Sauron

Folks, I think we have a winner here. And the key to Nomad's pattern of bait-and-switch, with regards to evidence. In short, Nomad wants to exploit the desire for brevity and verbal shorthand.

[1] In a discussion about some given topic (for example, the resurrection) Nomad wants to introduce some item as "evidence". In this particular case, it's Paul's claim about the 500 seeing Christ. So he brings in his evidence.

[2] So (by Michael Turton's definition above, and faded_Glory's) this text of Paul's probably does constitute some kind of evidence for something; the only question is "evidence for what?"

[3] But once the discussion/debate has started, it is understood by all participants that we've moved beyond a discussion of what constitutes evidence, in the broad, generic sense. Instead, we just say "evidence", and the tacit understanding is that the single word "evidence" refers to the specific historical evidence for the narrow topic under debate. By entering a debate on a specific topic (such as the resurrection), the participants have already drilled down to the narrow question of proper, historical evidence for the resurrection.

[4] The rest of us are operating under the understanding that "evidence" means "proper historical evidence that supports the specific claim". So then we inform Nomad that what he offered is not evidence (per the above).

[5] Then what do we see? Nomad, in a verbal sleight-of-hand, retreats to the generic definition of evidence, and protests that he did indeed offer 'evidence' to us. But he informs no one that he is talking about evidence in the generic term. And, by (deliberately) failing to clarify that distinction, he is hoping that he can get generic evidence accepted as proper historical evidence to support the specific claim currently under debate.

It is as if you wanted to prove that John Jones was a murderer. And you offer evidence that Jones lived near the deceased. Is that evidence?

Well, in the generic sense, yes. It is proof that the deceased and Jones lived in the same neighborhood. It is evidence for *something*. But the debate on the table has already moved beyond generalities. The context of the investigation, the debate (if you will), has already been set: the question of murder.

So in that context, is the fact of their residences being near each other evidence? That is, proper evidence to establish the specific claim being debated; i.e., murder? No, it is not.

[ January 05, 2002: Message edited by: Omnedon1 ]

[ January 05, 2002: Message edited by: Omnedon1 ]

[ January 05, 2002: Message edited by: Omnedon1 ]

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

Sauron

BZZT. It is most certainly an extraordinary claim.

If I said I knew 500 people who had personally been abducted by aliens, that would be an extraordinary claim. That is the nature of the claim you're trying to defend here.

Illegal bait-and-switch, Nomad. Nice try.

The question is: what evidence do we have for 500 witnesses who claimed they saw a risen Christ?

All you have pointed out is that a church spread in the Mediterranean, and that 500 converts is not an unlikely number. But who's talking about the number of converts here? Not Paul, not anyone else in this debate. That fact that the church spread and might have had 500 converts does not demonstrate the question (in bold, above).

After all, Paul did not claim, "and I met with Cephas, the Twelve, and 500 other believers." He claimed that a risen Christ appeared to all these people. So there is a vast difference here between the two claims. Your attempt to dodge the issue by mislabeling it as "mundane" only shows how shaky your position is.

John the Atheist

The last handful of posts say it well, and put it on the right track. Just a few brief points to expound on.

Muslims also say that 500 eyewitnesses seen Muhammad ascend into heaven. It is written in the Koran, if I’m not mistaken. Not sure how many individual names one could come up with that are supposed to have witnessed it, but supposed they had about the same number as Paul written in the Koran. Would that make it more credible?

Joseph Smith had many eyewitnesses testify to the golden plates, and often miracles that had taken place, some of these with sworn affidavits. Many a church has been established since his departure too.

In Lubbock, TX, their is now an annual pilgrimage of thousands, and many hundreds of names can be accounted for who see the Virgin Mary in the skies there.

In the book, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, you’ll find dozens of stories many with eyewitnesses who will share similar stories.

What is so credible about Paul’s stories, that these lack?

John

Family Man

First, Nomad, this isn't about your beliefs about the historical Jesus. You are perfectly entitled to your beliefs, and I haven't attacked them at all. It's about how evidence is properly presented. I don't ask you about your beliefs because your beliefs are irrelevant. I realize you need to change the subject here, but I'm not going to let you.

But since you want some questions, here's a few that are actually on topic.

1. How do you justify equating Paul's testimony with the Jewish testimony about the holocaust, when the latter is fully verifiable and the latter isn't?
2. Isn't this another example of what I find objectionable in your presentations: that you equate your favorite sources to other historical sources that are far better grounded in fact and, in doing so, suggest that the two are equivalent when they're not?
3. Since this was the heart of my reply, may I ask why you ignored it in favor of the red herring about your beliefs?


Also:

You accused me of having a double standard. Would you please inform me of what this alleged double standard is and the basis on which you make such a charge? And then please explain your pretense of outrage, since all I've done here is to charge you with the same offense you charged me with, with the only difference being that I've actually supported my charges (although you ignore it) while you produced squat.


Yeah, right. Do I detect you claiming victory here and going home? Or are you actually sincere in this and that you agree with us that Paul's statement isn't evidence for Jesus's appearances, only evidence for Christian belief in them?

Family Man

To pick up what Omnedon has pointed out, Nomad's characterization about what was claimed isn't even accurate. Paul claimed that Jesus appeared to more than 500 people at the same time (the Biblical quote is in the first post of this thread). Five hundred missionaries spreading a religion is certainly mundane. A dead man appearing before more than five hundred people certainly isn't.

