Nomad

I would treat the Iliad as evidence of what Homer believed about the existence of Apollo and other supernatural beings described in his works. As for evidence of the actual existence of such beings, I do not think that he claimed to have witnessed such things himself, so I would be less inclined to grant this (it has been a long time since I read Homer, so I may be mistaken here).

Nice to meet you NOGO.

Nomad

Nomad

Gad, lots of assertions here. First, Paul tells us the names of Cephas and James, Jesus' brother, both presumably still alive (at least according to all evidence we have available to us). He also lists the Twelve, and presumably these individuals did have names and were known to some of Paul's readers. Finally, Paul "asserts" the existence of the 500 without "proof" because it is not really a big point. If I tell you that hundreds of people belong to my church, I would hope that you would not demand "proof" of this claim. If you do, I would have to say that you are a very odd fellow, and would decline to make the effort. If you wish to be that sceptical, then I can say is do as you wish.

My point remains, Paul is offering evidence by his testimony of the existence of these people. That is how we come to know about virtually every person who ever exists. We read accounts given by contemporaries. If you have evidence that Paul is lying, then please offer it. If you do not, then have a good day, but I am not about to waste any more time with you on this subject.

Finally, if I may, I no of no reasonable argument that questions the authenticity of 1 Corinthians and its attribution to Paul. The internal evidence alone is prima facie in favour of this claim. So again I am forced to wonder at your apparent need for hyper scepticism in this matter. Do you have some evidence that can cast doubt on Paul's authorship of 1 Corinthians?

Pause, should I begin my posts to you with if you are not lying for the cause of your atheism....?

As I asked Omnedon, do not be obsurd max.

I am prepared to discuss this possibility. What makes you think he was mistaken? (assuming you have a reason, of course). What I am not prepared to conceed is the idea that Paul is not offering any evidence at all, and I hope you are not making such a claim.

And if your sources have not lied to you...

Please, no more silliness.

Please forgive my scepticism about your claims max. I simply do not believe that anything will cause you to consider the evidence as being acceptable. That said, I am not really interested in your acceptance of the evidence, only the admission that it happens to be evidence.

As I have said max, I am not asking you to accept the evidence. I am asking you to admit that it is evidence however. If you do that much, then I am content. Unfortunately, based on your continued insistence that you have no evidence is not a cause for optimism on this point. Your mind is obviously quite closed, and while that is unfortunate, I will not delude myself as to my ability to open it.

Nomad

Family Man

One more point I wish to make. What I'm trying to get across here is that Nomad may talk the talk, but he doesn't walk the walk. Consider the quote he gave us above [emphasis is mine]

Nomad wishes us to think we can rely on Paul's testimony to establish that Jesus appeared to 500 witnesses after his death. But, as Manson said, we are only getting the outline of Jesus's career; not the specifics. And if you've read Grant, you'd know he rejects specific stories about Jesus -- for example, the birth narratives.

In short, what this does is to demonstrate, again, that Nomad is unwilling to abide by the methodology used by the very scholars he quotes. I've read Grant, Brown, Sanders. I am mostly in agreement with the mainstream opinion that they represent about the historicity of Jesus and what we can know about them. None of them, as far as I know, would give any credit to the 500 witnesses as being a reliable, historical fact. As Michael correctly points out, it is evidence, but only of what the early Christians believed -- not what actually happened.

Nomad

More straw men from Dennis. I see he did not get my point, and insists on pressing his to the end. As I said before, I am disappointed, but not surprised by this.

No, the questions are,

a) is what Paul says evidence, and clearly it is
b) do I have a double standard as to what constitutes evidence, and clearly I do not

I do not think that one needs to have very much faith to believe that Cephas and James existed, and that Paul was testifying to this. Nor do I think that it is a stretch that he knew of the Twelve. Finally, I accept that he knew of 500 hundred other witnesses, and that this is hardly an extraordinary claim, and therefore requires very little supporting evidence.

Actually, the claim is not unspecified. I showed your double standard in this very thread, as well as in our original discussion. Your continued confusion of the difference between evidence, and the evaluation of evidence is still very apparent, and increasingly embarrassing for you. More on this below.

