NOGO

NOMAD,
let me see if I understood what you are saying.

If we discuss the existence of the god Apollo then
I can claim that the Iliad is evidence that this god existed since Homer talks about him?

If you say that I can then I understand you about Paul's claim of Jesus' resurrection.
If you say that I can't you are definitely asking us to accept the Bible at face value.
Which is it?

Thanks

madmax2976

<strong> Pauls "testimony" is simpy an assertion for which he does not "back it up". He gives no names nor is there any way to verify his claim. There is no way to verify if Paul even wrote the words himself. There is no way to verify the integrity of Paul or of the supposed 500 people in question.

And so, if Paul was above lying for the cause of his deity, ifPaul was not simply mistaken about this information, if Paul was not himself lied to by his own source(s), if Paul actually wrote about the 500, if the 500 actually existed, if the 500 were not above lying for the cause of their deity, if the 500 (and Paul) did not even consider it inappropriate to create such tales, if the 500 were not simply mistaken or if they had not been purposely tricked, THEN we might consider this evidence in favor of..... lots of people thought they saw Jesus alive again after he had supposedly been killed.

My best friends and family, whom I might trust a great deal, could testify to me that someone we knew had come back from the dead and I still wouldn't believe them. It is my position that the probability of a trick, delusion, or outright lying is far greater than that of someone coming back from the dead. (particularly after decomposition had set it) I have ample evidence that the former is possible. I have no evidence the latter is remotely possible.

Sauron

I saw that. And I understand that Nomad is separating the reliability question from the claim itself.

However, I disagree that Paul's claim constitutes evidence. It is a claim; it is not evidence.

Moreover, calling it "evidence" allows Nomad to sneak the camel underneath the tent. When the skeptic says, "there is no evidence for such and such supernatural event" Nomad and his chorus reply, "but there is evidence, just look at the testimony of Luke/Paul/whomever." So by a semantic sleight-of-hand, they elevate an unsubstantiated, unprovable claim to the status of evidence.

Let me put it this way: do you consider the claim of Homer in the Oddyssey that there are sea monsters (Scylla and Charybdis) to be evidence for the existence of sea monsters?

If not, then why would the testimony of Paul, Luke, etc. to some other fantastical claim be counted as evidence?

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: Omnedon1 ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Originally posted by Omnedon1:
Moreover, calling it "evidence" allows Nomad to sneak the camel underneath the tent. When the skeptic says, "there is no evidence for such and such supernatural event" Nomad and his chorus reply, "but there is evidence, just look at the testimony of Luke/Paul/whomever." So by a semantic sleight-of-hand, they elevate an unsubstantiated, unprovable claim to the status of evidence.

Let me put it this way: do you consider the claim of Homer in the Oddyssey that there are sea monsters (Scylla and Charybdis) to be evidence for the existence of sea monsters?

If not, then why would the testimony of Paul, Luke, etc. to some other fantastical claim be counted as evidence?


Leaving Homer aside for the moment; Nomad has ALWAYS been clear in his definition of what constitutes "evidence." He regards claims made by the various Christian writers as "evidence." In this he is correct. They are "evidence."

The way I see it, the question is not whether a claim like "there were 500 witnesses" is evidence. It is obviously evidence of something. The real question is "what kind of evidence is it?" In other words, what arguments can we legitimately use it to support?

Obviously Paul's claim (in 1 Cor 15:4-6) is not acceptable as evidence that Jesus was resurrected; it is too far from the event, offers no details, and smacks of ritualized exaggeration, inflation and mendaciousness. For example, it makes an error with regard to the scriptures in verse 4, and in verse 6, the alleged 500 witnesses is a suspiciously large number, seemingly meant to daunt anyone who wants to argue (how would Paul know how many people were at a specific event. Did they pass out tickets? Get a head count? Aerial photographs?).

However, Paul's claim is evidence for what the early Christians believed about their savior, and what kind of stories they were likely to tell. It might also be evidence of an uneasiness with the fantastic story they were telling; they needed to buttress it with inflated claims of hundreds of witnesses, including major figures in the new cult. Further, it is evidence that they were challenged, otherwise they would not be deploying such stories.

