Peter Kirby

Hi Polycarp,

What did you think of my most recent posts to this thread?

best,
Peter Kirby

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by peterkirby: What did you think of my most recent posts to this thread?

I liked it. Sorry I never replied. Here are a few comments.

Quote:

Perhaps part of the situation is that other skeptics have not based much of their disbelief on a historical investigation of the early Christian writings. This would only apply to some skeptics, of course, as many such as Richard Carrier have. But if disbelief is not in any way based on a historical argument to the effect that the historical Peter did not believe in an empty tomb of Jesus, then little would change if a person had the opportunity to interview Peter. The person would still be left with the problems of verifying extraordinary claims in a National Inquirer world and with analogies such as alien abduction claims that would make the testimony of a historical Peter nearly worthless by their lights.

I agree. This is somewhat similar to what I was talking about when I mentioned the utter fruitlessness of trying to convince atheists to believe in Christianity. If the universe is an entirely closed system of cause and effect subject to the laws of nature AND there is no supreme being, then any claim that purports to describe an event that is in violation of natural laws can be dismissed as impossible. There is no historical investigation necessary. However, I think the alien abduction analogy is slightly different. There is nothing about alien abduction claims that violate natural law. Maybe I’m mis-reading you. Do you think it is possible for an event to occur that is in violation of natural law?

Quote:

Perhaps another part of the situation is that other skeptics have skipped over your question about whether any beliefs concerning Christianity would change in order to answer your question about whether one would go the whole hog and convert to Christianity. An interview with a historical Peter would not make me a Christian either, as I have other problems with Christian theology that would not be resolved with a knowledge of what Peter believed. I think that most skeptics in this thread have responded to the idea that they should convert merely with an understanding of what Peter was actually preaching.

Oh, I can see how people would think I was asking whether they would CONVERT to Christianity instead of simply changing some of their beliefs about historical issues. I should have phrased my original story differently. I think we’re saying the same thing in terms of historical evidence. Hence, the title of this thread: “Is Christianity all about the evidence?” My answer (and presumably, yours) is “No”. You have philosophical/moral objections, but I don’t. It would seem to me that no matter how much historical evidence existed, most skeptics (you?) would not convert to Christianity. Such was the point of my time-travel story.

Quote:

By the way, I will note with Vorkosigan that I was noting historical reasons -- as I would still be left with broadly empirical or "philosophical" reasons -- for disbelieving the resurrection of Jesus. But the absense of reasons for disbelieving the resurrection does not translate into positive evidence for the resurrection. Peter's preaching would negate the argument that an empty-tomb-style-resurrection-belief was a development in the latter half of the first century. It would not be sufficient to establish the claim that a man who died had come back to life and ascended into heaven. Peter could be a witness, to be sure, but only one witness could not establish a merely normal fact even by ancient Jewish jurisprudence. If I was there on the day that Jesus was taken down from the cross and if I could interview over a hundred people that had seen Jesus alive after death in varying locations and times and circumstances, (omitted word “only&#8221 then I think I would guess that a resurrection is a viable hypothesis. However, the evidence available in reality today is substantially different.

This surprises me a little bit. Are you saying that under your revised “witness at the cross” scenario you would ONLY believe that a dead man had been raised? OR are you saying you would convert to Christianity and adopt a belief in god’s existence?

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: Polycarp ]</p>

Peter Kirby

Polycarp writes: I agree. This is somewhat similar to what I was talking about when I mentioned the utter fruitlessness of trying to convince atheists to believe in Christianity. If the universe is an entirely closed system of cause and effect subject to the laws of nature AND there is no supreme being, then any claim that purports to describe an event that is in violation of natural laws can be dismissed as impossible. There is no historical investigation necessary. However, I think the alien abduction analogy is slightly different. There is nothing about alien abduction claims that violate natural law. Maybe I’m mis-reading you. Do you think it is possible for an event to occur that is in violation of natural law?

Yes, I do think that this is possible, as our natural laws are approximations at best. However, I would assign a low prior probability to any particular claim that violates what we perceive as natural law. I would require greater evidence for the fact that this event happened than I would require for an event that accords with everything we know about nature. I do think that it is possible for this standard of evidence to be met, however, or else we would be stuck with the same "natural laws" forever.

