jgoodguy

One could take Hume's view point and not argue if the Supernatural or Supernaturalism exists, but ask how credible a report would be. If a supernatural event is less probable than any natural event, then false or inaccurate reporting is more likely than the event itself. In short the 'noise' of false or inaccurate reports drowns out the supernatural. If the supernatural cannot be reported creditably, then there is no way to detect it. If it cannot be detected, then it is mote if it exists or not.

aa5874

Ok, I understand.

You are the "Prophetic historian". You are the one who thinks that somehow history is prophecy.

davidstarlingm

I think that adding "-ism" implies a practice of attributing events to divine agency. I am reminded of the "supernaturalists" of Houdini's day that were convinced of spirit writing, mediums, and whatnot.

It is one thing to "believe in the supernatural" -- it means you are willing to consider the possibility of divine agency. It is another thing entirely to "believe in supernaturalism" -- that means you assume supernatural agency is involved in basically everything unless thoroughly convinced otherwise.

Even if it were true, supernaturalism is a pretty useless approach, because it explicitly impeaches any attempt at experimental rigor or deduction. Considering the possibility of divine agency with respect to a particular event, on the other hand, does not require that you eschew rigor or critical analysis; in fact, it invites critical analysis.

Consider the following. If an individual claims divine identity, predicts that he will be murdered, and claims that he will raise himself from the dead as evidence of the veracity of his claims of divinity (among other reasons)....

....and this individual is executed, appears very much dead for some time, and then his well-guarded tomb becomes empty under mysterious circumstances, and suddenly hundreds of former skeptics swear that they saw him alive and spoke with him and touched him....

If all these things happened, is it horribly foolhardy to consider the remote possibility of divine agency? I don't think so. You need not sacrifice rigor or skepticism or criticism. It is just a question of whether the evidence is best explained by the individual's own predictions and explanations, or by some other set of wildly complicated ad hoc speculations.

That, I think, is the difference between "believing in supernaturalism" and "believing in the supernatural". Make sense?

Toto

Okay, this is a valid distinction.

Well put.

This is where we start to disagree. Being open to the possibility of divine agency, other than just to consider a hypothetical argument, is usually a code for suspending at least part of your critical facilities.

Is there any explanation, however wildly complicated and ad hoc, that is not at least an order of magnitude more probable than the conclusion that this individual violated the laws of nature by rising from the dead?

Even that bizarre theory, that Jesus had a twin who was separated at birth and people mistook him for the risen Jesus, is more probable than a resurrection. A stolen or removed body is a more probable explanation of the empty tomb, even if you could show that there was an empty tomb, which you can't.

Consider your points:

If an individual claims divine identity, predicts that he will be murdered, and claims that he will raise himself from the dead as evidence of the veracity of his claims of divinity (among other reasons) and this individual is executed, appears very much dead for some time, and then his well-guarded tomb becomes empty under mysterious circumstances, and suddenly hundreds of former skeptics swear that they saw him alive and spoke with him and touched him.

In the first place, you have no evidence of any of this happening except for poorly preserved, inconsistent ancient documents. What are the relative probabilities of fictional documents versus rising from the dead? Fictional document wins hands down.

And I can add that you have not even accurately described those documents or their claims. Even assuming that Jesus did claim divine identity or predict his resurrection, is there a clear indication of him being "very much dead?" Why does only one inconsistent source mention guards at the tomb?

And there is no indication of hundreds of former skeptics who swore that they saw him alive and spoke to him. In the gospels, Jesus only appears to believers, and in most cases, only spiritually (the best interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15). Only a few of his followers, in one of those inconsistent gospels, are portrayed as touching him.

Best explanation: the gospels are theological stories of no particular historical value.

It sounds like you have read William Lane Craig's six part argument for historicity. Craig is a slick debater, but his arguments are falacious.

maryhelena

igsfly:igsfly:igsfly:

maryhelena

Nice try - but as the saying goes, no cigar....:wave2:
Big *if*, is it not? A rumor, an urban legend, about a nobody criminal publicly crucified by Pilate in far away Jerusalem and his followers telling tall tales that he is still alive - and Philo finds an interest in such a story for his mocking of Agrippa I, with the stand-in Carabbus - when he has the real deal, the historical crucifixion, scourging and beheading, and insulting and mocking of Antigonus, to hand. An emotionally charged killing of the last King of the Jews verse an unknown nobody crucified carpenter whose followers are telling ridiculous stories....Remember the family connection to Agrippa I - Philo's nephew at one time married, according to Josephus, to a daughter of Agrippa I. Hasmonean/Herodian history is much closer to home for Philo than tall stories about a nobody crucified carpenter....

Agrippa I is the first King carrying Hasmonean blood since Antigonus - hence the connection with Antigonus and what befell Antigonus - is reflected, by Philo, in the Carabbas mocking story. That rumored carpenter from Nazareth, or wherever, is no competition to this far bigger, and more relevant, historical drama.

Oh, just thought about that strange reference of Philo - Agrippa I a Syrian. Strange. However, if one goes back to Antigonus - it was in Antioch that he was killed. That 'Syrian' bloodline, Hasmonean blood, that was spilled in Syrian Antioch is running through the veins of Agrippa I...
Sure, present the evidence and I'll consider it - but its been nearly 30 years since I decided for the ahistoricist/mythicist position - and I've seen nothing in these years that has been able to challenge that position.

yalla

If there was not a historical Yeshua Nazreth who was beaten and crucified by Pilate's men at the request of the Jewish authorities around 30 AD, then Philo could not have incorporated anecdotal reports of this event into his alleged part-myth, part-history account of Flaccus. Since it seems increasingly likely that the Markan account borrowed from Philo, this is one possible explanation for the similarities between the accounts. Of course, coincidence is less likely an explanation, since the similarities depart from the generic, which have not, in any case actually been presented.
Of course its easy to write speculatively, one only needs to speculate and then conclude the speculation proven, albeit by nothing, to present evidence for a proposition is more difficult.
If is a great little word, isn't it?

maryhelena

Indeed *if* is a great little word - words both ways does it not?

If there was a historical JC - therefore......

If there was not a historical JC = therefore....

I, personally, find that the *therefore* to be far more interesting in connection with the ahistoricists position. A scenario dealing with a nobody carpenter that was crucified is a scenario that is inherently unable to be substantiated historically. That is a losing option for any attempt to understand the history of early christian origins.

The ahistoricists position opens up the field of inquiry and therefore has the potential to generate ideas that can move along the inquiry into early christian origins.

jgoodguy

A 'nobody Jesus' is one option. A Jesus whose 'real' historical identity was suppressed say a Jesus that was a rebel against Rome and whose family and followers created a movement that was opposed to Gentile Christianity is another. I suggest that a HJ that has no connection to Gentile Christianity has only marginal usefulness in determining how Gentile Christianity developed.

In summary, there are 2 flavors of early Christianity-Jewish and Gentile. The Jewish flavor with several possible HJs is a evolutionary dead end because of strict adherence to the Old Testament. Without the limiting factor of an existing scripture, the Gentile flavor had a 'Cambrian explosion' that lasted until one 'species'-the othodox- dominated.

It is that 'Cambrian explosion' that has interest.

mountainman

The explosion was Nicaean, and represents a boundary event in human civilisation.