were eyewitnesses, when none of the authors were alive at the time of the events, so the authors themselves were not eyewitnesses, nor could they possibly confirm that there were any.
> Have you studied this or looked into the historical record? At least some of them, Peter and Paul in particular, to name a few, are confirmed as historical characters.
Confirmed by whom? If you say Christian historians I'm going to dismiss this immediately.
> This is not true. It seems you haven't done your homework on many of these issues, which makes me wonder about your own bias. It appears that you've drawn conclusions before doing research.
I was raised Catholic, I've done plenty of research. Historians are similarly unconvinced that the apostles were in fact real people. Even if I grant you Peter and Paul, does that grant any validity to the remaining apostles? I think not.
In either case, we're getting majorly off course here. You've claimed that human resurrections still occur in the modern day and have yet to provide any proof of this in spite of being pressed to do so repeatedly. Please back up your claims or admit you were lying.
- Splash
Re: Blind faith isn’t okay.
by jimwalton » Fri Aug 30, 2019 9:01 am
> the jury is still out on who those authors were
This is correct, but the weight of evidence is greatly in favor of the traditional authors. We can discuss the case for each one, if you wish.
> nd they were taken and compiled into a book by the Catholics "under the divine guidance of god".
This is incorrect. They were recognized as authoritative from the very beginning. There was never any doubt of their authenticity and their authority. The Catholic Church did't begin as a formalized institution until about the 4th or 5th centuries. The canon had been recognized before that. The Church didn't "compile" them, but merely rubber stamped what had been understood and recognized for centuries.
> Plenty of writings from that time were also discarded because they didn't fit the narrative.
This is incorrect. They were discarded because they weren't true and weren't authentically from the apostles or those who knew them.
> They're chapters in a book, written with access to the previous writings.
This is incorrect. They are separate books in an anthology. And of course they had access to previous writings.
> The character Mark is a Palestinian Jew. Please don't make the assumption that they were real when this hasn't been established.
The weight of evidence is largely in favor of Mark, the Palestinian Jew, possible acquaintance of Jesus, friend of the apostles, as author. I don't assume it; we follow the evidence where it leads, and that's where it leads. We can have this discussion if you wish.
> Research implies reading more than one book and having credible sources.
You have NO idea who I am, what I've read, and the depth and breadth of my research.
> If you say Christian historians I'm going to dismiss this immediately.
Your bias is palpable. Because someone is a Christian, their word is false? A Christian couldn't possibly be counted on to tell the truth about anything? Wow.
> Historians are similarly unconvinced that the apostles were in fact real people.
"Historians" is a comfortable cop-out. We can have this conversation about the apostles if you wish.
> You've claimed that human resurrections still occur in the modern day and have yet to provide any proof of this in spite of being pressed to do so repeatedly. Please back up your claims or admit you were lying.
Have you done the homework yourself, or is this bias at work again? Have you done any investigation of the claims yourself?
This is correct, but the weight of evidence is greatly in favor of the traditional authors. We can discuss the case for each one, if you wish.
> nd they were taken and compiled into a book by the Catholics "under the divine guidance of god".
This is incorrect. They were recognized as authoritative from the very beginning. There was never any doubt of their authenticity and their authority. The Catholic Church did't begin as a formalized institution until about the 4th or 5th centuries. The canon had been recognized before that. The Church didn't "compile" them, but merely rubber stamped what had been understood and recognized for centuries.
> Plenty of writings from that time were also discarded because they didn't fit the narrative.
This is incorrect. They were discarded because they weren't true and weren't authentically from the apostles or those who knew them.
> They're chapters in a book, written with access to the previous writings.
This is incorrect. They are separate books in an anthology. And of course they had access to previous writings.
> The character Mark is a Palestinian Jew. Please don't make the assumption that they were real when this hasn't been established.
The weight of evidence is largely in favor of Mark, the Palestinian Jew, possible acquaintance of Jesus, friend of the apostles, as author. I don't assume it; we follow the evidence where it leads, and that's where it leads. We can have this discussion if you wish.
> Research implies reading more than one book and having credible sources.
