Sauron

Actually, science does disprove events. What science does is test the claims made about such events. If the claims fail, then the event did not take place.

Your complaint is baseless. Without scientific methodology, there would be no such thing as "empirical facts". Such facts are, in truth, derived from the methodoloy.

BZZZT. Strawman. You are recycling a creationist argument here, Nomad, and you know it isn't going to work.

History is full of unique, non-repeating events. The French Revolution was such an event. So was the Tunguska meteor crash. Or, for that matter, the formation of our solar system.

The misconception that you're trying to hide behind is therefore bogus: science does not say that events must be repeatable before they can be studied or analyzed. If that were the case, then no murder could ever be investigated, since all such acts are unique in some way or another. But even unique, non-recurring events leave behind evidence of their occurrence, 'fingerprints' of what has happened.

What science DOES say is that the results of tests done on that residual evidence must be repeatable.

The problem with your position, Nomad, is you have no historical event to show us. Nor do you have any residual evidence from said alleged event to submit. You're missing both:

a. direct evidence of this alleged one-time historical event, as well as

b. residual evidence that would point to (or hint at) the existence of such an event.

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: Omnedon1 ]</p>

Sauron

But again, Michael and faded_Glory's question comes to mind: evidence for what?

The difference between you and Grant is that Grant understands that the miracle story is evidence for someone's perceptions of Christ.

It is not evidence for the historical authenticity of the alleged event. This situation is analogous to Paul's claim about the 500 and the resurrection. Both the walking on water and the resurrection are statements about what people believed. And in that respect, anyone (such as yourself) who tried to use such statements as proof for the actual event would be in error.

You seem to want to transform evidence of how someone was regarded, into evidence for the authenticity of the event itself.

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: Omnedon1 ]</p>

Sauron

Yes, and Paul's reference relates to the vision he saw on the road to Damascus in Acts 9.

And in recounting that same story in Acts 26:19, Paul even admits that what he saw was a vision.

So I think you are out of places to hide, Nomad.


No, it was because Paul did not see Christ in the flesh at all, but only as a vision from heaven.

Sauron

Sounds like a perfect response to your claims to have historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ.

Toto

Check out the Jesus Mysteries, which I reviewed <a href="http://ii-f.ws/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000014" target="_blank">here.</a> Also Earl Doherty in <a href="http://www.jesuspuzzle.com" target="_blank">www.jesuspuzzle.com</a>

I may dig up some more detailed references later.

{edited to fix link to other topic}

[ January 09, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

faded_Glory

Nomad said:
I'll be honest: I go with the majority opinion of historians on this one. I am not aware of any serious dispute about this particular event (of course I might be wrong in this), it is in itself not improbable, and therefore I have no real reason to refuse to follow the common view, nor a reason to spend time to look into the historical sources.

This is very different from claims of a resurrection. There is much dispute about this, by laymen and historians alike. It is an improbable event. It is also important for the shaping of my worldview. Therefore I have familiarised myself somewhat with the sources of this claim. It turns out that they are not backed up by 'inanimate' evidence (such as archaeological findings, if such things were possible). Also, there is no independent backup from opposite or neutral sources. Consider for a moment that we would have a report from a Roman soldier who has seen somebody closely resembling the person he crucified a few days before - that would certainly help in establishing that such a person was around. (There would no doubt still be a dispute about his real identity, of course....)

All we have therefore is evidence that someone believed to have witnessed a resurrection (assuming that Paul was not knowingly making it up), and believed that 500 others had also witnessed this (again assuming he did not make that up, or exaggerated a little). Do we know what actually happened to cause these particular beliefs? I don't think so.

Just like we don't know what really happened to instill the belief in aliens in the Roswell 'witnesses' - but I'll go for a non-alien explanation for as long as these claims are all we have. Nomad, even if I saw an alien myself I would have to be cautious: illusions happen, and I could suffer from them just as much as the next man.

fG

faded_Glory

Nomad,

Two more questions:

What is in your view the difference between a claim that something happened and evidence that something happened? If these are different things, do they carry the same weight in deciding the veracity of the supposed event?

Thanks,

fG

NOGO

Nomad,

You say that you believe that Jesus appeared to Paul physically yet others around him did not see him. Please explain how this can be.
And please don't tell me that Jesus materialize for Paul only and miraculously removed his presence from the others.

As for the fact that Paul considers his revelation at par with Peter and the rest you assume here that Jesus actually existed.

Toto brings a good point here and I look foreward to your response. How is it that Paul seems to know nothing of the Gospel Jesus?

One which is very telling as far as I am concerned is the following

Romans 16:25-27
Glory be to God who has strengthened you, through my gospel and proclamation about Jesus Christ, through His revelation of the mystery which was kept secret for long ages, now disclosed and made known through the prophetic writings at the command of the eternal God that all nations might obey through faith to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ. Amen.

NOW DISCLOSED AND MADE KNOWN THROUGH PROPHETIC WRITINGS ????

If Paul received personal revelation from Jesus why does he not mention that here.
As Earl Doherty says how can Paul state that this mystery was revealed through scriptures when he knows that Jesus came down to earth personally to deliver the message himself. Or does he?

Looking foreward to your answer.

Family Man

First, an apology. I missed one of Nomad's posts, and replied to another. Thus, I accused him of not answering certain points that he did indeed. I will address those points in this post.

No, this isn't about whether you are consistent in your evaluation of the evidence; it is about whether your interpretation of the evidence is consistent with how scholars interpret evidence. Moreover, I have shown that the evidence you present isn't compatible with Meier's (your defense being extremely lame). And by the way, Nomad, I've read Brown, Grant and other scholars. I don't think they would agree with you that Paul's statements would be evidence for the resurrection. I suggest you support your assertion, because it isn't believable.

And I've noticed you've changed your tune. Now you're saying:

However, this is not what you were saying before. This is what you were saying in the Four Alternatives thread:


So now, if I'm hearing you correctly, these "eyewitnesses" are not evidence of the Resurrection, but evidence of Paul's belief in the Resurrection. The latter is a respectable position, the former is not. Had you expressed the latter view originally, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Actually, you are wrong, again, about your holocaust example. Whether it was independently verifiable in 1941 (it was, by the way -- the Allied governments had strong evidence of what was going on) or in 2000 years is irrelevant. It is only important what we know now, as historians who are evaluating the claim. If only Jewish testimony is available in 2000 years, then those people would be justified in rejecting the story. However, since we do have independent verification, the comparison of Paul to the Jews is an utterly inconsistent one and a perfect example of the double standard you clearly adhere to.

In other words, it is wrong to compare the Jews to Paul. We can only judge the evidence we have. It is true, and rather banal, to say that Paul "may" be telling the truth. However, like Caesar and his subordinates (see my first post), it is impossible to tell if he is telling the truth. We have to reject the evidence as support for 500 "eyewitnesses", which was your original claim. However, as evidence for his beliefs, it is perfectly legitimate.

Again, a claim no scholar would risk his reputation with. We don't know who these 500 were, whether they actually witnessed what was claimed, and whether they had anything to do with the spread of the church. We don't even know if they existed, or if it was a made-up story concocted for the purpose of making Christianity more credible than it is. (Yes, Nomad, religious people do lie on occasion.) Once again, you're out of the scholarly mainstream. Please, Nomad, show us one serious scholar who promotes an idea like this.

And please, show us a serious historian who would say that we can trust a claim because someone's contemporaries would have checked it out. There are examples today -- the Mormon church and Millerites being good examples -- of people believing things even though they have been discredited. Your argument doesn't even make logical sense, much less historical sense. Claims like this turn you into an intellectual joke.

In short, Nomad, the above issues shows that you have no regard at all for serious historical scholarship. My point has been proven through your own words.

If the claim is that these 500 people saw a dead man appear before them, it certainly is extraordinary. To say that these 500 witnessed an "event" makes the whole thing trivial. You can't separate the truth of the claim without rendering the passage meaningless.

500 witnesses seeing Jesus certainly is an acceptance of him.

If you have independent verification, I would agree with you. Since you don't, I must conclude you have a double standard since serious historians certainly would reject his claim because of his bias.

As for Akenson, I don't think that helps you at all, so I didn't think it was necessary to mention it. But since you insist on being further embarrassed, Paul did not witness the "500 eyewitnesses" -- as Layman says, he was merely passing along a "tradition". In other words, as far as the 500 witnesses go, he doesn't even meet any of Akenson's qualifications on this issue. Paul is a first-hand source for the growth of the church, of his own experiences, not of what happened to 500 anonymous people. Now do you see why your evaluation of the evidence is utterly inconsistent?

Nor does Grant help you. As I previously noted, he merely tells us that we can have confidence in the outline of Jesus's ministry, not in details like "500 witnesses". And, as I pointed out in the first post, Grant tells us that we must reject self-serving statements from witnesses that are biased (a point you ignore). Thus, we must reject Paul's statement that Jesus appeared before 500 eyewitnesses. It would be a double standard to do otherwise.

In short, both Akenson and Grant support my contention that you don't apply scholarly methods consistently.

Thus, the reason no one else sees this double standard (which you still haven't explained in any meaningful way, much less supported) is that I don't have one. On the other hand, I have shown time and time again how you misapply the very standards you claim to abide by. I'm perfectly confident the fair-minded reader sees things much the way I do.

And I'm glad you're a big boy, Nomad. As yours was the first personal attack, it should be no surprise when others reply in kind. Cease your personal attacks, and I will cease mine. Otherwise, you have no cause to whine, and you shouldn't be surprised that your complaints falls on deaf ears. And be warned: I value historical scholarship and I will challenge you on these points until you show some respect towards the scholars you quote, but don't adhere to.

And please learn to read Nomad. This question you object to was not addressed to myself. It was addressed to you. It mentions me, but it is clearly addressed to you.

Finally, when you accuse me of a double standard, are you not making an inference? Then why do you whine when I make inferences about you? At least I support mine, which is something you haven't done. Maybe you're not such a big boy after all.

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: DennisM ]</p>

Nomad

This sounds pretty cool to me. If you accept those things about Jesus which the majority opinion of historians accept about Jesus of Nazareth (that he lived in 1st Century Palestine, was crucified by Pontius Pilate, that the Christian religion was founded on the belief that he was believed to have been resurrected from the dead, ect), then I am content. None of these claims are extraordinary, and without a reason to reject the commonly held view, I think it is pretty reasonable to accept them.

My wider point here is that if we treated the assassination of Julius Caesar with the same level of scepticism as we do the mundane claims made about Jesus, then we would reject it, or, at best, be agnostic on the event.

Agreed. Nor have I disputed this in this, or any other thread I have ever participated in. I have no problem with your scepticism here, nor with your reasons for doubting it.

It's not.

I cannot imagine an ancient that may well have witnessed the Resurrection, and did not believe in it, thus becoming a Christian. In any case, any claim that were to surface now would be denied by sceptics as a Christian interpolation at this late a date. See the debate on Josephus' infamous Testimonium Flavius to see how that works. The simple truth of the matter is that the grand total ancient (and especially first hand) evidence that is likely to surface on this claim is probably limited to what we have today.

Just a question to satisfy my own curiousity:

If you saw aliens, and a large number of people you trust implicitly claimed to have witnessed the same thing, would you be more likely to accept it as being true? After all, anyone can be deluded, but how many people would you write off as deluded before accepting an extraordinary claim that you and others had witnessed?

Nomad