Polycarp writes: Oh, I can see how people would think I was asking whether they would CONVERT to Christianity instead of simply changing some of their beliefs about historical issues. I should have phrased my original story differently. I think we’re saying the same thing in terms of historical evidence. Hence, the title of this thread: “Is Christianity all about the evidence?” My answer (and presumably, yours) is “No”. You have philosophical/moral objections, but I don’t. It would seem to me that no matter how much historical evidence existed, most skeptics (you?) would not convert to Christianity. Such was the point of my time-travel story.

Perhaps I should say that the time-travel event would do a great deal in removing an obstacle to my conversion to Christianity, even though it would not take me all the way there. In philo-speak, it would be a necessary but not a sufficient condition (necessary in that I have these "historical" objections to Christian doctrine). But while the historical evidence is a piece of the puzzle, I agree that it is not the whole puzzle. I would need all my various objections met, and then I would need a positive persuasion of its truth, before I became a believing Christian.

Polycarp writes: This surprises me a little bit. Are you saying that under your revised “witness at the cross” scenario you would ONLY believe that a dead man had been raised? OR are you saying you would convert to Christianity and adopt a belief in god’s existence?

I think that a belief in the resurrection of Jesus would make me a Christian of some sort, however unorthodox. I don't think that a belief in the resurrection of Jesus should obligate me to adopt the theology of an Augustine or an Aquinas (or even of a Paul). I would still not believe in the doctrine of original sin, for example. What I would believe about who Jesus was would depend in part on what I could determine about what Jesus said, but the matter of what Jesus said has not been part of either thought experiment. If I did believe in the resurrection of Jesus, I would take seriously the idea that it was a god who raised Jesus from the dead. But I don't think I would automatically or inexorably make the assumption that a god was behind it.

best,
Peter Kirby

NOGO

Thank you for your answers.

I was 14. Yet even if I did not admit it Christianity remained in me in many ways. For example the image of Jesus was firmly implanted in my mind. I am not talking about his photo but the fact that I still believed that Jesus was something special and deeply respectful. IN other words Jesus was still God.

I can honestly say that it took years to get rid of this particular feeling. I also know that if you did not make this transition then you were not "deprogrammed" and that is why you are still a Christian today. These feelings are just that feelings and they do color you opinon of things. I lived with contradictions in my mind for a long time.

So I would say that being an agnostic also involves managing you feelings. How well you do this will also determine the outcome of your "critical" thinking. Other than this, I do agree with your last statement above.

I will answer your other post later.

Take care.

KJELLMUSIC

Going back in time wouldn't help as I only speak english and un pocito espanol. That would pretty much leave me shit out of luck in the ancient middle east.
Buuuuut if I imagined that I could speak Hebrew or even ancient Greek and could track down the actual Paul (assuming he existed), I would follow him around and make sure that the vision he saw on the road was correctly diagnosed as a case of bad fish for dinner and not the usual unprovable visions of god that some people tend to have (especially when they are in positions of power).

aikido7

A 20th-century post-modern "interrogation" might be culturally inappropriate at best and, in first-century Galilee, interpersonally incomprehensible at worst.

One of the "main events" was a preached experience of the power of Jesus still available to his followers after his death. "Events" demonstrating this power were often experienced as visions, theophanies, etc. and were interpreted as then-current sacred "jargon" such as "resurrection," "exalted," "raised to the right hand of God," etc.

Paul's idea of Jesus becoming Son of God at his crucifixion is normative for the faith today, but careful study of the other New Testament texts both in and out of the canon show that there were a multiple number of theological streams of thought.

The conflict between Paul and Peter throughout Luke/Acts and the epistles is something that needs to be attended to as well. This is evidence of a clear fracture in the growing community pointing to two different visions of Jesus and his teachings.

Many of these literal and thus "historical" benchmarks believers hold dear would be impossible to capture with video. This is theology not history. The ancient writers wrote in powerful, metaphoric and parabolic language. We sell them short when we take their texts only literally.

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: aikido7 ]</p>

NOGO

Ok. I just got an essential element which escaped me before. The incorruptible body will be reunited with the soul. Therefore the state of disembodied "soul" is temporary while we wait for the end. At the end we will come back to earth and be given a incorruptible body.

Jesus goes out of his way to prove that he was not a ghost, i.e. a disembodied soul.
Why?
My guess is that people in those days believed in ghosts and that they were simply associated with the dead. People died and went down to sheol. It was probably believed that the spirit of these people lingered on on earth for a while. To be taken seriously Jesus had to have a body. You and I would have settled for a disembodied soul but not these people.

I will skip over the THREE NIGHTS which did not happen. Notice "in the heart of the earth". This is sheol.