You have NO idea who I am, what I've read, and the depth and breadth of my research.
> If you say Christian historians I'm going to dismiss this immediately.
Your bias is palpable. Because someone is a Christian, their word is false? A Christian couldn't possibly be counted on to tell the truth about anything? Wow.
> Historians are similarly unconvinced that the apostles were in fact real people.
"Historians" is a comfortable cop-out. We can have this conversation about the apostles if you wish.
> You've claimed that human resurrections still occur in the modern day and have yet to provide any proof of this in spite of being pressed to do so repeatedly. Please back up your claims or admit you were lying.
Have you done the homework yourself, or is this bias at work again? Have you done any investigation of the claims yourself?
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Blind faith isn’t okay.
by Not Clever Enough » Fri Aug 30, 2019 9:29 am
> Do your own homework. If you really care, you'll do the work necessary.
cool, so you refuse to justify your statement. Got it. you've presented no reason to believe resurrections occur.
> The source of the reporting has nothing to do with the quality of the research.
Which, given the author's own admissions, doesn't seem like its the best quality.
> You weren't talking about miracles, but instead about the quality and credibility of evidence, as if anything old was disregardable.
We should hold the evidence for a resurrection claim to a higher standard than a claim that some person had a pet dog, for example.
And again, I do not hold the position that anything old is disregardable.
> Ya can't just move the goalposts.
I'm not moving goal posts, we haven't talked about this. We're coming at it from different angles. Evidence needs to be enough to justify the claim that we're talking about. The claim we're talking about needs better evidence than the claim that some guy wrote a book, for example.
> You were saying evidence then is different from evidence now. I said it's not: if it was true then, it's still true, even if we can't prove it anymore.
it it was true then, its still true. Completely agreed. But we don't have access to what they had access to back then. The evidence is different between what we have and what they had. We don't have access to what we don't have access to.
we do not have access to the ultimate truth of the matter. We have access to the available evidence that we can look at right now.
That's all we got.
> Then I gave examples that we accept plenty of "old" evidence. Age doesn't change its truthfulness. That's what we're talking about.
then we were talking passed each other. I was talking about the quality of the evidence that we do have. Its weak. If they had other evidence, that's great. But I have no access to that. I can't make decisions based on evidence that I don't have. I can only use what I have.
> My point is that the evidence for is more substantial than the evidence against. And for repeated time, it seems that you have no rebuttal case. In a debate, silence from the rebuttal is a victory for the affirmative.
you were complaining that nobody seems to provide evidence against, I explained why this makes no sense, I used bigfoot as an example.
The question is if we have enough evidence to believe the claim. We do not.
> Please engage the arguments. Your avoidance is getting glaring. You have no rebuttal facts, evidence, substantiation, or case. You seem, by what you've presented, to have an empty hand.
What are you looking for? What evidence would prove bigfoot doesn't exist? You have a fundamental misunderstanding here.
> > It's impossible to prove a negative, because bigfoot doesn't exist. Jesus existed. That's a matter of historical record. His crucifixion is well-established in history. We know certain things about him, particularly that he was born shortly before the death of Herod. We know that he circulated in Galilee and Judea. John the Baptist is confirmable history. That Jesus was a miracle-worker is also possibly supported. His crucifixion is a settled matter. Now there's a claim of resurrection. There are evidences to go by. This is not at all like bigfoot. There's nothing in common.
> Do you see what I'm saying?
Yup, you're completely missing the point. Again, the question isn't if there is evidence against the claim. The question is if the claim has enough evidence for it. We have no evidence against bigfoot. Zero. There is none.
You have completely missed the point.
"all these people who say bigfoot isn't real, what is the evidence against? I don't see any!".
That's the same thing you're doing. There is no evidence against bigfoot. that's not how it works. This is a misunderstanding. You suffer from the same misunderstanding.
> No, not agreed. To not present rebuttal, any evidence to substantiate your belief, or a credible alternate explanation is a cop out. It's an admission that you have nothing to support what you think.