I have ignored nothing Dennis, but I am not going to wade through all the ad hominem you can drum up to see if you can make an argument. I make no inferences, I have told you what I consider to be evidence, and told you further the criteria by which I evaluate evidence. That you continue to have a problem with me is a bit of a puzzle, but this is a free discussion board, and you are certainly able and willing to attack me. As I am a big boy, I will take care of myself, but I would hope you would have something more substantive to talk about in the future than your desire to build straw men and create red herrings.

Well, Michael Grant, whom you quote yourself, tells us that the Gospels are evidence. Donald Akenson, another atheist and professional historian tells us that Paul's testimony is evidence. J.P. Meier and Raymond Brown do likewise. So your obsession with what you see as a fault in me is quite a puzzle. Why is it a sin for me to accept the same evidence as do these respected historians?

Since I have not claimed that they are an historical fact, but merely that Paul offers evidence by means of testimony that they exist, I will again ask you to stop with the straw men arguments. They are quite tiresome.

Interestingly, in 1941-44, until camps were actually being liberated, many did not believe the Holocaust was real. In any case, you have yet again missed my point. I told you that the first witnesses were biased Jews, yet their testimony was true. Bias is not a reason to reject testimonial evidence, though it is a good reason for judging it with a sceptical eye, and demanding further evidence.

Actually, we have the fact that Churches were established all over the Eastern Empire in places like Jerusalem, Antioch, and also in Rome, all without the benefit of Paul's teachings. On this basis it is reasonable to assume that a group of people helped to spread this religion to so many places, and saying that the total number amounted to 500 or so is not beyond the realm of possibility. I wonder why you need to be so sceptical on such a mundane point.

Of course, I didn't compare the two events, but rather how the first evidence we had for both events came from biased sources. Unfortunately, in your zeal to attack me, you missed the point completely. My suggestion is that you calm yourself and think about your arguments before you offer them.

Now we move to an area I consider to be perfectly legitimate, the evaluation of evidence. But before we can get to that point, we must both agree as to what constitutes actual evidence, and you are not there yet. When you are, let me know please.

Agreed.

Agreed.

No, we have the further evidence of a widespread Church that rapidly established itself within a few years of the death of its founder. Obviously a large number of individuals were involved in this effort, and in the cases of the three largest Churches (Jerusalem, Antioch and Rome), Paul was not the founder of any of them. Was the final total of witnesses 500? Perhaps not, but we have no solid evidenciary reason to question this non-extraordinary claim.

His claim on the existence of James, Cephas and the Twelve does not appear to be in dispute, not even by you. The addition of 500 more individuals may be an exaggeration, but I see no reason to treat it as that automatically.

Finally, as Paul says very simply that many of these people are still alive, his claim is subject to verification by his readers. I know that you happen to think that the ancients happen to be gullible twits, but then, you have also admitted that moderns are as well, so this is hardly interesting. Suffice to say, I doubt that none of Paul's readers bothered to try and meet at least one or more of these other witnesses, especially as Paul gives no indication that they are in hiding, or otherwise unavailable for questioning. Given the success of their mission in spreading the Gospel I would say that they were probably pretty public in their claims.

It is not beyond human experience to claim 500 witnesses to an event you also claim to have witnessed. The truth of the claim is a separate issue, and should not be confused with the non-extraordinary claim.

There is no need to accept Jesus in order to accept that there were many witnesses to His claimed Resurrection.

Please stop inferring, and start asking me what I believe. If you will do me this courtesy, then you will actually learn what I beleive. It is neither painful nor difficult to ask a question, and it is far more polite than trying to assume or presume another's beliefs.

Look up again, and read my posts, not only to you, but also to others on this thread.

I am hoping that your reading skills will improve from this point on Dennis. I clearly told you that Paul was biased, and that the first witnesses to the Holocaust were biased. I see no reason to reject the testimony of either merely because of this obvious bias.

Some day you will cease with the straw men, and actually respond to what I write. You will also stop inferring what I mean, and start asking me directly. You still have refused to do this of course, but I am an optimist.

Have you read Akenson? Did you read my quote from Grant? I use their standards, and this is why I quoted them. Both are highly respected historians, and I see no reason to reject their rules, nor their belief in what constitutes evidence for historical inquiry. I will note for the record, that you conveniently ignored Akenson's three types of evidence. Why is that?

Still more confusion on your part. Paul's testimony as the the existence of Cephas, James, the Twelve and the 500 is historical evidence. You have done nothing to dispute this truth, though you have presented your reasons for rejecting the historicity of the 500. I assume, based on your silence on thes others,that you do accept his testimony on the other individuals. Am I correct in this assumption?

In any event, attack me as you wish Dennis. When I see sceptics using double standards, I will show it, and offer my evidence. You clearly can try to do the same with me. All of that said, I still think it would be more productive, not to mention more polite, to merely ask me a direct question when you wish to know what I believe or think. The clear absense of even a single question directed at me in this thread (including the post I am responding to right now) demonstrates that you still have little or no desire to learn my beliefs. My suggestion is that you give it a try.

Nomad

Nomad

Still no questions for me Dennis? Is it really that hard?

And if you had read my own posts, or better yet, asked me directly, you would find out what I believe may or may not be historical about Jesus. You will do this eventually I hope.

BTW, you neglected to mention that Grant happens to accept a good deal of what the Gospels have to say about the historical Jesus. Of course, he said that in the quote I offered, but I wanted to emphasize this fact once again.

Quite honestly Dennis, I am tired of listening to you accuse me of this, even as you refuse to ask me what I think it historical. Do that and we can get past your personal attacks against me and discuss my actual beliefs.

In varying degrees so am I, but I offer this only as a teaser in the hopes that you will ask for specifics.

Since I have not called it an historical fact either, why are you attacking this straw man? (in THREE posts now, no less, in spite of my warnings).

Thank you for calling it evidence. That has been my point all along of course. It only took 5 pages to get there I suppose (3 of which were written before I returned from my holiday).

Nomad

faded_Glory

I think these dicsussions could be a lot shorter and more to the point if, instead of talking about'evidence', people would talk about 'evidence for xxx'.

The way I see it, the fact that Paul writes that there were 500 witnesses to a resurrection, is evidence that Paul felt the need to make this claim. In itself it doesn't provide evidence that there were indeed 500 people that saw such an event.

After all, I can write here that there are dozens of people that saw an alien spacecraft crash at Roswell.

Does this claim in itself, without any further backup, provide evidence for the existence of these people, let alone such an alien spacecraft?

fG

Nomad

If you said that James and Peter (friends of yours), as well as twelve leaders in the group you share with me also saw this alien, THEN told me that 500 other members of this same group saw them, then I would call it evidence that ALL of these people existed. Now, personally, would I ask them what they saw? Yes. And I suspect that at least one or two other Corithians would have done the very same thing.

Quite honestly I do not understand the lack of understanding of what constitutes "evidence". The definition is clear and simple, and I am more than happy to apply it to many things, including things that I do not believe are true. This is why the charge of me having a double standard on this question is ridiculous on the face of it.

Claims provide evidence of what people believe, as well as other mundane matters.

If I say that 500 people witnessed an event, both claims may be false, one may be false, or both may be true. It is fallacious reasoning to doubt that the event happened, then use that to automatically reject my claim that 500 other people share my belief, and witnessed that same event. Each claim must be evaluated on its own merits.

(A further aside, but it is equally fallacious to reject an evidentiary claim based on one's philosophical outlook. That is why I said that many reject evidence not because the evidence is bad, but because their presuppositions are offended by the claim itself. Witness max's rejection of all evidence under all circumstances as an example of this kind of poor reasoning).

What we have here is a serious confusion on the part of a number of sceptics. On the one hand, they think that Paul's testimony to the Resurrection is bollucks. That is cool. I don't mind talking about the quality of his evidence and supports. But to then transfer that legitimate scepticism of the event (the Res.) to the outright rejection any and all other evidentiary claims made by Paul is absurd. Subtle reasoning requires us to be more discerning than this.

Nomad

[ January 05, 2002: Message edited by: Nomad ]</p>

Vorkosigan

A further aside, but it is equally fallacious to reject an evidentiary claim based on one's philosophical outlook.

Nice try, Nomad. Nobody rejects miracles based on a "philosophical outlook," but because 500 years of western science has disconfirmed their possibility. It is not a philosophical preference, but an empirical fact (confirmed by all human experience) that dead people do not rise. Paul's claim cannot be evidence for an event that cannot occur, though it may well be evidence for some other event, although it is pretty obvious, at least to me, that Paul is simply inventing this claim out of thin air.