So not only do we have Nomad misrepresenting what I and other skeptics have to say, now he's misrepresenting perhaps the most important Christian of all time. This is very curious behavior indeed.
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Lonergan

Let me first thank Nomad for his willingness to respond to
multiple adversaries. Unfortunately, I don?t plan to lighten
his load with this post.

I wish to acknowledge that I hold no strong academic credentials
as a historian. I do believe, however, that I can use common sense
along with statements made by historians to put some perspective
on some of the statements in this thread regarding Christianity and
history.

Before getting into specifics regarding Christian history we need
to agree to the following guidelines:

(1) Under the best of circumstances, writing accurate history is
difficult. For example, how many shots were fired at
Kennedy and how many plotters were involved in his
assassination?

(2) Accurate history is more difficult to determine the further back
in time we go. There are multiple reasons for this, but
ascertaining facts for the first century is far more difficult than
doing so for the twentieth century.

(3) Historians have less confidence in finer details about people
than in the more general details. A historian may believe that a
real Jesus existed and that his tomb was empty a short time after
his crucifixion. The same historian would also probably have
much less confidence in the empty tomb than in Jesus?
existence.

(4) Known scientific laws are assumed to hold regardless of what
time in history is being considered. Yes, a certain world outlook
may allow that God acted in history to override scientific laws,
but please don?t claim that this is a valid way of writing history.

Michael Grant is probably the most referred to historian by Christian
apologists. His view that Jesus? tomb was empty shortly after the
Resurrection is probably one of the main reasons for his popularity
among these apologists. We need to understand, however, that some
other equally recognized historians would not make such an assertion.
Even Michael Grant, however, would not consider the empty tomb as
a highly confident historical fact. In addition, Christian apologists need
to explain why the empty tomb is to be accepted, but other Grant
claims about the Gospels are to be ignored. Christian fundamentalist
would disagree with most of what Grant wrote about the Gospels using
his same historical skills to declare the empty tomb as historical. For
example, Grant wrote that first century Gospel readers would not think to
ask whether the Gospel stories really happened since they didn?t assume
that they were reading history. Grant also stated that Jesus believed
that the Kingdom of God would occur during His own lifetime or
shortly thereafter. Grant wrote that Jesus did indeed tell his disciples
to at least ignore, if not hate, their parents. I don?t have Grant?s writings
in front of me, but I could go into more detail of Grant?s conclusions
Christians would rather not discuss.

madmax2976

<strong> I don’t believe I have to be “that” skeptical. I’m sure I could dig up 500 people that will claim to have met with aliens, claim to have had experiences with ghosts or spirits of some kind, claim to be able to talk with dead people, claim to have seen Elvis after he died, etc. etc.. It all depends on what this is supposed to be evidence of.

<strong> Oh well, if your only point is to call the assertion by Paul “evidence” that’s fine by me. I won’t quibble with that. My own brother testified to me that he saw Satan in a camp fire one night while on a singles retreat. This is evidence as well, but of course I don’t believe him. He has to do better than his own say so for such claim.

<strong> Absurd? Someone claims that 500 people witnessed a resurrected man and I ask for support for such a statement and you call me absurd for doing so? You treat this claim as though its on the same par as a claim that 500 people bore witness to their grass growing after a couple weeks.

As I said, Nomad, it all depends on how you wish me to accept this as evidence. I accept the various newpaper and TV reports I’ve seen as “evidence” that people say they’ve seen UFO’s, ghosts, and talked with dead people. But I’m not so gullible as to believe this is actually good evidence OF UFO’s, ghosts or the ability to talk with dead people.

So my question would be, what specifically are you trying to say its evidence of? - That 500 people claimed to have a seen a resurrected person, or that 500 people actually saw a resurrected person? There’s a big difference.

<strong> Am I supposed to treat the claims associated with a resurrected person the same as I’d treat testimony on how a toaster works? Talk about “silliness”…

<strong> Ah, well you have it then. It is indeed evidence; comparable with my brother’s claim to have seen Satan in the camp fire, John Grey’s claim to talk with the dead, and Shirley McClain’s testimony that she was reincarnated. (And numerable other such type claims)

<strong> On the contrary, my mind is quite open to many things. However, I view skepticism of outlandish claims as a plus, not a detriment, though it seems you may not agree. Now if Paul hadn’t been trying to cite the 500 as evidence that someone actually rose from the dead, but only that 500 people were claiming that someone rose from the dead, that would change things and I don’t think we’d have a problem here. This doesn’t seem to be the case though.

Jayhawker Soule

If you tell me that 500 people witnessed an event, I would ask, as a first step in determining the evidentiary value of your claim, how you know this to be a fact. I would also classify as hearsay anything that you might assert about what they witnessed.

Koyaanisqatsi

That says it all, folks. Paul's claim provides nothing more than evidence of what Paul believes, which means absolutely nothing unless you worship Paul.

That's it. The sum total revelation provided by Nomad in six pages.

Logan

I've been enjoying this discussion immensely but I'm still unsure why no one seems to've taken Nomad up on his offer so I'll bite.

Primarily, in relation to the story of Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels, how much can be argued historically and what's a matter of faith? Primary examples are the virgin birth, walking on water, and, especially, the resurrection. What scholars are pretty much in line with your own thinking of what can be argued using historical methods concerning Jesus?

Thanks, Nomad, for any clarification.

In addition to this, I believe someone in this thread mentioned Farrell Till had a website. I attempted a search but couldn't find it. Could someone please provide the link? Thanks.