So the incorruptible body was taken into heaven (sky).


You are right that heaven is refering to the sky but in the OT heaven always refers to the sky. That is where they believed that God lived, in the sky.

Gen 1
And God called the firmament Heaven.

This definition sticks throughout the OT.


"believers dwell with God" Right! Not the good, not the righteous, not the deserving but the believers. All you have to do is believe. Sorry for the rant.

You say "the NEW heavens and the NEW earth refer to the place where believers dwell with God".
Why do you say "place" and not "places" since you are talking about heaven and earth?

Notice "weed out of his kingdom".
This is the earth which is called his kingdom.

Point 1
The new earth is a place where people with their incorruptible bodies will dwell.

Point 2
The NEW heaven and the NEW earth will be created after the destruction of the current heaven and earth.

Which brings me back to the point about no place to put all these people until the end of the world. The new heaven and new earth are created for the incorruptible bodies.


Conclusion

It seems to me that a disembodied soul which survives death and an incorruptible body which is immortal are two solutions to the same problem, i.e. our mortality.

If you believe that we will spend eternity as disembodied souls then there is no need for a new earth nor an incorruptible body.

If you believe that we will resurrect into an incorruptible body then some or all of us will live in the new earth.

Why does an immortal soul in the image of God need a body?
Why does an incorruptible and immortal body need a soul?

In both Daniel 12:13 and 1 Cor 15:51 there is simply no hint of any disembodied soul.

Daniel 12:13
"But as for you, go your way to the end; then you will enter into rest and rise again for your allotted portion at the end of the age."

1 Cor 15:51
Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

If we are to believe the Gospels Jesus resurrected in an incorruptible body. His disciples were able to touch him. He ate fish. He went out of his way to prove that he was not a ghost and then rose to heaven. Strange, that means he is currently the only material being up there, with the possible exception of Elijah.

One final comment.

I doubt that Philippians 1:20-24 was written by Paul.
Reading Cor 15 one can see that Paul expected to be present when Jesus returned.

Is the thief story the only evidence that you have for the disembodied soul?

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO: I doubt that Philippians 1:20-24 was written by Paul. Reading Cor 15 one can see that Paul expected to be present when Jesus returned.

Before we proceed, why do you not believe that Paul wrote Philippians 1:20-24? The overwhelming consensus of biblical scholarship believes in 7 authentic Pauline letters: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philemon, 1 Thessalonians, and Philippians.

Are you saying that Paul did not write Philippians? Or are you saying that Paul wrote Philippians, but that 1:20-24 is a later redaction?

You’re going to at least have to provide a reason for going against the vast majority of New Testament critics. IOW, why do you believe 1 Corinthians to be authentic, but Philippians not to be?

NOGO

I thought that I was rather clear.

Statement:
I doubt that Philippians 1:20-24 was written by Paul.

Reason for statement:
Reading 1 Cor 15 one can see that Paul expected to be present when Jesus returned.

However, I must reconsider...
It is equally possible that Paul changed his mind. He first thought that Jesus would return during his lifetime and then became convinced that it would not happen that way.

Notwitstanding this possibility what Philippians 1:20-24 says and Cor 15 says do not really make sense coming from the same person.

Phil 1:23
But I am hard-pressed from both directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better;

1 Cor 15:51-52
Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed,
in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and ¸we will be changed.

1Thess 4:16-17
For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air.

Note the "we" in these statements. Paul expected to be there when it happened. So this is the way that Paul saw himself getting together with Jesus.
Phillipians talks about "depart and be with Christ".

You have to admit that there is at least a change in position. I tend to believe that Paul did not write Phillipians 20:24. If Paul believed as Phillipians 20:24 implies that the dead were already with Christ before the last trumpet sounded then why have them raised first. Paul seems to say that the dead will not be forgotten and that they will meet Jesus at the same time as the "we who are alive and remain".

[ June 30, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

NOGO

Simple. The concept of soul going to heaven did not exist in the OT. I conclude that this notion is new to Palestine of the first century.

Also the concept of soul is not needed for the resurrection to make sense. If you take Jesus' bodily resurrection and Paul statements of 1 Cor 15 and 1 Thes 4:16-17 you simply do not need any soul going to heaven.

Also Daniel was told that he would die and then be raised for his final reward. No soul there either. People believed that the dead remained in Sheol until they were resurrected.

I can make a more thorough case but this should be enough to understand the basis of my statement.

[ June 30, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>