Okay, I mean you're just wrong here. I tried to show you that by bringing up the fact that we do not expect a defendant to offer an alternate person to blame. We don't. A claim stands or falls on its own, regardless of competing claims. We do not expect a defendant to not only show that there isn't enough evidence against him, but to also go out and find the real criminal. That's just not how it works.
> Of course it wouldn't hold up. I gave you much evidence to the contrary which is weightier than the evidence you gave. I would expect the jury to rule in favor of the greater evidence.
In my previous comment I asked you to tell me what else we have. We have 4 texts, the gospels. What else would you like to enter into the record? I'm not asking for speculation or claims based on those texts, I'm asking for more text, archaeological evidence, whatever you have that's actually evidence.
Or is it just the 4 gospels? Do you have other text, some archaeological evidence, or what?
> This is what you want to discuss? Great. Let the games begin. Give me you're affirmative.
The 4 gospels are too weak to justify the claim that a resurrection occurred.
> OK, I'll start on this one.
nothing you said actually addressed the question. Maybe we should start with just the yes or no here, what is your view? Do you accept that a person has a pet dog just as easily as a claim that a person made a pen float in the air for 30 minutes?
I do not. I require more for one of those claims than the other. How about you?
Please start with actually answering the question. Do you require more evidence for some claims than others? Yes, or no?
>OK, your turn: "Why do you feel that a mundane claim and a super super rare, supernatural miracle claim, should have the same standard of evidence for them?"
I don't. I think one should be held to a higher standard. We should require more to believe one than the other.
Do you agree?
cool, so you refuse to justify your statement. Got it. you've presented no reason to believe resurrections occur.
> The source of the reporting has nothing to do with the quality of the research.
Which, given the author's own admissions, doesn't seem like its the best quality.
> You weren't talking about miracles, but instead about the quality and credibility of evidence, as if anything old was disregardable.
We should hold the evidence for a resurrection claim to a higher standard than a claim that some person had a pet dog, for example.
And again, I do not hold the position that anything old is disregardable.
> Ya can't just move the goalposts.
I'm not moving goal posts, we haven't talked about this. We're coming at it from different angles. Evidence needs to be enough to justify the claim that we're talking about. The claim we're talking about needs better evidence than the claim that some guy wrote a book, for example.
> You were saying evidence then is different from evidence now. I said it's not: if it was true then, it's still true, even if we can't prove it anymore.
it it was true then, its still true. Completely agreed. But we don't have access to what they had access to back then. The evidence is different between what we have and what they had. We don't have access to what we don't have access to.
we do not have access to the ultimate truth of the matter. We have access to the available evidence that we can look at right now.
That's all we got.
> Then I gave examples that we accept plenty of "old" evidence. Age doesn't change its truthfulness. That's what we're talking about.
then we were talking passed each other. I was talking about the quality of the evidence that we do have. Its weak. If they had other evidence, that's great. But I have no access to that. I can't make decisions based on evidence that I don't have. I can only use what I have.
> My point is that the evidence for is more substantial than the evidence against. And for repeated time, it seems that you have no rebuttal case. In a debate, silence from the rebuttal is a victory for the affirmative.
you were complaining that nobody seems to provide evidence against, I explained why this makes no sense, I used bigfoot as an example.
The question is if we have enough evidence to believe the claim. We do not.
> Please engage the arguments. Your avoidance is getting glaring. You have no rebuttal facts, evidence, substantiation, or case. You seem, by what you've presented, to have an empty hand.
What are you looking for? What evidence would prove bigfoot doesn't exist? You have a fundamental misunderstanding here.
> > It's impossible to prove a negative, because bigfoot doesn't exist. Jesus existed. That's a matter of historical record. His crucifixion is well-established in history. We know certain things about him, particularly that he was born shortly before the death of Herod. We know that he circulated in Galilee and Judea. John the Baptist is confirmable history. That Jesus was a miracle-worker is also possibly supported. His crucifixion is a settled matter. Now there's a claim of resurrection. There are evidences to go by. This is not at all like bigfoot. There's nothing in common.
> Do you see what I'm saying?
Yup, you're completely missing the point. Again, the question isn't if there is evidence against the claim. The question is if the claim has enough evidence for it. We have no evidence against bigfoot. Zero. There is none.