In addition to being evidence for apologetic strategies, it is also evidence of who was prominent in the new cult, for 500 witnesses go unnamed, but "Cephas" and "the Twelve" are referred to separately. In conjunction with other information, such as the prominence of James in the new cult that goes unmentioned in these verses, it might be evidence of the political alignments in the new cult. In fact, if you squint at it properly, it could be a rich store of information. It just doesn't contain anything useful about the Resurrection.

To my mind Nomad's mistake is regarding it as evidence of what happened, rather than evidence of beliefs, sociological situations and so forth. However, this error is not a double standard in my view. As you have correctly pointed out, Omnedon, Nomad is willing to go farther than most in his acceptance of what constitutes evidence for his views. This is a more generous or lower standard, but it is not a double standard.

However, regardless of whether Nomad has a double standard, a whole thread devoted to the question of whether a specific person is a hypocrite -- a highly questionable personal attack -- is no edifying sight for our boards, especially the philosophical forums. I hope the moderators will step in and terminate threads of this nature in the future. Such questions are legitimate for exploring in the context of an onging thread as they come up in the course of argument -- e.g. "But Nomad, earlier you rejected this, and now you're accepting that???!" -- but an entire thread where everyone is invited to pile in on someone is unacceptable, at least to my mind.

As for Homer, I consider his claims for Scylla and Charbydis to be evidence that some danger lurked along that portion of the route that has been supernaturally exaggerated and transformed through well-known processes of human story-telling, just like the processes that helped Paul forumlate his claim about the many witnesses to the Resurrection. As you are probably aware, several scholars have developed possible itineraries for Odysseus' voyage, some of them with plausible scenarios for S & C. So yes, Homer's claims are evidence; regarded in a naturalistic framework, they might even be useful evidence. And certainly fun to speculate about.

Michael

Family Man

I'm afraid that the only strawman here is Nomad's, as he, once again, fails to get the point.

The question here isn't whether it's evidence, but whether it is sound historical evidence. If you made it clear that you don't consider it reliable, historical evidence -- only evidence that one takes on faith -- I would have had no quarrel. However, you made quite a point of questioning how I judge historical evidence, to the point of accusing me of some unspecified double standard and unable to read biographies. It is a very clear inference from this that you wish us to take Paul's pronouncement at face value (and I have provided accurate quotes from you to back up my contention, which you have ignored). Otherwise, you would have simply conceded the point that it isn't historical evidence, clarified your position, and moved on.

For it is without question that no serious historian would ever accept the 500 witnesses as a historical fact. Let's compare it to your Holocaust example. The evidence for the Holocaust goes far beyond the Jews that were victimized by it. We also have the testimony of other ethnic groups that were incarcerated, we have the testimony of Germans who participated in the events, we have the testimony of allied troops that liberated the camps, and we have written documents from the Nazi bureaucracy. This is overwhelming evidence. What do we have for the 500 witnesses? Paul's word. There isn't even a comparison here, and your inability to grasp the difference explains why I think this is an important issue. It is absurd to compare the two issues like that.

Or consider Meier's criterion (and note not every historian would necessary agree with them). Paul's claim doesn't meet any of those criteria. If I understand the criteria correctly:

1. It isn't embarrassing.
2. It is quite in line with what the early Christians were trying to get across.
3. We have only Paul's word for it.
4. It isn't coherent for it requires events that go beyond what is normal human experience.
5. It is an acceptance of Jesus, not a rejection of him.


In short, it is not historical evidence, which I believe is the proper way to evaluate Paul's evidence.

I also strongly disagree with Michael's contention that Nomad correctly presents Paul's claims as "evidence", not as "historical evidence". While it is true that Nomad never comes out and says, it is proper historical evidence, his attitude can be inferred from his posts. For example, while I have repeated challenged him on how he evaluates historical evidence, he has not once said: "I think you misunderstand me. I am not claiming Paul's claim is considered to be reliable, historical evidence. I merely suggest it is evidence." On the contrary, he has repeatedly claimed that I am the one who doesn't understand historical methods. I submit that both Nomad and I do, but that Nomad intentionally avoids that issue, as he is avoiding it now. Instead, he deliberately leaves the question open and clearly wishes for us to infer that it is reliable. Consider his initial post in this thread: he compares Paul's evidence to the Holocaust, and sets out reasonable (if disputed) historical standards without mentioning that the claim of 500 witnesses doesn't come close to meeting them.

The simple fact is that that claim is not historical evidence. I'm not rejecting it a priori; I'm rejecting it accordance to how critical, historical evaluation is done. If Nomad would make that distinction clear, I would have no problem with that. However, he doesn't, and he attacks others when they note that it wouldn't be considered historical evidence by any competent scholar. Clearly, it is Nomad who is building the strawman here.

In other words, Nomad, it is nice that you can put forth reasonable standards for historical evidence; it is another thing to abide by them. You clearly haven't. However, if you state publicly that the 500 witnesses can't be considered historical evidence, which has been my point all along, then we can consider this matter settled.

Finally, this thread was not intended as a personal attack. How biblical evidence is evaluated is an important issue, and Nomad's inability to critically evaluate evidence (however well he can state standards) is a legitimate issue. I've used no terms that Nomad hasn't applied to me, and I've been far more tolerant and respectful towards those who have defended Nomad than they have been towards me. (I agree with Michael that saying things like "deLayman" is wrong and counterproductive.) However, I will change the title (again) to alleviate these concerns.

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: DennisM ]</p>

Family Man

double post

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: DennisM ]</p>

Nomad

Aikido

You ask for responses, even as you fail to ask questions. Please ask you question, then I can answer. You do make a few assertions, and I will address those, but I still do not know what you are looking for beyond what I have already said.

Jesus was a human being is an historical fact. We both agree on this. That He is God is not an historical fact, but a matter of belief. Again I agree.

This, of course, is both historically incorrect The Jews did not kill Jesus while Pilote stood helplessly by. Further, Pilote was far from well meaning. If, however, you have evidence to support this claim (and by this, I mean beyond the Gospel of Peter. This document is clearly out of step with all of the other evidence we have from the Gospels, the rest of the NT, Josephus and Tacitus, as well as the legal practices of Rome in 1st Century Palestine, and therefore should be rejected as insufficiently weak).

Actually, I would place the foundation of the Church at Pentecost, nor will I defend the Great Commission as an historical certainty, though I do think that it is reasonable to attribute the statement to Jesus' thought.

The Church predates Constantine by hundreds of years, as the evidence of the NT, as well as writings of the Early Fathers attests.

I have no idea what you are saying here. Do you object to the existence and use of nomina sacra when a Christian talks about his or her God? If so, why do you object to this?

No problem aikido. As I said, all you have to do is ask a question. Do you have a question?

Nomad

Nomad

Sigh. I see you have the same problem as does Dennis. When reading my post, please refer back to my dictionary definition of the word "evidence", and if you happen to disagree with it, then explain why.

Using your bizzare logic, I need only say that since people have lied before, especially those with agendas and "truths to prove, you are lying now.

Do not be silly please.

Telling someone that 500 people exist is hardly an extraordinary claim. BTW, existence is not an event. And as for proving that people exist, short of having someone who knew them tell us that they existed, there is little else for us to go on.

Do you deny the existence of every single person for whom you do not have "proof"? How odd. Proof is a chimera. Weigh the evidence and draw a conclusion. If you wish to assert that Paul is a liar, so be it. I do not argue with assertions. If you have evidence of this, especially as relates to the existence of the 500, offer it.

I am not talking about an event here. I am talking about the existence of 500 people. Do not get confused.

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. Now, what counter evidence do you have to reject this non-extraordinary claim?

LOL! Give me a definition of the word evidence please. Use a dictionary when you do so.

Nomad

Nomad

Read Omnedon1 directly above your own. The problem is that many sceptics do not know how to draw a distinction between simple non-extraordinary claims, and extraordinary ones. I agree that the latter requires higher levels of both scepticism and evidence. Unfortunately, for many on these boards, they cannot even get to that point.

Fair enough. I suppose the delusion does extend into the ancient past in this specific case. My point remains that Paul certainly never claimed to be doing this, nor did anyone else in the NT&lt; nor, for that matter, did other ancient historians like Josephus or Tacitus.

Fortunately, the best historians of our modern times have long since realized that the writing of a truly unbiased history is a chimera. Those who admit their own biases, and understand how they will affect their evaluation of the evidence are the ones I am most willing to read, and find the most enjoyable as well as informative. Best of all, they write knowing that not everyone will agree with them, and that it is possible to have reasons for ones disagreements with them.

Nomad

Nomad

Thank you Michael. Times two.

I hope your move went well, and that you and your family are settling into your new home. BTW, happy new year.

Be well,

Nomad