Michael

faded_Glory

Nomad,

But this is exactly what happened in the Roswell case! There are several 'witnesses' who claim to know people that saw aliens first hand, and the list of people directly involved in the incident, and who claim that they have witnessed the crash of an alien spacecraft is more than 20. And they are named people, many of which know each other (if you're interested, a link is <a href="http://www.thelosthaven.co.uk/TestimonyRos.html" target="_blank">here</a>).

And it goes further. I don't have to tell you how many people in the U.S. alone believe that there are aliens out there, and who base this belief on incidents like Roswell. This belief has spread wide and fast (several decades at most) - doesn't it remind you of something?

So, do you think all of this is evidence for the existence of aliens?

fG

[ January 05, 2002: Message edited by: faded_Glory ]</p>

Sauron

It is not bizarre logic. It is an obvious truth that people with agendas and truths to prove have lied in order to gain acceptance for their beliefs. The historical examples of this are too numerous to count. The fact that you refuse to consider the possibility when dealing with sources friendly to your cause only illustrates the double-standard under which you operate. Perhaps because you know that you are unprepared to refute that possibility, you try this little reductio ad absurdiem above.

And in what, precisely, would I be lying? By stating that people lied before? If you think that statement is a lie, then by all means: test it.

Indeed. You should take your own advice.


You have misunderstood what I said, most probably deliberately. The unprovable claim that I referenced is the claim that 500 people saw such-and-such an event (the resurrection, the physical appearance of Christ, etc.). Given the fact that there is no evidence except for a stray reference in Paul's writing - that, and absolutely nothing else - that claim is an unprovable claim.

I see that we agree the evidence is scant or non-existent. Having someone who knew them, or other writings by them, or other such evidence would be much better.

But alas, we have none of that. And that is simply unfortunate for you; too bad you couldn't have done better. But (and here is the crux of the matter) it also does not mean that we must accept the scant, poor evidence by default, which apparently is what you believe. It is quite the opposite. Considering the nature of the claims we are dealing with, nothing less than a substantial amount of high-quality evidence will suffice.


Strawman, Nomad.

I demand proof for the existence of 500 people who claim to have seen:
1. a scientifically impossible event; when there is
2. no first hand evidence exists for the event; and when
3. no other proof exists that these 500 people were ever born



Again we see Nomad trying to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic. Unfortunately for poor Nomad, it does not work that way.

You seem to think that whenever evidence is poor, we must give the most generous interpretation possible to the evidence. You throw up your hands and say, "Sorry; that's all the evidence we have to go on. No go make your conclusions from it." But the fact that the evidence is scarce, flawed, and insufficient for the uses you try to employ it for; well, that is actually my point.

You don't argue with assertions? My dear Nomad, your entire position is composed of assertions. You admit yourself that the evidence is weak and scant. But that level of evidence is insufficient for the magnitude of the claims you want to attach to it.

So when you have the necessary level of evidence to support such fantastic claims, then come back. But so far, all you have done is said, "This is all the evidence that the documents give us; we have to make our judgements based upon it." You have made a virtue of the paucity of evidence for your position, and asked us to elevate the weakest possible evidence and allow it to satisfy the bar for a truly supernatural event.

Who do you think you're kidding.

Yes, you are. You are talking about 500 people who claimed to have seen a supernatural event.

I am not confused. I am simply not permitting you to create a distinction where none exists. You cannot separate the two claims. They way it is presented is that "500 people saw the event". If the event is impossible, then perhaps the audience of 500 people did not exist.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. We have zero evidence for the existence of the 500 in the first place;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See what I mean when I tell you to look up the definition of the word "evidence"? Paul is offering testimony that these people existed. This is evidence. [/quote]

No, it is not. I'll borrow from madmax here:


When you have satisfied these objections, then we may very well call Paul's text "evidence" for the fact that 500 people saw a resurrected Christ. And -pay attention- no whining from you about "that's all the evidence we have", or "there are no other references, external sources, etc." Claims have to rise to meet the evidentiary bar before they are accepted. We don't lower the evidentiary bar downwards, merely because the level of available evidence for a claim is less than we would like it.


Learn to read; this is not a discussion of the definition of evidence.

As I said before - it does not count as evidence for the claim's truthfulness. It may be evidence that Paul had certain things that he wanted the church to believe, or it may be evidence that such-and-such a belief was common at that time. But neither of those would be the same as evidence for the claim's truthfulness.

[ January 05, 2002: Message edited by: Omnedon1 ]</p>