You have completely missed the point.
"all these people who say bigfoot isn't real, what is the evidence against? I don't see any!".
That's the same thing you're doing. There is no evidence against bigfoot. that's not how it works. This is a misunderstanding. You suffer from the same misunderstanding.
> No, not agreed. To not present rebuttal, any evidence to substantiate your belief, or a credible alternate explanation is a cop out. It's an admission that you have nothing to support what you think.
Okay, I mean you're just wrong here. I tried to show you that by bringing up the fact that we do not expect a defendant to offer an alternate person to blame. We don't. A claim stands or falls on its own, regardless of competing claims. We do not expect a defendant to not only show that there isn't enough evidence against him, but to also go out and find the real criminal. That's just not how it works.
> Of course it wouldn't hold up. I gave you much evidence to the contrary which is weightier than the evidence you gave. I would expect the jury to rule in favor of the greater evidence.
In my previous comment I asked you to tell me what else we have. We have 4 texts, the gospels. What else would you like to enter into the record? I'm not asking for speculation or claims based on those texts, I'm asking for more text, archaeological evidence, whatever you have that's actually evidence.
Or is it just the 4 gospels? Do you have other text, some archaeological evidence, or what?
> This is what you want to discuss? Great. Let the games begin. Give me you're affirmative.
The 4 gospels are too weak to justify the claim that a resurrection occurred.
> OK, I'll start on this one.
nothing you said actually addressed the question. Maybe we should start with just the yes or no here, what is your view? Do you accept that a person has a pet dog just as easily as a claim that a person made a pen float in the air for 30 minutes?
I do not. I require more for one of those claims than the other. How about you?
Please start with actually answering the question. Do you require more evidence for some claims than others? Yes, or no?
>OK, your turn: "Why do you feel that a mundane claim and a super super rare, supernatural miracle claim, should have the same standard of evidence for them?"
I don't. I think one should be held to a higher standard. We should require more to believe one than the other.
Do you agree?
- Not Clever Enough
Re: Blind faith isn’t okay.
by Orpheus » Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:09 am
> You can't just toss this out without comment. You have to give a case. If it's "much more likely" that Jesus was not God, then substantiate your claim. "Much more likely" presumes research, thought, and a case. Please share it.
What case is there? You even admitted that without supernatural cause and effects, Jesus and what he did, including the cj felt of miracles, couldn’t even be possible. Supernatural things cannot happen in the world of logic or reason, our world. And like I’ve said before, it just proves how some blindly follow it without putting up a solid case. My case is that it’s utterly impossible for some person to be the son of a supposedly perfect, omni-everything God (who has many fallacies including the Problem of Evil) to be that Son. God cannot exist because logic and basic reason prohibits him to, because how can a perfect God do imperfect things?
> (though its roots are found in classical Greece)
That’s the point I was getting at. You claimed they didn’t exist in ancient times before the time of Jesus and the Bible, but if the roots are traced back to Classical Greece (as I was trying to prove), then it did exist, albeit in its simplest form.
> Ancient Greece and Rome were NOT, however, statutory law practitioners.
Okay so I researched on the subject and yeah you’re right XD
What case is there? You even admitted that without supernatural cause and effects, Jesus and what he did, including the cj felt of miracles, couldn’t even be possible. Supernatural things cannot happen in the world of logic or reason, our world. And like I’ve said before, it just proves how some blindly follow it without putting up a solid case. My case is that it’s utterly impossible for some person to be the son of a supposedly perfect, omni-everything God (who has many fallacies including the Problem of Evil) to be that Son. God cannot exist because logic and basic reason prohibits him to, because how can a perfect God do imperfect things?
> (though its roots are found in classical Greece)
That’s the point I was getting at. You claimed they didn’t exist in ancient times before the time of Jesus and the Bible, but if the roots are traced back to Classical Greece (as I was trying to prove), then it did exist, albeit in its simplest form.
> Ancient Greece and Rome were NOT, however, statutory law practitioners.
Okay so I researched on the subject and yeah you’re right XD
- Orpheus
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest